Why is physical intimacy with a family member disapproved?

It is indeed similar to the dislike of smells of things that are harmful, EB evolutionarily programmed in our genome.

People who do not dislike decaying flesh will get sick quicker and die from food poisoning, people who find the smell of decaying flesh will not eat it and thus live longer.

A similar story applies for inbreeding; Anyone who dislikes sex with a family member will later receive healthy children without any hereditary abnormalities that will reproduce, who does not dislike inbred and follows the motto ‘ Incest is best ‘, gets children with abnormalities that are not long will be alive and will not reproduce.Inbreeding is, in evolutionary terms, detrimental to our survival chances, as well as eating rotten meat. For example, Patrick Stuber conceived 4 children with his full biological sister, 3 of which had a deviation.

Therefore, the dislike of incestous relationships is deep in and the first reaction of most people is ‘ Iew芒 鈧?娄 ‘.

In incest, however, it is a bit different from decaying flesh, because sexual preference tends to be people who are the same (kind of looking species), the so-called genetic sexual attraction.To combat this close relatives, Mother Nature has devised a trick called the Westermarck effect, a form of negative sexual inprenting. People will generally not be sexually attracted to people with whom they have spent their childhood. And those are usually siblings.

It follows that family members who grow apart from each other can actually fall in love or become one another and psychologists who have experience with lost relatives warn their patients for this.Example is the aforementioned Patrick Stubing (the divorced of his sister had grown up), but also Oedipus in the legend was at a young age divorced his parents and thus became wholly ignorant in love with his mother. It is quite possible that the Oedipus story is based on actual experiences of divorced grown-up relatives who fell in love and were initially ignorant that they were family of each other.

+ Update

You mean sex with a family member.The taboo on incest is uncommonly strong and it was before people knew anything about inbreeding, genes, DNA, etc. At the same time, paradoxically, humanity hangs together of incest. It can’t be any different.

In our modern times, with contraceptives, the taboo is less useful.At least, inbreeding can be prevented, but now the taboo is almost in our genes. But even now it is very much more common than you think. In the Netherlands you may not marry your sister or mother-but nowhere is it that you should not have sex with them.

Greek mythology is the mythology of incest.Children were begat by their own wife, also their own mother or daughter (Uranus, Oidipus, Orestes and many others); Researchers at the human sexual behavior around the year 1900 (von Krafft-Ebing, Eulenberg, von Schrenck-Notzing, a little later Freud) observe again that incest was rather standard than deviation and is.

It gets disapproved, yes. But by whom actually.It seems to be an emotional barrier, there is-nowadays-no rationale for rejection. Once the purpose of sex is aimed at reproduction, incest is indeed strongly advised. But sex has been given several functions in which the obtaining of offspring is not by definition Central.

Update:

Given the large amount of reactions a supplement.

Where reference is made to criminal law in the responses below, commenter is right.It does not, however, give a right to the question which is a ‘ why-芒 鈧?虄question ‘. So: why is it actually in the Penal Code?

In fact, it has been around for a long time. The ancient Romans already had laws against incest.N.B.: From the fact that laws against incest were delegated, we can infer that this was done because it was common. The Romans also attracted little of it. Around the third century, the incest laws are tightened by ecclesiastical and secular authority. In both the Franks and Germanen, incest is the norm, partly to keep possessions in their own circle. Brother-sister marriages are standard; All other variants are also included. And also now little is drawn from those laws-the worldly authority also does not directly give a good example: until deep in the 19th century the aristocracy marries within its own, limited circle, like many royal houses.

The idea that the laws aimed to limit sexual abuse can be yours to drop off.Both the Romans and the Franks and Saxony had not yet鈩?N fine-grained feelings about abuse (on the contrary). This thought arises only after J.J. Rousseau’s first starter, mid-18th century, describing the child as something else than an adult. From that moment on, 芒 鈧?虄the Kind芒 鈧劉 subject of study. Around 1880 people understand something like development phases. It is only around that time that the term 芒 鈧?虄misusable 芒 鈧劉, in the sense of not being appropriate at the development stage of a child. The laws against incest are therefore much older than the thoughts of abuse.

In 1895 a work on pathological sexual behavior (von Schrenck-Notzing) appears.Herein he describes the case of a 15 or 16-year-old boy who masturbates sitting with his mother on the couch. Obviously sickly behavior, but only because masturbation is seen as the cause of physical and psychological complaints. The boy is thus treated against masturbation. About that he does this sitting next to his mother: no word. A little later, Freud describes the Oidipus complex: The little boy wants to possess mother (芒 鈧?虄trouwen芒 鈧劉, says Freud neatly); The little girl her father. This was not the original conception of Freud. He came across many patients in his practice with incest stories, and initially he believed them as well. However, it was so many incest stories that, after ripe reflection (with himself), he decided that these childish fantasies should have been desires. No so. Mistake of Freud.

Research into inbreeding and degeneration is given a boost with the emergence of the computer (see Dribble).It is observed by a group of researchers that it does not coincide with those inbreeding phenomena (again, see Dribble) and that the likelihood of genetic defects is increased, but so minimal that it falls into the statistics. This research has fierce opponents; In the Netherlands, extensive research is carried out in more private communities (Urk, Volendam) and there is still a negative impact on inbred. That discussion is not yet settled.

In the Seventies, a very comprehensive study of Nel Draijer was found on incest in the Netherlands (Google on Draijer and incest).She thinks that about six percent of Dutch women are incest victims. But, much more surprising: in all these victims there is a 芒 鈧?虄context芒 鈧劉: In all cases there is also affective and pedagogical neglect, of other abuse and humiliations. Somewhat surprised, she concludes (N.B.: Draijer is seen as a feminist research star) that the sexual part of the abuse plays a strongly subordinate role in the traumatisation. In fact, her research calls for a lot of anger-uninvigorating tonels follow. On the quality of her research, however, nothing is to be noticed.

It is unclear how often incest occurs.Not all incest victims report to justice or GGZ. But also 芒 鈧?虄incest non-victions芒 鈧劉, do not report, so the group of people who do have incest but have experienced this within a warm, affective, loving family relationship that does not involve traumatisation. That this group is there leads no doubt. No one knows how big the group is. A educated guess keeps it on 芒 鈧?虄substantial芒 鈧劉-we can therefore guess.

Conclusion: Incest is as old as humanity.Not all incest is abusive, it is mainly the context in which it takes place that determines whether it is traumatizing or not.

Conclusion 2: The subject raises a lot. Especially anger and repulsion, but also the opposite: within certain erotic writing sites, the category of incest is by far the largest (see a.o. www.Literotica.com).It also speaks to the imagination (Freud) and reality.

Conclusion 3: Why it is so strongly rejected remains unclear.I do not come to a clear unambiguous statement myself.

Because people are instinctively disgusting of things that are dangerous to them.The smell of stools and decaying flesh scares us because we can get sick of it. Sex with a family member scares us because animals may not consciously but unconsciously know that this is not good for posterity.

Leave a Reply