Genetic Sexual Attraction

[Sylvia727]

does that mean you would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy? <snip> Especially when you combine 'personal application' with a professional diagnosis.

Yes, I would judge them to be psychologically unhealthy. It's not intended to be a professional diagnosis, which is why I used the verb "judge" instead of "diagnose". I could also use the verbs "assume" or "believe", which would be less precise in my opinion but may communicate my meaning better to you.

Honestly, I don't care very much. If Bob goes through 8 or 10 beers every single night, then I can "judge" him to be an alcoholic, but so what? As long as he's not driving or hitting his kids, it's none of my business. If John and Jane are twins who love each other in the Biblical sense, but both are consenting adults, then I can "judge" them to be unhealthy, but so what? I don't think my opinion (and yes, this is just my opinion, derived from my interpretation of known facts) matters that much to them.

What I would then find interesting is that someone could be considered broken or unhealthy because what would be considered a 'normal' response in a human doesn't happen to take effect with some people. Just that 'not statistically usual' now consititutes 'unhealthy'.

I think it's more than just "a normal response". It's more than just biology. I don't think that a person engaging in incest in Western culture can be well-adjusted. Sex is so fundamental, and incest so incredibly taboo, that there's got to be something off-balance there. The incestuous taboos are a combination of biological and social influences. Not having the biological motivation makes one odd, or broken. But ignoring the social motivations is where I think the psychology comes in.

Also... step-siblings. What if kids are brought up with mum or dad's new partner's kids. The Westermark effect might take effect - or not. Is this an issue if those kids get together after living in each other's pockets for 15 years? I presume the answer from us all will be 'No - of course not, they're not actually related biologically".

I think it's an issue, anyway. If they became siblings at a young enough age, and I assume from your number of "15 years" that they're actually quite young, then they will develop the same as if they were biological siblings. If they meet at an old enough age, then it comes back to the question posed earlier, about genetic sexual attraction: if two relatives meet late in life and mate together, is that wrong? I think it could work for certain couples, since they have no innate reason to regard the other as taboo for mating purposes.

Which then leads to my question - why does biology have relevance in moral/ethical questions? And, from these 2 examples, does that mean that biology will always have moral or ethical significance??

I think that as long as human behavior follows primal drives such as lust and hunger, biology will have moral and ethical significance. But that's getting a bit too philosophical.

[Slytovhand]

<snip> I could also use the verbs "assume" or "believe", which would be less precise in my opinion but may communicate my meaning better to you.

Yes - but more accurate...

Honestly, I don't care very much. If Bob goes through 8 or 10 beers every single night, then I can "judge" him to be an alcoholic, but so what? As long as he's not driving or hitting his kids, it's none of my business. If John and Jane are twins who love each other in the Biblical sense, but both are consenting adults, then I can "judge" them to be unhealthy, but so what? I don't think my opinion (and yes, this is just my opinion, derived from my interpretation of known facts) matters that much to them.

Yes... I quite agree - but that's what this entire forum is about. Only rarely does a topic come up here which actually has bearing on those who get on and have a say. Thus, if I debate a particular point on a topic with you, it's got no great relevance to the outer world, but only on here... that's the fun bit about everyone having an opinion

I think it's more than just "a normal response". It's more than just biology. I don't think that a person engaging in incest in Western culture can be well-adjusted. Sex is so fundamental, and incest so incredibly taboo, that there's got to be something off-balance there. The incestuous taboos are a combination of biological and social influences. Not having the biological motivation makes one odd, or broken. But ignoring the social motivations is where I think the psychology comes in.

Ok - the meat and potatoes to this one...What relevance does 'taboo' really have? Realistically, I think, if 'taboo' is a 'real' phenomonon, and isn't merely shock value of something different, then it would also logically follow that 'morals' aren't absolute (as in, they do actually exist and have a true/false value - regardless of what we think), but are in fact purely relative to society and culture. If they are relative, then it also means that it is almost worthless to discuss them in any real way (other than mere historical, or sociological...).

I think it's an issue, anyway. If they became siblings at a young enough age, and I assume from your number of "15 years" that they're actually quite young, then they will develop the same as if they were biological siblings. If they meet at an old enough age, then it comes back to the question posed earlier, about genetic sexual attraction: if two relatives meet late in life and mate together, is that wrong? I think it could work for certain couples, since they have no innate reason to regard the other as taboo for mating purposes.

Yeah - 15 years was to mean they'd been together since young childhood, but are now adults, and effectively grow up as brother and sister. How about the kids next door?? (I presume Westermark says something about this?? I certainly haven't bothered looking....). Is Spiderman a bit of a perve for marrying Mary-Jane?? (ok - forgive if they weren't living next to each other for long enough..)

It does go back to the original idea of the taboo, and thus the moral question. Is the 'problem' with GSA that they are biologically directly related, or that they've known each other as young kids (before 6 years old, apparently). If it is about being related physically, it comes back to biology - and the only issue there is how it affects offspring... which has been shown to have only a 2% detrimental affect - which may be somewhat worse from, say, smoking or alcohol abuse.....

I think that as long as human behavior follows primal drives such as lust and hunger, biology will have moral and ethical significance. But that's getting a bit too philosophical.

Well... we are talking morals and ethics, so it is all philosophical....