A middle aged woman Stacy is living her middle aged brother Tommy. They decide to have a night of sex. Tommy has had a vasectomy. They both really enjoy the sex and have many orgasms. They later decide not to have sex ever again. They do not ever tell anyone else about the night of sex. The shared memory of the night is a happy one for both of them.
Was it right or wrong for them to have a night of sex? Why or why not?
This should be moved to Great Debates.
Somehow, I don’t think the incest taboo has purely biological reasons. I would never have sex with my sister, even if both of us were perfectly sterile. Stepping back and looking at this from the anthropological perspective, it would really complicate up our relationship as siblings. At least in the cultural milieu in which I was raised, the role of ‘sibling’ is incompatible with the role of ‘sex partner’. It’s something so deep-seated that I’ve never bothered to question it.
It is worth noting that studies in Israeli qibbutzim, in which children of both genders are raised together in close proximity to one another for practically all their lives, show very markedly reduced tendencies to marry within the qibbutz, strongly preferring to pair up with outsiders. Basically, most people would never have sex with someone they grew up with, especially when they are related, even by marriage (as opposed to by blood).
Just something deeply ingrained in the human psyche (at least in most cultural milieus), is all.
Cite. This effect is called the ‘Westermarck Effect’, and several studies have been done on it. If you have access to a university academic database or library, you can read all you want about it.
Nah. It seems pretty Mundane and Pointless to me.
The fact you moderate GD has nothing to do with this, right?
So…you’re a middle aged guy named Tommy, eh? 
I was loaded for about 12 years straight…but I cannot imagine being THAT loaded.
I agree with the problems of people raised together. However…
In the UK recently, there has been a case raised of (fraternal) twins seperated at birth and adopted out into different families. They grew up unaware of each other, met in later life, and married. The marriage was annulled (it was never legal to start with, so should never have been) when they discovered that they were siblings, but at that point…
However, with the total absence of a shared childhood, and as long as they are not carrying nasty recessive genes is it only social taboos against incest that makes this situation apparently abhorrent?
I find myself curiously unmoved, except to feel really sorry for the people involved, who did nothing wrong, and have to cope with feelings of shame imposed from society, have separated from a partner they loved, and suffered severe disruption of their whole family situations. I hope someone is paying for some really serious therapy.
Si
You’re bowling a turkey here 2.5 inches, I’m hoping you join up.
Was it right or wrong? I don’t know.
I’ll just say that since you hint that this was a one night thing and there was no chance of pregnancy, then it really doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or right. As long as they can live without the guilt of what they did then the world still turns.
Also, this line makes me giggle:
Not to mention that if you hook up with a close relative and then later (for whatever reason) the relationship falls apart - normally if such a thing happens you have your family as support and the amount of time you have to spend around that person is limited (unless a child is involved). In an incestuous or near-incestuous relationship, you’re stuck! Family reunions or holidays over at your parents’ house will have that other person there. If the family knows about the ex-relationship they’ll start taking sides. At least in a normal breakup (with no children from the relationship) you can get away from that person without losing your own family in the process.
This was from the article in the NY Times magazine about moral imperatives, right? The basic point was that in examples like this, all off the “physical/corporeal/legal (except for incest; I mean there was no rape or coersion)” reasons have been mitigated as possibilities, so the person considering the question is left with a focused, moral judgment.
I can’t remember the conclusions drawn in the article - what decisions for and against say about a person or a population…
to me, the question is a bit of a Shrodinger’s Cat issue: if it’s none of my business and no one is hurt, I feel no need to make a decision.
What does their being middle-aged have to do with anything?
One can assume they know the consequences of the act and that no coercion was involved. Would it be different to you if they were 10 and 13?
Stacy and Tommy, no problem, how about Timmy and Tommy, and they’re identical twins 
While this is true, one should be careful not to read more into it then is there. It is true that they very rarely (as in, never, IIRC) marry, but it says nothing about whether or not they have reduced, increased, or the same tendency for **sex **or sex play as individuals raised separately. Don’t tell my grandma, but I’ve had sex with far more people than I’ve married! 
The “incest taboo” may supress forming long term partnerships, but we don’t know whether it has an effect on sexual activity from studies that look at marriage rates.
ETA: Oh, right, the OP. While I share the concerns re: awkwardness at family functions, at the end of the day I still believe that consenting adults should feel free to arrange their own sex lives without my input.
Identical *cojoined * twins.
How would identical twins boinking each other be any different than masturbation?
In fact, if they were female, I’d be happy to watch!
And only one is stuck in a burning car.
My lit crit professor claims incest would disrupt the “trafficking of women” that families have always done in order to increase their safety and wealth. In other words, if you’re boinking your sister, Dad can’t trade her out to the baron next door in exchange for loyalty the next time the prince needs to be overthrown. I find it a fascinating idea.