NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/03/13/pleitgen.incest.illegal.cnn

i saw this video on cnn, it is about a german man that has already been to jail a couple of times and lost an appeal so will be having to go back for having sex with his sister. the sister seems to be consenting and they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities). A quesiton to those in Germany, the video didnt explain this but if the man (the brother) is going to jail why isnt the woman (sister)? is this law only applicable to males?

i am no fan of incest, definently not a follower. but it is obvious in this case jail time is not going to do anything except stop them from having sex for the period he is in jail.


what are your views of this case and incest in general?

BBC Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/03/13/pleitgen.incest.illegal.cnn

i saw this video on cnn, it is about a german man that has already been to jail a couple of times and lost an appeal so will be having to go back for having sex with his sister. the sister seems to be consenting and they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities). A quesiton to those in Germany, the video didnt explain this but if the man (the brother) is going to jail why isnt the woman (sister)? is this law only applicable to males?

i am no fan of incest, definently not a follower. but it is obvious in this case jail time is not going to do anything except stop them from having sex for the period he is in jail.


what are your views of this case and incest in general?

Is the backbone of Redneck America.:D

i think the sister should go to jail too.

I am opposed to siblings or other directly related relatives producing offspring - primarily because the offspring has a high chance of having health problems.

But if they do it safe and both are adults, not dependent on eachother and there is no coercion... it really is up to them if they wish to fornicate.

I am opposed to siblings or other directly related relatives producing offspring - primarily because the offspring has a high chance of having health problems.

But if they do it safe and both are adults, not dependent on eachother and there is no coercion... it really is up to them if they wish to fornicate.

It still is immoral, it doesn't matter which way one looks at it.

While I personally don't approve of incest, there shouldn't be a law aganst it.

It still is immoral, it doesn't matter which way one looks at it.

Define "immoral". It does not hurt anybody, which to me is the most important thing.
That it is *icky* just means that I won't do it - not that I wish to stop others.

While incest is nearly always wrong, in this case they should be allowed to live together but told no more kids.
I say this due to the fact that they never knew each other as children and psychology they are not and have never been brother/ sister. If they found out after they met and married people would think it tragic not disgusting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

i found a sotry on BBC, explains this case quite a bit more. i will post his in the OP as well.

Define "immoral". It does not hurt anybody, which to me is the most important thing.
That it is *icky* just means that I won't do it - not that I wish to stop others.

Immoral. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/immoral)
Knock yourself out.
Incest is just something you don't practice. People from a same family group shouldn't engage in any type of sexual conduct. And I'm not trying to be a prude, but it's just unacceptable. Oh, and it does hurt others. If the couple has a child, don't you think they're harming this child at a physical and emotional level by the relationship they're sustaining? "Hey, mommy and daddy are also siblings. Yay!!" And don't you think that, by accepting incest as something normal, this child will perpetuate the cycle, thus causing more harm to others? It is immoral and there should be laws condemning it.

What about this couple? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/11/allegrastratton)

Most European countries have no law against it. France, for example.

You could fuck your own sister, get her pregnant, and tell everyone you knew, and it would not be against the law as long as she had consented to it.

Immoral. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/immoral)
Knock yourself out.

Something not being "the accepted standard of behaviour" does not seem to be bad per se to me. But perhaps I am just intelligent.

Incest is just something you don't practice. People from a same family group shouldn't engage in any type of sexual conduct. And I'm not trying to be a prude, but it's just unacceptable.

Very convincing reasoning. But it just lacks.. I do not know.. some backing arguments ?

Oh, and it does hurt others. If the couple has a child, don't you think they're harming this child at a physical and emotional level by the relationship they're sustaining? "Hey, mommy and daddy are also siblings. Yay!!" And don't you think that, by accepting incest as something normal, this child will perpetuate the cycle, thus causing more harm to others? It is immoral and there should be laws condemning it.

I already said I am against them having kids. Having the sex without the kids however is up to them - unless you can provide some decent reasons as to why it should be forbidden.

In a case of incest both should go to jail unless one of them is sterile so they are sure not to produce any kids. If they do produce kids then they should pay damages to any of their children or grandchildren who suffer disabilities due to their incest.

If one is sterile or if it is gay incest then they don't risk harming anyone so that should be legal.

I already said I am against them having kids. Having the sex without the kids however is up to them - unless you can provide some decent reasons as to why it should be forbidden.
Preferably something beyond "the Almighty GAWD says it is wrong." ;)

Much as I like to keep my nose out of other people's sex lives, I have to draw the line at incest. Besides the genetic problems, and the sheer grossness factor, there's power dynamics in any family relationship that makes consent....problematic. I'm not saying it's impossible for relations to consent to this behaviour, but it's complicated enough that I'd err on the side of a blanket prohibition.

I... do... not... give a damn!

It is none of my business. In fact, it is no one's business until the relationship breaches the same barriers that non-incestuous ones would, ie: minor with someone who is of age of majority (withstanding a Romeo and Juliet clause if one is 17 and the other is 18), or there is coercion involved, exploitation of power... anything that can happen with non-familiar relations.

I'd apply the same rules we apply to everyone else. So if both adults are consenting then there is no problem.

Until we stop non-related people with inheritable conditions from reproducing (kind of Nazi-esque some would say) then why apply double standards to this?

the main reason i can see it being wrong is the genetic defects that can occur in the offspring, but if that was so important to stop shouldnt they also make it illegal for those with genetic defects to have sex?

sounds alot like trying to breed only a perfect race in this sense.

in the BBC article it states that he had a vasectomy, so genetic defects isnt a problem anymore.

i still dont understand why it seems to be only the male that is doing the punishment though.

Well, many places outlaw even possession of small quantities of marijuana. So I don't see what's so comparitively draconian about clamping down on incest.

Many more people use marijuana than fuck their relatives.

the main reason i can see it being wrong is the genetic defects that can occur in the offspring, but if that was so important to stop shouldnt they also make it illegal for those with genetic defects to have sex?
Having the genes for an increased risk for obesity or something is not a choice so you can't be held responsible for that. Picking a sibling as your partner on the other hand is a choice. Incest is closer to drinking large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy than to having genes that increase the risk of something.

While I personally don't approve of incest, there shouldn't be a law aganst it.I totally agree.

Is the backbone of Redneck America.:D

No, its more like europe these days, and in the old days too.

I... do... not... give a damn!

It is none of my business. In fact, it is no one's business until the relationship breaches the same barriers that non-incestuous ones would, ie: minor with someone who is of age of majority (withstanding a Romeo and Juliet clause if one is 17 and the other is 18), or there is coercion involved, exploitation of power... anything that can happen with non-familiar relations.

I'd apply the same rules we apply to everyone else. So if both adults are consenting then there is no problem.

Until we stop non-related people with inheritable conditions from reproducing (kind of Nazi-esque some would say) then why apply double standards to this?


Absolutely correct. However disgusting the majority finds these kind of things.

Immoral. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/immoral)
Knock yourself out.
Incest is just something you don't practice. People from a same family group shouldn't engage in any type of sexual conduct. And I'm not trying to be a prude, but it's just unacceptable. Oh, and it does hurt others. If the couple has a child, don't you think they're harming this child at a physical and emotional level by the relationship they're sustaining? "Hey, mommy and daddy are also siblings. Yay!!" And don't you think that, by accepting incest as something normal, this child will perpetuate the cycle, thus causing more harm to others? It is immoral and there should be laws condemning it.

People used to use exactly the same arguments against the legalisation of homosexuality in the United Kingdom. They were equally irrational, self-righteous and bigoted. I see no reason why that providing the same standards for any other relationship are enforced (consensual and within the boundaries of the age of consent) that it is any business of the state what kind of relationships people lead in their private lives.

The wish to have children of their own could be problematic, but it's important to realise that not everyone who wants a relationship automatically wants children, so it shouldn't be assumed that every incestuous relationship will bring a desire for children. Some will, some will not, some will be homosexual.

I don't think this is an easy solution to the issue of kids, as I don't feel comfortable with the idea of the state decreeing who may and may not have children, beyond encouragement in one direction or the other, but force is another issue. As such I think the state should strongly encourage against it though the use of information on the dangers, and financial/tax incentives, but no outright ban, which would be as unenforceable and unworkable as the ban on incest already is, in any case.

No, its more like europe these days, and in the old days too.

While living in the UK people would make reference to Rednecks or Hillbillies in America during some conversations. I would always say- Where do you think they originated from? Normally shut them up.

Having the genes for an increased risk for obesity or something is not a choice so you can't be held responsible for that. Picking a sibling as your partner on the other hand is a choice. Incest is closer to drinking large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy than to having genes that increase the risk of something.

that's not illegal either though.

While living in the UK people would make reference to Rednecks or Hillbillies in America during some conversations. I would always say- Where do you think they originated from? Normally shut them up.

Now i'm not denying that we had incest in America and probably still do in some places. But European royalty kinda makes the "Americans are freaks" line invalid. I assume that the commoners did it too sometimes, but i'm not sure. Did they?

Something not being "the accepted standard of behaviour" does not seem to be bad per se to me. But perhaps I am just intelligent.



Very convincing reasoning. But it just lacks.. I do not know.. some backing arguments ?



I already said I am against them having kids. Having the sex without the kids however is up to them - unless you can provide some decent reasons as to why it should be forbidden.

Whereas "the accepted standard of behaviour" doesn't necessarily imply that it is "bad", incest is unacceptable. Now, to back my claims. Let us take a good look at the Egyptian pharaohs and the common practice of marrying their sisters-half sisters or fathers marrying daughters to assure the succession to the throne. While it was a common practice and socially acceptable at the time, I want us to analyze what this practice did to the royal lines at a genetic level in the end?
http://alasdairlean.com/posts/genetics-inbreeding-incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/pedigree-collapse-due-to-inbreeding.html

Even if you're against them having kids, do you think that prevents them from it? They will probably have kids and these kids will continue on practicing, because to them, as I already posted, it's a normal conduct. Plus, it's abusive. Sex between family members is abusive and cohersive and, as Veblenia posted, you must know where to draw the line. Because it's abusive, it should be punishable.
http://www.bmi.net/jgp/USI.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6171.1989.tb00403.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jcap
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-abuse/nisbet.html

While incest is nearly always wrong, in this case they should be allowed to live together but told no more kids.
I say this due to the fact that they never knew each other as children and psychology they are not and have never been brother/ sister. If they found out after they met and married people would think it tragic not disgusting

Nearly always wrong? What's your list of exceptions?, he asked in curiosity.

I... do... not... give a damn!

It is none of my business. In fact, it is no one's business until the relationship breaches the same barriers that non-incestuous ones would, ie: minor with someone who is of age of majority (withstanding a Romeo and Juliet clause if one is 17 and the other is 18), or there is coercion involved, exploitation of power... anything that can happen with non-familiar relations.

I'd apply the same rules we apply to everyone else. So if both adults are consenting then there is no problem.

Until we stop non-related people with inheritable conditions from reproducing (kind of Nazi-esque some would say) then why apply double standards to this?

Thank you, and good night.

Add to that the unreasonable horseshit that is people freaking out when some teenager is attracted to his step-sister in a mixed-marriage family. People freak out about this one just like it was blood incest. Same thing with half-relatives. FFS, people, leave each other alone unless an actual law has been broken, and I don't mean one based SOLELY on the "ick" factor. The genetics argument is crap, too. Folks who are known carriers of a mutated gene are just as likely to pass it on as siblings and possibly more likely than cousins. Do we just hang freedom and sterilize those carriers? Or do we offer everyone genetic counseling if they want a kid (telling the siblings that it's a very risky idea -- they shouldn't do it, and carriers to get the intended other parent tested for the same mutation)?

Some folks are really good at talking up freedom until something crosses their lines. It doesn't matter who drew the lines -- the Bible, the NRA, their parents, their Party -- once crossed, freedom is somehow no longer valid.

The public poll is hilarious. Look at the "They will rot in Hell" and " I want to making sex with my relatives" options.

No, its more like europe these days, and in the old days too.

Tell that to the people of West Virginia.:D
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper148/stills/85cx826o.jpg

that's not illegal either though.

Whereas "the accepted standard of behaviour" doesn't necessarily imply that it is "bad", incest is unacceptable. Now, to back my claims. Let us take a good look at the Egyptian pharaohs and the common practice of marrying their sisters-half sisters or fathers marrying daughters to assure the succession to the throne. While it was a common practice and socially acceptable at the time, I want us to analyze what this practice did to the royal lines at a genetic level in the end?
http://alasdairlean.com/posts/genetics-inbreeding-incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/pedigree-collapse-due-to-inbreeding.html

Even if you're against them having kids, do you think that prevents them from it? They will probably have kids and these kids will continue on practicing, because to them, as I already posted, it's a normal conduct. Plus, it's abusive. Sex between family members is abusive and cohersive and, as Veblenia posted, you must know where to draw the line. Because it's abusive, it should be punishable.
http://www.bmi.net/jgp/USI.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6171.1989.tb00403.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jcap
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-abuse/nisbet.html

So, wait -- your justification for opposition is because royalty used to do it? A thin sliver of the total population? Incest is NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM. It's not going to pollute the gene pool. Not enough people are into it to EVER make it a problem. You can put away all your links, it's quite clear that you just don't approve. Fine. Don't do it. I won't either 'cause I'm not interested. But for the two consenting adults in a MILLION who might be, what's the point of the law? Nothing. It makes morally questionable people feel superior to other morally questionable people.

Some folks are really good at talking up freedom until something crosses their lines. It doesn't matter who drew the lines -- the Bible, the NRA, their parents, their Party -- once crossed, freedom is somehow no longer valid.

Only the insane think absolute and total freedom is a reasonable goal. There is always a limit to freedom(s). For me, I just don't find the plight of siblings who want to fuck very compelling. You and Kry here are off like we're oppressing some sort of minority group. I got the same sort of self-righteous bullshit from the people who wanted to legalize pedophilia. It's not persuasive.

that's not illegal either though.
The law doesn't have much to do with morality, plenty of morally acceptable things are illegal and plenty of morally objectionable things are legal.

I don't think my opinion that anyone who drinks so much alcohol during pregnancy that it harms the child should have to pay damages to the child makes me a Nazi.

I do think that making it illegal for people who happen to have inferior genes to have children at all would smell like Nazi.

Tell that to the people of West Virginia.:D
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper148/stills/85cx826o.jpg

West Virginia is mainly black! Racist scum!

So, wait -- your justification for opposition is because royalty used to do it? A thin sliver of the total population? Incest is NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM. It's not going to pollute the gene pool. Not enough people are into it to EVER make it a problem. You can put away all your links, it's quite clear that you just don't approve. Fine. Don't do it. I won't either 'cause I'm not interested. But for the two consenting adults in a MILLION who might be, what's the point of the law? Nothing. It makes morally questionable people feel superior to other morally questionable people.

Once again, no justification, wether it makes morally questionable people feel superior to other morally questionable people. If they're doing it, well, fine, but the fact that these 2 in a MILLION are, although it won't make incest a problem, it's still wrong even if I disapprove of it or not. And me disapproving and you thinking nothing of it doesn't change the fact that this brother and sister are having sex. It's not up to us.;)

West Virginia is mainly black! Racist scum!

What the f*ck is your problem a-hole?!:upyours:

Do I care about that they have done it? Not in the least.

Although I was once attracted to an awesomely hot 3rd cousin of mine who I had never (And since never, on the other side of the country) seen or met before, and I would have so slept with her. But I think that's far enough to be legal. Outside of that, from my perspective, my sister's an ugly bitch, so are my cousins, so incest is not even an issue as I don't even want to talk to most of my family anyway.

But hey, if you can stand them, go for it!

And consider it this way. Adopted people still count as brother and sister in incest laws. If I had a hot, interesting adopted sister, and I wanted to get involved with her, she'd legally be my sister, which would be illegal. But no genetic problems, no grounding there, so why?

So seriously, why should I care if they do? I'm not in a situation to care if it's illegal or not either, so I don't even care there. But if I had to take a side, I'd have to lean to the side of making it legal, if the very least with legal restrictions on children for close family genetic relations, like biological brother and sister.

What the f*ck is your problem a-hole?!:upyours:

Racist.

West Virginia is mainly black! Racist scum!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia#Demographics

No, it isn't.

Racist.

I am not. I'm from a racially mixed country, why would I care about that? And I was jesting. If you couldn't see that, well, your loss. So don't you call me a racist scum!:mad:

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as there is informed consent (so no children involved) and they don't procreate.

I wouldn't do it myself though. *shudders*

Inbreeding is fine for smaller prey species because there's a chance that an inbred individual won't survive long enough to pass their defective genes along. In predator species, like humans, it's a one-way road to genetic hell.

If you're going to bring a kid into the world, you owe it to that kid to give them the best start in life possible. If they're stuck with a number of genetic screw-ups — a weak immune system being just one — then they're starting out with a handicap. That's not cool, because 1) The kid had no say in the matter, and 2) Their parents didn't give enough of a shit about the results of their actions to stop and think.

Incest is also a playground for child molesters and pederasts, and I don't have to go into how many ways that's wrong. Mix up something that is without question despicable and injurious (child molestation) with something nasty and corrupt (incest) and you basically have a recipe for hell on earth.

Also, humans are a social animal. Incest is detrimental to that and turns people insular, with commensurate mental/emotional liabilities. Being capable of self-sufficiency is important but you have to leave the house sometime.

At the same time, I realize that if a taboo practice is punished too rigourously, you run the risk of sticking the practitioners with a siege mentality on top of everything else. This sets the stage for defiance and drives it further underground. Scarlet Letter, anyone? But if I was a reproductive-aged adult, I'd sure like to know if a potential partner was the product of incest. Raising kids is difficult enough without bringing an emotionally-dysfunctional parent, birth defects and a possibly predatory relative into the picture. :sniper: :mad:

too many a-holes are putting positive comments in for family banging

I didnt know rednecks could use the internet

too many a-holes are putting positive comments in for family banging
I didnt know rednecks could use the internet

Some people think, some people do. And some people do neither and believe they should be in charge.

;)

too many a-holes are putting positive comments in for family banging

I didnt know rednecks could use the internet

http://www.thesmilies.com/smilie-generator/create.php?id=laugh%5E_%5Eimpact%5E_%5E2%5E_%5E0%5E_%5EYup%2C+dude%2C+rednecks+use+computers%21%5E_% 5E.gif

too many a-holes are putting positive comments in for family banging

Well, as long as there are no children involved and there is consent and no children are made I can't see anything ethically wrong with it since nobody is harmed and the people engaging in it enjoy it. So why not?

Well, as long as there are no children involved and there is consent and no children are made I can't see anything ethically wrong with it since nobody is harmed and the people engaging in it enjoy it. So why not?

You mean I am not allowed to dictate what two or more fully consenting adults do with eachother in the privacy of their own home ?

Why not *stamps feet*.

Adults should be allowed to have intercourse with their adult relatives, no matter how sick it seems.

However, I do not think they should be allowed to breed.

I honestly and completely do not care

however:

Patrick, an unemployed locksmith.

benefit fraud!!!!1

However, I do not think they should be allowed to breed.

so what your advocating is whilst two (fuck why not nine) adults are having sexual intercourse a special inspector should come in to make sure the guy is wearing a condom and the lady is taking some pills?

yeah pocking around in people breeding is a no no for me

Only the insane think absolute and total freedom is a reasonable goal. There is always a limit to freedom(s). For me, I just don't find the plight of siblings who want to fuck very compelling. You and Kry here are off like we're oppressing some sort of minority group. I got the same sort of self-righteous bullshit from the people who wanted to legalize pedophilia. It's not persuasive.

Except that I have been saying, and will continue to say, that CONSENT is the line not to cross. You want to compare what I'm saying to an endorsement of paedophilia, and that's a complete strawman. I've never endorsed paedophilia and never will. Two consenting adults, end of story. People allowed to live and love how they like with consenting partners and without the moral minority butting in, end of other story. Care to try and twist those words into something else, while you're in this Play-Doh mood?

Once again, no justification, wether it makes morally questionable people feel superior to other morally questionable people. If they're doing it, well, fine, but the fact that these 2 in a MILLION are, although it won't make incest a problem, it's still wrong even if I disapprove of it or not. And me disapproving and you thinking nothing of it doesn't change the fact that this brother and sister are having sex. It's not up to us.;)

Oh really? Then who, pray tell, is it up to, then? It's not wrong except to those willing to live their lives by the rules in certain books. If some people don't wish to live by those rules, why should they be forced to in a society that guarantees freedom of and (if so desired) from religion? What business is it of yours? What is wrong with you that you seek control of other people's lives -- people who are harming nobody?

Some people think, some people do. And some people do neither and believe they should be in charge.

;)

Absofuckinglutely. Well put.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/03/13/pleitgen.incest.illegal.cnn

i saw this video on cnn, it is about a german man that has already been to jail a couple of times and lost an appeal so will be having to go back for having sex with his sister. the sister seems to be consenting and they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities). A quesiton to those in Germany, the video didnt explain this but if the man (the brother) is going to jail why isnt the woman (sister)? is this law only applicable to males?From what I've heard, it's because she was still under 21 when they had sex.

Oh really? Then who, pray tell, is it up to, then? It's not wrong except to those willing to live their lives by the rules in certain books. If some people don't wish to live by those rules, why should they be forced to in a society that guarantees freedom of and (if so desired) from religion? What business is it of yours? What is wrong with you that you seek control of other people's lives -- people who are harming nobody?

Nothing is wrong with me, and how the hell do you came to the conclusion that I'm seeking to control people? This is a thread where people give their views, their opinions, if you haven't realized that. You say there's nothing wrong if these people consent to it, and I say it's morally wrong. By me saying this in no way changes what they're doing or if the incetuous relationship will be punished or not. My opinion, what I may think is morally acceptable and what isn't, doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things nor makes me control them. I'm one individual uttering an opinion. If they want to screw until Kingdom come, they can, for all I care. But I don't have to agree with it. Get it?

so what your advocating is whilst two (fuck why not nine) adults are having sexual intercourse a special inspector should come in to make sure the guy is wearing a condom and the lady is taking some pills?

yeah pocking around in people breeding is a no no for me

No, but it could be a basis for a law against it. And I would say it's ethically wrong to procreate with a close relative (a little bit like how I find it ethically wrong to drink to much alcohol while pregnant)
Although I don't think there should be a law against either one.

I don't rightly care what shenanigans consenting adults get up to in the bedroom.

Hey, rednecks can use computers! check this redneck's portable computer out!

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_mar2006/RedneckWireless.jpg

On a more serious note, I am undecided. No one is technically hurt, but then again, no one is technically hurt when someone yells "fire!" in a movie theatre.

The two main problems that I see with incest are
A: it is clearly a pschological error when siblings become sexually attracted to one another
B: There is a high propensity for disabilities for children of inbreeding.

Normally I am opposed to victimless crimes, but I think this falls into a grey area. We may have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean we have the right to walk down the street pointing a gun at someone. We have the right to raise children how we see fit, but that doesn't mean that we can discipline them to the point of being abusive to them. In the same light, I think an argument can be made that incest is not a victimless crime since both parties are hurt psychologically when they engage in the act, not to mention the fact that children of inbreeding are clearly brought into the world injured due to the carelessness of their parents.

although I do concede the point of questioning the ability of the law to enforce it. How do you stop two people in the bedroom of their own house from doing something of this nature?

I furthermore have one more question: why is only the man being jailed? why not the woman as well? seems like a double standard to me.

Although I don't think there should be a law against either one.

anarchist! if we don't have rules in the bedroom how will I know when I've been a bad boy?

I don't rightly care what shenanigans consenting adults get up to in the bedroom.

so whats with all that porn on your hard drive? :p

On a more serious note, I am undecided. No one is technically hurt, but then again, no one is technically hurt when someone yells "fire!" in a movie theatre.

however its on private property so the owners can enforce what they please

The two main problems that I see with incest are
A: it is clearly a pschological error when siblings become sexually attracted to one another
B: There is a high propensity for disabilities for children of inbreeding.

A) as opposed to not being able to be with the person you love? yes I understand that its not a social norm but really its in the same area as those strange feelings we all have when we meet are friends partners

B) bolded is rather stretching the term surely?

although I do concede the point of questioning the ability of the law to enforce it. How do you stop two people in the bedroom of their own house from doing something of this nature?

we must watch the public constantly!

anarchist! if we don't have rules in the bedroom how will I know when I've been a bad boy?

I can come to your room and say you're a bad boy if you pay enough. Spanking is optional.

On a more serious note, I am undecided. No one is technically hurt, but then again, no one is technically hurt when someone yells "fire!" in a movie theatre.

Technically it could lead to someone being hurt in the panic resulting from you shouting "fire!". People would also be 'hurt' because their movie would be ruined.

The two main problems that I see with incest are
A: it is clearly a pschological error when siblings become sexually attracted to one another
B: There is a high propensity for disabilities for children of inbreeding.


A. I don't know. The same could be said about many sexual practices which aren't illegal (which is a good thing)

B. This is true but there is also a high propensity for disabilities for children with old parents, but it's not illegal to get children above a certain age. (there are many similar examples)

On a more serious note, I am undecided. No one is technically hurt, but then again, no one is technically hurt when someone yells "fire!" in a movie theatre.

Except those trampled in the ensuing panicked stampede, you mean?

The two main problems that I see with incest are
A: it is clearly a psychological error when siblings become sexually attracted to one another
B: There is a high propensity for disabilities for children of inbreeding.

A) So what about the case in partial question here, where brother and sister did not and could not know they were so related?

B) There is no propensity when children are not the desired or intended outcome.

Normally I am opposed to victimless crimes, but I think this falls into a grey area. We may have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean we have the right to walk down the street pointing a gun at someone. We have the right to raise children how we see fit, but that doesn't mean that we can discipline them to the point of being abusive to them. In the same light, I think an argument can be made that incest is not a victimless crime since both parties are hurt psychologically when they engage in the act, not to mention the fact that children of inbreeding are clearly brought into the world injured due to the carelessness of their parents.

Proof, please? And you keep assuming children here. That's not always the desired outcome.

although I do concede the point of questioning the ability of the law to enforce it. How do you stop two people in the bedroom of their own house from doing something of this nature?

Bingo.

I furthermore have one more question: why is only the man being jailed? why not the woman as well? seems like a double standard to me.

An excellent question. Sexism, perhaps?

Nothing is wrong with me, and how the hell do you came to the conclusion that I'm seeking to control people? This is a thread where people give their views, their opinions, if you haven't realized that. You say there's nothing wrong if these people consent to it, and I say it's morally wrong. By me saying this in no way changes what they're doing or if the incetuous relationship will be punished or not. My opinion, what I may think is morally acceptable and what isn't, doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things nor makes me control them. I'm one individual uttering an opinion. If they want to screw until Kingdom come, they can, for all I care. But I don't have to agree with it. Get it?

I come to that conclusion because "IT'S JUST WRONG" is a common justification for moralists to lobby Congress, or run for office, and get silly laws passed. I apologize for lumping you in with those idiots. It was unnecessarily inflammatory.

Well, as long as there are no children involved and there is consent and no children are made I can't see anything ethically wrong with it since nobody is harmed and the people engaging in it enjoy it. So why not?

Normally I'd come to the defense of any consenting adults, but there's a natural hierarchy to most family relationships that I think problematizes the notion of consent. It's an extension of the same problem as relationships between doctors and patients, professors and (adult) students, employees and their supervisors. The power imbalance muddies the waters of consent, making the relationship inappropriate.

I come to that conclusion because "IT'S JUST WRONG" is a common justification for moralists to lobby Congress, or run for office, and get silly laws passed. I apologize for lumping you in with those idiots. It was unnecessarily inflammatory.

No offense taken. You were also stating your opinion.;)

I can come to your room and say you're a bad boy if you pay enough. Spanking is optional.

yeah but I would have to do something naughty first ;)

Except those trampled in the ensuing panicked stampede, you mean?

like that ever happens :p

I think I'd have to draw the line at first cousins. I don't have any first cousins my age so meh.

what are your views of this case and incest in general?



This case is obviously different, but let's be clear that "incest in general" almost always means sexual abuse disguised by family "love."

B) bolded is rather stretching the term surely?


No, not really, because siblings often have the same recessive alleles the risk that they'll have a congenital disability is much higher.

wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Hypothesis_of_biological_basis)

The genetic risks of inbreeding are often overstated. "[F]irst cousins are third-degree relatives, uncle/niece are second-degree, and sibling/sibling or parent/child are first-degree. 'Uncle/niece risk is somewhat higher than first-cousin risk, which is between 1.7% to 2.8% above the background risk,' said [Robin] Bennett [manager of the Genetic Medicine Clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center]. 'Risk in first-degree relations is 7% to 31% - based on limited studies,' she said. Following Bennett's reasoning, the genetic risk of morbidity (the relative incidence of disease) in uncle/niece relationships is somewhere between 2.8% and 7% above the risk of unrelated couples."[12] This risk is lower than the risk associated with becoming a mother when at or over the age of 47, something that can be legally done everywhere.[13]

like that ever happens :p

Not often enough in the right movie theater, in my opinion.

If trampling happened in a theater showing, say, From Justin to Kelly, I'm thinking that would be an overall benefit to society...call me crazy.

so whats with all that porn on your hard drive? :p

None of it is in anyone's bedroom :)

To tie this to the Wilders topic:
About 25% of all Muslims in the Netherlands is reported to have an incestuous relationship/marriage, mainly due to having married a niece from the "homeland".

So - all the people who believe it is completely and utterly wrong, what are you going to say to all those people ? Do remember that some are quite big and strong :p

Not often enough in the right movie theater, in my opinion.

yes but nobody barring me watched son of the mask

None of it is in anyone's bedroom :)

so what do you do when your girlfriends sleeping near a camera?

Do remember that some are quite big and strong :p

they are far too busy chasing schoolchildren (http://www.cardmine.co.uk/list27/a271440.jpg)

so what do you do when your girlfriends sleeping near a camera?

Assume I'm dreaming.

Here's a thought.

If you're so hard up that you can't find love outside your immediate family, do the world a favour and kill yourself.

Here's a thought.

If you're so hard up that you can't find love outside your immediate family, do the world a favour and kill yourself.

Here's a thought. Try thinking before you post next time.

If your Family Tree does not branch...
If you go to Family Reunions to pick up women/men...
If your Wife didn't need to change her last name after you were married...

As stated again and again, I do not care what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. Hell you can have a family orgy in there and I wouldn't care. It's just none of my business.

Here's a thought. Try thinking before you post next time.

Oh dear. You don't even want to know what my initial thoughts were. Trust me, this was my carefully considered post.

Oh dear. You don't even want to know what my initial thoughts were. Trust me, this was my carefully considered post.

so you are encouraging suicide?

Frequently. More people need to kill themselves. Or be killed.

Frequently. More people need to kill themselves. Or be killed.

why do you say that? Do you have any proof, facts or good reason to say that people should commit suicide?

why do you say that? Do you have any proof, facts or good reason to say that people should commit suicide?

http://www.cnn.com

If you need more, there's a whole internet of proof out there.

Another good proof that people need to kill themselves is that they're debating the ethics of incest instead of trying to do something to stop it.

Another good proof that people need to kill themselves is that they're debating the ethics of incest instead of trying to do something to stop it.

I didn't say anything about incest, i was asking why you support the idea that people should commit suicide.
So why?

I submitted my proof, but apparently it's pending review because it's a link. Suffice it to say that the world wide web is proof enough.

Another good proof that people need to kill themselves is that they're debating the ethics of incest instead of trying to do something to stop it.

Just cos [B]THINK[B] it's wrong dose not make it wrong! It all relative (please excuse the pun.) There nothing wrong with incest. While i think anyone who precipitate in this practice should avoid children, i am not going stop the them doing what they feel what is right.

I really don't have solid evidence to back this up (not at the moment at least, I had some papers about it lying about someplace, I'll post them if I can find them) but I think humans, like all mammals, generally choose their "mates" based on some subconscious evaluation - and I believe part of that evaluation includes selection of those with the most different immune system from that of the beholder. Also I'm not sure about this one either but I'm guessing the more diverse the genetic heritage, the less chance of jackpot-ing on some recessive complication. I believe this is what makes people icky about incest.

It may be unnatural but I don't believe it is more unnatural than monogamy or trying to lose weight - in the long run, polygamous and fat people will be the ones to survive the next ice age :P

Anyways, as long as people are damaged enough (in comparison to our natural urges; I'm not saying "those who don't want children are crazy, crazy people" - I am not planning to have a children for instance, I don't think I can deal with another needy infant in my house beside yours truly) to forsake having children for the sake of love/lust/whatever it is their choice. Governments need to protect the future of their would be offsprings of course, and incest marriages should be controlled but I also think anyone who wants to have children should be tested to the best of medicinal technology's capabilities so this is not incest-specific for me.

Also, if you really think "consent is questionable" in the case of incest, one night stands, make-up sex and stage pick-ups should also be banned too :)

Cheerio!

Emotionally incest is uber-gross, disgusting, and revolting.

On an rational level incest is bad because of the high rates of birth defects in offspring, and the exploitation that can occur when parents use their children sexually and older siblings with their younger siblings. Take those out of the picture and I'm ok with incest on a rational level.

Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.

I really don't have solid evidence to back this up (not at the moment at least, I had some papers about it lying about someplace, I'll post them if I can find them) but I think humans, like all mammals, generally choose their "mates" based on some subconscious evaluation - and I believe part of that evaluation includes selection of those with the most different immune system from that of the beholder. Also I'm not sure about this one either but I'm guessing the more diverse the genetic heritage, the less chance of jackpot-ing on some recessive complication. I believe this is what makes people icky about incest.

It may be unnatural but I don't believe it is more unnatural than monogamy or trying to lose weight - in the long run, polygamous and fat people will be the ones to survive the next ice age :P

Anyways, as long as people are damaged enough (in comparison to our natural urges; I'm not saying "those who don't want children are crazy, crazy people" - I am not planning to have a children for instance, I don't think I can deal with another needy infant in my house beside yours truly) to forsake having children for the sake of love/lust/whatever it is their choice. Governments need to protect the future of their would be offsprings of course, and incest marriages should be controlled but I also think anyone who wants to have children should be tested to the best of medicinal technology's capabilities so this is not incest-specific for me.

Also, if you really think "consent is questionable" in the case of incest, one night stands, make-up sex and stage pick-ups should also be banned too :)

Cheerio!
Welcome to Nation States General (NSG) interesting post.:)
A few queries.

That "subconscious evaluation" what happens to this with people who meet over the internet? as in two people who fall in love in whatever site by some odd chance, where is this subconscious evaluation here?

And why do you think fat people will survive the next ice age? Do you think this ice age will come about soon? I thought weighty people would not survive that well in modern society compared to those who have a smaller physique.
Oh and what's a stage pick-up?

Except that I have been saying, and will continue to say, that CONSENT is the line not to cross.

Say it all you want; it's very clear that there other considerations when it comes to the law.

You want to compare what I'm saying to an endorsement of paedophilia

No, I'm merely commenting that I got this same, "Oh you're repressing a sexual preference minority group, just like Bible-thumping homophobes" bit from those who did endorse pedophilia. Oddly enough they seemed to focus on consent too, with the theory that children can consent too. Anyway, an argument against incest is not the same as limiting gay rights or anything like that, and incest is not on a par with homosexuality either.

People allowed to live and love how they like with consenting partners and without the moral minority butting in

I hate to tell you this, but people who are fine with incest are the ones in the "moral minority" here.

Care to try and twist those words into something else, while you're in this Play-Doh mood?

If I feel like comparing your arguments and their persuasiveness with that of other arguments again, I will.

Hey, go for it, just don't expect me to pay for your inbred spawn.

Also, if you really think "consent is questionable" in the case of incest, one night stands, make-up sex and stage pick-ups should also be banned too :)

Cheerio!

Care to explain that assertion?

Hey, go for it, just don't expect me to pay for your inbred spawn.

Well, of course, unless it's a profitable asset.

ie: circus freak, Ripley's Believe It Or Not, etc.

Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.

okay, so what is your definition of right and wrong?

Would it be reasonable to assume that all people have the same notion of right and wrong? even those who have psychological defects?
Or for example, take someone who was brought up by a life of violence(as in domestically abused or something like that) and say they commit violent actions when they grow up, because they believe this is normal.
Are their violent actions 'wrong'? what counts as this substance of wrong? where does it come from?

<snip>On an rational level incest is bad because of the high rates of birth defects in offspring, and the exploitation that can occur when parents use their children sexually and older siblings with their younger siblings. Take those out of the picture and I'm ok with incest on a rational level.I'm pretty sure everyone who's for incest here thinks of it in these terms, more or less. As long as both parties are of the age of consent I don't find it problematic. Of course, there can be really extreme examples - a 60 year old father having sex with his "consenting" 19 year old daughter? I'd question that one big time - 19 years of fatherhood HAS TO have some conditioning imprinted on the little girls mind. That's what I mean by "incest marriages should be controlled" - professional folks should check out if they are really consenting adults or not but that's really very unpractical to control. Meh, same could be true for an unrelated couple of 60/19 of course so...

Cheerio!

Well, of course, unless it's a profitable asset.

ie: circus freak, Ripley's Believe It Or Not, etc.

you quoted yourself?
can i ask why?

Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.
So there something wrong with me, nice to know! I been though a lot of testing and they shown nothing but slightly more intelligent then the norm. I have no prob with incest at all, though i say would not do i, i never been in a state where it would have been a real option?. I do have sister but alway known them. this make attractiveness unlikely (can't be arse to find a link but brother/ sister are conditions# not to be attracted to each other) Right and wrong are purly what people say they are!

you quoted yourself?
can i ask why?

... he thought he hit the 'edit' button? I know I did that alot... :p

you quoted yourself?
can i ask why?

Multiple-personalities.

Multiple-personalities.

So true.

So true.
very witty.

I thought multiple personalities usually disagreed with each other for some reason or another...no?

I'm pretty sure everyone who's for incest here thinks of it in these terms, more or less. As long as both parties are of the age of consent I don't find it problematic. Of course, there can be really extreme examples - a 60 year old father having sex with his "consenting" 19 year old daughter? I'd question that one big time - 19 years of fatherhood HAS TO have some conditioning imprinted on the little girls mind. That's what I mean by "incest marriages should be controlled" - professional folks should check out if they are really consenting adults or not but that's really very unpractical to control. Meh, same could be true for an unrelated couple of 60/19 of course so...

Cheerio!

The "imprinting" could be construed as part of the explotation schtick, but I agree that it would be hard to regulate that aspect of it, practically.

pretty much people are gonna fuck and have intercourse with whoever they want whenever they want and no laws would stop them anyways.

The "imprinting" could be construed as part of the explotation schtick, but I agree that it would be hard to regulate that aspect of it, practically.
The question is, should it be regulated at all? If someone gets kidnapped, ends up with Stockholm syndrome and wants to marry the kidnapper, would you want the state to say no?

Ultimately, as long as people are free to divorce when they feel they need to, I don't think we should be judging the reasons people have to marry each other.

yes but nobody barring me watched son of the mask

Somenoe should have barred you from watching that. You poor guy.

I really don't have solid evidence to back this up (not at the moment at least, I had some papers about it lying about someplace, I'll post them if I can find them) but I think humans, like all mammals, generally choose their "mates" based on some subconscious evaluation - and I believe part of that evaluation includes selection of those with the most different immune system from that of the beholder. Also I'm not sure about this one either but I'm guessing the more diverse the genetic heritage, the less chance of jackpot-ing on some recessive complication. I believe this is what makes people icky about incest.

Considering that the genetic crapshoot is what twists some folks' nipples about incest, let's look at the possibility that genetic distribution was not just okay for a potential mating between siblings (which is at least as, if not more, possible than the dreaded similarity of genetic makeup), but in fact diametrically opposed. Each sibling got "lucky" enough to be complete genetic opposites. The "smell" factor, which is how we can subconsciously pick out the complementary immune system in our mates, links those two together. Where's the problem? Sure, it isn't for everyone, but why shouldn't those who ARE fine with it be allowed to love who they choose?

Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.

In your head. Thankfully, your head doesn't run anything but your body.

Say it all you want; it's very clear that there other considerations when it comes to the law.

I'm not debating that. It's illegal, and that's fine. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm merely saying that people oppose it for irrational reasons and the "ick" factor. I wouldn't do it myself, even if my sister were smokin' hot. But that's me, and I don't have the right to dictate terms to anyone else but me.

No, I'm merely commenting that I got this same, "Oh you're repressing a sexual preference minority group, just like Bible-thumping homophobes" bit from those who did endorse pedophilia. Oddly enough they seemed to focus on consent too, with the theory that children can consent too. Anyway, an argument against incest is not the same as limiting gay rights or anything like that, and incest is not on a par with homosexuality either.

I completely understand that, and I disagree with pedophilia defenders as well, for the very same consent problem. I'm of the opinion that no child can consent, period, and if it really is "love", then it will wait. Opposing incest is actually quite a lot like opposing homosexuality, though. Incest merely has one hell of a lot more taboo and "ick" involved...which is odd, considering it's in the Bible. Looking at both incest and homosexuality, they're both sexual practices that deviate from the societal norm. Seems pretty similar to me.

I hate to tell you this, but people who are fine with incest are the ones in the "moral minority" here.

Your morals. And that's my point. If you don't like it, don't do it. How is that so difficult to understand?

If I feel like comparing your arguments and their persuasiveness with that of other arguments again, I will.

That's fine, but if your comparison is faulty, I'll point that out.

pretty much people are gonna fuck and have intercourse with whoever they want whenever they want and no laws would stop them anyways.

Enlightening! Now I understand the NS name.:D

The question is, should it be regulated at all? If someone gets kidnapped, ends up with Stockholm syndrome and wants to marry the kidnapper, would you want the state to say no?

Ultimately, as long as people are free to divorce when they feel they need to, I don't think we should be judging the reasons people have to marry each other.

By regulate I meant stop parents from raising kids to be their sex partners

very witty.

I thought multiple personalities usually disagreed with each other for some reason or another...no?

It's a love/hate relationship.

Welcome to Nation States General (NSG) interesting post.:)Thank you, I like being here :)A few queries.Fire away, by all means.
That "subconscious evaluation" what happens to this with people who meet over the internet? as in two people who fall in love in whatever site by some odd chance, where is this subconscious evaluation here?Well, first of all, I did say I have no solid proof to back it up. Also, I wrote about that within the context of "why do we find incest icky?" I believe, human relations are not that simple to define only by bio-chemistry - and as I said earlier, I am a living proof, I simply am "damaged" if the only factors that influence our actions were primal urges. I don't like children, I don't plan to father one. I don't feel at an existentialist loss over me not wanting to have children (or my atheism for that matter) - maybe that's my big ego. Also, I'm pretty sure that evaluation process can't only include immune system as a parameter - things you can see or hear over the internet, intelligence, physical symmetry should have some part in it too :) And why do you think fat people will survive the next ice age? Do you think this ice age will come about soon?I was jesting mate :) Also, yeah, if an ice age comes within the next 30 years, I think I'll be one of those who can accumulate lots of fat (I'm desperately trying not to at the moment, by the way) and have a shot at survival :D And yes, I'm still jesting :)I thought weighty people would not survive that well in modern society compared to those who have a smaller physique.Modern society, I don't know, you may be right, I have no way of knowing if this is true or not. I was talking about a fictional Ice Age though.Oh and what's a stage pick-up? Uhm, that's something one of my Brit friends came up with, sorry should have explained. It is about "picking up girls otherwise wouldn't come within 30 yards of the singer/guitarist/drummer" :)

Also, about the "one night stands, make-up sex and stage pick-ups" in general, this was also supposed to be a jest but now that I "process" it more, I can see why I wrote that. In my experience, even though the both parties may be "consenting adults" one night stands sometimes "hurt" people deeply because even if they don't know about it they are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Same can be true for make up sex but that's kinda filler there :) Stage pick-ups has the same quality - it pushes the celebrity button so the "consent" can be questionable there too.*

Cheerio!

*Disclaimer: most of these are half serious - my thoughts on incest are, in a nutshell, it is no one's business provided there is a definite consent and not a plan to carelessly breed away.

It's a love/hate relationship.

Have you considered divorce?

Say that's an idea, allow people's minds to be incorporated into their lovers or vice versa, or even small parts of the mind to give more i dunno pleasure, or the ability to put together a house while the other partner is away.
hmmmm Brain transplants but you can always go back too, and take in information from other minds in a collective divice, which could be used to console those who have dibilitating brain damage or a horrific personality defect.
just maybe, hmmm that's a good idea for a story actually.
oh my i went a bit off track there.

Considering that the genetic crapshoot is what twists some folks' nipples about incest, let's look at the possibility that genetic distribution was not just okay for a potential mating between siblings (which is at least as, if not more, possible than the dreaded similarity of genetic makeup), but in fact diametrically opposed. Each sibling got "lucky" enough to be complete genetic opposites. The "smell" factor, which is how we can subconsciously pick out the complementary immune system in our mates, links those two together. Where's the problem? Sure, it isn't for everyone, but why shouldn't those who ARE fine with it be allowed to love who they choose?<snip>Yea mate, of course :) What I'm saying has nothing to do with it (and I actually am opposing people meddling with the affairs of any two consenting adult :)) - I was just pointing out that this may be the reason most people find incest icky.

Cheerio!

I really don't have solid evidence to back this up (not at the moment at least, I had some papers about it lying about someplace, I'll post them if I can find them) but I think humans, like all mammals, generally choose their "mates" based on some subconscious evaluation - and I believe part of that evaluation includes selection of those with the most different immune system from that of the beholder.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_and_sexual_selection) might interest you.

Also I'm not sure about this one either but I'm guessing the more diverse the genetic heritage, the less chance of jackpot-ing on some recessive complication.

Also true. Look at the Ashkenazi Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Specific_diseases) to see what "inbreeding" does to a population. There is a very high prevalence of for instance cystic fibrosis amongst this ethnicity.
That's probably why people are often attracted to 'exotic' looking persons.
For the same reason it's also bad to 'bottleneck' a population.


It may be unnatural but I don't believe it is more unnatural than monogamy or trying to lose weight.

I think serial monogamy is pretty natural. (although there is a biological explanation for adultery too)

Oh dear. You don't even want to know what my initial thoughts were. Trust me, this was my carefully considered post.
Consider harder next time.
Frequently. More people need to kill themselves. Or be killed.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/net07.gif
Another good proof that people need to kill themselves is that they're debating the ethics of incest instead of trying to do something to stop it.
Why would I try to stop something I don't have a problem with?
I submitted my proof, but apparently it's pending review because it's a link.
Actually the forum does that automatically to new posters. Saves us from spambots.
Suffice it to say that the world wide web is proof enough.
I disagree (http://icanhascheezburger.com/).
Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.
Prove both of these assertions.

I am not. I'm from a racially mixed country, why would I care about that? And I was jesting. If you couldn't see that, well, your loss. So don't you call me a racist scum!:mad:

My comment was a joke, but you (apparently)took it seriously and I decided to go the whole 9 yards.

they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities).

This is why it's morally & legally unacceptable. Plus, incestuous relationships are often abusive, eg father-daughter.

My comment was a joke, but you (apparently)took it seriously and I decided to go the whole 9 yards.

When you call someone a racist scum, you better clarify if it´s in jest or not. To me, it didn´t look like a joke. Next time, be careful.

I have been attracted to a relative and would like to be with them sexually:

ColaDrinkers, Dostanuot Loj, Ifreann, JackoffJessie, Nadkor, Overde, Soviestan, Tongass, UNIverseVERSE, Vojvodina-Nihon

Public poll Uh-oh!

When you call someone a racist scum, you better clarify if it´s in jest or not. To me, it didn´t look like a joke. Next time, be careful.

Yeah, sorry, sometimes its hard to remember you can't hear inflections over the internet.

Actually, right and wrong exist independent of people's opinion on the matter. There is something wrong with incest and there's something more wrong about those who don't see that.

Prove it.


Anyway, I have a hot cousin. If she were not my cousin, I would boink her. But she is my cousin. So its ikky.

The genetic implications of close relatives breeding isn't as clear cut and black and white as some like to portray it. While there is a somewhat greater risk of deformities, disease, etc, it is not a guarantee. Here is an interesting article on the actual science of this subject. http://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/why-shouldnt-you-marry-your-sister/

As for the couple in question, ewww. But to each their own. No one has a right to tell them who to love.

My family seems to have an obesity and insanity problem. So, ewwww, buddy.

I just don't get how families could find each other sexually attractive.

And where's the "I have been attracted to a relative and have been with them sexually" option?

i saw this video on cnn, it is about a german man that has already been to jail a couple of times and lost an appeal so will be having to go back for having sex with his sister. the sister seems to be consenting and they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities).

That's so sad, and is just as bad as choosing to drink, do drugs or smoke while you're pregnant.

i am no fan of incest, definently not a follower.

Because it's a cult now?

what are your views of this case and incest in general?

It's morally and ethically wrong: It breaks down the family unit and children born of incestual relationships are often disabled.

i think the sister should go to jail too.

Unless she was under-age when it started, and unless it wasn't actually consentual. However, if she actively chose to be in this incestual relationship, she should go to jail as well, especially since she would've known the effects it could have had on her children.

While I personally don't approve of incest, there shouldn't be a law aganst it.

Why?

I think there most definitely should be a law against it, because otherwise family members would just have to apply to the average age laws. Do you think a 60 year old father should be legally allowed to have sex with his 18 year old daughter?

Well, many places outlaw even possession of small quantities of marijuana. So I don't see what's so comparitively draconian about clamping down on incest.

Many more people use marijuana than fuck their relatives.

Uhh, how did pot end up in this discussion?

Do I care about that they have done it? Not in the least.

Although I was once attracted to an awesomely hot 3rd cousin of mine who I had never (And since never, on the other side of the country) seen or met before, and I would have so slept with her. But I think that's far enough to be legal. Outside of that, from my perspective, my sister's an ugly bitch, so are my cousins, so incest is not even an issue as I don't even want to talk to most of my family anyway.

But hey, if you can stand them, go for it!

And consider it this way. Adopted people still count as brother and sister in incest laws. If I had a hot, interesting adopted sister, and I wanted to get involved with her, she'd legally be my sister, which would be illegal. But no genetic problems, no grounding there, so why?

So seriously, why should I care if they do? I'm not in a situation to care if it's illegal or not either, so I don't even care there. But if I had to take a side, I'd have to lean to the side of making it legal, if the very least with legal restrictions on children for close family genetic relations, like biological brother and sister.

Even though there wouldn't be genetic problems, having sex with an adopted sister would still damage the family unit.

too many a-holes are putting positive comments in for family banging

I didnt know rednecks could use the internet

I know. It sickens me.

Adults should be allowed to have intercourse with their adult relatives, no matter how sick it seems.

However, I do not think they should be allowed to breed.

Like I said above, to do think a 60 year old man should be legally allowed to have sex with his 18 year old daughter just because they're both adults?

And how are you going to stop them to breed? The genetic issue isn't the only problem: it breaks down the family unit.

From what I've heard, it's because she was still under 21 when they had sex.

That's so fucked. :(

This case is obviously different, but let's be clear that "incest in general" almost always means sexual abuse disguised by family "love."

EXACTLY!

My family seems to have an obesity and insanity problem. So, ewwww, buddy.

I just don't get how families could find each other sexually attractive.

Finding someone sexually attractive isn't the only reason why people have sex.

Finding someone sexually attractive isn't the only reason why people have sex.

Well it isn't for the personality!

I do not find "icky" sufficient justification to criminalize something. I find intentionally urinating or defecating on your partner "icky" but it isn't illegal to do. And lots of people voluntarily do it despite it being "icky". I see incest the same way. If people do it behind closed doors, hurting nobody, with all parties involved being consenting adults, and contraception being used, I don't see a problem. In fact, I believe it's a violation of human rights to criminalize it. If some nation had laws against blacks and whites having sex, people would be crying bloody murder for such a law, and I see a law against a brother and sister to share many similar qualities. Just because they're X and Y, they're not allowed to have sex. I believe it to be a fundamental human right that you should be able to voluntarily choose your own consenting partner without the government getting into it.

Having children is a stickier issue, because it directly involves risking a child's wellbeing. It should probably be compared to things like drinking or smoking during pregnancy which carry similar risks. I don't know if those are criminalized in most countries. If they are, then I think incestual pregnancies should too. If not, then they shouldn't. However, it's possible that in the future genetic treatments might become available that could eliminate the possibility of genetic problems between relatives, at which point I would not see any objection to relatives having children.

While I personally don't approve of incest, there shouldn't be a law aganst it.

Quoted for truth, although I might feel differently if I had a hot sister.

Like I said above, to do think a 60 year old man should be legally allowed to have sex with his 18 year old daughter just because they're both adults?

And how are you going to stop them to breed? The genetic issue isn't the only problem: it breaks down the family unit.


Yes, I do think they should be allowed, precisely because they're both adults. Can I turn that around please? Why should they not be, considering they are both adults? Also, can I turn your phrasing around? Answer this: "Why should an 18 year old woman not be allowed to have sex with her 60 year old father?"

Also, please define a) Why it breaks down the family unit, and b) why this is inherently a bad thing.


EXACTLY!


We already have laws against sexual abuse, there's no need to prohibit extra stuff which might lead to it. That's like banning phones because people might use them to call prostitutes.

Public poll Uh-oh!

I voted for everything :)

I personally find incest immoral and unethical, but I think that as long as both people consent, they should have the right. The government has no business interfering with people's personal lives. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is not natural and should be illegal. Then again, homosexual marriage could help solve overpopulation problems... But it's still not natural. By definition, marriage is (or at least should be) the joining of a man and a woman. Incest on the other hand, I find it wrong, but hey, it's how the human race was started. First man, first woman, had the first sons and daughters, who would they procreate with? They were the only humans on the earth.

I voted for everything :)

Goody, all the voices in her head voting at once

Well it isn't for the personality!

That's for shit sure.
XD

Goody, all the voices in her head voting at once

His.

Yeah, sorry, sometimes its hard to remember you can't hear inflections over the internet.

Understood.:)

Incest? More like WINCEST!

Quote may not be posters own views. Who, frankly, just had to lighten the mood in this grim place, of pseudointellectuals.

I vote for all of the above.

Uhh, how did pot end up in this discussion?

I stashed it there. ;)

Frequently. More people need to kill themselves. Or be killed.

Hear, hear! I do not agree with the reason you are encouraging it, yet I agree with this statement on its own.

I thought multiple personalities usually disagreed with each other for some reason or another...no?

In my experience (I have four of them) they do. Sometimes they will side together against another, though.

Yes, I do think they should be allowed, precisely because they're both adults. Can I turn that around please? Why should they not be, considering they are both adults? Also, can I turn your phrasing around? Answer this: "Why should an 18 year old woman not be allowed to have sex with her 60 year old father?"

Because the father-daughter relationship is supposed to serve the perpose of a father-daughter relationship and nothing else. A father is supposed to teach and guide a child, a father is there while his daughter grows, and for someone who's fathered and raised a child to then have sex with said child goes against the very nature of their relationship. Of course all father-daughter relationships are different, and of course some daughters don't have relationships with their fathers at all, but those who do deserve the respect and good-parenting of a father that isn't going to wipe their ass one year, then fuck their brains out 17 years down the track.

Also, please define a) Why it breaks down the family unit, and b) why this is inherently a bad thing.

Like I said above, incestual relationships go against the very nature of the relationships of people in an immediate family (so we're not talking about distant cousins here). A family is there to support a child, raise him/her and provide education, love and care. The immediate family unit is different for everyone: some have two mothers; some are a 'nuclear' family with a father, a mother, a son and a daughter; some are single parent families; some have grandparents caring for the children and so on, and however different a family may be, it still opperates as a "family unit". The bonds formed in this unit are, for lack of a better word, sacred. Take the bond between a father and daughter for example: Like stated above, this relationship consists of a father raising a child - by perhaps cleaning her nappies, taking her to the park, picking her up from school - and the daughter, who learns from her father, looks up to her father, and by the time she's hit puberty relies on that father-figure as a man in her life that isn't trying to get in her pants.



We already have laws against sexual abuse, there's no need to prohibit extra stuff which might lead to it. That's like banning phones because people might use them to call prostitutes.

Uh, what?

You think that banning incest is prohibiting 'extra stuff that might lead' to sexual abuse? I think you're sorely confused. What The Cat-Tribe said was that...
but let's be clear that "incest in general" almost always means sexual abuse disguised by family "love."

That's 100% true.

I do not find "icky" sufficient justification to criminalize something. I find intentionally urinating or defecating on your partner "icky" but it isn't illegal to do. And lots of people voluntarily do it despite it being "icky". I see incest the same way. If people do it behind closed doors, hurting nobody, with all parties involved being consenting adults, and contraception being used, I don't see a problem.

The ban of incest has nothing to do with it being "icky".

It does hurt people: it mentally hurts the people involved, particularly the younger party.

Plus, how are you going to ensure they use contraception?

In fact, I believe it's a violation of human rights to criminalize it. If some nation had laws against blacks and whites having sex, people would be crying bloody murder for such a law, and I see a law against a brother and sister to share many similar qualities. Just because they're X and Y, they're not allowed to have sex. I believe it to be a fundamental human right that you should be able to voluntarily choose your own consenting partner without the government getting into it.

It's a violation of human rights to have sex with your daughter or younger sister. It is in no way comparable to blacks & whites having sex.

However, it's possible that in the future genetic treatments might become available that could eliminate the possibility of genetic problems between relatives, at which point I would not see any objection to relatives having children.

The damage of relatives having children isn't limited just to their spawn: what you forget is that they're damaging themselves.

Quoted for truth, although I might feel differently if I had a hot sister.

So you'd fuck your 'hot sister' if you had one, and ruin your relationship as brother and sister and probably screw her mind forever?

It's a violation of human rights to have sex with your daughter or younger sister.

Always? Inherently? Why?

The damage of relatives having children isn't limited just to their spawn: what you forget is that they're damaging themselves.

How are they damaging themselves?

The ban of incest has nothing to do with it being "icky".

It does hurt people: it mentally hurts the people involved, particularly the younger party.

Plus, how are you going to ensure they use contraception?


OK, I'm not saying you're wrong or anything but lots of types of sex really, really hurt people even they have no clue about it hurting them - just because it is "socially acceptable" people go and sleep around during a rebound, for instance, and I have seen quite a lot of examples that making people go social imbeciles and some soaks the damage. How can you be sure if it will, without question, hurt either of the parties involved? Do you realize you're only familiar with one maybe two types of unique family relationships unless you've a psychology major topped with an MS degree specifically studying nuclear family?

It's a violation of human rights to have sex with your daughter or younger sister. It is in no way comparable to blacks & whites having sex.How so? Suppose I'm 30 (which I am) and I have a very hot sister who's, say, 25 (which I don't) and we have sex - now, which of the "human rights" you speak about is violated? Of course, rape or some form of conditioning (I'm 60 yo father and the girl is my 18 yo daughter situation), or pedophilia would be in violation of everything that would keep my fist/handy anything heavy from the pervert's face but other than that I can't really see this being in anyway in violation of human rights.

The damage of relatives having children isn't limited just to their spawn: what you forget is that they're damaging themselves.

So you'd fuck your 'hot sister' if you had one, and ruin your relationship as brother and sister and probably screw her mind forever? Her mind? What about his mind? Now, the girl's the only one with the danger of "damaged brainititis?" I'm not saying anyone would be brain damaged, mind you, I have at least a dozen close friends with whom I had sex with one time or the other and we still can enjoy each other's company.

This, of course, does not mean if he'd fuck his "hot sister" their relationships would still be intact as siblings - but why it is so important to keep that intact? It may be important to you, I can't dispute that, but how can that be criminal? So, the next thing will be when I say "Don't frigging call me anymore, I don't want the state job and I'm quite good earning my life singing" to my mother (which I did) I'll be considered committing a crime? She's hurt and I'm hurt and we've changed our relationship forever :) See the resemblance?

So, it is a crime when there are genitals involved and it is not when there is a cell phone involved.

Strange...

That's 100% true.

Then let's use the laws against sexual abuse against such cases.

Why should we ban incest as such?

Because the father-daughter relationship is supposed to serve the perpose of a father-daughter relationship and nothing else. A father is supposed to teach and guide a child, a father is there while his daughter grows, and for someone who's fathered and raised a child to then have sex with said child goes against the very nature of their relationship.

What better way to learn than practical experience with someone you have known all your life and are completely comfortable with? Again, as long as both people consent and use contraception, it should be just fine. Rather than just telling his daughter about sex, which can still make her uncomfortable and ruin her first real time, why not let her experience it and experiment in a safe environment, so her first real time can be even more special. It does not ruin the father-daughter relationship, it makes it stronger. Why do a husband and a wife have sex with each other? Not just for pleasure, but to strengthen their bond, the same reason dolphins have sex. It's a known fact that dolphins have sex with each other not only for mating, but for bonding with each other, including father-daughter and mother-son. Do you see any problems in dolphin society because of this? No. It's not abuse if both people involved agree to do it.

I am 100% in favor of hot twin girls having sex with each other.

if everyone is above the age of consent and agrees to the sex, I don't see why it should be illegal

The genetic implications of close relatives breeding isn't as clear cut and black and white as some like to portray it. While there is a somewhat greater risk of deformities, disease, etc, it is not a guarantee. Here is an interesting article on the actual science of this subject. http://eccentricscientist.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/why-shouldnt-you-marry-your-sister/.

On those lines (well, kind of…):
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=when-incest-is-best-kissi

Always? Inherently? Why?

Having sex with your cousin of similar age is, of course, different to this kind of incest, which is parental incest or sibling incest.

Firstly, the daughter or younger sister's rights because she has the inherent right to a father and an older brother that don't use her for sex.

With parental incest there's a generational boundary that's being violated. Then, with sibling incest, the male has power over the female, especially if he's older.

How are they damaging themselves?

Incest is known to cause psychological trauma.

I've taken a little bit of time to do some reading, and this provides some evidence: http://www.pamramsey.com/incest.htm
I might provide some psychiatry journal articles later.

OK, I'm not saying you're wrong or anything but lots of types of sex really, really hurt people even they have no clue about it hurting them - just because it is "socially acceptable"

That's true, but incest isn't socially acceptable and the fact that a lot of incest is kept secret means that they must have a clue that it is "hurting" somone.

people go and sleep around during a rebound, for instance, and I have seen quite a lot of examples that making people go social imbeciles and some soaks the damage. How can you be sure if it will, without question, hurt either of the parties involved?

Yes, people do sleep around on the rebound, and yes, many of these people can feel guilt, depression and regret afterwards. They've also used another person for sex, which can make the other party feel used. So yes, it can hurt people. However, we're talking incestual relationships, not about two consenting non-related adults having a fuck.

Do you realize you're only familiar with one maybe two types of unique family relationships unless you've a psychology major topped with an MS degree specifically studying nuclear family?

Oh, and you have that, do you?

If you did, I highly doubt you'd be using this language and supporting such a ridiculous opinion.

How so? Suppose I'm 30 (which I am) and I have a very hot sister who's, say, 25 (which I don't) and we have sex - now, which of the "human rights" you speak about is violated?

The right to not have your brother - someone you've grown up with, learnt from, developed a specific brother-sister relationship with - use you for sex. Perhaps it should be written into the Geneva Convention.

Of course, rape or some form of conditioning (I'm 60 yo father and the girl is my 18 yo daughter situation), or pedophilia would be in violation of everything that would keep my fist/handy anything heavy from the pervert's face but other than that I can't really see this being in anyway in violation of human rights.

Well, if 18 is under the age of consent, it's statutory rape. If 18 is legal, it's similar to the brother-sister situation and the problem is that they're violating the nature of the father-daughter or brother-sister relationship. Also, if a brother-sister relationship develops later in life, and they've lived together they're whole lives, its likely there were some sort of sexual interactions earlier in life - after all, someone's not going to decide to have an incestual relationship just because they're legal now.

Her mind? What about his mind? Now, the girl's the only one with the danger of "damaged brainititis?"

Uh, clearly he'd be damaging her mind, because he seems pretty damn happy about fucking his hypothetical sister. You're being ridiculous. Clearly I'm someone with a strong opinion about incest, and it's because I believe it damages both parties. I have never stated it only affects the female, and if you bother to look at any of my posts, I am never sexist against men.

I'm not saying anyone would be brain damaged, mind you, I have at least a dozen close friends with whom I had sex with one time or the other and we still can enjoy each other's company.

But those "friends" aren't family members, are they?

This, of course, does not mean if he'd fuck his "hot sister" their relationships would still be intact as siblings - but why it is so important to keep that intact?

It's not about keeping it intact, it's about not violating the trust and the nature of that relationship.

It may be important to you, I can't dispute that, but how can that be criminal?

In my eyes, it's sexual abuse, and sexual abuse is criminal.

So, the next thing will be when I say "Don't frigging call me anymore, I don't want the state job and I'm quite good earning my life singing" to my mother (which I did) I'll be considered committing a crime? She's hurt and I'm hurt and we've changed our relationship forever :) See the resemblance?

No, I don't see the resemblance, because, unlike you, I understand that a sexual relationship between related people is very different to a mother being upset that her son wants to be an entertainer.

So, it is a crime when there are genitals involved and it is not when there is a cell phone involved.

Strange...

Unless the brother shoves the phone up his sister's c*nt.:rolleyes:


What better way to learn than practical experience with someone you have known all your life and are completely comfortable with?

What would be better? Having sex with someone you're not related to in a 'normal' situation, perhaps?


Again, as long as both people consent and use contraception, it should be just fine.

You can't force people to use contraception, and the issue of consent is difficult, because a 16 year old girl (that's the legal age in my country) could potentially "consent" to her 60 year old father, who obviously has power over her which could obviously adversely affect her reasoning.

Rather than just telling his daughter about sex, which can still make her uncomfortable and ruin her first real time, why not let her experience it and experiment in a safe environment, so her first real time can be even more special. It does not ruin the father-daughter relationship, it makes it stronger.

That is sick. That is utterly sick. I sincerely hope you never have children.

Why do a husband and a wife have sex with each other? Not just for pleasure, but to strengthen their bond, the same reason dolphins have sex. It's a known fact that dolphins have sex with each other not only for mating, but for bonding with each other, including father-daughter and mother-son. Do you see any problems in dolphin society because of this? No. It's not abuse if both people involved agree to do it.

We're not talking about husbands and wives.
We're not talking about dolphins and their "society".
We're talking about incest.
Human beings are not dolphins.
That's why we breathe air, use toilets, wear clothes and use a complex language. :rolleyes:

If you define abuse as intentionally hurting someone, many father-daughter sexual relationships are abuse, because father-daughter incest is known to damage the daughter's psyche. Effectively, the father is intentionally hurting her, therefore he is abusing her.

I almost went with "Don't Care", but had to lean toward "Different Species". (You wouldn't think we were related if you saw me with my four sisters.)

More importantly, he should have been forced to remove that t-shirt during the interview - we don't want people thinking that every Morning Musume fan is incestuous! (http://wiki.theppn.org/Morning_Musume)

Firstly, the daughter or younger sister's rights because she has the inherent right to a father and an older brother that don't use her for sex.

Who is using anybody if they both agree ?
Look - it is icky, it is not really good for the genepool and there are all kinds of nasty psychological subtleties involved - but it still is two consenting adults doing things with eachother. It is their problem.

Who is using anybody if they both agree ?
Look - it is icky, it is not really good for the genepool and there are all kinds of nasty psychological subtleties involved - but it still is two consenting adults doing things with eachother. It is their problem.

Oo! Oo! Strawman time!
So if two people consent to horribly disfiguring each other physically (say, as part of a cultural ritual), it is also their problem?

Oo! Oo! Strawman time!
So if two people consent to horribly disfiguring each other physically (say, as part of a cultural ritual), it is also their problem?

As far as I'm concerned - yes.

As far as I'm concerned - yes.

…
'k. Just checking.
In case you were wondering, you were supposed to think: "Oh no! My views on physical and psychological abuse differ! I am a horrible person!", followed by a long period of self-doubt, and eventual change. Sheesh, some people.

i think as long as procreation (and s.t.disease) is prevented, its other wise much to do about nothing.

the (only logical) basis of the tabu has to do with genetic problems that are more likely with incestuous offspring then nonincestuous. or at least so the story goes. how MUCH more and less likely IN REALITY, i haven't the slightest idea and no objective figures infront of me.

it sounds believable, but i wouldn't swear to it one way or the other.

=^^=
.../\...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/03/13/pleitgen.incest.illegal.cnn

i saw this video on cnn, it is about a german man that has already been to jail a couple of times and lost an appeal so will be having to go back for having sex with his sister. the sister seems to be consenting and they have 4 kids (2 of which were born with disabilities). A quesiton to those in Germany, the video didnt explain this but if the man (the brother) is going to jail why isnt the woman (sister)? is this law only applicable to males?

i am no fan of incest, definently not a follower. but it is obvious in this case jail time is not going to do anything except stop them from having sex for the period he is in jail.


what are your views of this case and incest in general?

BBC Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

"Family" is more than genetics, and less than genetics. Family is family when one of the children is adopted in. Family is family when one parent is a 'step' parent. A person that you share a 'sibling' relationship with is going to be off-limits even if you share no genetic material.

And there's the crux of this particular situation - they weren't raised as siblings, and thus 'knowledge' of their biological relationship is secondary to their emotional connection.

The CNN video says that the highest court decided to refuse the appeal based partly on the high risk of disability of children in such unions. Unless the court would also declare marriages illegal for other relationships that might spawn 'disability' (and that's a loaded phrasing anyway) then this is 'moral' hypocrisy.

The state has no right to legislate who you can love, or how - provided that all those invovled are consenting adults.

The CNN video says that the highest court decided to refuse the appeal based partly on the high risk of disability of children in such unions. Unless the court would also declare marriages illegal for other relationships that might spawn 'disability' (and that's a loaded phrasing anyway) then this is 'moral' hypocrisy.Indeed, that's garnering a lot of criticism. Also, there is a dissenting opinion from one of the judges, who disagrees with penalizing incest at the current level.

Indeed, that's garnering a lot of criticism. Also, there is a dissenting opinion from one of the judges, who disagrees with penalizing incest at the current level.

The possibility of disability shouldn't even have been considered in the deliberations over this appeal, unless the same standard is going to be applied universally. It should spark a lot of criticism - it's discrimination, pure and simple.

The idea of jailing people for their sexual partners is ridiculous - where all those participating are consetning adults. Who I might choose as a partner should have no bearing on any other person.

Immoral. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/immoral)
Knock yourself out.
Incest is just something you don't practice. People from a same family group shouldn't engage in any type of sexual conduct. And I'm not trying to be a prude, but it's just unacceptable. Oh, and it does hurt others. If the couple has a child, don't you think they're harming this child at a physical and emotional level by the relationship they're sustaining? "Hey, mommy and daddy are also siblings. Yay!!" And don't you think that, by accepting incest as something normal, this child will perpetuate the cycle, thus causing more harm to others? It is immoral and there should be laws condemning it.

The same kind of claptrap has been used to discriminate against gay unions and 'mixed' marriages.

I have no time for the attempts of certain groups to impose their own 'morality' on others. How does that song go? "Keep your jesus off my penis, I'll keep my penis off of you"?

Human beings are not dolphins.
That's why we breathe air, use toilets, wear clothes and use a complex language. :rolleyes:

lulz

...father-daughter sexual relationships are abuse, because father-daughter incest is known to damage the daughter's psyche.

Known? Can you show some form of evidence?

I suspect you are clouding the issue of 'incest', by confusing it with paedophilia. What about where the father and daughter are both old enough to give informed consent? Is it "known to damage the daughter's psyche", then? And - more importantly - can you prove it?

Well.. I kind of find the whole idea of incest a bit creepy.

Well.. I kind of find the whole idea of incest a bit creepy.

The whole idea?

Marrying (to whatever degree) 'distant' cousins? The Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and his little group, and Lot? Family lines that repeatedly marry into one-another?

Fun incest facts!

1. The in order to to gain undisputed claim to the throne, the Pharoah (or King if you will) of Egypt's best possible move was to marry his own sister.

2. Most Aristocratic families during Europe's middle ages practiced inbreeding to keep thier lands and titles within thier bloodline.

3. Many studies on the link between incest and birth defects have proven inconclusive.

The whole idea?

Marrying (to whatever degree) 'distant' cousins? The Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and his little group, and Lot? Family lines that repeatedly marry into one-another?

I reiterate.. I find the idea of myself being involved in an incestual relationship to be creepy.

Known? Can you show some form of evidence?

I suspect you are clouding the issue of 'incest', by confusing it with paedophilia. What about where the father and daughter are both old enough to give informed consent? Is it "known to damage the daughter's psyche", then? And - more importantly - can you prove it?

No, I am not confusing it with peodophillia.

Despite an appearance of normalcy, the level of family-wide disturbances, for example substance abuse, mental illness and pervasive family-wide violence were profound.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3X6B587-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9314ab17d92875f87a83cc3fda6a949e

Oh and this proves my point about sibling and parental incest being similar: The authors conclude that the characteristics of brother–sister incest and its associated psychosocial distress did not differ from the characteristics of father–daughter incest. These findings suggest that theoretical models and clinical practices should be adjusted accordingly and that sibling incest should not necessarily be construed as less severe or harmful than father–daughter incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-46TGF9P-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a3ec1a197fca397ca5b3f7cb9b9fbba1

This was an interesting read. : http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d6pXJAzJ1_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA27&dq=consensual+father+daughter+incest&ots=kklryPyOih&sig=jM9ktOREG8P1ONef5N-YFEhUTHA#PPA38,M1

Critics of the incest taboo want to make a distinction between "consensual incest" and "child abuse." By employing such academic tactics and intellectual baggage, they are only trying to justify such behavior.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1981/JASA12-81McCauley.html

I would look into this further, but it's pretty simple: incest results in some sort of mental issue.

Where are you getting this idea of incests´ children to be more probably incests? Is there a study to support this? Because the ones who oppose gay couples to have the right to adopt children use the same argument, (that gay couple´s adopted child is going to be twisted and also gay by default) but the studies have proven that gay couple´s adopted child is gay at the same probability as a child raised by heterosexual parents.

Who is using anybody if they both agree ?
Look - it is icky, it is not really good for the genepool and there are all kinds of nasty psychological subtleties involved - but it still is two consenting adults doing things with eachother. It is their problem.

Do you really think a 16 year old girl (legal here) can agree to having sex with her father or older brother? Do you really think that's going to be okay? Do you honestly think - despite the fact that psychiatrists and psychologists tend to think incest=bad - that she's not going to be mentally or emotionally affected by it?

It's nothing to do with the "ick" factor.

Oo! Oo! Strawman time!
So if two people consent to horribly disfiguring each other physically (say, as part of a cultural ritual), it is also their problem?

Or if two people "consent" to killing one of them? Is that their problem?

Amor Pulchritudo

First off, yea, I have a one-course-short Psychology Major. It is mainly centered around cognitive psy though, since I was planning to have an academic career in Cognitive Psychology.

I think the reason your examples always coming back to old father - young daughter and older brother- younger sister is that you refuse to disassociate the issue being discussed here from pedophilia but that's purely my analysis which may or may not be wrong.

You have a belief that incest is inherently evil and everyone who's disputing that factis being ridiculous - so I don't think it is in anyway possible to argue about this with you.

If you look at it within the scope of a cause-effect relationship, "mother being upset because I chose to be an entertainer" doesn't cover it, both the mother and son goes through a major emotional trauma, change their lives, the way they see each other - I believe you think "sex is inherently more profound than anything that can cause psychological trauma" and I also believe you're completely wrong.

Traumatic sexual experiences can be damaging of course but they are no more damaging than draft (compulsory here) for someone who absolutely hates chain of command and guns, loss of a close friend (that totally f'd me up about 10 years ago), etc.

By the way, I'm not saying "everyone should try incest at least once in their lives" or anything, I don't want to myself (and I really can't, I don't have any sisters or female cousins and I'm heterosexual) but I really don2t believe it should be illegal.

There are loads of different views of family and there really is no standard to it - I like my folks for instance, when they are not being parents :) They are very intelligent people I like to converse once in a while but I've never called my mother "mother" or my father "father" since those words really have no real meaning in my dysfunctional family.

Anyways, I'll stop being ridiculous now :)

Cheerio!

*Oh, and English is the third language I've learned so "the language" may be about it :)

Firstly, the daughter or younger sister's rights because she has the inherent right to a father and an older brother that don't use her for sex.

Everyone has a right not be "used" for sex. That's why we have standards of consent. If she is permitted a free choice, she is not being used. If she is not, then it's rape, and that's already illegal.

With parental incest there's a generational boundary that's being violated.

So? What's wrong with violating "generational boundaries"?

Then, with sibling incest, the male has power over the female, especially if he's older.

Automatically?

I mean, if you're making the point that in a patriarchal society like ours, many/most of our romantic and sexual relationships will be influenced by male domination in one form or another, I'm not going to disagree with you... but if you think this is true to such a degree as to advocate prohibition, we should prohibit all heterosexual sex.

I'm not sure why incest changes anything.

Incest is known to cause psychological trauma.

I've taken a little bit of time to do some reading, and this provides some evidence: http://www.pamramsey.com/incest.htm
I might provide some psychiatry journal articles later.

Two points.

First, the article discusses incest not "as such", but in the context of our society--and I have never denied that many cases of incest are actually cases of sexual abuse. I have simply argued that they should be treated as such, with the laws we already have against sexual abuse. (Or with new ones. The important point is that we should have some sort of standard of "abuse" dependent on more than the familial relationship of the people involved.)

Second, the article seems to focus on incest between minors... which does change matters, I think, particularly with what we count as meaningful consent.

Amor Pulchritudo

Has quoting gone out of fashion?

First off, yea, I have a one-course-short Psychology Major. It is mainly centered around cognitive psy though, since I was planning to have an academic career in Cognitive Psychology.

Right.

I think the reason your examples always coming back to old father - young daughter and older brother- younger sister is that you refuse to disassociate the issue being discussed here from pedophilia but that's purely my analysis which may or may not be wrong.

I'm not refusing to disassociate the issue from peodophilia. The examples I've given were given because they are clear, good examples of parental and sibling incest, which I clearly stated I was giving examples of.

You have a belief that incest is inherently evil and everyone who's disputing that factis being ridiculous - so I don't think it is in anyway possible to argue about this with you.

I didn't say it was "evil", and I'm not stupid enough to ever consider that someone who is morally opposed to something automatically means that they've said it's "evil".

If you look at it within the scope of a cause-effect relationship, "mother being upset because I chose to be an entertainer" doesn't cover it, both the mother and son goes through a major emotional trauma, change their lives, the way they see each other - I believe you think "sex is inherently more profound than anything that can cause psychological trauma" and I also believe you're completely wrong.

No, I don't believe that. Gee, you sure didn't do to well in your course, did you?

Your example was a poor comparison. That is all.

Traumatic sexual experiences can be damaging of course but they are no more damaging than draft (compulsory here) for someone who absolutely hates chain of command and guns, loss of a close friend (that totally f'd me up about 10 years ago), etc.

Traumatic experiences damage. I'm glad we agree.

Anyways, I'll stop being ridiculous now :)

That's good.


Everyone has a right not be "used" for sex. That's why we have standards of consent. If she is permitted a free choice, she is not being used. If she is not, then it's rape, and that's already illegal.

I just don't feel that the consent issue is as clear cut as you think it is.



So? What's wrong with violating "generational boundaries"?

Well it's certainly not "okay" in my book for a 16 year old and a 60 year old to be together.



Automatically?

I mean, if you're making the point that in a patriarchal society like ours, many/most of our romantic and sexual relationships will be influenced by male domination in one form or another, I'm not going to disagree with you... but if you think this is true to such a degree as to advocate prohibition, we should prohibit all heterosexual sex.

Uh, no. Way to assume that I'm a Femi-Nazi.

It's just that: being older generally gives someone more power, being male gives generally gives somone more physical power, and being an influential family member as older brothers generally are gives them power too.

I'm not sure why incest changes anything.

I am.

I think, particularly with what we count as meaningful consent.

And is "meaningful" consent then purely based on being over the legal age and not being "raped"?

3. Many studies on the link between incest and birth defects have proven inconclusive.

Have any evidence for this? Because it seems quite logical that two persons from the same family have more chance to share recessive alleles, which would increase the chance of recessive congenital diseases in their children. I thought this was accepted quite widely.
It could be that there weren't sufficient sample sizes or something which led to the studies being inconclusive. But i doubt that the prevalence of congenital birth defects amongst children from an incestuous relationship is as high as amongst other children.

Have any evidence for this? Because it seems quite logical that two persons from the same family have more chance to share recessive alleles, which would increase the chance of recessive congenital diseases in their children. I thought this was accepted quite widely.
It could be that there weren't sufficient sample sizes or something which led to the studies being inconclusive. But i doubt that the prevalence of congenital birth defects amongst children from an incestuous relationship is as high as amongst other children.

As far as I heard incest with immediate relations does carry a reasonable risk of birth defects, although between cousins is pretty much nil.

Though it shouldn't be relevant anyway, since if one wants to disallow incest on those grounds, why not prevent anyone with inheritable genetic diseases from breeding, hmm?

As far as I heard incest with immediate relations does carry a reasonable risk of birth defects, although between cousins is pretty much nil.

Oh well, I can agree with that.

Though it shouldn't be relevant anyway, since if one wants to disallow incest on those grounds, why not prevent anyone with inheritable genetic diseases from breeding, hmm?

I don't think I'm in favor of banning incest. I was more interested from a scientific pov.

I just don't feel that the consent issue is as clear cut as you think it is.

I don't think it's "clear-cut" at all. But as a legal standard we must necessarily make it so, unfortunately.

Well it's certainly not "okay" in my book for a 16 year old and a 60 year old to be together.

It is in mine. Why not?

Now, if there's coercion--even subtle coercion--involved, that changes everything... but I'm not at all sure that that's a necessary feature of such relationships.

Uh, no. Way to assume that I'm a Femi-Nazi.

Um, you're misreading me. You're clearly not a "Femi-Nazi" because "Femi-Nazis" as an actual political force exist only in the imaginations of right-wing demagogues.

I was attempting to show how what I took to be a possible version of your reasoning reduced to absurdity when it attempted to prescribe strong legal remedies (as opposed to struggle for cultural change.)

It's just that: being older generally gives someone more power,

"Generally", yes. But the power differentiation decreases massively with the greater (absolute) age of the younger person.

being male gives generally gives somone more physical power,

That's not the point the article makes at all. It talks instead about traditional, social, familial power, not physical strength.

"Often, the mere fact of the brother being male and the sister being female is enough to give the brother power over the sister. That sounds simplistic but males have always held traditional power over females. Whether the sister responds to the social pressure of males over females or whether she sees that power reflected in her family structure does not matter. If she feels powerless or threatened, she just might submit "to survive.""

This is surely an important distinction, because if it is physical power at issue, then that's clearly rape, and already covered by rape laws. We need not even discuss what constitutes "meaningful" consent, because the non-consent there is plain.

I happen to think the article has a point, but, again, at least beyond the age of minority I don't see how the law can recognize this fact without infringing excessively on people's freedom.

and being an influential family member as older brothers generally are gives them power too.

This may be true, but I doubt it has much of an effect beyond a young age.

And is "meaningful" consent then purely based on being over the legal age and not being "raped"?

Well, in the case of incest it would be reasonable to raise the age of consent to the point where we're dealing with adults who can be reasonably independent of their families--say, eighteen.

Has quoting gone out of fashion?No, I was just being very lazy.
I'm not refusing to disassociate the issue from peodophilia. The examples I've given were given because they are clear, good examples of parental and sibling incest, which I clearly stated I was giving examples of.Well, of course I may be misreading your posts. Although I can't really see why would we ban ban incest just because people may also commit connected criminal acts - so let's ban sex thus eliminating the possibility of rape and pedophilia.
I didn't say it was "evil", and I'm not stupid enough to ever consider that someone who is morally opposed to something automatically means that they've said it's "evil". I'm sorry if I seemed to be thinking you're stupid or something - I don't think you're stupid. Actually I think you're quite intelligent.

Let me rephrase that; you're always coming back to "evil" contained within the more general scope of incest as if it's the only aspect to it. It feels like saying "cars are evil because they kill people" and yeah, they do when you hit people with them at top speed.

No, I don't believe that. Gee, you sure didn't do to well in your course, did you?

Your example was a poor comparison. That is all.First off, I did well in all of the courses I have taken from Department of Psychology but this does not make me a psychologist or a good judge of anything in any level for that matter.

Poor comparison? Why? It is traumatic, it is damaging, it changes the structure of a family relationship - so, if you're saying this is not that big a deal, well, it is to me and my mother :) I really can't see any difference between a traumatic experience that involves exchange of words and exchange of bodily fluids. Any of the two can be more traumatic than the other. But you seem to be automatically attaching more trauma and consequential damage to it when it is about sex. That's how it seems from where I stand, that's all...
Traumatic experiences damage. I'm glad we agree.Of course, The whole point I'm trying to make is based on this one assumption.
That's good.Now, that's uncalled for.

Cheerio!

Do you really think a 16 year old girl (legal here) can agree to having sex with her father or older brother?

Nope. But I responded to the scenario of a brother and sister, both in their 20s.

Where do you live btw ? Almost every country has a higher age of consent for sexual relationships where a clear dependency relationship exists.
But - and this is the important part - it is just a higher age of consent. Sexual relationships between people where also a dependency relationship exists are not forbidden by law anywhere as far as I know (though in e.g. a teacher-pupil relationship might be frowned upon by the employer).

Or if two people "consent" to killing one of them? Is that their problem?

As far as I am concerned: yes. I take being an adult seriously. I also expect adults to take responsibility for their actions.

Preferably something beyond "the Almighty GAWD says it is wrong." ;)

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Anyways, incest...Ok, from what I've posted before on this forum you people are probably going to think I'm a rabid foaming Jesus freak, but it's not like that I promise you. I'm just going to say that incest was only ever accepted when there were about six people on the earth...now, however, it is definitely viewed as morally wrong, in my opinion.

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Anyways, incest...Ok, from what I've posted before on this forum you people are probably going to think I'm a rabid foaming Jesus freak, but it's not like that I promise you. I'm just going to say that incest was only ever accepted when there were about six people on the earth...now, however, it is definitely viewed as morally wrong, in my opinion.

Uh...if you can't take some serious questioning or even mockery of religion, then your faith isn't as strong as it needs to be to participate in a typical NSG conversation without getting your feelings hurt. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but posting a statement like that -- and bolding it no less, as if it were somehow a kind of warning -- is inviting the very behavior you are hoping to censor.

The whole idea?

Marrying (to whatever degree) 'distant' cousins? The Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and his little group, and Lot? Family lines that repeatedly marry into one-another?

Yeah, there's this thread in a nutshell. LET'S ALL OPPOSE THIS! (Uh...it's in our religious texts and runs throughout history) BUT IT'S GROSS! (uh...yeah, but then that means you don't have to do it, then, and the microscopic segment of humanity that thinks it's fine will...) ICKY ICKY ICKYYYYYYYYYY! (*sigh* I'm getting a sandwich*)

I have absolutely nothing wrong with consenting incest of people of relatively the same age... As long as they don't produce offspring. Love is love and all that jazz, and whos to say that if you had a hot, intellectually stimulating sister/cousin, you wouldn't at least THINK about doing the same thing.

My philosophy: If its not hurting anyone, go for it.


I don't have any attractive close-relatives, and I find the German guy morally reprehensible, along with his sister, mainly because they had not just one but TWO disabled children. Two out of four... If my math serves me right... Thats half of his children! I think the woman should also be jailed, then the guy can have a mandated visectomy.

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Hah, get out of the internet then, while you still can.

Anyways, incest...Ok, from what I've posted before on this forum you people are probably going to think I'm a rabid foaming Jesus freak, but it's not like that I promise you. I'm just going to say that incest was only ever accepted when there were about six people on the earth...now, however, it is definitely viewed as morally wrong, in my opinion.

that never happened.

Your Views of Incest


I picked terrible ,those cought doing incest should be drawn and quatered

It's not natural... that's really all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. And since the couple don't think it's wrong I think they're both in need of some serious professional help! They shouldn't be allowed to have children and the ones they do have should be taken away from them as soon as humanly possible, it's not a healthy environment for anyone let alone impressionable young children.

It's not natural... that's really all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.

Considering that
1. It is extremely natural. It occurs in nature. A lot.
2. Natural is not the same as good or bad, so it really is not relevant

are you sure you do not wish to think about your position a bit more ?

And since the couple don't think it's wrong I think they're both in need of some serious professional help! They shouldn't be allowed to have children and the ones they do have should be taken away from them as soon as humanly possible, it's not a healthy environment for anyone let alone impressionable young children.

I think exactly the same about people that wish to raise children in a single religion.
Should we therefor take their children away as well ?

I don't think sibling incest should be punishable as long as it's between consenting adults. When it comes to parent-child incest (again among consenting adults) I'm a bit more torn, but I think that other anti-abuse legislation may be enough to cover the situations without making incest in itself punishable.

On the other hand, in those cases it may be difficult to secure convictions and to prove abuse, so it may have some merit to keep those cases illegal and penalized.

However, note that my focus is on abuse. I don't care about whether or not any children can or will be born with disabilities - that leads us down a road I'm reluctant to take.

And besides, the argument doesn't hold water in gay incestual relationships...

Immoral. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/immoral)
Knock yourself out.
Incest is just something you don't practice.

But if you don't practice, you'll never get it right...
;)

what are your views of incest in general?

I couldn't care less, I'm not about to do it, but if other people want to, knock yourself out.

Considering that
1. It is extremely natural. It occurs in nature. A lot.
2. Natural is not the same as good or bad, so it really is not relevant

are you sure you do not wish to think about your position a bit more?

Nope, it's my opinion :)

I think exactly the same about people that wish to raise children in a single religion.
Should we therefor take their children away as well ?

Not sure how to answer this one as I was raised in a multi faith home and honestly wouldn't know what it would be like to be in a single religion home.

We're not talking about husbands and wives.
We're not talking about dolphins and their "society".
We're talking about incest.
Human beings are not dolphins.
That's why we breathe air, use toilets, wear clothes and use a complex language. :rolleyes:

Dolphins don't breathe air now? :rolleyes:

Or if two people "consent" to killing one of them? Is that their problem?

Yes.

Nope, it's my opinion :)

But one not supported by the facts you picked ;)
Otherwise - excellent answer.

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Anyways, incest...Ok, from what I've posted before on this forum you people are probably going to think I'm a rabid foaming Jesus freak, but it's not like that I promise you. I'm just going to say that incest was only ever accepted when there were about six people on the earth...now, however, it is definitely viewed as morally wrong, in my opinion.

No worries, we think that based off your first paragraph. :D

Dolphins don't breathe air now? :rolleyes:

Not since they flew off into space right before earth was destroyed.

Not since they flew off into space right before earth was destroyed.

"There ain't no air 'n space!"
"There's an Air & Space Museum…"

We're not talking about husbands and wives.
We're not talking about dolphins and their "society".
We're talking about incest.
Human beings are not dolphins.
That's why we breathe air, use toilets, wear clothes and use a complex language. :rolleyes:

First, dolphins, along with all mammals, do in fact breath air. What do you think their blow-hole is for? It's their nose. Second, why does using toilets, wearing clothes, and using a complex language indicate an advanced society? That's exactly the attitude that causes me to dislike the human race as a whole. We think we're so much better than any other species because we use toilets, wear clothes, and use a complex language. (About the complex language thing, you try interpreting dolphins' clicks and whistles and try telling me that their language isn't complex!)

I never said that I support incest, I do find it rather "icky", as you've been saying, but I don't think that it's as unnatural as you claim, and shouldn't be illegal because it's icky. You say that it isn't illegal because it's icky, that it hurts people every time, but it doesn't hurt people every time. Sure, it might hurt people sometimes, maybe even most times, but not every time. Action against it should only be taken in those cases where it does hurt someone. The government has no right to decide who we can have relationships with. To me, my personal beliefs have no influence on whether something should be illegal or not. Well, maybe a little. I only care about if it hurts someone, and freedom of choice. You know what does hurt people? Homosexual couples who are allowed to adopt a child. What if you were that child, and you had to go to school to other kids that just make fun of you for having two moms/dads. That also brings us to the issue of divorce settlements. Who gets to decide who gets the kids? Who should be able to decide who gets the kids? The kids, of course! What if your parents got divorced and the courts decided that you had to go live with your dad, but you wanted to go live with your mom? Just another few examples of the governments being hypocritical. They ban incest, saying it hurts people, even when it doesn't, but they still allow homosexual couples to adopt children, which seriously hurts the child. I don't like incest, but it shouldn't be illegal for the reasons that it is illegal. Give me a solid reason why incest should be illegal, something that can be proven 100%, and I will change my mind.

I know you're not going to change your mind, and I'm probably not going to change my mind (unless you give me a GOOD reason), so let's just have our own opinions and not start a huge flame war over something as stupid as this. Deal?

But if you don't practice, you'll never get it right...
;)

Dyakovo... silly.

Dyakovo... silly.

Of course. :D


Edit:

What's foreplay in West Virginia?
answer in white below
Wake up sis...

Of course. :D

:D

Now, that's uncalled for.

Cheerio!

Amor doesnt handle disagreement well.

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Then its in your best interest to not interact with society outside of the Bible belt. Unfortunitally, my right to insult whatever I want is protected.

Yes.

So, the law shouldn't get involved at all in a murder if it's consensual?

Amor doesnt handle disagreement well.




Aaah, the search function: the only way to find out if people talk about you behind your back. :D

I don't think it's "clear-cut" at all. But as a legal standard we must necessarily make it so, unfortunately.

That's why - as a legal standard - I think incest should be illegal.



It is in mine. Why not?

Now, if there's coercion--even subtle coercion--involved, that changes everything... but I'm not at all sure that that's a necessary feature of such relationships.

The problem is that there would be undoubtable coercion, because a father can potentially get a daughter to do what he wants.


"Generally", yes. But the power differentiation decreases massively with the greater (absolute) age of the younger person.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this one, because you think 16+60 is okay and I don't.


That's not the point the article makes at all. It talks instead about traditional, social, familial power, not physical strength.

I didn't say the article spoke about that. Way to break up a sentence to reduce its meaning. :rolleyes:

"Often, the mere fact of the brother being male and the sister being female is enough to give the brother power over the sister. That sounds simplistic but males have always held traditional power over females. Whether the sister responds to the social pressure of males over females or whether she sees that power reflected in her family structure does not matter. If she feels powerless or threatened, she just might submit "to survive.""

This is surely an important distinction, because if it is physical power at issue, then that's clearly rape, and already covered by rape laws. We need not even discuss what constitutes "meaningful" consent, because the non-consent there is plain.

I happen to think the article has a point, but, again, at least beyond the age of minority I don't see how the law can recognize this fact without infringing excessively on people's freedom.

But part of the reason why males traditionally hold power over females is because of phsyical strength. The power is a combination of things - and power can make someone "consent" without them really wanting to. Like I said, consent isn't clear-cut. I don't feel that with age the response to this power in this situation diminishes with age. And, while I don't like the law infringing on people's freedom, I feel the law against incest protects people.

This may be true, but I doubt it has much of an effect beyond a young age.

Your brother will always be your brother, your sister will always be your sister etc.



in the case of incest it would be reasonable to raise the age of consent to the point where we're dealing with adults who can be reasonably independent of their families--say, eighteen.

We'll really have to agree to disagree.

No, I was just being very lazy.
Well, of course I may be misreading your posts.

Must be.


Although I can't really see why would we ban ban incest just because people may also commit connected criminal acts - so let's ban sex thus eliminating the possibility of rape and pedophilia.

I know this argument: I make this argument quite frequently. If we have to ban "blah" we may as well ban "blah", but the thing is that we can't ban sex, and it would be ridiculous to do so. Laws are in place to protect people - well, at least that's what they should be there for - and banning incest would, in my opinion, protect people. Banning sex, on the other hand, is an infringement of our rights.

I'm sorry if I seemed to be thinking you're stupid or something - I don't think you're stupid. Actually I think you're quite intelligent.

Thanks?

Let me rephrase that; you're always coming back to "evil" contained within the more general scope of incest as if it's the only aspect to it. It feels like saying "cars are evil because they kill people" and yeah, they do when you hit people with them at top speed.

Haha, again, I make this argument, and I just don't feel it fits here. I think that if there were enough cases of cars killing people: say 3 of every 4 cars purposely killed people, that would be enough to ban them. The difference is, I suppose, that in the world of non-evil-robot-cars, drivers do the killing, not the cars.

Anyway, like I said above, the incest law is to protect people from harm.

Poor comparison? Why? It is traumatic, it is damaging, it changes the structure of a family relationship - so, if you're saying this is not that big a deal, well, it is to me and my mother :) I really can't see any difference between a traumatic experience that involves exchange of words and exchange of bodily fluids. Any of the two can be more traumatic than the other. But you seem to be automatically attaching more trauma and consequential damage to it when it is about sex. That's how it seems from where I stand, that's all...
Of course, The whole point I'm trying to make is based on this one assumption.

But what you've done by telling her that you want to be an entertainer is something people do every day. The only reason why she's upset about it is because personally she doesn't like it. There's no psychological evidence to suggest that she's going to go cut herself or something because of it. Incest, on the other hand, is just different.

[/QUOTE]

Nope. But I responded to the scenario of a brother and sister, both in their 20s.

Where do you live btw ? Almost every country has a higher age of consent for sexual relationships where a clear dependency relationship exists.
But - and this is the important part - it is just a higher age of consent. Sexual relationships between people where also a dependency relationship exists are not forbidden by law anywhere as far as I know (though in e.g. a teacher-pupil relationship might be frowned upon by the employer).

Queensland, Australia.


As far as I am concerned: yes. I take being an adult seriously. I also expect adults to take responsibility for their actions.

And by taking responsibility, you mean... turning themselves in and going to jail? How can one "take responsibility" for murdering somone? And if they do take responsibility, it means they haven't done the wrong thing?

Well, while we're legalising incest we may as well legalise murder too. Of course, all parties have to consent. :rolleyes:

Of course. :D


Edit:

What's foreplay in West Virginia?
answer in white below
Wake up sis...

*checks*
ROFL!!!
Good one, Dyakovo, good one!:D

Hellos,
Incest has been going on with the various Noble Houses for centuries, look at China, England, Japan. Its the whole "royal blood" thang.

Technically, you could lock about 30 people in a room (15 men, 15 women), and not see any genetic mutations or disorders in their resulting offspring for the next thousand years. The ratio of these would be no higher then for the rest of the population (outside the room).

Hypothetically, if you "entertwine" with your cousins, but not your brothers or sisters, and your kids did the same, infinitas, the genetic varience is far enough apart as to not cause a problem.

The only other "eww" part, is merely cultural or religious.
-Rafe

I think its said to be safe for 2nd cousins to make some good times and not worry about the kids being inbred, but still, humping family?
ew:(

So, the law shouldn't get involved at all in a murder if it's consensual?

I think, by the very definition of murder, it isn't consensual.

That's why - as a legal standard - I think incest should be illegal.

And I think that in cases of ambiguity, it is generally better to err on the side of liberty while stringently enforcing laws specifically targeting sexual abuse.

The problem is that there would be undoubtable coercion, because a father can potentially get a daughter to do what he wants.

That's not remotely clear. Children can and do resist the will of their parents all the time--especially when they are older.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this one, because you think 16+60 is okay and I don't.

Is that really the best you can do? I asked you why. Can you provide an explanation?

I didn't say the article spoke about that.

True, but your argument in the post where you linked to the article so closely paralleled its argument that I assumed the article was a fair representation of your views--especially since you cited it as evidence.

But part of the reason why males traditionally hold power over females is because of phsyical strength.

I disagree. In ordinary social interaction, physical strength is irrelevant. I, as a physically weak male, am not particularly disempowered by this fact. It is only relevant, perhaps, when the presumptions of social peace have already been disregarded--and that points to a social, rather than natural or physical, root of traditional male power.

But this is not really relevant, so let's not argue about it too much. ;)

The power is a combination of things - and power can make someone "consent" without them really wanting to. Like I said, consent isn't clear-cut.

I agree with all of that. But, unfortunately, in a society like ours, in restricting manifestations of sexuality where power can play a part, we run the risk of overly-broad restrictions on sexual freedom that cause much greater harm.

The better approach for those of us who value substantive sexual freedom--both in abstaining and in engaging--is to break apart the traditional hierarchies that cause sex to be so warped by power relations in the first place. That's a cultural struggle, one that feminists have been waging for decades, and it cannot be helped much by legislation.

Indeed, in many cases--such as incest and exploitative relationships generally between young teenage girls and much older men--legislation rarely does much more than drive the problem somewhat underground. Where power relations are such as to make a mockery of consent, they also tend to interfere with the capacity of the victim to report it. Recall that the article you posted also spoke of the social pressures faced by girls to not report their incestuous abuse at the hands of siblings.

I don't feel that with age the response to this power in this situation diminishes with age.

Sure it does. Are you really going to insist that a twenty-year-old woman is no more capable of resisting a father's or older brother's unwanted advances than a twelve-year-old girl?

Your brother will always be your brother, your sister will always be your sister etc.

True, but what matters is not the raw familial relationship, but the power relation associated with it.

My parents will always be my parents, but I don't have the same relationship to them now as I did when I was ten.

We're not talking about husbands and wives.
We're not talking about dolphins and their "society".
We're talking about incest.
Human beings are not dolphins.
That's why we breathe air, use toilets, wear clothes and use a complex language. :rolleyes:

Dolphins don't breathe air now? :rolleyes:

Not only that, but it's been shown that Cetacean languages are very complex.

if its beautiful twin sister or pretty mom and daughter porn style incest than iam all for it, not really bothered if it more off a distant relation in r/t if they found love who are are to stop their love.

Not only that, but it's been shown that Cetacean languages are very complex.

I hate to break it to you, but they havn't even been proven to have language. Communication, and complex at that, but not language.

Unless, you know, I've wasted the last four years of my life doing a Linguistics degree.

No, I am not confusing it with peodophillia.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3X6B587-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9314ab17d92875f87a83cc3fda6a949e

Oh and this proves my point about sibling and parental incest being similar:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-46TGF9P-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a3ec1a197fca397ca5b3f7cb9b9fbba1

This was an interesting read. : http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d6pXJAzJ1_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA27&dq=consensual+father+daughter+incest&ots=kklryPyOih&sig=jM9ktOREG8P1ONef5N-YFEhUTHA#PPA38,M1


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1981/JASA12-81McCauley.html

I would look into this further, but it's pretty simple: incest results in some sort of mental issue.

First article clearly states in large type, at the top of the page, that it refers to relationships with children.

Second article clearly states in large type, at the top of the page, that it refers to relationships with children and the methodology clearly states that the sample was derived from children: "Seventy-two girls aged between 5 and 16 were assigned to one of the three groups..."

The third source I haven't read in it's entirety (obviously), but the passage that states: "The Case Vicky Burrows was an unusually quiet, seemingly withdrawn four year old white female" suggets it again centres around relationships with children - as does the fact that the opening staatement of Section II is entitled "A Systemic Model for the Treatment of Intrafamily Child Sexual Abuse".

The fourth 'source' (such as it is) is a religious debate about what (one) 'scripture' says about incest. I fail to see the relevence.


You categorically fail to show that father-daughter incest is damaging WHERE both partners are capable of actual consent. Children can never consent, so your constant appeal to intrafamilial rape is irrelevent.

...Don't make fun of God, please -_- I have no patience whatsoever for that. That's all I'm going to say on that, I don't want to start a fight.

Anyways, incest...Ok, from what I've posted before on this forum you people are probably going to think I'm a rabid foaming Jesus freak, but it's not like that I promise you. I'm just going to say that incest was only ever accepted when there were about six people on the earth...now, however, it is definitely viewed as morally wrong, in my opinion.

There were more than six people when Lot boinked his daughters.

Don't make fun of god? Which god? That's the reason your 'religious' argument is a waste of bandwidth - it's an appeal to authority, and - even worse - an authority that can never be proved to empirically even exist.

Enlightening! Now I understand the NS name.:D

rofl. my name has nothing to do with this. thats simply a myspace nickname.
im a virgin so i dont really apply to any of this.

im just saying. people break the law, any law, everyday. putting a law against incest wouldnt do anything. haha

I have a hypothetical question for those completely opposed, though this is open to everyone.

The Nazi Germans have a eugenics programme. The objective was to breed the master race, and effectively breed out all unfavourable traits, primarily those which were considered to be inheritable diseases. They sterilised those who could potentially pass on these genes, so that these people, even if mentally sound couldn't infect the gene pool.

The people who were the subjects of this practice were typically, and almost always unrelated, though had some kind of inheritable disease.

Now then, let's fast forward to modern times, where people are sterilised not due to their ethnicity but because of any inheritable disease they may have.

Would you support this programme?

Now, apply the same question to those who engage in incestuous relations. So that if they are caught, they are forced to under go mandatory sterilisations.

How is it any different if you allow unrelated people carrying DNA that possess inheritable conditions to procreate and those who carry similar DNA?

Sure there is increased risk, but, what of children born to unrelated parents who have incurable conditions, or genetic diseases? etc...

rofl. my name has nothing to do with this. thats simply a myspace nickname.
im a virgin so i dont really apply to any of this.

im just saying. people break the law, any law, everyday. putting a law against incest wouldnt do anything. haha


;) Ok, but I sure as heck didn't need to know you're still a virgin. TMI, sweets, TMI.:D

As for incest laws, I would be pro the government passing them, but as I already stated in one of my posts, what I think and wether I'm pro or con on incest makes no difference to those who already engage in it or to the governments that will pass laws against it.

There were more than six people when Lot boinked his daughters.

Don't make fun of god? Which god? That's the reason your 'religious' argument is a waste of bandwidth - it's an appeal to authority, and - even worse - an authority that can never be proved to empirically even exist.

The whole Lot affair is ridiculous. Even if the Torah were accepted as an authority on incest in this thread, the chapter where Lot is seduced by his daughters wouldn't validate incest. It's an account of "fact" (you know what I mean), not a normative text. I believe that the - more or less - general Jewish opinion on that chapter is that Lot and his daughters were completely out of bounds, by way of which the purging of Sodom and Gomorra is retroactively legitimated. Let me explain: Lot is depicted basically as one of the morally supreme human beings of the time. Still, he commits incest - one of the worst crimes possible in the eyes of the redactor. Imagine how much worse the crimes of the Sodomites and the Gomorrans must have been. Apparently, attempting to rape messengers of G'd wasn't enough - in the eyes of the redactor - to warrant fire and brimstone. :D

Anyhow. In a lecture on Family Law, my professor said something very true (I find): eugenic considerations cannot possibly be the reason for a prohibition of incest. While there certainly is a higher quota of birth defects among incestuously conceived children, the chance of having a super-child (with an exceptionally good genome) is basically equally high. If we look at it from a genetic quality point of view, incest is a zero sum game. At the same time, incest is a complete taboo in many cultures (except for, maybe, ancienct Egypt where it was necessary to legitimize the claim to the throne of the Pharao's offspring). Therefore, the prevalent reason for a legal prohibition of incest is not genetico-biological, but moral-spiritual. Some of us (me included) find the idea of incest physically and morally repugnant. And apparently, as long as we are the majority, we rule!

Heil Godwin!

:ducks:

If they're consenting adults,who the hell cares!

Well, its yucky poo....

Well, its yucky poo....Naturally. Let's ban everything someone thinks is yucky. Let's start with Biblical law influencing secular law. I think that's yucky.

Naturally. Let's ban everything someone thinks is yucky. Let's start with Biblical law influencing secular law. I think that's yucky.

You silly goober!

Except those trampled in the ensuing panicked stampede, you mean?

I was refering to the fact that doing so is commiting fraud with an intent to decieve or inconvenience. The fact that no one gets physically hurt is irrelevent because damage is still done. In the same way, just because neither sibling is physically hurt doesn't mean that nothing bad happened

A) So what about the case in partial question here, where brother and sister did not and could not know they were so related?

You mean like King Arthur and Morgana? hard to say; that really becomes a legal question more than a philosophical one. What do you do with a person who accidently walked out of a store with merchandise that they had intended to pay for but forgot? Or if someone accidently hit someone with their car as the person is crossing the street? extenuating circumstances is the reason that the law exists, but I am not talking about extenuating circumstances, I am talking about incest as performed by "consenting" adults

B) There is no propensity when children are not the desired or intended outcome.

which is why I don't concede that incest is wrong simply based on the fact that it hurts children.

Proof, please? And you keep assuming children here. That's not always the desired outcome.

ever heard of the Westermarck effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edvard_Westermarck

How about the study by Melford E. Spiro, who showed that people who were raised together, even if they are genetically unrelated, show a complete sexual aversion to one another.

Evolutionary biologists such as Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) conclude that a significant number of animals have evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding via kin-recognition heuristics, and it is no stretch of the imagination to suspect that human beings possess these as well

Bingo.

I don't believe that laws and policemen are the end-all solution to the world's problems, in many cases, they make the situation worse. Drugs, for example; the cartels owe their notoriety to policemen who won't let legitimate, lawful, businesses compete with them. Which is why I am undecided. Incest is harmful, so how do we stop it?

An excellent question. Sexism, perhaps

perhaps. I would be interested to know the rationale behind it.

While there certainly is a higher quota of birth defects among incestuously conceived children, the chance of having a super-child (with an exceptionally good genome) is basically equally high. If we look at it from a genetic quality point of view, incest is a zero sum game.

That doesn't follow.

Most of us would much prefer a world with two ordinary children than with one "super" child and one child with severe birth defects.

The problem is that there would be undoubtable coercion, because a father can potentially get a daughter to do what he wants.


Just one more little thing to say: What happens if the daughter asks the father if he wants to have sex? What happens, regarding legal stuff, then? Just wondering...

I do not find my relatives to be attractive.

I ticked that box.

I also ticked 'Okay'.


It's up to them. Obviously it's not a good idea to have biological children with a blood relative but you can't control who you fall in love with.

Providing it is consenting, it doesn't matter whether someone falls in love with a relative, someone of the same sex, or someone of a different race.

And I certainly don't think the state should intervene. Especially not with prison sentences.

The whole Lot affair is ridiculous. Even if the Torah were accepted as an authority on incest in this thread, the chapter where Lot is seduced by his daughters wouldn't validate incest. It's an account of "fact" (you know what I mean), not a normative text. I believe that the - more or less - general Jewish opinion on that chapter is that Lot and his daughters were completely out of bounds, by way of which the purging of Sodom and Gomorra is retroactively legitimated. Let me explain: Lot is depicted basically as one of the morally supreme human beings of the time. Still, he commits incest - one of the worst crimes possible in the eyes of the redactor. Imagine how much worse the crimes of the Sodomites and the Gomorrans must have been. Apparently, attempting to rape messengers of G'd wasn't enough - in the eyes of the redactor - to warrant fire and brimstone. :D

Anyhow. In a lecture on Family Law, my professor said something very true (I find): eugenic considerations cannot possibly be the reason for a prohibition of incest. While there certainly is a higher quota of birth defects among incestuously conceived children, the chance of having a super-child (with an exceptionally good genome) is basically equally high. If we look at it from a genetic quality point of view, incest is a zero sum game. At the same time, incest is a complete taboo in many cultures (except for, maybe, ancienct Egypt where it was necessary to legitimize the claim to the throne of the Pharao's offspring). Therefore, the prevalent reason for a legal prohibition of incest is not genetico-biological, but moral-spiritual. Some of us (me included) find the idea of incest physically and morally repugnant. And apparently, as long as we are the majority, we rule!

Your professor is wrong.

Lethal genes are far more likely to be acquired from consanguine relations than from random relations, which isn't excluded even by 'line-breeding' benefits where certain traits are enhanced.

Thus, your professor's claimed 'super offspring' are actually still more likely to be genetically damaged than 'ordinary' offspring from afamilial relations, and MUCH more likely to pass on inherent failings to THEIR next generation.

In one generation, it might not make much of a difference, but it will if allowed to become cumulative.


Regarding the socio/religious angle - it is much more likely that prohibition against incestuous relations (which I keep seeing claimed as being universal, although no one has yet shown evidence of that) is merely codification of observed behaviour. Whatever is normative becomes 'law', in time.

Your professor is wrong.

Lethal genes are far more likely to be acquired from consanguine relations than from random relations, which isn't excluded even by 'line-breeding' benefits where certain traits are enhanced.

Thus, your professor's claimed 'super offspring' are actually still more likely to be genetically damaged than 'ordinary' offspring from afamilial relations, and MUCH more likely to pass on inherent failings to THEIR next generation.

In one generation, it might not make much of a difference, but it will if allowed to become cumulative.


Regarding the socio/religious angle - it is much more likely that prohibition against incestuous relations (which I keep seeing claimed as being universal, although no one has yet shown evidence of that) is merely codification of observed behaviour. Whatever is normative becomes 'law', in time.

My professor (who, obviously, is no geneticist) didn't say that the zero sum game was playing out in every single child. He said that on the whole, people with matching recessive "good" genes would balance out people with matching recessive "bad" genes issued from incestuous relationships. As a genetico-biological layman, I found the argument quite plausible.

I don't believe that incest is a universal taboo. I know for a fact that the redactors of the Bible usually codified only laws against behavior they considered wrong and had observed in foreign cultures (such as human sacrifice or life-long slavery). There is a good case for people saying that incest is not necessarily a universal religious taboo: the Bible wouldn't have bothered outlawing it if it had been universally accepted as wrong at the time.

I do believe that people may have linked physical deformations among offspring to incest very early in human history. Since they had no insight into their genomes, they may have seen those as - divine - punishment for some sin. And since the only common denominator in those cases was the parents being related, that's what they singled out as the sin being punished.

I think, by the very definition of murder, it isn't consensual.

Do you believe that if someone 'consents' to let another person kill them, it's not murder, and that there should be no legal consequences?

Is that really the best you can do? I asked you why. Can you provide an explanation?

Because I believe that 16-year-olds and 60-year-olds are at very different stages in their lives. We're not talking about a few years here. We're not even talking about 15 years.


I agree with all of that. But, unfortunately, in a society like ours, in restricting manifestations of sexuality where power can play a part, we run the risk of overly-broad restrictions on sexual freedom that cause much greater harm.

I don't see how banning incest causes greater harm.


Sure it does. Are you really going to insist that a twenty-year-old woman is no more capable of resisting a father's or older brother's unwanted advances than a twelve-year-old girl?

Well, its certainly a different situation to fending off the unwanted advances of someone who's not a family member.


You categorically fail to show that father-daughter incest is damaging WHERE both partners are capable of actual consent.

Can you prove that it's not damaging?

Can you prove that it's not damaging?

That's not how real debate works.

You made a claim, and were asked for evidence to support it. Your 'evidence' completely failed to support your argument. The onus is on you to support your claim... not on me to disprove it.

My professor (who, obviously, is no geneticist) didn't say that the zero sum game was playing out in every single child. He said that on the whole, people with matching recessive "good" genes would balance out people with matching recessive "bad" genes issued from incestuous relationships. As a genetico-biological layman, I found the argument quite plausible.

I don't believe that incest is a universal taboo. I know for a fact that the redactors of the Bible usually codified only laws against behavior they considered wrong and had observed in foreign cultures (such as human sacrifice or life-long slavery). There is a good case for people saying that incest is not necessarily a universal religious taboo: the Bible wouldn't have bothered outlawing it if it had been universally accepted as wrong at the time.

I do believe that people may have linked physical deformations among offspring to incest very early in human history. Since they had no insight into their genomes, they may have seen those as - divine - punishment for some sin. And since the only common denominator in those cases was the parents being related, that's what they singled out as the sin being punished.

The redactors of the bible often simply declared things religiously wrong simply because another culture did them - no greater 'evidence' needed.

It still is immoral, it doesn't matter which way one looks at it.

Before I make this statement let me say this...incest is pure debauchery and is outlawed for a reason. That said, who's morality is it against? Yours? Mine? Society as a whole? Focus less on the moral debate and more on the plain sick and twisted one. There is obviously something mentally wrong with a person (or people) who choose to engage in sexual acts with their relatives.

Also note: morality stems from religion. If you choose to pursue this course remember where the Bible claims we all...ALL came from...Adam and Eve. This theory makes us ALL inbreed. For those who are religious fanatics, I'm sorry, but it's true, this line of thought can not be disputed except by those lacking the intelligence to make an original arguement.

Your professor is wrong.

Lethal genes are far more likely to be acquired from consanguine relations than from random relations, which isn't excluded even by 'line-breeding' benefits where certain traits are enhanced.

Thus, your professor's claimed 'super offspring' are actually still more likely to be genetically damaged than 'ordinary' offspring from afamilial relations, and MUCH more likely to pass on inherent failings to THEIR next generation.

In one generation, it might not make much of a difference, but it will if allowed to become cumulative.

Unless the offspring dies before it has a chance to reproduce, like NATURAL SELECTION INTENDED. We have too much medical technology and too much attachment to our offspring. If one of my unborn children turns out to have a huge disability, or something else wrong, something that would get it killed in nature, I'm not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping a child alive that's going to pass on a defective gene. If he/she has something that can be totally reversed, so it doesn't get passed on, then I'll help the child live. I'm sorry, but that's just what I think. Genetic defects and large, powerful diseases are nature's population control.

On a side note, I'm going to leave NS. I find the way the game works a little too... simple. I think the issues shouldn't try to reflect your own views on a subject, but should more reflect how your style of government works. A government isn't supposed to be about personal opinion, it's supposed to be about freedom. Maybe in a few years, after I learn PHP, I'll make a new "NationStates" kind of game. Maybe, maybe not.

That's not how real debate works.

You made a claim, and were asked for evidence to support it. Your 'evidence' completely failed to support your argument. The onus is on you to support your claim... not on me to disprove it.

Oh, please.

Look, do you have anything to suggest it doesn't cause damage? You're claiming that it doesn't, so - out of interest - where's your evidence?

The redactors of the bible often simply declared things religiously wrong simply because another culture did them - no greater 'evidence' needed.

Yupp, almost exactly my point. If you remember, I was in support of the argument that incest is not universally accepted as morally wrong.

Thing is, though, that the redactors of the Bible didn't care about religious wrongs because the redactors of the Bible wanted to create or sustain a socio-political regulatory system, not a religious one. Judaism is primarily a body of Law, not a question of what you believe. (Insofar as you don't hold all Law to be a question of belief...) But as far as distinctive coltural or sorcial norms and regulations separating the Jewish people from all other peoples around Israel go, one can be fairly certain that the prohibition of incest in the Bible bases mainly on the fact that one or more neighboring civilizations, probably Egypt, practised incest for one reason or another. MHO.

Yupp, almost exactly my point. If you remember, I was in support of the argument that incest is not universally accepted as morally wrong.

Thing is, though, that the redactors of the Bible didn't care about religious wrongs because the redactors of the Bible wanted to create or sustain a socio-political regulatory system, not a religious one. Judaism is primarily a body of Law, not a question of what you believe. (Insofar as you don't hold all Law to be a question of belief...) But as far as distinctive coltural or sorcial norms and regulations separating the Jewish people from all other peoples around Israel go, one can be fairly certain that the prohibition of incest in the Bible bases mainly on the fact that one or more neighboring civilizations, probably Egypt, practised incest for one reason or another. MHO.

Especially in the context of the Hebrew scripture, the 'law' is a combination of influenced material, and attempts to distance the 'chosen people' from their influences. Incidentally - that doesn't necessarily mean external influences, since traces of material still within the text suggest that Levitical law often counters internal influences, also... like the prohibition against 'other' gods, contrasting not JUST against external culture, but also against the polytheistic origins of the Hebrew people(s) themselves.

In the specific case of incest, there's an interesting dichotomy - the design of the original creation requires incest. The design of Noahide judgement once again requries incest. The maintainance of a pure blood (especially in the case of the Davidic lineage) requires limited genepools, if not SPECIFICALLY incest.

On the other hand, Levitical law also punishes some incestuous acts - although they seem more like prohibitions about interfering with possessions than laws about actual morality. Not just that - they approach incest unevenly... having sex with your sister requires that you both be exiled, but having sex with your mother requries you both be executed. Having sex with a sister-in-law is self-punishing (apparently) since your 'sin' is punished by dying childless. Having sex with your wife AND mother-in-law... you should all three be burned to death (even though you are likely to be blood-related to less than one of them). Having sex with an aunt is apparently unpunished (you'll 'bear your iniquity' - no external judgement specified). Having sex with your neighbour (well, 'his' wife) requires that you both be executed, though you may likely be related to neither. (That's why it looks like it's about 'possessing' other people).

Incidentally - through all of the 'Leviticus 20' prohibitions, while it is condemned to boink your mommy, mother-in-law, or daughter-in-law... having sex with your own daughter isn't even mentioned.

Oh, please.

Look, do you have anything to suggest it doesn't cause damage? You're claiming that it doesn't, so - out of interest - where's your evidence?

Oh please... what?

That's how debate works, my friend. You made the claim, I called you on it. You presented 'evidence' that didn't even support your claim.

As it stands, your claim is worthless. An opinion piece, nothing more.

I don't NEED to provide evidence to support my doubt about your claim. Without evidence your argument is defeated.

What you have constructed here, is called a "Burden of Proof" fallacy. You've presented a claim that a situation exists, and you use the reasoning that it DOES exist UNLESS it can be proved not to do so. The same argument is often used for the existence of 'god' and it's a logical fallacy then, too.

If you want to debate properly, I'll continue to respond. If your idea of a clinching argument is a burden of proof fallacy, then you've really nothing worth responding to.

Simply provide evidence that supports your claim (that father-daughter incest is damaging, even where the partners are both capable of informed consent), and we can move on with the debate.

All you've presented so far is evidence that supports the claim it is damaging for a parent to sexually interfere with a child, which - I think most will agree - is the case both intra- and inter- familial.

Oh, please.

Look, do you have anything to suggest it doesn't cause damage? You're claiming that it doesn't, so - out of interest - where's your evidence?

Why does it matter ? They are adults. They are allowed to decide they want to do things that damage them.

Do you believe that if someone 'consents' to let another person kill them, it's not murder, and that there should be no legal consequences?

Of course. Whyever wouldn't I?

Of course, I don't believe in legal consequences anyway, but even so. Why do we need to criminalise behaviour when all parties have consented to it?

Oh, please.

Look, do you have anything to suggest it doesn't cause damage? You're claiming that it doesn't, so - out of interest - where's your evidence?
you can't prove a negative dear.

you can't prove a negative dear.

Shush, y'all might make her get down off her soapbox and actually do some research...
:D

Or if two people "consent" to killing one of them? Is that their problem?

Why would it be anyone elses problem?

It's not natural...

Arsinic is natural, computers are not. Does that mean you should eat lots of arsinic and get off the internet?

So, the law shouldn't get involved at all in a murder if it's consensual?


If it's consensual should it really count as murder? After all if I willingly hand you a hundred dollar bill is that theft?

Do you believe that if someone 'consents' to let another person kill them, it's not murder, and that there should be no legal consequences?

Yes. Why should there be, and why is consents in quotes?

@ Redwulf: next to the quote one there is a multiquote button ;)

Arsinic is natural, computers are not. Does that mean you should eat lots of arsinic and get off the internet?

Technically, if you want to get down to the subatomic structure, which was created near the beginning of the universe, everything, including man-made atoms formed by fusing large atoms in a particle accelerator, is natural. Thus, computers are natural because they are made of natural subatomic particles. Or strings, if you believe in string theory.:p

Oh dear, this thread´s still alive? Wow.

Oh dear, this thread´s still alive? Wow.

*sacrfices thread to Nanatsu*
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif

*sacrfices thread to Nanatsu*
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif

:D

Yes. Why should there be, and why is consents in quotes?

"Consent" is in quotes, because, yet again, it's kind of hard to define consent when it comes to something like this. For example, if someone was having a depressive episode, they might want someone to kill them but regret it the next day. It's pretty hard for a dead person to say they consented, too. I think there should be legal consequences to that kind of thing.

If it's consensual should it really count as murder? After all if I willingly hand you a hundred dollar bill is that theft?

That hundred dollar bill doesn't hurt anyone: killing someone hurts their loved ones and obviously phsyically hurts the person being killed. Anyway, see above.

Why would it be anyone elses problem?

What about their loved ones?

*snip because you're clearly having a bad day*

I don't NEED to provide evidence to support my doubt about your claim. Without evidence your argument is defeated.

What you have constructed here, is called a "Burden of Proof" fallacy. You've presented a claim that a situation exists, and you use the reasoning that it DOES exist UNLESS it can be proved not to do so. The same argument is often used for the existence of 'god' and it's a logical fallacy then, too.

If you want to debate properly, I'll continue to respond. If your idea of a clinching argument is a burden of proof fallacy, then you've really nothing worth responding to.

Simply provide evidence that supports your claim (that father-daughter incest is damaging, even where the partners are both capable of informed consent), and we can move on with the debate.

All you've presented so far is evidence that supports the claim it is damaging for a parent to sexually interfere with a child, which - I think most will agree - is the case both intra- and inter- familial.

But, what I'm asking is, have you - out of interest - any information that suggests it's not damaging?

Why does it matter ? They are adults. They are allowed to decide they want to do things that damage them.

There are a lot of bans that restrict freedom much more than this one, though.

Of course. Whyever wouldn't I?

Of course, I don't believe in legal consequences anyway, but even so. Why do we need to criminalise behaviour when all parties have consented to it?

The thing is that this comes down to fundamental beliefs, and arguing things like this is pointless, because I believe killing is morally wrong; incest is morally wrong; and relationships between 16-year-olds and 60-year-olds aren't particularly good. Obviously, I'm not going to suggest banning the latter, but considering that killing and incest are already illegal where I live, I can't see much point arguing about it.

you can't prove a negative dear.

I'm not asking him to prove himself: I'm asking him if he has any information that suggests that it isn't harmful out of interest, but thanks for the condescending reply anyway.

Shush, y'all might make her get down off her soapbox and actually do some research...
:D

:rolleyes:

Sorry if this has been said before, but I'm not going to read through all 17 pages of comments:

"Incest is best!
Put your sister to the test!
Let your brother do your mother
and your father do the rest!"

--- line from the 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' audience participation where I used to go.