I strongly disagree that a sample size of 44 is insignificant in an olfaction study, and in any case 44 men and 49 women gives you over 2000 data points. You can look at doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.005 for further evidence. There’s also a second paper with Wedekind as an author here providing further evidence. It’s the first link that comes up when you google mhc wedekind.
Thanks for all the input, guys.
This made for a very interesting discussion in the pub last night! My (female, liberal, aged 29) friend was adamant there was no way a daughter could ever consent to sex with her father, even as an adult. I asked her about a mother and son, but she has an 11 year old son and was too squicked out to even think about it. She was more ambivalent about the 14 and 15 year old siblings.
My other friend (male, liberal, 32) can’t remember :). And has just said when I asked him that he ‘couldn’t get a word in edgewise’ with us two rabbiting on…
I think I’m coming down on the side of if two siblings close in age have sex, it’s dangerous emotionally because it could mess them up, or they could get found out…but I don’t think I’d legislate against it. I really can’t imagine a 17 or 18 year old woman consenting to sex with her dad though, even if she thinks she is, because there’s a betrayal of trust. Why else are teachers not allowed to sleep with their 17 year old students, or psychiatrists with their patients? But hey, feel free to tell me I’m wrong 
There was this recent case in Australia of a father and daughter having a child in a supposedly consensual relationship. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! er, I mean, right with that.
My thoughts exactly.
I’ve never seen the movie, but apparently they were supposed to be cousins.
Actually, I believe that the girl’s parents had died and they were travelling with the boy’s parents and were being raised as bro and sis, both knowing that they weren’t actually related.
I’ll come to to the physical & emotional in a minute. Consider why its not legal in most(?) parts of the world.
Birth defects. Genetic mixing of relatives produces a much higher percentage of genetic defects. From the perspective of the biological animal, humans or other animals, the whole idea of sexual reproduction is to add new genetic material from other members of the species, each generation evolving to a “better” individual.
I have no doubt that this is the primary reason why our forefathers thought it best to prohibit such sexual congress.
The “physical”
I had noticed growing up that my sister just did not seem attractive to me in the way other females were. Not that my sister was unattractive to males in general, Jen had her fair share of male attention, but subtle physical queues like her smell would completely turn off any male urges.
It seemed to me that at a physical level also, incest was just not worth considering.
When might it be considered? well, politically correct or not, we’ve all heard the jokes about the American farm boys whose nearest neighbours live 150 miles away and the only available female in that radius is their sister. Even at that, I would argue the “physical” barrier I mentioned above.
I recall a film about two siblings stranded on a desert island. most of it was shot in the nude. An incestual relationship ensued as the siblings reached sexual maturity.
An 80s movie, it was an exploration of nudity and the camera, rather than the incestual relationship, and society didn’t seem to mind about the nature of the storyline; it seemed more focused on the graphic content of the screen (ITV screened it after 9pm!) It was quite disappointing, with both siblings and their offspring committing suicide due to their predicament of finding themselves stranded out to sea on a small boat with no paddle, sail or provisions.
The “emotional”
A major benefit of taking a mate is the emotional benefits of companionship. In an incestual relationship (with a sibling), surely the emotional relationship is already well established as a sibling relationship and both parties would find little in terms of emotional benefit that they have not already gleaned from their sibling relationship.
As for messing eachothers heads up, I guess it wouldn’t extend much past embarassment from their guilty secret; I say guilty secret, as on some emotional level, they would feel that what they were doing was … incorrect.
This incorrect feeling is interesting. I believe its not what society has impressed upon our fictitious incestual siblings that makes them feel this, but a deeper instinctual knowledge that the gene pool will not benefit, or that the true desire of each sibling is to sow their genetic seed elsewhere.
In any case, I believe that both siblings would be able to overcome the emotional barrier with little difficulty.
Ultimately, I believe that the benefit of incestual congress between siblings amounts to little more than the physical gratification.
Personally, without the emotional benefits that go with a sexual relationship, I see little point to the short lived physical gratification.
Legislating Against it…
I agree with legislating against it, due to the birth defect issue.
Moral?
Is it moral? Everyone’s morals are their own. Would I sleep with a sibling and take the risk of responsiblity of conception for a child who may be disfigured and have a horrible life, just for my night of gratification? No, I think its completely immoral.
It’s just bad karma McT!
x x
j
Sex with Dad
Immoral, immoral, immoral! How any father could consider sex with his own daughter, I will never understand. Surely a father thinks of his daughter as a princess, not something he’d think of in a sexual way.
I suppose that my reeling from the very thought of this is from the perspective of a father who has a “normal/healthy/loving” relationship with his daughter. I’m a single man myself, no offspring, never married, but I understand that not all father daughter relationships fit into the category of “normal/healthy/loving” in the sense that I understand it…
I still think this is just completely crazy. Completely disrespectful to the child. Sickening. Wrong. No matter what age seperates father/daughter. I would imagine that the emotional trauma to both parties would be catastrophic.
I couldn’t even begin to imagine what it would do to to the sensitive developing mind of a young girl, I’m sure the father would feel intense guilt for his act. But then society has its sociopaths.
Sex with Teacher
I remember schoolgirls in school who would wet themselves and write slogans on the walls about one of our science teachers. That is many years ago now, but I know that sexual tension on the part of the schoolgirls could be an element of temptation for the teachers.
That aside, as an adult, I would consider any sexual interest from a minor completely uncontemplatable. For God’s sakes, they’re only children!
My personal preference in women extends to women around my own age, anyone too young is just mentally unstimulating and anyone too old uninteresting.
Sex with the shrink
While it would be a breach of professional ethics for the shrink, I would consider this one very much a gray area. I believe that we can meet our soulmate anywhere, at anytime, often when we’re least prepared or expecting it.
When you meet someone worth pursuing, when would you stop, give up the chase as “not worth it”, when do you draw the line? Would you give up your career for your soulmate? I would, in a second and without hesitation.
Being the moral type that I am (one of the few things I inherited from my father), if I ever found myself in this situation, I would terminate the professional relationship before pursuing the personal one.
All the above said…
Sex with teacher / the shrink do extend beyond the bounds of “incest”, but I believe there is a strong moral case in each instance why such relationships shouldn’t be pursued.
Not a factor if the sex is not intended to be procreative. Since there are ways to prevent that nowadays, and some people can’t reproduce anyway, it doesn’t make any sense to prohibit it legally just to avoid the potential of birth defects.
That’s your opinion. Not everyone feels that way.
More opinion. No one is forcing you to have sex with your teacher, offspring or sibling. Let’s hope your moral code doesn’t intrude upon others who might have a different view. If you agree with me, we have no argument and we can co-exist. If you don’t, and want to codify your views into law, we have a problem.
Procreative:
Yeah, I know. I wasn’t born yesterday… I’m aware that the primary reason why people have sex is for gratification. Procreation in an incestuous situation should be evaded.
Even when you’ve got a condom on and the female is on birth control, there’s the 1% factor. Condoms and birth control are 99% effective; but don’t work in all instances. Legal prohibition protects that one percent along with the emotional development of a child / children who do not have the facility nor life experience to deal with the emotional trauma of such congress.
While physical scars may heal, a child may bury emotional trauma for years, perhaps for a lifetime, without dealing with it. For this reason alone, I think it should be legislated for.
Besides, if such practise were legal, people would disregard the moral issue as unimportant.
We’d hear cries of “get over it” from the trashy American talk shows etc and who knows where society might end up.
Adults do have a moral obligation to minors to protect them from harm as far as is humanly possible; while I say this, I don’t believe in wrapping children in cotton wool - it is my belief that children should be allowed to freely experience life at their own pace and without censorship or restriction, but I believe that incest is a step too far!!
I’m aware that my response is opinion and that not all people feel that way about a father daugher relationship. I did address this in my two responses. But the poster, mudkicker, to whom I’m responding was looking for peoples views on the issue.
I agree that the issue is a sensitive one. However, I disagree that it should not be legislated against. Imagine if there were no law against sexual congress with a minor. Or no laws prohibiting incestual sex with your own children. The paedophiles would have a field day.
I’m not here to impose my moral views upon anyone, just to relate my opinion, as has been requested.
As long as it’s consensual for all parties, I don’t care who has sex. Don’t care whether it violates age of consent laws or societal taboos. If it’s consensual, then it doesn’t really bother me. I might think it’s gross or weird, but that’s my hang-up.
I can’t get behind the reasoning incest should be outlawed because of the alleged increased chances of genetic defects. First, if you’re going to outlaw incest on those grounds, then you also need to make it illegal for unrelated adults who have genetic defects to have sex. If the goal is to reduce the number of children with genetic problems, then the relationship between parents isn’t relevant. Second, it is not a crime to have a child with genetic defects, so it makes no sense to criminalize the act which only may result in a child with genetic defects if having one is not a crime.
The morality issues work similarly. If you find it immoral for related individuals to have sex because it may lead to genetically-defective children, then you should also find it morally objectionable when unrelated people with ADD or cancer or schizophrenia reproduce. They’re rolling the same iffy genetic dice.
I just want to highlight that AudreyK states that they hail from So Cal.
Says it all as far as I’m concerned!!!
Therein lies the rub, so to speak. You say that “as long as it is consetual for all parties … Don’t care whether it violates age of consent laws … If it’s consensual, then it doesn’t really bother me”.
The problem is this: how can one tell whether “consent” means anything or is genuine, when dealing with a child who is being pressured by his or her parent for sex? Particularly a very young child?
Children are utterly dependant on their parents when they are young, often have no real notion of what “sex” or “consent” means or of the consequences of sex, are used to parents performing without question intimate bodily acts, and wish to please their parents. “Consent” under such circumstances is effectively meaningless.
Laws against having sex with children under “the age of consent” are framed exactly for this reason, and in my opinion are well justified (though there is legitimate disagreement over what that age should be). That goes double or triple when the other party is a parent.
Gee, if only there were something else that would work in those rare cases. Some way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from coming to term.
What makes you so sure they don’t? Have you jumped out in front of the pack and developed a set of objective standards to determine whether a person is capable of “dealing” with the emotional consequences of sex? Because the last time I checked, these age limits were based on gut feelings and tradition, not science.
And that says something about you, don’t you think?
I’m singular, not plural.
Also, I’m not a SoCal native.
There’s your solution: define what “sex” and “consent” mean, and what consequences a person needs to know about in order to give informed consent. Then whenever someone’s consent is called into question, you can apply those objective standards instead of making a wild guess based on nothing more than what year it is.
Simple continuum problem, where an arbitrary limit could well be justified.
Put it this way: I doubt even the most “progressive” would approve of having sex with 1 year old toddlers, right?
OTOH, the question of incest aside, no-one would say that having sex with an 18 year old with their consent was morally wrong.
So somewhere along that line, at some age between 1 year old and 18, a line should be drawn - on one side of which sex with consent is okay, on the other “consent” is not legally meaningful and is therefore not okay for adults to engage minors in.
Exactly where is of course going to be a matter for each individual’s tolerances and maturities. But leaving it indeterminate is worthless as a guide to social behaviour, so a limit, based on general agreement, makes sense.
A child doesn’t have to be very young in order to be pressured into sex; this could very well apply to a naive teenager. This isn’t really the type of case I had in mind when I wrote that, though; I was thinking along the lines of two 15-year-olds contemplating sexual activity, or a 15-year-old and her 30-year-old boyfriend, or a black man boinking a while girl. Or a father boinking his consenting daughter… or son.
I don’t consider anyone with a limited or nonexistent understanding of sex able to give consent, and therefore my statement wouldn’t apply to them.
I’m not Clinton. 
I have no particular problems with a “wild guess”. It is obvious that any age you should happen to pick isn’t going to be “right” for everyone, it will always be a more or less arbitrary decision, with the risks - of unfairness if you pick too high, and of harm if you pick too low - increasing as you move away from the “adolescence” range.
Analogize it to a speeding limit. 100 Km per hour isn’t guaranteed right for all vehicles on the road. Of course you will be safer if it is lower, but people will be more inconvenienced.
So you do care about age of consent - you would just link it to “limited or nonexistent understanding of sex”.
Fair enough; but I think a valid argument can be made for a law stipulating a hard limit on how low you can go before you presumptively trigger the “limited or nonexistent understanding of sex” rule.