NationStates Jolt Archive

...should consensual ADULT incest be legal?

DEFINITION for the purpose of this thread: sexual relations between immediate family members (brother/sister/Father/Mother/son/daughter) - NOT cousins etc, and not step-persons (eg. step-brothers) or half-persons (eg. half-sisters))

Sure, why not. Just discourage them from breeding is all.

I don't see why not. Is there more of a risk of genetic defects in offspring? Yes, but to my knowledge there isn't any law that tries to prevent people with genes for tay-sachs or Down's syndrome from reproducing.

Out of interest, why is incest actually illegal? I mean I personally think it's pretty weird and messed up, but then I think that about a lot of things, doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. I mean what's the damage caused by it? Is it something to do with genetics or summat?

Yes. What reason is there to outlaw it? The genetic problems are, like most things, wildly overhyped, and procreation is not the most common reason for sex anyway.

But lots of people will disagree.

Yes.

Why should this be a problem?

The most frequently cited objection is the risk of birth defects in children produced by incest. However, there are several problems with this:

1) Most human sexual contact does not result in production of children. Why should non-procreative incestuous sex (if between consenting adults) be prohibited?

2) The risk of biological problems with children of incest is actually lower than the risks that arrise from advanced maternal age. Recent research suggests that advanced paternal age may also be a more important factor than relatedness of the parents. So should we ban old people from having sex?

3) Even if incest has a high chance of producing birth defects, so what? We don't ban people from having kids if they carry a gene for a disease. We certainly don't ban them from fucking.

Just to throw in something to the people saying it should be legal - what about a 32-38-odd year old fucking his 18-year-old daughter (or in England, 16-year-old daughter*)?

*16 is the legal age for heterosexual sex in England

Just to throw in something to the people saying it should be legal - what about a 30-odd year old fucking his 18-year-old daughter (or in England, 16-year-old daughter*)?

*16 is the legal age for heterosexual sex in England
If they start having sex when she is legally able to consent, that's their business. I may not like it, and I may not personally think it's healthy, but my personal feelings are not grounds for legally banning their relationship.

Just to throw in something to the people saying it should be legal - what about a 30-odd year old fucking his 18-year-old daughter (or in England, 16-year-old daughter*)?

*16 is the legal age for heterosexual sex in England

As long as she isn't forced into it...and if a 30-year-old has an 18-year-old daughter, where the hell were his parents when he was 11?

yes.

as for why it's illegal: probably the gene thing, and because it's icky.
We don't really update our laws frequently, after all.

But imagine having a go with your mother. Can you claim yourself as dependant on your tax form? Do you refer to your brother as "bro" or as "son"?

Funny stuff.

Just to throw in something to the people saying it should be legal - what about a 30-odd year old fucking his 18-year-old daughter (or in England, 16-year-old daughter*)?

*16 is the legal age for heterosexual sex in England
16 is actually the age of consent in the United Kingdom; England is merely a subset of that ;)

But yes, if it's consensual then go for it as far as I care.

As long as she isn't forced into it...and if a 30-year-old has an 18-year-old daughter, where the hell were his parents when he was 11?

Edited. In any case I said 30-odd, so as long as he's at least 33, he was at least 16 when he had sex (16 years of daughter plus nine month pregnancy = less than 17 years, add 16 years of Father when he had sex, = less than 33 years old)

16 is actually the age of consent in the United Kingdom; England is merely a subset of that ;)

But yes, if it's consensual then go for it as far as I care.

Wasn't sure about Northern Ireland. I'm pretty certain they have a higher age of consent for homosexuals and no age of consent for lesbians.

Yes, but to my knowledge there isn't any law that tries to prevent people with genes for tay-sachs or Down's syndrome from reproducing.
...Unfortunately.

But the thing why incest is outlawed, I think, is that it's too easy to commit. If we remove the social inacceptance factor, t's not that hard to convince your daughter to - and if it would be frequent, it would do no good.
Actually, though, it's inconsistent and unnecessary to outlaw it. It's not like legality would affect the frequency.

Just to throw in something to the people saying it should be legal - what about a 32-38-odd year old fucking his 18-year-old daughter (or in England, 16-year-old daughter*)?

*16 is the legal age for heterosexual sex in England

What about it? It's disgusting to me and probably to most folks, but laws shouldn't be based on what we find disgusting. When laws are based on emotion like that we end up with people in prison for interracial marriage, homosexuality, sodomy, maybe even dominant/submissive relationships of various kinds. Laws should be based on increasing liberty for all and protecting the helpless (kids and such) from being exploited.

Edited. In any case I said 30-odd, so as long as he's at least 33, he was at least 16 when he had sex (16 years of daughter plus nine month pregnancy = less than 17 years, add 16 years of Father when he had sex, = less than 33 years old)

OK, fair enough...I didn't imagine you were trying to make that the point of the exercise, but I felt compelled to mention it anyway.

And as far as I know, the three most compelling arguments against consensual incest are that it leads to birth defects (well, OK, for those who believe that sex is solely or almost solely for procreation, it's a compelling argument,) it's against religion (so is eating shellfish,) and it's zOMG t3h |ck33!!!!1!!1oneeleventy1!1 Those who associate it with non-consensual, underage incest completely miss the point.

Are you people serious? It's outlawed because it is absolutely atrocious. That's my opinion. Now for a factual basis as to why it is and should remain outlawed.

Incest is thought of as wierd and disgusting by a vast majority of people. As so, it is deviant behavior. So in the same exact way that all other deviant behavior was inacted into law, laws were made against incest.

Are you people serious? It's outlawed because it is absolutely atrocious. That's my opinion. Now for a factual basis as to why it is and should remain outlawed.

Incest is thought of as wierd and disgusting by a vast majority of people. As so, it is deviant behavior. So in the same exact way that all other deviant behavior was inacted into law, laws were made against incest.

Interracial marriage was seen as weird and disgusting by most Americans back in the forties. Black men were hanged on suspicion of even lusting after white women. I guess since the majority saw it as weird the killings were justified.

yes.

as for why it's illegal: probably the gene thing, and because it's icky.
We don't really update our laws frequently, after all.

But imagine having a go with your mother. Can you claim yourself as dependant on your tax form? Do you refer to your brother as "bro" or as "son"?

Funny stuff.

I could see how that would complicate things. :p

I seriously don't see any reason for it to be outlawed other than the fact that many people find it gross. I don't care one way or another. If they want to, then let them have at it.

I'm sure inbreeding in humans works the same way as with other animals. It's only bad when there's an undesirable trait in the gene pool. Relatives are more likely to have the same recessive traits, and this results in the offspring be more likely to have a recessive genetic disease the parents were carriers of. Otherwise linebreeding can actually strengthen the blood line and can keep out genetic diseases that are not in the gene pool to begin with.

But we're just talking about sex, not breeding per say.

Out of interest, why is incest actually illegal? I mean I personally think it's pretty weird and messed up, but then I think that about a lot of things, doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. I mean what's the damage caused by it? Is it something to do with genetics or summat?
Incest prohibitions (although varied in their actual manifestations) appear to be one of the few cross-cultural universals.

The favoured 'primary' explanation at this time is that the prohibition facilitates marriages between groups (groups referring to sets of people not allowed to inter-marry and/or have intercourse with each other according to the particular manifestation of incest prohibition in a particular society).

When a person marries someone from their immediate kin group they do not extend their familial set. If a group always finds their marriage partners outside their group then they increase their familial kin. This has benefits both for any off-spring (double the potential familial support network) and for the group (who profit from acquiring 'in-laws' - aka a bigger kin network).

Are you people serious? It's outlawed because it is absolutely atrocious. That's my opinion. Now for a factual basis as to why it is and should remain outlawed.

Incest is thought of as wierd and disgusting by a vast majority of people. As so, it is deviant behavior. So in the same exact way that all other deviant behavior was inacted into law, laws were made against incest.

Your point of view is so reasonable I am forced to give up my previous opinion that people should be left the hell alone as much as possible and I now see that only you have a right to be happy and if you find it "icky" it shall be outlawed!

Dear leader, whom shall we outlaw next? People with blue eyes? I find them creepy, how about you? What about women who get tattoos? Abhorrant behavior. People who smoke? Drink?

BAN THEM ALL!

Are you people serious? It's outlawed because it is absolutely atrocious. That's my opinion. Now for a factual basis as to why it is and should remain outlawed.

Incest is thought of as wierd and disgusting by a vast majority of people. As so, it is deviant behavior. So in the same exact way that all other deviant behavior was inacted into law, laws were made against incest.

That's ridiculous! You can't ban someone for doing something you find disgusting. Consentual incest isn't going to harm anyone. Just because it's deemed 'weird' by the majority doesn't make it something that should be legislated. It would be different if we were talking of instances of rape or something, but we're not.

So who exactly do you suggest decides what is classified as 'deviant behavior'?

That's ridiculous! You can't ban someone for doing something you find disgusting. Consentual incest isn't going to harm anyone. Just because it's deemed 'weird' by the majority doesn't make it something that should be legislated. It would be different if we were talking of instances of rape or something, but we're not.

So who exactly do you suggest decides what is classified as 'deviant behavior'?

I actually think I could do that job pretty well.

I actually think I could do that job pretty well.

That's only 'cause you are a deviant!


:D

That's only 'cause you are a deviant!


:D

Well at least I didn't vote to make teenage girls watch porn while probes monitored their vaginas.

http://nelson.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/common/media.php?id=6166

But I do support that legislation.

Incest is a brilliant idea. Think about it: no awkward first-time-bringing-the-girlfriend/boyfriend-home, only one set of parents to visit, ending the fight about whos mother you should see over the holidays, only one set of parents to undermine your authority with your children, no bickering with the inlaws...



more seriously, iirc, there is little to no rise in genetic conditions within one generation of incest (in other words, you and your sister marry, but your children go out of the family). The genetic factor really isn't there. It is interesting that incest is a nearly universal taboo, found in almost all cultures. It is also interesting that the cultures that do not have an incest taboo found the idea so abhorant that they had never even considered it. (mind you, of course, taboo doesn't always equal a law banning it)

Frankly, none of my close relatives appeal to me enough, but as long as both partners are consenting adults, I have no problem with it. I actually met a couple who are first cousins, met after many years when they were both in middle age, fell in love, basically and got married. They had no intention of having kids, so ... And I'm not completely against that, either. Yes, there is the risk of compounding a genetic flaw, but ... anyway, here's a link to what Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest) says on the subject, just FYI.

well thank you to all the people who would like to pick apart the definition of deviant behavior. It is behavior that is deemed unacceptable by SOCIETY. as in, the VAST MAJORITY(do I need to explain that to you?) of people within a given culture think the behavior is inappropriate. This is the case with incest. EVERY modern negative human culture has a negative stance towards incest. This is why I classify it as deviant behavior. It will remain deviant behavior until a large portion within the given society decides that they would like to have incestual relations. This does not happen without a strong internal or external influence.

And yes, you do make things illegal because you find them wrong and disgusting. It happens all the time. In fact, that's how laws are made. In democratic countries, it tends to happen when greater than 50% of the population finds activities too disgusting to be allowed. Is this right? I don't know. It tends to keep order based on what the majority feels order should be defined as. So the most possible people are content with the given order. I would consider that as fair as possible. So all of you who entertain that it should be allowed because its an individual choice, well sorry, that's not how things work.

EX)I could make the individual choice to eat dead people. That is certainly deviant behavior. It isn't harming anyone really if done properly. Yet, most people would say that outlawing it is the proper thing to do. BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT!

so something that has been ingrained into our culture and that we have long considered wrong and immoral. And that most people will agree is such, deserves to be set into law, because guess what? that's what law is. Rules set in place to govern activities of individuals in order to prevent deviant behavior.

If you don't understand this concept, talk to a lawyer. Then confront the issue that it has been set into law in every state(aka territories/provinces) that I can think of.

MOB RULE YEAH!

Tyranny of the majority!


Quick NS vote, who says we should ban Pensacaria for just being icky?

MOB RULE YEAH!

Tyranny of the majority!


Quick NS vote, who says we should ban Pensacaria for just being icky?

No, don't ban him. Force him to bang his sister.

...should consensual ADULT incest be legal?

DEFINITION for the purpose of this thread: sexual relations between immediate family members (brother/sister/Father/Mother/son/daughter) - NOT cousins etc, and not step-persons (eg. step-brothers) or half-persons (eg. half-sisters))

Hell no. Aside from the obvious genetic issues, the potential for manipulation, emotional blackmail and rape is enormous. Leave it in Ancient Egypt where it belongs.

Hell no. Aside from the obvious genetic issues, the potential for manipulation, emotional blackmail and rape is enormous. Leave it in Ancient Egypt where it belongs.

I believe consentual was specified. There is potential for manipulation emotional blackmail and rape in all relationships.

MOB RULE YEAH!

Tyranny of the majority!


Quick NS vote, who says we should ban Pensacaria for just being icky?

*Raises hand*

Hell no. Aside from the obvious genetic issues, the potential for manipulation, emotional blackmail and rape is enormous. Leave it in Ancient Egypt where it belongs.

*As P convienently forgets European royalty for most of the last 400 years.*

The only reason to say no is because of some moral code that you may have. Personally I find the idea disgusting but if two people of legal age wish to do so? I won't stop them though I reserve the right to give the couple disapproving looks.

I believe consentual was specified. There is potential for manipulation emotional blackmail and rape in all relationships.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the potential is much more dangerous when dealing with family relationships. They are, after all, the people you spend much of your early formulative years with.

Genetic risk, as has been said, isn't a real issue.

Any cases of it being nonconsenual... they fall under rape either way.

Other than that... *shrugs* I find it hard to understand, but I'm in no place to judge or support restricting personal freedoms based on a personal lack of understanding.

Most people's seemingly natural disgust towards the idea would probably prevent it being at all prevalent anyway.

Hell no. Aside from the obvious genetic issues, the potential for manipulation, emotional blackmail and rape is enormous. Leave it in Ancient Egypt where it belongs.
Then it falls under rape, is illegal anyway, and the fact that the incestuousness is illegal probably won't be an issue to the rapist.

Then it falls under rape, is illegal anyway, and the fact that the incestuousness is illegal probably won't be an issue to the rapist.

You are of course right. We have such a low rate of child abuse, sexual assaults and collapsed families in this country that legalising it is an obviously sensible move to make. It won't encourage people to 'keep Daddy's little secret' at all.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the potential is much more dangerous when dealing with family relationships. They are, after all, the people you spend much of your early formulative years with.

I tend to agree with you - there is a definitive danger.

However, I see the danger as greatest between parent-child relationships and not so much between siblings, so my stance is to legalise the latter and keep the former banned.

I don't see why it should be illegal if it's consensual sex between conscious people.

well thank you to all the people who would like to pick apart the definition of deviant behavior. It is behavior that is deemed unacceptable by SOCIETY. as in, the VAST MAJORITY(do I need to explain that to you?) of people within a given culture think the behavior is inappropriate. This is the case with incest. EVERY modern negative ??? human culture has a negative stance towards incest. This is why I classify it as deviant behavior. It will remain deviant behavior until a large portion within the given society decides that they would like to have incestual relations. This does not happen without a strong internal or external influence.

And yes, you do make things illegal because you find them wrong and disgusting. It happens all the time. In fact, that's how laws are made. In democratic countries, it tends to happen when greater than 50% of the population finds activities too disgusting to be allowed. Is this right? I don't know. It tends to keep order based on what the majority feels order should be defined as. So the most possible people are content with the given order. I would consider that as fair as possible. So all of you who entertain that it should be allowed because its an individual choice, well sorry, that's not how things work.
Well, when more than 50% of both houses of Congress finds activities sufficiently disgusting.

EX)I could make the individual choice to eat dead people. That is certainly deviant behavior. It isn't harming anyone really if done properly. Yet, most people would say that outlawing it is the proper thing to do. BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT!
There's a story from ancient history, about some Indian king, I think, who called in two groups of philosophers, one a bunch of Greeks and one a bunch of his own subjects. Now his own subjects did just what you say, they ate their honored dead, while of course the Greeks did no such thing but cremated their dead. When told to consider doing what the others did, each group was shocked and disgusted. "Eat the dead? Disgusting!" "Burn the dead? Disgusting!" So you see that public mores differ by culture. Personally, I think it's more a public health issue tha anything else.

so something that has been ingrained into our culture and that we have long considered wrong and immoral. And that most people will agree is such, deserves to be set into law, because guess what? that's what law is. Rules set in place to govern activities of individuals in order to prevent deviant behavior.

If you don't understand this concept, talk to a lawyer. Then confront the issue that it has been set into law in every state(aka territories/provinces) that I can think of.
I'm not sure laws are passed to prevent "deviant" behavior, but that could just be semantics, so we'll let it go.

We have such a low rate of child abuse, sexual assaults and collapsed families in this country
Where did I say or imply that?
It won't encourage people to 'keep Daddy's little secret' at all.
How would it?
If you found it abhorent, as most people (especially parents) do, the fact that it's legal isn't gonna make you say "well, what the hell? it's legal so i may as well!". And any parent twisted enough to want to rape their own child isn't going to pay any attention to incest being illegal.

I don't think many parents are in the middle, and would be swayed into raping their child by incest being legal.

And I don't think incest being legal would make being raped by a parent any less horrific or any different an experience really, so I don't think the victims reaction would be much different.


Of course, I'm talking based on my hypothetical ideas and what seems logical to me. If sexual crimes did increase because of legalising consentual incest, I'd definitly have to have a huge re-think.

It's perverted, but it's their right. Yes, it should be legal.

How would it?
If you found it abhorent, as most people (especially parents) do, the fact that it's legal isn't gonna make you say "well, what the hell? it's legal so i may as well!". And any parent twisted enough to want to rape their own child isn't going to pay any attention to incest being illegal.
Parents who find is adhorent are never going to be the problem. The problem will come from those who actually do it, and like you say yourself, there should immediately be a question mark over the integraty of someone who would choose to do it.

Child abuse victims generally end up feeling worthless, alone and suicidal. Most abusers are never brought to justice because the child is already too frightened to say anything about it to anyone. As far as they're aware, if this is what they've been brought up to believe, it's hard for them to see how it is anything other than 'normal'.

Now, add into this mix the fact that a society that will no longer punish those people who do this. What hope is there for these victims when they're frightened, abused, and now have no where to turn?

Children don't become 'consensual adults' overnight, and they don't meet their family at the point that they do. Like I said originally, there's just far too much potential for abuse for this to ever be something that society should support.

well thank you to all the people who would like to pick apart the definition of deviant behavior. It is behavior that is deemed unacceptable by SOCIETY. as in, the VAST MAJORITY(do I need to explain that to you?) of people within a given culture think the behavior is inappropriate. This is the case with incest. EVERY modern negative human culture has a negative stance towards incest. This is why I classify it as deviant behavior. It will remain deviant behavior until a large portion within the given society decides that they would like to have incestual relations. This does not happen without a strong internal or external influence.

And yes, you do make things illegal because you find them wrong and disgusting. It happens all the time. In fact, that's how laws are made. In democratic countries, it tends to happen when greater than 50% of the population finds activities too disgusting to be allowed. Is this right? I don't know. It tends to keep order based on what the majority feels order should be defined as. So the most possible people are content with the given order. I would consider that as fair as possible. So all of you who entertain that it should be allowed because its an individual choice, well sorry, that's not how things work.

EX)I could make the individual choice to eat dead people. That is certainly deviant behavior. It isn't harming anyone really if done properly. Yet, most people would say that outlawing it is the proper thing to do. BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT!

so something that has been ingrained into our culture and that we have long considered wrong and immoral. And that most people will agree is such, deserves to be set into law, because guess what? that's what law is. Rules set in place to govern activities of individuals in order to prevent deviant behavior.

If you don't understand this concept, talk to a lawyer. Then confront the issue that it has been set into law in every state(aka territories/provinces) that I can think of.
If that was the way all laws were made then interacial marriage would still be banned. "Deviant behavior" isn't grounds for outlawing something. Something should only be outlawed if it hurts people, which incest doesn't.


Parents who find is adhorent are never going to be the problem. The problem will come from those who actually do it, and like you say yourself, there should immediately be a question mark over the integraty of someone who would choose to do it.

Child abuse victims generally end up feeling worthless, alone and suicidal. Most abusers are never brought to justice because the child is already too frightened to say anything about it to anyone. As far as they're aware, if this is what they've been brought up to believe, it's hard for them to see how it is anything other than 'normal'.

Now, add into this mix the fact that a society that will no longer punish those people who do this. (bolding mine) What hope is there for these victims when they're frightened, abused, and now have no where to turn?

Children don't become 'consensual adults' overnight, and they don't meet their family at the point that they do. Like I said originally, there's just far too much potential for abuse for this to ever be something that society should support.

You seem to keep forgeting that this is CONSENSUAL incest. There is such a thing as coercive rape, you know, and what you're describing fits it perfectly.

Parents who find is adhorent are never going to be the problem. The problem will come from those who actually do it, and like you say yourself, there should immediately be a question mark over the integraty of someone who would choose to do it.

Child abuse victims generally end up feeling worthless, alone and suicidal. Most abusers are never brought to justice because the child is already too frightened to say anything about it to anyone. As far as they're aware, if this is what they've been brought up to believe, it's hard for them to see how it is anything other than 'normal'.
I agree with all of that, and agree with how awful it is that your second paragraph is true.

Now, add into this mix the fact that a society that will no longer punish those people who do this.
Now, where did that come from?
If it's sexual abuse, society will still punish it.
We're only talking about legalising consensual incest here. That may be a very rare thing, or a non-existant thing for all I know, but nowhere has anyone suggested not punishing rape or abuse.

Children don't become 'consensual adults' overnight, and they don't meet their family at the point that they do.
A person being legally able to consent doesn't mean that person can't be raped, obviously. A parent raping their 19 year old child should and would still be punished with the legal situation we're talking about. So the first point isn't an issue and I'm not sure what you meant by the second part.

You seem to keep forgeting that this is CONSENSUAL incest. There is such a thing as coercive rape, you know, and what you're describing fits it perfectly.

There's also such a thing as manipulation and abuse of trust that doesn't fall in under the rape-category, but that the anti-incest laws of today make punishable. And it's the risk of abuse that these laws are designed to minimize.

Also, it's a question of practicality and evidence: A happy incestual couple of today may be in a relationship and simply keep it secret.
Someone who has been abused might not get far with a rape charge if the parent says it was consentual. Word against word ends with acquittal.

There's also such a thing as manipulation and abuse of trust that doesn't fall in under the rape-category
If this is true (personally, I thought what we've been talking about, stuff like manipulation, would fall into coercive rape as said by Sheni) then I take back the certainity with which I said consenual incest should be legal.

However, if rape laws were half-decent and encompassed things such as this (and were also less twisted against the victims) then I stand by what I said.

There's also such a thing as manipulation and abuse of trust that doesn't fall in under the rape-category, but that the anti-incest laws of today make punishable. And it's the risk of abuse that these laws are designed to minimize.

Also, it's a question of practicality and evidence: A happy incestual couple of today may be in a relationship and simply keep it secret.
Someone who has been abused might not get far with a rape charge if the parent says it was consentual. Word against word ends with acquittal.

Dunno about you, but it doesn't make sense to me that if you don't have any proof the guy harmed anyone, he should still go to jail on a technicality.
It's kinda what the legal system is supposed to prevent.

If this is true (personally, I thought what we've been talking about, stuff like manipulation, would fall into coercive rape as said by Sheni) then I take back the certainity with which I said consenual incest should be legal.

However, if rape laws were half-decent and encompassed things such as this (and were also less twisted against the victims) then I stand by what I said.
I agree with you here :)

I think I would support the decriminalisation of incest if abuse laws were adequately formed.
Dunno about you, but it doesn't make sense to me that if you don't have any proof the guy harmed anyone, he should still go to jail on a technicality.
It's kinda what the legal system is supposed to prevent.
Well, you've got to get someone to press charges first (someone has to find out), then have a witness or compelling evidence (if it's a healthy relationship then this could prove to be difficult), and then you'll have to have the will to prosecute (what's the point if they've been living like husband and wife for 30 years? Or have children?), and finally, the sentencing - if nobody was harmed, you could let him/her off with a slap on the wrist, couldn't you? Suspended sentence, perhaps?

But yes, I see your objection. But it's not always about the harm either - the laws are in place to reduce the risk of harm.

Parents who find is adhorent are never going to be the problem. The problem will come from those who actually do it, and like you say yourself, there should immediately be a question mark over the integraty of someone who would choose to do it.

Child abuse victims generally end up feeling worthless, alone and suicidal. Most abusers are never brought to justice because the child is already too frightened to say anything about it to anyone. As far as they're aware, if this is what they've been brought up to believe, it's hard for them to see how it is anything other than 'normal'.

Now, add into this mix the fact that a society that will no longer punish those people who do this. What hope is there for these victims when they're frightened, abused, and now have no where to turn?

Children don't become 'consensual adults' overnight, and they don't meet their family at the point that they do. Like I said originally, there's just far too much potential for abuse for this to ever be something that society should support.

1. You would be making a VERY valid point, if it wasn't for two important factors:

1. You clearly failed to read the first post. I said consensual ADULT incest (adult was in capital letters then as well).

2. Parents who abuse their children try to bring their kids up to believe it's "normal", whilst any kind of incest is currently illegal. There is no more potential for abuse of children just because ADULT incest is suddenly legal. Paedophiles abuse while ADULT incest is illegal. Changing it to legal won't make the slightes bit of difference.

The only possible potential for abuse is due to current crappy rape laws, which allow too many people to get away with their crimes - for example if an adult is raped by their own Father yet the Father claims it was consensual sex. As the law currently stands, the very fact that intercourse happened at all, whether it was rape or consensual sex, is immediately illegal in the eyes of the law, thus any defence (under current law) against a rape claim would have to be based on an "it didn't happen" claim, something which could be proved to be a lie by DNA that shows penetration took place - as if penetration did happen, it's illegal so the Father would go to prison (theoretically, depending on the judge's competence) no matter how much he insisted it was consensual.

Ja (provided it's between adults).

Dunno about you, but it doesn't make sense to me that if you don't have any proof the guy harmed anyone, he should still go to jail on a technicality.
It's kinda what the legal system is supposed to prevent.

Actually, the legal system is designed to prevent harm. The sentences are supposed to put people off comitting crimes.

Dunno about you, but it doesn't make sense to me that if a guy destroys someons's life (via rape, for example), he gets away with it just because there were no witnesses.