Should Incest be banned?

[Yerda]

This thread is quite disturbing.

The idea that 'consent' is the be all and end all is disturbing.

It is a kinda disturbing topic. I'm not sure how to navigate issues around what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do by law except in terms of consent. I generally don't have a frame of reference to put issues like this into where I can make sense of them.

 

[We Never Know]

It is a kinda disturbing topic. I'm not sure how to navigate issues around what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do by law except in terms of consent. I generally don't have a frame of reference to put issues like this into where I can make sense of them.

I wonder how many would sleep with their sister, brother, mother, father if they had consent.

Would consent be all that matters to some in those situations?

 

[Rival]

It is a kinda disturbing topic. I'm not sure how to navigate issues around what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do by law except in terms of consent. I generally don't have a frame of reference to put issues like this into where I can make sense of them.

I usually see try seeing it through many lenses,

- Social, how will it effect the society you live in? (If incest became normal, for instance, it would impact the economy as the money would not move, it would stay within families, so the gap between rich and poor would be infinitely worse).
- Psychological, how will it effect people mentally (incest is nearly always a sign of psychological disturbance).
- Genetic (obvious here).
- Environmental.
- Familial, how would any children cope (imagine if two brothers married and raised adopted children, or if siblings had sex then broke up would the whole family fall apart?)

Etc.

Consent is also not as easy to determine if someone is in a vulnerable or compromised position, as would be the case with incest.

 

[Tiberius]

It’s not okay, from my perspective. I think those involved sexual relationships as you’ve described would be motivated solely by their own selfish lust and physical desires with no regard for real familial love, respect or concern for one another.

Do you also think that ANY sexual relationship that is based on lust and physical desire should be banned?

 

[Tiberius]

I actually don't. You want to change laws, I'm suggesting the status quo (in broad terms) causes no harm.

I would say that it can cause harm if two adults who both consent to have sex with each other are banned from doing so.

Similarly, a law banning people from wearing green hats with feather's stuck in the top harms no one. Laws are not passed because they harm no one, they are passed because they protect people from harm. I do not see where the harm is in two consenting adults having sex, even if they are closely related.

Yes, but talking about 5 year olds really is just an edge case that avoids my point.

And if you'd read my OP, I was very clear that I was not talking about children, I was talking about consenting adults.

Again...40 is an edge case that avoids my point. Can a 17 year old give informed consent for sex with a 40 year old?

That's getting into a grey area, and that is why some places have ages of consent that are lower (in the majority of Australia, the AoC is 16), and other places have an age of consent that is higher.

But it is beside the point in terms of my OP. I was very clearly using the example of consenting ADULTS. Not "barely legal" teens, but actual adults.

Well...no. You're talking about legal changes that would be applied across the board, just like age of consent laws are. They don't deal with individual circumstance at all. They can't.

Actually, that would be the law we already have, the one that says ANY act of incest is banned. That's the one that puts the "two consenting adults" in the same category as "40 year old dad who molests his five year old daughter." I agree that the latter should be banned, but not the former.

And if you've been paying attention, you'll see that I've already pointed out that we don't need laws against incest to deal with the latter. Laws against sexual contact with children already exist and would serve to provide due punishment to an adult who does such things.

Indeed, the presence of incest laws could actually be detrimental. I read a case where a parent was convicted of sexual activity with a minor, and they were looking at a very heavy punishment after being charged with sexual contact with a minor. But the defense attorney got the charge changed to an incest charge which carried a much more lenient sentence.

I'm thinking it's best you don't be so sure we can say that. I wouldn't say that.

Why would you not say that Billy and Sally could have sex if they both consent to it?

Yup. Is there some person somewhere who needs to have sex with their sibling/mother/father/son/daughter? Really? Who?

Following this line of reasonming, we should ban any sex that is not done for the purposes of procreation.

People like to shag. They are going to shag for fun.

Get over it.

Indeed not. You already mentioned above that you're sure we can agree that 'Billy is an adult and Sally is an adult, therefore if both Billy and Sally consent to sexual activity with each other, that sexual activity is perfectly fine.' This was an example...given before you suggested you are sure we'd agree, incidentally...that shows I don't think that, and I think there are circumstances where it's not fine. Hence my comments all the way through about engaging with my argument. You don't need to agree with it.

Yeah, and funnily enough, you didn't give any reason as to WHY they shouldn't be allowed to. So I'll just wait for that reasoning, okay?

Not if you want this to be more than an idealistic discussion. I don't believe the law can be removed without it running the risk of opening up instances of grooming or emotional manipulation. How would the replacement law be worded? Would there be one, or are all bets off?

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think we need incest laws at all. Any crime that could be committed would be covered under other laws. Is it not consensual? We have laws against rape that would apply. Is it with a child? We have laws against that too. Was a person emotionally manipulated into it? We have laws against grooming. And funnily enough, all of these laws were designed to protect people regardless of their relationship to their abuser. Rape victims are not always raped by family members. Kids who get molested are not always molested by family members. Kids who are groomed are not always groomed by family members. And so the laws against these things were not made so that they only apply to family members. The law against grooming applies to any adult who grooms any child, regardless of whether that child is a family member or not. And if a parent is grooming their child, this law would apply in just the same way as it would if the adult who was doing the grooming as a teacher or a priest.

But you're also slightly missing the rationale here. Yes, I think the pool of available people does make a difference, but I'm talking more about people's holistic sexual identity. If I am heterosexual, then I could argue a 'need' at some level for sexual relations with women. Of course, I can abstain, and I'm talking a little loosely, but I am certain you understand what I mean. If I am gay, I could argue a 'need' at some level for sexual relations with a man. Who is arguing a 'need' for sexual relations with their sister/brother/father/mother/son/daughter?

I would argue that a person has the right to have sex with whoever they want, provided that the other person consents to it.

If I am dating a black woman, I could, by your argument, claim that I have a need to have sex with my partner, but not that long ago this would have been banned. The idea of what needs are acceptable and not is subjective. So if you want me to accept your position, you're going to have to do a lot better than your subjective opinion. So your argument about "needs" is really unconvincing.

No offence, but I'll sleep okay. I'm merely trying to offer you an alternative perspective than the 'religious/icky' ones you seem determined to reduce all opposition to.

Your argument is even worse. It seems to me to boil down to, "It's wrong because it's wrong, and therefore it is wrong."

Whereas your situational descriptions are controlled and unrelated to how this would work in reality, in my humble opinion.

Yeah, because two closely related adults have never felt sexual attraction towards each other... *rolls eyes*

 

[Tiberius]

I think the disclaimer has to be assumed in good faith for anyone talking freely in this thread.

If I spent 18 years raising a kid, literally from diapers to adulthood, then slept with her...does that meet your definition of grooming?

Depends, did you condition her from childhood to see you as a romantic and sexual partner? Did you tell her that one day she'd be your wife?

Your question seems intentionally vague. It's like if I asked, "If I meet a girl at the bar, go home with her and have sex with her, did I rape her?" It's leaving out the very information that is required to answer the question.

 

[Tiberius]

I've eplained that, but you aren't listening, because you don;t want to hear it. What we do effects everyone around us. And when we act selfishly, it harms other people. When we promote selfishness, it harms other people.

And that's very vague, as I've said. I want SPECIFICS.

If two people a mile away from you have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, tell me SPECIFICALLY how your life is different than if that couple did not have sex.

 

[Tiberius]

Because sex always has and always will be a community interest. There are tv shows, news columns, magazines and other media that specifically detail who is having sex with who, who is having kids with who, and all manner of such gossip. Knowing who is mating with who is an evolutionary necessity to find out who the parents are, what diseases they may have and so on. It affects us because a couple may break up and the partners start relationships with other people and pass on whatever sexual diseases and other things they may have. We worry about incest specifically because it's too near, it doesn't promote healthy diverse mating strategies and it selfishly keeps community resources in one family. Incest is thus anti-community, being selfish, promoting inbreeding, lack of diversity in the human species and tribalism.

Yeah, I know that I am kept up to date of who is hooking up with who in my local neighbourhood by turning on the news, or reading a magazine...

And "community resources"? Are you serious?

A couple moves in next door. They seem really nice, and you get on well. They use the local library, the local buses, etc, and pay their taxes. You are perfectly fine with this. And then you find out they are siblings. Please describe for me what "community resources" they have used that they were not entitled to.

Oh, and if you'd bothered to read my OP, I am not talking about reproduction. But thanks for the strawman.

 

[InChrist]

Do you also think that ANY sexual relationship that is based on lust and physical desire should be banned?

Probably not, though I think such sexual relationships are wrong and self-centered. Banning likely wouldn’t prevent them from occurring, though. Likely, even banning incestuous relationships wouldn’t prevent all such behavior, but the illegality of it at least sends the message it’s not acceptable.

 

[Tiberius]

See this is your problem, you're labelling people as 'superstitious' when I've just shown you that the 'superstition' is based in a very real disgust response. You don't understand it because you're a Westerner and you don't have that response - which is abnormal in most of the world, where folks do have the disgust response. I mean, it's not hard. Anal sex produces disease. Disease is bad. This is basic biology not superstition. If these people then go on to have sex with others they pass these infections along.

But I guess AIDs and other STIs are just a superstition.

STIs are not limited to gay sex.

If you want to ban all sex due to the risk of STIs, then we should ban straight sex as well.

Oh, and a man can have anal sex with a woman, just so you know.

 

[Tiberius]

Its no secret the highest percent affected by HIV are gay.

"In the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are the population most affected by HIV"

Who Is at Risk for HIV?

HIV can affect anyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or where they live. However, certain groups of people in the United Sta...

www.hiv.gov

And how much of this was because:

• There was no motivation for a homophobic society to invest in find cures for diseases perceived as "gay-only" diseases?
• Gay people were afraid to come forward due to the risk of being attacked for who they are?
• Gay people were denied medical care because they were gay?

 

[Tiberius]

Because in pre-medicine and unhygienic societies such things were more of an issue. Imagine if regular bathing weren't done and you're having sex with multiple people. Your disgust would serve you.

But we don't live in such a world.

 

[Tiberius]

Incest is bad because of the genetic problem. We know this as human beings and are naturally disgusted by it, hence our desire for dissimilar partners/novel looks. This response persists no matter the context. It thus indicates a psychological problem with those involved in incestuous relationships from the start, given it is seen as the 'universal taboo'. We are genetically predisposed against it and if you are engaging in it we can safely say there's something wrong with you, the same way we do with necrophiliacs, paedophiles and people with a sexual interest in animals. On a fundamental level we realise this, if unconsciously, and revolt against such practices. Some things don't need to cause harm in an obvious sense, but may be seen as the results of an already disturbed psyche, as with necrophilia. The individual is a danger to himself.

And I very clearly stated in my OP that I'm NOT talking about reproduction. Just two people having sex. Birth control is cheap, easy to use, and effective. Reproduction is easily avoided.

 

[Tiberius]

This thread is quite disturbing.

The idea that 'consent' is the be all and end all is disturbing.

To be fair, I did say consenting ADULTS.

I'm against kids having sex, even if they claim to consent.

 

[Tiberius]

Wow! Why get mad and offensive if you think its ok?

Because of your ridiculous idea that if I support something, I must be a part of it.

 

[We Never Know]

And how much of this was because:

• There was no motivation for a homophobic society to invest in find cures for diseases perceived as "gay-only" diseases?
• Gay people were afraid to come forward due to the risk of being attacked for who they are?
• Gay people were denied medical care because they were gay?

When you find that info, share it.

 

[Tiberius]

I wonder how many would sleep with their sister, brother, mother, father if they had consent.

Would consent be all that matters to some in those situations?

Considering that people usually have sex in private, I think any person who would is going to do it anyway. They just don't advertise the fact.

 

[Tiberius]

When you find that info, share it.

Right here.

The AIDS epidemic’s lasting impact on gay men

In the USA, by 1995, one gay man in nine had been diagnosed with AIDS, one in fifteen had died, and 10% of the 1,600,000 men aged 25-44 who identified as gay had died. The AIDS epidemic’s impacts on this generation of gay men, now aged 54-72, are still being explored.

www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk

Now, let's stop derailing this topic, okay?

 

[Rival]

And I very clearly stated in my OP that I'm NOT talking about reproduction. Just two people having sex. Birth control is cheap, easy to use, and effective. Reproduction is easily avoided.

Human
Beings
Are
Psychologically
Disposed
Against
Sex
With
Near kin
Regardless
Reproduction.

If you think incest is normal you have a mental problem. The end.

 

[Rival]

This thread demonstrates exactly why 'consent' isn't enough in some situations and is merely a selfish way of getting around immorality and perverted behaviour laws.

Sometimes something is wrong regardless of consent. That includes incest.

It's wrong for many reasons the OP doesn't want to acknowledge that many have already pointed out.

But no, humans want to bang so we should let them sleep with whoever because consent.

What a disgusting selfish ideology imo.

Keep it in your pants. You don't need to have sex with everyone you fancy. Grown adults know how to walk away from depraved situations.