NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2305517.ece

Patrick Stübing was adopted and did not meet his biological family for the first time until he was 18. It was a fateful encounter, leading to his life being torn apart by sexual love for his sister and more than two years in jail for committing incest.

Mr Stübing, 29, and his sister Susan, 24, who have four children together, announced plans yesterday to take their case to Germany's constitutional court in an attempt to overturn the century-old law that incest is a crime.

"We want the law which makes incest a crime to be abolished," said Mr Stübing - who faces the prospect of another jail term for continuing his relationship with his sister. "We do not feel guilty about what has happened between us," both added in a joint statement.



I think this brings up an interesting question. That is should two consenting adults have the right to have a relationship of this sort? I mean they are not hurting anyone. These two fell in love just like any other couple so should they be persecuted?

The reason incest is so icky, is because it smacks of inherent abuse of power. Remove that issue, and it's just two people attracted to one another. It's probably not a good idea that they had kids together, but...perfect strangers can also end up having children who have serious genetic problems, so...oh well. I don't see the problem frankly. Except that those kids are going to have to deal with a lifetime of really horrible teasing. They should move to another country.

Looking for justification for diddling your sister?

The reason incest is so icky, is because it smacks of inherent abuse of power. Remove that issue, and it's just two people attracted to one another. If they make sure they don't have children together, I don't see the problem.

I thought it was icky because of the three headed mutant retard babies.

Looking for justification for diddling your sister?

No my sister died 15 years ago

I thought it was icky because of the three headed mutant retard babies.

Yeah, I was hasty in my reading. It is unconscionable that they would risk the genetic problems of inbreeding...but then again...people with a genetic predisposition to other debilitating diseases have children too...

No my sister died 15 years ago

And Cluich goes *eep*!

consent in an incestuous relationship is hard to pin down, like Neesika said, it's one of those abuse of power situations more often than not.

I thought it was icky because of the three headed mutant retard babies.

Actually, I consider that one of the perks. :p

Interesting. The law is somewhat different here in the US; here, after a child is adopted, the child is legally related to the adopted parents and is no longer legally related to the birth parents. So, if it happened here, they wouldn't be legally guilty of incest, because, legally, they aren't related, and never mind the genetics of the situation. Conversely, if he'd had an affair with an adopted sister, then they'd be legally guilty of incest, even though the two aren't genetically related.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2305517.ece



I think this brings up an interesting question. That is should two consenting adults have the right to have a relationship of this sort? I mean they are not hurting anyone. These two fell in love just like any other couple so should they be persecuted?

not hurting anyone?
wouldn't this count as hurting someone due to inbreeding?
They went on to have four children. All but one of them have been placed in care and two are mentally damaged as a result of inbreeding. In 2002, Mr Stübing was given a one-year suspended sentence after being found guilty on 16 counts of "illegal coitus" with his sister.

while I do think it's icky... actually, let's just leave it at that.

I think we can agree that siblings should, as a general rule, NOT have children together.

But if they meet as adults, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have a relationship. I mean...people do things out there that are way more EWWW! than that.

The reason incest is so icky, is because it smacks of inherent abuse of power. Remove that issue, and it's just two people attracted to one another. It's probably not a good idea that they had kids together, but...perfect strangers can also end up having children who have serious genetic problems, so...oh well. I don't see the problem frankly. Except that those kids are going to have to deal with a lifetime of really horrible teasing. They should move to another country.

The risk of genetic problems from that sort of relationship is vastly higher than perfect strangers. For example in the UK the Indian community in certain areas has an incidence of genetic illness about thirteen times the national average due to a fairly common custom of arranging marriages between cousins - which is a far safer marriage even than between siblings.

That said - there is a 60million to 1 chance they have no genetic relation to each other...

Interesting. The law is somewhat different here in the US; here, after a child is adopted, the child is legally related to the adopted parents and is no longer legally related to the birth parents. So, if it happened here, they wouldn't be legally guilty of incest, because, legally, they aren't related, and never mind the genetics of the situation. Conversely, if he'd had an affair with an adopted sister, then they'd be legally guilty of incest, even though the two aren't genetically related.

That makes no sense. So even if the adopted son and his genetically unrelated sister are both of consenting age its still insest? Strange

I know the law is wierd with step brother and sister, I think it has something to do with the amount of time they have spent living apart. I'm not sure on that though

Yeah, I was hasty in my reading. It is unconscionable that they would risk the genetic problems of inbreeding...but then again...people with a genetic predisposition to other debilitating diseases have children too...

Which is equally unethical and selfish, in my opinion.

People used to and still get squeamish over homosexual relationships, saying how it'll destroy the moral fabric of society and destroy the sanctity of marriage and a load of other horse manure. If the people are both consenting and adults, the law has no room in the bedroom until someone actually gets hurts, and just because they had two children with mental issues, it doesn't mean shit! My parents are of different ethnic backgrounds and I have fucking health problems to boot.

Interesting. The law is somewhat different here in the US; here, after a child is adopted, the child is legally related to the adopted parents and is no longer legally related to the birth parents. So, if it happened here, they wouldn't be legally guilty of incest, because, legally, they aren't related, and never mind the genetics of the situation. Conversely, if he'd had an affair with an adopted sister, then they'd be legally guilty of incest, even though the two aren't genetically related.

Hm. Actually, I would have thought it was the same here in Germany. Seems logical, from a legal standpoint. But yeah, then the case in the article would be moot.
But probably the law doesn't concern itself with "legally related" but goes straight for "biologically closer related than cousins" (actually, I don't even know if cousins marrying is legally okay but I'd think so).

As for my opinion in the matter - I don't really know.
I can see siblings falling in love, so yeah, they should be able to have a sexual relationship, esp. since I cannot really see "power abuse" in a sibling-sibling relationship.

I would NOT like to see children having sexual relationships with their parents, though (even after the children are of legal age), so where does that leave me? "Incest is okay but only between siblings"?

And, of course, reading about these two having 4 children, three of which were born with mental damage, doesn't exactly make one cheer for sibling-sibling relationships. :/ But on the other hand you couldn't go and make it legal for them to marry but illegal for them to have kids.


On another note: did anybody else notice that is was only the MAN in this case that got slapped with all these prison sentences? Hell, aren't we past the times where it's only the man doing the intercoursing? :rolleyes:

Members of the same family should never have kids, the rate of problems is just too big, and the parents should be forbiden from having kids.

But, as long as both are older than 18, they should be allowed to.

If any of the two are under 18, forbid it.

While siblings in my opinion shouldn't have kids due to the problems that follow inbreeding, I am opposed to the criminalization of incest between consenting siblings - given that a law that penalizes abuse efficiently is in place and working.

It might be "icky", but it's not deserving of jailtime.

But on the other hand you couldn't go and make it legal for them to marry but illegal for them to have kids.

Why not? "Icky" factor aside, I see no reason for them not to have sex... but there's a strong argument that can be made against siblings having children.


On another note: did anybody else notice that is was only the MAN in this case that got slapped with all these prison sentences?

Yes, that's rather disturbing...

People used to and still get squeamish over homosexual relationships, saying how it'll destroy the moral fabric of society and destroy the sanctity of marriage and a load of other horse manure. If the people are both consenting and adults, the law has no room in the bedroom until someone actually gets hurts, and just because they had two children with mental issues, it doesn't mean shit! My parents are of different ethnic backgrounds and I have fucking health problems to boot.

Homosexual relationships are very different to incestual relationships.

For a start homosexuality does not have a strong basis in abuse of power, which although not apparently applicable to this case is a very common theme in incest - for both parent/child and sibling/sibling. There might not be an obvious physical hurt but there is often more than a small share of emotional hurt.

Equally importantly is the fact that incestual relationships place any children the couple have at a greatly increased risk of genetic illness, and while any couple can produce a child with genetic illness, with an incestual couple there is a known very high risk of having genetic illness - rather than an often unknown risk that comes from two unrelated adults. Unrelated couples can unknowingly be at risk of passing on genetic illnesses but related couples know they are greatly endangering their potential children - the knowlege of the risk changes the nature of the act entirely.

As for my opinion in the matter - I don't really know.
I can see siblings falling in love, so yeah, they should be able to have a sexual relationship, esp. since I cannot really see "power abuse" in a sibling-sibling relationship.
Unfortunately, it can and does happen. Usually by an older and more dominant brother.

I would NOT like to see children having sexual relationships with their parents, though (even after the children are of legal age), so where does that leave me? "Incest is okay but only between siblings"?
Well, I think it's easier to accept an incestual relationship between siblings than between parent and child. Among other reasons, the chance of abuse seems to increase dramatically when it comes to the latter kind of relationships.

And, of course, reading about these two having 4 children, three of which were born with mental damage, doesn't exactly make one cheer for sibling-sibling relationships. :/ But on the other hand you couldn't go and make it legal for them to marry but illegal for them to have kids.
That would indeed be problematic.

On another note: did anybody else notice that is was only the MAN in this case that got slapped with all these prison sentences? Hell, aren't we past the times where it's only the man doing the intercoursing? :rolleyes:
Heh, I noticed that too.
Why not? "Icky" factor aside, I see no reason for them not to have sex... but there's a strong argument that can be made against siblings having children.
Yes, but if you agree to letting them have sexual relations, how can you justify penalizing them for any offspring that such a relation may produce?

If the genetic problems weren't an issue and I could get over the conditioned "ew" response, I could support *shudders* the right of two people to fall in love regardless of consanguinity. But the "ew" response is too strongly conditioned to overcome.

You might read Robert Heinlein's To Sail Into Sunset, where he addresses the issue.

Yes, but if you agree to letting them have sexual relations, how can you justify penalizing them for any offspring that such a relation may produce?

Good question. I can't think of an answer, unfortunately. Slapping a huge fine on them would do little good for the child. Mandatory sterilisation or abortion would (quite understandably) prove too controversial.

Unfortunately, it can and does happen. Usually by an older and more dominant brother. Guess you're right, didn't think about that.

Why not? "Icky" factor aside, I see no reason for them not to have sex... but there's a strong argument that can be made against siblings having children.

Well, for one, like Gravlen said:
Yes, but if you agree to letting them have sexual relations, how can you justify penalizing them for any offspring that such a relation may produce?

And for another and foremost, really: it would open a huuuuuuuuuuge can of worms no ethics committee could ever close again. If you made it illegal, you would have to make it illegal for everybody who knows they have a genetic disorder that could potentially make their offspring mentally disabled.
So at which rate of probability of mental disability do you draw the line of making it illegal?
How would you justify making any of it illegal? Eugenics much?
What even gives you the right to say "It's bad to have mentally disabled children"? At which kinds of mental disability would you draw the line? Again, eugenics much?

(Those are all general "you"s, obviously)

Interesting case. While of course my gut reaction is "ewww! gross!" there is obviously no abuse of power here since they met as adults. I don't agree with them having children, but that is the only legitimate concern of the law really, at least in this case.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised that someone is trying to defend this.

Damn! I was hoping for some revelation about George Bush Senior and Barbara. Thats a family tree that must have a few loops in the branches - look at the kids.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised that someone is trying to defend this.You're right. Silly me. Let the perverts rot in prison for being a threat to society by... uh... yes, by doing what exactly again?

They went on to have four children. All but one of them have been placed in care and two are mentally damaged as a result of inbreeding.

a single generation of inbreeding won't do that from scratch. assuming the 'mental damage' is in fact genetic and not environmental, these people's kids were at risk no matter who the other parent was.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised that someone is trying to defend this.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at someone attacking those who defend this without offering any coherent arguments to the contrary, or refuting anything those defending it has said.

Look, even "I don't like it because I get queasy and disturbing mental images in my head" would have gotten you a point. As of now, you could just as well have posted "+1". It's got an equal amount of content as your post.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised that someone is trying to defend this.

Its because we dont believe in god and so, we are evil.

Btw, inbreeding does increase the chance of mental damage and many other problems.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2305517.ece



I think this brings up an interesting question. That is should two consenting adults have the right to have a relationship of this sort? I mean they are not hurting anyone. These two fell in love just like any other couple so should they be persecuted?I've stated before that I don't believe incest is wrong. I wouldn't have incestual relationships myself, but I'll explain that later.

That incest causes birth defects is an overinflated myth. People who reproduce and share a recessive gene that causes a certain congenital diseases are fairly likely to have a child who exhibits that congenital disease. So if a parent has a recessive gene (such as the one which causes hemophilia) and passes it on to BOTH his/her son and daughter then their children may exhibit that congenital disease. However science is suffciently advanced to able to screen embryos or fetuses for such congenital diseases and even makes it very easy to live with some congenital diseases.

People aren't normally sexually attracted to people whom they shared significant parts of their early childhood (whether they be siblings, cousins or friends). This is a behaviour that, if I remember correctly, is supposed to encourage the spread of genes - making beneficial genes more common. Hence, because of this behaviour many people do not understand other people wanting to have incestual relationships and sometimes looking down on such behaviour.

You're right. Silly me. Let the perverts rot in prison for being a threat to society by... uh... yes, by doing what exactly again?

Given your position on this...


Can I be your brother? :p

Homosexual relationships are very different to incestual relationships.

For a start homosexuality does not have a strong basis in abuse of power, which although not apparently applicable to this case is a very common theme in incest - for both parent/child and sibling/sibling. There might not be an obvious physical hurt but there is often more than a small share of emotional hurt.

Equally importantly is the fact that incestual relationships place any children the couple have at a greatly increased risk of genetic illness, and while any couple can produce a child with genetic illness, with an incestual couple there is a known very high risk of having genetic illness - rather than an often unknown risk that comes from two unrelated adults. Unrelated couples can unknowingly be at risk of passing on genetic illnesses but related couples know they are greatly endangering their potential children - the knowlege of the risk changes the nature of the act entirely.

In a society where adoption is now a common element as well as sperm and egg donations, we have cases where the child may have another sibling they are not aware of and enter a relationship without knowing.

I doubt the power issue is any more applicable to this type of relationship over another. There are plenty of tangible cases where the man exerts an unhealthy amount of dominating power over the woman, resulting in years of abuse, which triggers Stockholm Syndrome.

Endangering children - it doesn't even require the father! There are numerous things the mother can do before she realises that she's pregnant, especially if she didn't intend to become pregnant (this includes in marriage, since marriage isn't a magical band-aide that makes all babies planned and wanted). Yes, in the case of incest there is an increased chance, but, there is a greater chance of a woman, in her later child-rearing years that she could give birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. The chance is greatly increased with age.

Now, I brought up homosexuality because it can also apply to incestuous relationships.

There is a risk with everything in life; some things just have a greater one than others.

Many of the concerns with incest, excluding the actual blood relation can be applied to other relationships. You can power abuse issues in other relationships, you can have children born with defects, whether because of genetics, medication the mother had to take or any other number of causes...

I have a question for everyone - do you think it's acceptable to take away the children of a couple who have an incestuous relationship, where the child wound up mentally fucked up, but not from a non-related couple who had a child with the same mental issue?

Discrimination is still discrimination.

Power abuse can happen to anyone in any type of relationship, regardless of whether or not sex is involved.

In a society where adoption is now a common element as well as sperm and egg donations, we have cases where the child may have another sibling they are not aware of and enter a relationship without knowing.
As I said - in this case that is not the issue, however this is an extremey rare form of incest - the majority forms are with people who are aware of the relationship.

I doubt the power issue is any more applicable to this type of relationship over another. There are plenty of tangible cases where the man exerts an unhealthy amount of dominating power over the woman, resulting in years of abuse, which triggers Stockholm Syndrome.
There are cases - however with many incest cases the power issue in inherent in the type of relationship.

Endangering children - it doesn't even require the father! There are numerous things the mother can do before she realises that she's pregnant, especially if she didn't intend to become pregnant (this includes in marriage, since marriage isn't a magical band-aide that makes all babies planned and wanted). Yes, in the case of incest there is an increased chance, but, there is a greater chance of a woman, in her later child-rearing years that she could give birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. The chance is greatly increased with age.
These chances are quite low compared to the chances of causing genetic illness by having children with your siblings.


Now, I brought up homosexuality because it can also apply to incestuous relationships.
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you think homosexuality and incest have a link of some sort


Many of the concerns with incest, excluding the actual blood relation can be applied to other relationships. You can power abuse issues in other relationships, you can have children born with defects, whether because of genetics, medication the mother had to take or any other number of causes...

True, however those issues are inherent in the vast majority of incest cases while they are not inherent in the vast majority of non-incest relationships.