NationStates Jolt Archive

Incest is currently illegal, basically everywhere. There are exceptions, sure, but broadly, incest is both a criminal offence and a strong moral taboo. Asking 'why is this?' would probably elicit perfectly sensible answers about religions, and about it being, well, icky. Probably the strongest argument would be genetic defects, and the pressure, both biological and societal, for exogamy: for a diversity of breeding.

However:
1. we don't ban people with serious genetic defects who WILL pass them on to their children from procreating;
2. the risks of incest producing three-headed children have been overstated;
3. pedophiliac incest or incestual rape would remain illegal, so those wouldn't be concerns;
4. consensual sex between two adult brothers would be illegal, despite the fact it could not produce birth defects in children;
5. studies have guesstimated a level of something like 15% have experienced some level of incest (I, thankfully, remain in the 85%).

It really is icky. But is it that wrong? I'm struggling to find reasons why incest should be illegal, aside from the icky factor, and the God factor, and the cultural history factor.

Any thoughts?

Incest is currently illegal, basically everywhere. There are exceptions, sure, but broadly, incest is both a criminal offence and a strong moral taboo. Asking 'why is this?' would probably elicit perfectly sensible answers about religions, and about it being, well, icky. Probably the strongest argument would be genetic defects, and the pressure, both biological and societal, for exogamy: for a diversity of breeding.

However:
1. we don't ban people with serious genetic defects who WILL pass them on to their children from procreating;
2. the risks of incest producing three-headed children have been overstated;
3. pedophiliac incest or incestual rape would remain illegal, so those wouldn't be concerns;
4. consensual sex between two adult brothers would be illegal, despite the fact it could not produce birth defects in children;
5. studies have guesstimated a level of something like 15% have experienced some level of incest (I, thankfully, remain in the 85%).

It really is icky. But is it that wrong? I'm struggling to find reasons why incest should be illegal, aside from the icky factor, and the God factor, and the cultural history factor.

Any thoughts?


There's been a lot of problems with acceptance of homosexuality - and the objections were only religious and societal - the "icky" factor for homophobes.

You could well argue that people who object to incest on religious or societal grounds are incestphobes.

1. we don't ban people with serious genetic defects who WILL pass them on to their children from procreating;
There's a difference between saying "you can't have children with that particular person ('cause you're related)" and "you can't have children with anyone ('cause you're some weird genetic mutant)". Generally people perceive there to be a 'right' to have children. (I'm not saying this is how things should be, just that there are arguments that don't depend on the ickiness factor.)

There's a difference between saying "you can't have children with that particular person ('cause you're related)" and "you can't have children with anyone ('cause you're some weird genetic mutant)". Generally people perceive there to be a 'right' to have children. (I'm not saying this is how things should be, just that there are arguments that don't depend on the ickiness factor.)

Hmm, yes, that's an interesting distinction. Alright, there must be (I'd have thought) cases where it would be strongly undesirable for two people to have children, because both parents have recessive defective alleles, which would just be carriers were they to have children with a non-carrier, but which would produce affected children if mixed together.

On a scientific level, no new genes would be injected into the genetic code. Thus, making incest families suseptable to diseases, sicknesses, and defects after a long enough time. People who do their family members also have a higher chance of having insaine children. For example: Nero. Nut case. I could think of more crazy people who did their family, but I can't right now. Try the Russian monarchy, they had some pretty messed up stuff as I recall.

Its not just the icky factor either. See?

*pretend you see some scientific fact here*

:D

Ok. But there is the icky factor. Which means most people, presumably, still would not be incestuous. Thus, yes, there might be a reduction of the gene pool to some extent...but I doubt it'd be serious enough that in ten years mutant zombies would be roaming the lands. There are examples of families that got fucked (ho ho) - Russian monarchy, as you say, is a good example - but we're talking one or two families: not all of society as we know it.

On a scientific level, no new genes would be injected into the genetic code. Thus, making incest families suseptable to diseases, sicknesses, and defects after a long enough time. People who do their family members also have a higher chance of having insaine children. For example: Nero. Nut case. I could think of more crazy people who did their family, but I can't right now. Try the Russian monarchy, they had some pretty messed up stuff as I recall.

Its not just the icky factor either. See?

*pretend you see some scientific fact here*

:D

That doesn't cover the two brothers scenario. They're not going to have babies.

Yes, the Russians got the short straw. But Egypt kept on going for thousands of years, with the majority of Great Royal Wives being the half-sisters of the Pharaohs. And there is only one major suspicion (can't be confirmed - his body was never found) of a Pharaoh with a serious genetic disease, which may not even be related to incest. Therein may lie the difference - most of the marriages were between half-siblings, not full siblings. But even so, it's a pretty good promotion for incest.

NB: Not that I'm in favour of it, at all. But you can't just point out the problems of the Russians, without taking note of the Egyptians.

Yes, the Russians got the short straw. But Egypt kept on going for thousands of years, with the majority of Great Royal Wives being the half-sisters of the Pharaohs. And there is only one major suspicion (can't be confirmed - his body was never found) of a Pharaoh with a serious genetic disease, which may not even be related to incest. Therein may lie the difference - most of the marriages were between half-siblings, not full siblings. But even so, it's a pretty good promotion for incest.

NB: Not that I'm in favour of it, at all. But you can't just point out the problems of the Russians, without taking note of the Egyptians.

Sure, yes: it affected one family, and seemingly didn't another. And, of course, all of this is irrelevant when it comes to incest that doesn't produce children, and especially homosexual incest.

Just find out you've got a hot cousin or something, Gruen? ;)

Yeah, but none of us can really judge other people. If they want to go out and bang their sisters/brothers or their cousins then thats their choics. Im not saying that I do but some people do just because its what everyone else does in that region.

:fluffle: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Just find out you've got a hot cousin or something, Gruen?

How did I know it would be you who made that joke first?



Although, now you mention it...

My thoughts on incest are exactly as my thoughts on all romantic relationships/bedroom practises.

As long as bo- as long as all parties consent (and nobody, you know, ends up dead or mutilated) they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

That's not say I want to know about it, but if nobody is harmed, then, where's the harm?

How did I know it would be you who made that joke first?



Although, now you mention it...

Wouldn't wanna disappoint... ;)

And nice "hidden" message! LOL!

On a scientific level, no new genes would be injected into the genetic code.
While true that nowhere near as many varied genes would be passed, hence the obvious problems of incestuous child-bearing, it isn't accurate to say No new genes; there is always some degree of variation within the family. Unless you're identical twins, in which case accidental pregnancy isn't a problem. ^^;

I'm pretty much with Ilura. Personally, I'd never do it; the 'ickiness' factor is deeply engendered in my psyche, and anyway, I'm an only child and all my close male relatives are...er...not easy on the eye :p But if other people have no such problems and think it's for them, then I have no problem with that.

Personally, I feel that whatever two (or more) consenting adults choose to do sexually is their business and nobody else's. There should be no laws governing consensual sexual behaviour at all.

I know around 96 or 97 there was a proposal to decriminalise adult incest in Australia (provided they did not try to have children), but lots of people got the wrong idea and thought they were trying to legalise child incest so it was withdrawn. :rolleyes:

I imagine eventually the same thing will happen with consensual adult incest as has happened in most places with consensual adult homosexuality - laws against it will be repealed or quashed and what goes on behind closed doors will remain purely the business of the people involved.

Not, mind you, that's it's something I'd ever want to try out for myself. I mean - ewww, my own brother? Definitely a big ick factor there. But if other people want to do it, why should I or anyone else stop them?

Incest is currently illegal, basically everywhere. There are exceptions, sure, but broadly, incest is both a criminal offence and a strong moral taboo. Asking 'why is this?' would probably elicit perfectly sensible answers about religions, and about it being, well, icky. Probably the strongest argument would be genetic defects, and the pressure, both biological and societal, for exogamy: for a diversity of breeding.

However:
1. we don't ban people with serious genetic defects who WILL pass them on to their children from procreating;
2. the risks of incest producing three-headed children have been overstated;
3. pedophiliac incest or incestual rape would remain illegal, so those wouldn't be concerns;
4. consensual sex between two adult brothers would be illegal, despite the fact it could not produce birth defects in children;
5. studies have guesstimated a level of something like 15% have experienced some level of incest (I, thankfully, remain in the 85%).

It really is icky. But is it that wrong? I'm struggling to find reasons why incest should be illegal, aside from the icky factor, and the God factor, and the cultural history factor.

Any thoughts?

One...

The same questions can be applied to the homosexual incest between two brothers...
1. It is icky. But is it that wrong?
2. Can you name any reasons why it should be illegal aside from the:
A) Icky Factor
B) God Factor
C) Cultural History Factor

Not, mind you, that's it's something I'd ever want to try out for myself. I mean - ewww, my own brother? Definitely a big ick factor there.


C'mon...admit it. You'd consider it if he were hot. :p

This raises the question of what exactly constitutes the icky factor.
I once had the hots for my sister (dont worry, we arent related, just cross-adopted) and can say that growing up together, at least for a while, isnt the problem. I believe its is the deeply ingrained social taboo, as the act of getting sweaty with a relative isnt any different from doing it with a stranger. But where does this taboo stem from?

In Canada, the laws don't extend to cousins. However, rulings have extended this to adopted relationships within the following categories as well. Note you have to actually KNOW the person is related to you for it to be a crime.

155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

Now where was my hot cousin's number...

Incest while something I dont agree with personaly, is still something that I feel should not by default be illegal (providing it is between consenting adults)

One issue with incest is that there is usually some sort of power imbalance at play. Even if they wait until the age of consent, familial relationships are hard to shake...the older, dominating sister might be able to coerce her brother...a parent their child and so on...consent may be given because of the ingrained power structure. It's a bit different when the people in question didn't grow up together. Then, why not?

This raises the question of what exactly constitutes the icky factor.
I once had the hots for my sister (dont worry, we arent related, just cross-adopted) and can say that growing up together, at least for a while, isnt the problem. I believe its is the deeply ingrained social taboo, as the act of getting sweaty with a relative isnt any different from doing it with a stranger. But where does this taboo stem from?

From this:
http://www.mccainbrothers.com/jed.jpg

One issue with incest is that there is usually some sort of power imbalance at play. Even if they wait until the age of consent, familial relationships are hard to shake...the older, dominating sister might be able to coerce her brother...a parent their child and so on...consent may be given because of the ingrained power structure. It's a bit different when the people in question didn't grow up together. Then, why not?

There's no laws regarding people who grow up together, but aren't related. Equally, we can't extend laws to govern power imbalances in relationships...that's way, way beyond the scope of civil obligation.

I think we should legalise incest for the reasons that many people have already stated.

However, I feel that the age of consent for incestuous relationships should be 18, not 16 (the UK age of consent) for two following reasons:

1. A parent or older sibling would still have significant influence on a 16 year old but by 18 they'll be able to make their decisions independantly.

1b. Incidently, there is a precedent for this: teachers, youth workers and other people who work with teenagers are only legally allowed to have sex with 18 year olds due to the influence they have on young people.

2. If the relationship broke up badly it would be incredibly awkward for the two to stay in the same house, by raising the age of consent to 18 it is likely that at least one of them would be livng away from home or could move out if they so desired.

Malinowski's Law - "Familiarity breeds attempt"

You could well argue that people who object to incest on religious or societal grounds are incestphobes.

I suppose you could, and one could also argue that people who want to make incest legal like to boff their own mother.

There's no laws regarding people who grow up together, but aren't related. Equally, we can't extend laws to govern power imbalances in relationships...that's way, way beyond the scope of civil obligation.
Oddly enough it isn't. Because power imbalances play an important key in the ability for someone to give consent. Which is why there have been cases of teachers or coaches being charged with statuatory rape, even if their students/players were of legal age.

http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Deviance/DevianceJumpOff.htm

I suppose you could, and one could also argue that people who want to make incest legal like to boff their own mother.

Given the choice, perhaps it is better to be an incestphobe after all.

Given the choice, perhaps it is better to be an incestphobe after all.
I don't know, some moms are pretty hot... :rolleyes:

http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Deviance/DevianceJumpOff.htm

You are kidding me...I'm reading half of those books at the moment.

1. A parent or older sibling would still have significant influence on a 16 year old but by 18 they'll be able to make their decisions independantly. That's a bit arbitrary. Turning 18 doesn't automatically mature you, or somehow dissolve the hold your family has on you. But anyway.

1b. Incidently, there is a precedent for this: teachers, youth workers and other people who work with teenagers are only legally allowed to have sex with 18 year olds due to the influence they have on young people. Even if the person is 18, there can be problems, as there is an assumed power imbalance....university profs boffing their students for example is a no-no. Once you're out of their class...it's a bit more possible...but the safest is to wait until you're no longer a student at that institution.

I suppose you could, and one could also argue that people who want to make incest legal like to boff their own mother.
Lol that or people that want to keep it illegal are scared because they would like to boff theor own mother:p

You are kidding me...I'm reading half of those books at the moment.
Not kidding.

Not kidding.

Hmm, interesting. I haven't come across much discussion of incest in the context of the Azande yet, but I have with the Nuer (in both cases, from Evans-Pritchard's work). It's interesting, but it wasn't anything to do with starting this thread, consciously. Another of life's little coincidences.

One issue with incest is that there is usually some sort of power imbalance at play. Even if they wait until the age of consent, familial relationships are hard to shake...the older, dominating sister might be able to coerce her brother...a parent their child and so on...consent may be given because of the ingrained power structure. It's a bit different when the people in question didn't grow up together. Then, why not?
Well, it might be argued that this game of power and domination is also present in a standard relationship.

Often, the male in male/female pairings ends up being somewhat dominant since our occidental societies have an history of being patriarchal. The same problem can also arise when there is a significant age difference between the two partners, where the older partner gets some "moral authority" or something over the other.

So while your points are, in my opinion, accurate, they are nonetheless also valid in non-incestual relationship that aren't legislated.

Just thought I'd point it out.

Well, it might be argued that this game of power and domination is also present in a standard relationship.

Often, the male in male/female pairings ends up being somewhat dominant since our occidental societies have an history of being patriarchal. The same problem can also arise when there is a significant age difference between the two partners, where the older partner gets some "moral authority" or something over the other.

So while your points are, in my opinion, accurate, they are nonetheless also valid in non-incestual relationship that aren't legislated.

Just thought I'd point it out.
You can point it out all you like. The fact is that legal precedence for relationships which involve an inherent power imbalance ARE legislated. So far, that does not include just any male/female, male/male, female/female relationship. So far.

That's a bit arbitrary. Turning 18 doesn't automatically mature you, or somehow dissolve the hold your family has on you. But anyway.

True, but becoming old enough to vote doesn't automatically make people sensible enough to cast their vote well. Sometimes you have to set an arbitary age and hope it's the right age for the majority of people. It's hard to justfy making the age of consent any later without outlawing incest alltogether.

Even if the person is 18, there can be problems, as there is an assumed power imbalance....university profs boffing their students for example is a no-no. Once you're out of their class...it's a bit more possible...but the safest is to wait until you're no longer a student at that institution.

True, but I'm not sure if it's strictly illegal in the UK, although I'm sure that any university would kick out any professor who started sleeping with students. Again, it's hard to justify making the age of consent for incest any later, at the age of 18 you can do anything except stand as an MP or own a pub.

You can point it out all you like. The fact is that legal precedence for relationships which involve an inherent power imbalance ARE legislated. So far, that does not include just any male/female, male/male, female/female relationship. So far.
Power imbalance between a teenager and authority figures, for example.

But there is no precedent for, like another poster mentionned, a domination relationship between two teenagers of roughly the same age (like two siblings).

So while an older/sister might be seen as the dominant one, so can there be a domination aspect to a couple between, say, two teenagers of 15 and 17 years old.

While I'm not particularly arguing for(or against) legalizing/decriminalizing incest (I don't feel like it concerns me), I think the original poster has a point. We invoke reasons for the taboo and crime incest is, but when you think about it, those reasons are also present in other areas of human sexuality/interaction.

So while an older/sister might be seen as the dominant one, so can there be a domination aspect to a couple between, say, two teenagers of 15 and 17 years old.
There's also the possility that the younger one might be more dominant than the other.

Ska...okay, I get your point now. I am just wondering if that power imbalance (the possibility of) between family members is PART of the reason incest is legislated?

There's also the possility that the younger one might be more dominant than the other.
True in any relationship. Which is sort of my point.

You could well argue that people who object to incest on religious or societal grounds are incestphobes. Happy to be one.

There are some things which you really should just not allow - even if you can't think of a particular logical reason. Deep down, everyone and every culture has had a deep revulsion against incest - it's even wired into us, with apparently there being a subconscious odour that means we generally don't want to screw our family members.

Ska...okay, I get your point now. I am just wondering if that power imbalance (the possibility of) between family members is PART of the reason incest is legislated?
Well, I certainly believe the spirit of the laws against incest is to prevent abuse. Is abuse more likely to happen in incestual relationships? I'd like to see some stats to that effect. But even if it did, we couldn't use that as justification without legislating most(if not all) cases where abuse is more likely to happen.

The wording of the law, though, prevents all incest. In my opinion, even if the wording of the law is clear, trying to press charges on consenting adults in situations where no abuse is found is a loo of time, energy, and money. Not only that, but it also somewhat infringes on civil rights, as in "people are responsible enough to choose their sexual partners themselves".

Happy to be one.

There are some things which you really should just not allow - even if you can't think of a particular logical reason. Deep down, everyone and every culture has had a deep revulsion against incest - it's even wired into us, with apparently there being a subconscious odour that means we generally don't want to screw our family members.No, we just don't want to screw SOME of our family members. The closest ones. Cousins are still okay!:p

Happy to be one.

There are some things which you really should just not allow - even if you can't think of a particular logical reason. Deep down, everyone and every culture has had a deep revulsion against incest - it's even wired into us, with apparently there being a subconscious odour that means we generally don't want to screw our family members.

But that's not a legit reason for legislation. If it was, it could be argued that "everyone and every culture has had a deep revulsion against homosexuality" or "everyone and every culture has had a deep revulsion against abortion" or whatever issue takes your fancy. And you could potentially legislate against anything in all impunity.

If it's so wired into everyone, then there should be no need for legislation, because nobody would do it anyway. But we know that's not the case. So we must reflect on whether there are sound, logical reasons to ban this besides the "ick factor".

I rest my case.

Unfortunatly there is not enough variation in one family to prevent genetic disorders from occuring. A good example to look at is lab mice. These animals are completly inbreed to create mice with specific traits, ie white, black etc. However this has been going on for hundreds of generations now and if you ever observe these mice then you relize that all of the intelligence in them has dispaears. This is just one result of repeated inscest

No, we just don't want to screw SOME of our family members. The closest ones. Cousins are still okay!:p
I'd probably agree if I had attractive counsins. But I don't, so *ewww*.

Unfortunatly there is not enough variation in one family to prevent genetic disorders from occuring. A good example to look at is lab mice. These animals are completly inbreed to create mice with specific traits, ie white, black etc. However this has been going on for hundreds of generations now and if you ever observe these mice then you relize that all of the intelligence in them has dispaears. This is just one result of repeated inscest

Yeah, IN MICE. We're talking about humans.

Unfortunatly there is not enough variation in one family to prevent genetic disorders from occuring. A good example to look at is lab mice. These animals are completly inbreed to create mice with specific traits, ie white, black etc. However this has been going on for hundreds of generations now and if you ever observe these mice then you relize that all of the intelligence in them has dispaears. This is just one result of repeated inscest
It's doubtful that allowing two consenting adults to have an incestual relationship will cause a desire to procreate with their family members in all their descendants. :rolleyes:

The lab mice were *purposefully* inbred repeatedly over generations.

Kinda like raising a Gold Chocobo in ff7. :D

Personally, I think we should repeal all anti-incest laws and execute every single incestphobe there is! :fluffle: :eek: :D

Of course, the alternative to execution would be to torture them by sending them videos of me boffing their women relatives and forcing them to watch it every day. :D

Every time I even start to 'think' about rescinding my absolute opposition to relaxing moral laws, because all of you people keep yapping about 'freedom, blah blah blah' and whatnot, along comes a thread like this, reminding me that no, it's all bullshit, hold my ground.

If we let go of any of the moral laws society has chosen to implement and keep, we open the flood gates of Hades (anti-slippery slope slogans be damned)...

*Time to go back to the SCOTUS and re-institute the ability of the states to regulate moral sexual and marriage requirements as they see fit*

When it comes time to vote on these issues, no one should ever feel bad about saying yes, ‘this’ (whatever ‘this’ issue of the day is) should and can be a rule simply because we as a society agree with the right to have and make moral and social limitations for their own sake ~ scientific inquiry be damned. Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.

Every time I even start to 'think' about rescinding my absolute opposition to relaxing moral laws, because all of you people keep yapping about 'freedom, blah blah blah' and whatnot, along comes a thread like this, reminding me that no, it's all bullshit, hold my ground.

If we let go of any of the moral laws society has chosen to implement and keep, we open the flood gates of Hades (anti-slippery slope slogans be damned)...

*Time to go back to the SCOTUS and re-institute the ability of the states to regulate moral sexual and marriage requirements as they see fit*

When it comes time to vote on these issues, no one should ever feel bad about saying yes, ‘this’ (whatever ‘this’ issue of the day is) should and can be a rule simply because we as a society agree with the right to have and make moral and social limitations for their own sake ~ scientific inquiry be damned. Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.

I think that's fair enough. I'm just not convinced that consensual adult incest is indecent: merely being 'close' can't, surely, be the distinguishing factor. People can be very close to non-family members; they can meet siblings years later having been separated at birth. And any law that tries to make exceptions would be too vague to be applicable.

Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.
Yeah, too bad 'knowing it when we see it' is different for everyone. I find women with extensive plastic surgery to be obscene. But my cousin is damn hot....

Yeah, too bad 'knowing it when we see it' is different for everyone. I find women with extensive plastic surgery to be obscene. But my cousin is damn hot....


i think that anyone should be with who they want:fluffle: Not who they are permitted to be with

What it comes down to is that incestual relationships are dangerous to societal cohesion. Any sort of behavior that excludes large portions of a society tends to be frowned upon. In many feudal states, it was marriages between houses that ended wars and restored order. Look at the history of the Mormons. The reason that they got chased across the country was not because they had a good thing going but because they wouldn't interact with any other segments of a society and kept all their business within their society.

What it comes down to is that incest leads to a fragmentation of society.

What it comes down to is that incestual relationships are dangerous to societal cohesion. Any sort of behavior that excludes large portions of a society tends to be frowned upon. In many feudal states, it was marriages between houses that ended wars and restored order. Look at the history of the Mormons. The reason that they got chased across the country was not because they had a good thing going but because they wouldn't interact with any other segments of a society and kept all their business within their society.

What it comes down to is that incest leads to a fragmentation of society.

Given the amount of opposition: would it? It seems like most people - myself included - have no desire to act on incestuous...desires. So it's unlikely we would see massive societal fragmentation, because it's unlikely we'd see mass practice of incest. Besides, social cohesion is an excuse for anything. Did giving women the vote fragment society to some degree? Yes, of course it did. Does that make it wrong? Not in my opinion.

Every time I even start to 'think' about rescinding my absolute opposition to relaxing moral laws, because all of you people keep yapping about 'freedom, blah blah blah' and whatnot, along comes a thread like this, reminding me that no, it's all bullshit, hold my ground.

If we let go of any of the moral laws society has chosen to implement and keep, we open the flood gates of Hades (anti-slippery slope slogans be damned)...

*Time to go back to the SCOTUS and re-institute the ability of the states to regulate moral sexual and marriage requirements as they see fit*

When it comes time to vote on these issues, no one should ever feel bad about saying yes, ‘this’ (whatever ‘this’ issue of the day is) should and can be a rule simply because we as a society agree with the right to have and make moral and social limitations for their own sake ~ scientific inquiry be damned. Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.

Do you have any logical basis for your 'morality'? Deontology might back you up but Utilitareanism is a no no and Virtue Theory would probably come down against you.

I'm guessing your 'morality' is either based on religion (and therefore shouldn't be forced on others) or it's just your opinion (and so shouldn't be enforced without logical basis).

i think that anyone should be with who they want:fluffle: Not who they are permitted to be with

Agreed
(assuming they're old enough obviously before somebody makes some stupid reference to paedophilia)

Agreed
(assuming they're old enough obviously before somebody makes some stupid reference to paedophilia)

It's not a stupid reference. You are acknowledging that there are criteria on which we judge sex: age, and consent. I can therefore understand how some people believe there are other criteria, just as some people (http://nationstates.net/region=queen_maud_mountains) those first two don't apply (http://www.bash.org/?37584), even if I disagree with that.

Personally, I think we should repeal all anti-incest laws and execute every single incestphobe there is! :fluffle: :eek: :D

Of course, the alternative to execution would be to torture them by sending them videos of me boffing their women relatives and forcing them to watch it every day. :D

Trying desperatly not to think grandmas

And incest? Whatever floats your boat but maybe no retarded kids?

Given the amount of opposition: would it? It seems like most people - myself included - have no desire to act on incestuous...desires. So it's unlikely we would see massive societal fragmentation, because it's unlikely we'd see mass practice of incest. Besides, social cohesion is an excuse for anything. Did giving women the vote fragment society to some degree? Yes, of course it did. Does that make it wrong? Not in my opinion.

If anything, I would say that the women's suffrage movement created more societal cohesion, since it leveled the playing field a bit more. It's always easier to discriminate against a group when you can identify them. The more integrated a society is, the more difficult it is to abuse. This is why class structures exist and also why it would be beneficial to eliminate them. After all, it's much easier to justify taking things from someone that is "not one of us" than it is to justify taking things from "one of our own".

If anything, I would say that the women's suffrage movement created more societal cohesion, since it leveled the playing field a bit more. It's always easier to discriminate against a group when you can identify them. The more integrated a society is, the more difficult it is to abuse. This is why class structures exist and also why it would be beneficial to eliminate them. After all, it's much easier to justify taking things from someone that is "not one of us" than it is to justify taking things from "one of our own".

Sure it did, eventually. But at the time, I'm not sure that was the case. And, if this example fails, so be it. But I dislike 'social fragmentation' as an absolute answer to any problem, in part because I think it's overstated, and in part because I think it's part of natural processes.

Sure it did, eventually. But at the time, I'm not sure that was the case. And, if this example fails, so be it. But I dislike 'social fragmentation' as an absolute answer to any problem, in part because I think it's overstated, and in part because I think it's part of natural processes.
The main reason for bringing up social fragmentation was to provide another justification for the wrongness of incest that didn't involve any religious, moral, or scientific/genetic justification. To be honest, I would be hard pressed to find a way to measure societal cohesion. For that matter, I think anyone would.

The main reason for bringing up social fragmentation was to provide another justification for the wrongness of incest that didn't involve any religious, moral, or scientific/genetic justification. To be honest, I would be hard pressed to find a way to measure societal cohesion. For that matter, I think anyone would.
That notwhitstanding the fact that social cohesion can be used as a straw argument to protect the statut quo on nearly any issue, no matter how wrong it is.

Hell, one might have used the social cohesion factor to defend the practice of slavery. All those former slaves will be a threat to social cohesion once we free them :rolleyes:

The main reason for bringing up social fragmentation was to provide another justification for the wrongness of incest that didn't involve any religious, moral, or scientific/genetic justification. To be honest, I would be hard pressed to find a way to measure societal cohesion. For that matter, I think anyone would.

I don't think it can be 'measured'. But I think certain factors can be gauged that give ideas about how cohesive social units are. It is clear, for example, that sub-Saharan Africa is a good deal more fragmented in the post-colonial era than it was during colonialism. There, of course, we see that fragmentation isn't necessarily a sign of, well, anything. But I think it's possible to get an idea of the extent to which people are getting along.

It's not a stupid reference. You are acknowledging that there are criteria on which we judge sex: age, and consent. I can therefore understand how some people believe there are other criteria, just as some people (http://nationstates.net/region=queen_maud_mountains) those first two don't apply (http://www.bash.org/?37584), even if I disagree with that.

There must be informed consent from both parties for sex to be acceptable.

The logical basis for this is the psycological damage that child molestation and rape can do to the victim (there are many more reasons but this one should be enough). My view isn't based on morality, just logic.

There must be informed consent from both parties for sex to be acceptable.

The logical basis for this is the psycological damage that child molestation and rape can do to the victim (there are many more reasons but this one should be enough). My view isn't based on morality, just logic.

Right. However, 'informed consent' is obviously not just limited to age. There can be other factors too: familial pressures are among the biggest in all of human relationships, and it can be very difficult to ascertain consent.

That said, I think you've proved your point and, yes, I agree with you, informed consent, to a degree, is the only factor.

Do you have any logical basis for your 'morality'? Deontology might back you up but Utilitareanism is a no no and Virtue Theory would probably come down against you.

I'm guessing your 'morality' is either based on religion (and therefore shouldn't be forced on others) or it's just your opinion (and so shouldn't be enforced without logical basis).


My morality, or any other individual's personal morality, is irrelevant to what I said. The communal, societal agreed to, 'morality' is the only morality that matters in my argument.

The agreed to self imposed limitation on acceptable behavior (or not) can change. The fact that they can exist and can exist outside of scientific/logical arguments, was my point. They don't 'need' to be logical. America can say a woman's breast is indecent in one condition (porn) and not indecent in another context (National Geographic article)... The 'standard' is whatever they (as a community standard) say it is.

Society does not 'need' to be open minded, unless it chooses to be open minded one is not inherently ‘better’ than the other. There is no 'higher' level reward for being an accepting of non-moral behavior in society over another more structured society with a more fully defined moral structure. There is no overwhelming argument or reason that says a moral majority (not the political movement, the actuality of it) HAS to discard it's 'standard of morality' in the face of an attack for freedom by a sub-genus group within it's community.

All society, every society, every community in the history of the world has been such, to some degree or another. You don’t fit in, you get booted out.

It really is icky. But is it that wrong? I'm struggling to find reasons why incest should be illegal, aside from the icky factor, and the God factor, and the cultural history factor.
Fortunately few people want to but I would be against legalising incestuous families because defective children would be bad for the country. People can have incestual sex if they want, but I'm against them having babies. (Forced abortions, perhaps?)

Fortunately few people want to but I would be against legalising incestuous families because defective children would be bad for the country. People can have incestual sex if they want, but I'm against them having babies. (Forced abortions, perhaps?)

Contraception, responsible sexual practices, and homosexuality, perhaps?

Right. However, 'informed consent' is obviously not just limited to age. There can be other factors too: familial pressures are among the biggest in all of human relationships, and it can be very difficult to ascertain consent.

That said, I think you've proved your point and, yes, I agree with you, informed consent, to a degree, is the only factor.

Agreed, this is why I think if incest is legalised it should only be legal for over 18s. I admit that there could still be family pressure but I hope that by that age the person in question would be able to resist that pressure or move out.

My morality, or any other individual's personal morality, is irrelevant to what I said. The communal, societal agreed to, 'morality' is the only morality that matters in my argument.

The agreed to self imposed limitation on acceptable behavior (or not) can change. The fact that they can exist and can exist outside of scientific/logical arguments, was my point. They don't 'need' to be logical. America can say a woman's breast is indecent in one condition (porn) and not indecent in another context (National Geographic article)... The 'standard' is whatever they (as a community standard) say it is.

Society does not 'need' to be open minded, unless it chooses to be open minded one is not inherently ‘better’ than the other. There is no 'higher' level reward for being an accepting of non-moral behavior in society over another more structured society with a more fully defined moral structure. There is no overwhelming argument or reason that says a moral majority (not the political movement, the actuality of it) HAS to discard it's 'standard of morality' in the face of an attack for freedom by a sub-genus group within it's community.

All society, every society, every community in the history of the world has been such, to some degree or another. You don’t fit in, you get booted out.

But all of your examples (porn, magazines) are things that effect the general public. How does it affect you if there's an incestuous couple somewhere in your aream, especially if you don't realise that they're related.

Incest is fucked up. I would immediately disassociate myself with any person who is incestuous because it is so fucking disgusting.

That being said, if you want to do it go ahead. You're more or less guaranteed to be an outcast, but the government doesn't need to waste its time enforcing laws against your behavior as long as it's consentual.

Agreed, this is why I think if incest is legalised it should only be legal for over 18s. I admit that there could still be family pressure but I hope that by that age the person in question would be able to resist that pressure or move out.

Yes, I was talking about only incest over the age of consent only. (16 in the UK.)

Every time I even start to 'think' about rescinding my absolute opposition to relaxing moral laws, because all of you people keep yapping about 'freedom, blah blah blah' and whatnot, along comes a thread like this, reminding me that no, it's all bullshit, hold my ground.
What are moral laws? Are not almost all laws an expression of public morality? Why are Americans so sex-fixated that "morality" automatically means "sexual morality"?

*Time to go back to the SCOTUS and re-institute the ability of the states to regulate moral sexual and marriage requirements as they see fit*

When it comes time to vote on these issues, no one should ever feel bad about saying yes, ‘this’ (whatever ‘this’ issue of the day is) should and can be a rule simply because we as a society agree with the right to have and make moral and social limitations for their own sake ~ scientific inquiry be damned. Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.
So you abdicate your own mind and agree with the majority just because they are the majority?

Did giving women the vote fragment society to some degree? Yes, of course it did. Does that make it wrong? Not in my opinion.
No it didn't. Your conclusion is flawed. Giving women the vote encouraged them to interact more with society, not less. It increased social cohesion.

Contraception, responsible sexual practices, and homosexuality, perhaps?
Obviously, but in extreme cases, abortions might have to be forced.

No it didn't. Your conclusion is flawed. Giving women the vote encouraged them to interact more with society, not less. It increased social cohesion.

Yes. OVER TIME. The effect at the exact point of granting of suffrage was different: in Britian, it was muted by the fact that everyone was knackered after WWI, admittedly. My point is that any major social change will always cause upheaval...but, as you point out, it will settle down. That, I feel, negates the point that incest would cause 'social fragmentation'.

Obviously, but in extreme cases, abortions might have to be forced.

That's absurd. There would be no way of telling until very and possibly illegally late whether the baby had a defect or not, which would be less likely than some claim anyway. Besides, do we force abortions of babies with Huntingdon's? No, of course not: that's barbaric.

Outdated legislation. :)

Incest is fucked up. I would immediately disassociate myself with any person who is incestuous because it is so fucking disgusting.
How is it disgusting? It's really just having sex with yet another HUMAN BEING, only that particular human is one you've grown up with.

It's not disgusting as far as I know.

Yes, I was talking about only incest over the age of consent only. (16 in the UK.)

Yep, I'm in the UK too but I think the age of consent for incest should be 18 rather that 16 for several reasons. I think they're on the first or second page if you're interested.

Outdated legislation. :)

You think that's outdated? In England it's still mandatory for every man and boy to practice with the longbow reguarly. Now that's outdated....:)

You think that's outdated? In England it's still mandatory for every man and boy to practice with the longbow reguarly. Now that's outdated....:)

Doesnt everyone do that?:confused:

Incest taboos are almost certainly not caused by biological issues (for instance concerns over genetic homogenity between parents leading to increased incidence of recessive genetic diseases). In the first place for most of human history there has not been an accurate understanding of the genetic processes involved in inherited recessive disease.

Further what would be considered an incestual coupling in some societies is a preferred marriage union in another society, even though both societies may have strong incest taboos. In many societies that include strong incest taboos the preferred coupling is with a particular type of cousin. What exactly is incest, differs between societies and some 'incest' taboos apply in some societies to people not even genetically related (for instance a deceased sibling's surviving spouse may be 'off-limits' in some societies due to incest restrictions, but in other societies one might have a duty to marry their deceases sibling's surviving spouse).

Obviously incest taboos are more about social issues than they are about biological issues. Aside from the ignorance about biology that has existed for most of human history, the inconsistency of what is considered incestuous, and the inclusion of non-genetically related couplings under incest taboos.

I expect that incest taboos not only ease possible tension that could exist in certain relationships if sex between particular people were not prohibited, but also creates or strengthens socially significant bonds and/or maintains socially important structures or institutions. For instance by joining two seperate kin groups, or by cementing bonds between already related units within a wider kin network, or by maintaining economic patterns.

What is incest varies between societies, because the structures/relations/economic considerations being maintained or created differ between societies.

Incest isn't just illegal to prevent abnormal births but as a way to illegalize sexual abuse afflicted among relatives, such as a parent with one of their children; which obviously has a negative impact on the child of unquantifiable proportions. Read more:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3781/is_200010/ai_n8919264

Incest is also not the same as "inbreeding" or the offspring of two persons sharing the same genetics which is medically known to cause mild to severe malformities in inbred children. Aside from these acute effects, inbreeding also reduces the overal genetic diversity of civilization which will slowly diminish the genetic structure overall affecting all aspects of the human body not the least of which is the immune system. Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

And especially: http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/inbred.html

Edit: It cannot be argued that there are no biological side effects of inbreeding....this is simply NOT the case. It is very well-known and well-documented in the medical and scientific community that inbreeding is an extremely harmful practice as shown in both testing and in real situations.

This is particularly noted by zoologists who study endangered species and who have discovered that trying to inbreed what few genetic lineages of certain endangered species has resulted in severe immunodeficiency.

Let nobody argue that inbreeding is illegal due ONLY to society or religious reasons for this is simply NOT the case at all.

I think incest is pretty fucking nasty, definately not something I want anything to do with.

Although, I don't think it's really anyone's business what consenting adults choose to do with their genitals.

Well, it seems that I have now found the exact point at which my liberal freedom-loving and social libertarianism stops. I don't think incest should be legalized. Can't say why, really, other than the arguments already presented, but I just don't like the idea of it. I know that doesn't make sense, but that's what I think about it.

What are moral laws? Are not almost all laws an expression of public morality? Why are Americans so sex-fixated that "morality" automatically means "sexual morality"?

Hahaha, that's so funny, because "I" didn't say a word about sexual morality, you entirely read it yourself and accused me of doing what you were doing. :p

So you abdicate your own mind and agree with the majority just because they are the majority?


I abdicate nothing. You cannot abdicate anything that you do not originally control yourself, e.g., I cannot abdicate 'your' decision. Neither do I have to agree with the majority. I simply acknowledge the fact that the 'majority' will disown me (or worse) if I choose to cross the lines of decent or moral behavior that they have established. I obey OR I disobey, at my own peril.

Why is incest wrong? Three words.

THE ROYAL FAMILY!

Doesnt everyone do that?:confused:

Not as often as they should, what would they do if the french knights started pouring out of the channel tunnel and they'd never learnt to use a longbow?:mad:

I abdicate nothing. You cannot abdicate anything that you do not originally control yourself, e.g., I cannot abdicate 'your' decision. Neither do I have to agree with the majority. I simply acknowledge the fact that the 'majority' will disown me (or worse) if I choose to cross the lines of decent or moral behavior that they have established. I obey OR I disobey, at my own peril.

So if the majority of the country decided to make it mandatory to participate in homosexual orgies and you chose not to take part it'd be reasonable for them to execute you (the punishment that the majority feel is right for your particular crime)?

Reductio ad absurdum is always fun.:)

Pro-incest legalisation.

So if the majority of the country decided to make it mandatory to participate in homosexual orgies and you chose not to take part it'd be reasonable for them to execute you (the punishment that the majority feel is right for your particular crime)?

Reductio ad absurdum is always fun.:)

He's talking about being shunned, and he says 'I obey or disobey at my own peril'. Reductio ad asbsurdum involves using what he actually said.

Why is incest wrong? Three words.

THE ROYAL FAMILY!
Proof

He's talking about being shunned, and he says 'I obey or disobey at my own peril'. Reductio ad asbsurdum involves using what he actually said.

It was a culmination of his views.

Every time I even start to 'think' about rescinding my absolute opposition to relaxing moral laws, because all of you people keep yapping about 'freedom, blah blah blah' and whatnot, along comes a thread like this, reminding me that no, it's all bullshit, hold my ground.

If we let go of any of the moral laws society has chosen to implement and keep, we open the flood gates of Hades (anti-slippery slope slogans be damned)...

*Time to go back to the SCOTUS and re-institute the ability of the states to regulate moral sexual and marriage requirements as they see fit*

When it comes time to vote on these issues, no one should ever feel bad about saying yes, ‘this’ (whatever ‘this’ issue of the day is) should and can be a rule simply because we as a society agree with the right to have and make moral and social limitations for their own sake ~ scientific inquiry be damned. Indecent, like obscene, might be hard to define in the courtroom, but we know it when we see it.

My morality, or any other individual's personal morality, is irrelevant to what I said. The communal, societal agreed to, 'morality' is the only morality that matters in my argument.

He has said that moral laws governing sex are acceptable.
He has also said that all that matter is the majority's ideas of morality.

My point builds on these two points.

He has said that moral laws governing sex are acceptable.
He has also said that all that matter is the majority's ideas of morality.

My point builds on these two points.

Yes, exactly: he stated that personal morality was irrelevant. So when you said it would be 'reasonable', it makes no sense, because you are asking him to make a personal moral judgement on a scenario which he had already precluded himself from judging on. Furthermore, he never defined 'morality' - and in fact used it in inverted commas - and, given the entire thread was about sexual morality, we can't judge whether his view of 'morality' included a moral judgement on the death penalty.

Yes, exactly: he stated that personal morality was irrelevant. So when you said it would be 'reasonable', it makes no sense, because you are asking him to make a personal moral judgement on a scenario which he had already precluded himself from judging on. Furthermore, he never defined 'morality' - and in fact used it in inverted commas - and, given the entire thread was about sexual morality, we can't judge whether his view of 'morality' included a moral judgement on the death penalty.

I wasn't asking him to make a moral judgement, I was asking what his reaction would be if he was in a minority sexuality and could be punished for expressing that sexuality in private and without affecting anyone else.

I wasn't asking him to make a moral judgement, I was asking what his reaction would be if he was in a minority sexuality and could be punished for expressing that sexuality in private and without affecting anyone else.

No, you said 'it'd be reasonable'. That's asking for an assessment, not a reaction.

(I should point out this is utterly ridiculous, as I disagree with him too, and if you want me to shut up, I will.)

No, you said 'it'd be reasonable'. That's asking for an assessment, not a reaction.

(I should point out this is utterly ridiculous, as I disagree with him too, and if you want me to shut up, I will.)

Ah, I understand what you're getting at here. I wasn't really intending to ask for a moral judgement just an agreement that it would be justified under his rules or an explanation of why it isn't.

(and no, I'm always open to constructive criticism, it's good for my post count too :D)

Hahaha, that's so funny, because "I" didn't say a word about sexual morality, you entirely read it yourself and accused me of doing what you were doing.
So what did you mean by "morality laws"? I assumed you meant the same as the thread title.

I abdicate nothing. You cannot abdicate anything that you do not originally control yourself, e.g., I cannot abdicate 'your' decision. Neither do I have to agree with the majority. I simply acknowledge the fact that the 'majority' will disown me (or worse) if I choose to cross the lines of decent or moral behavior that they have established. I obey OR I disobey, at my own peril.
You pretty much said in your original post that your opinion was the majority opinion, and that's why incest should be illegal.