Should Incest be banned?

[VoidCat]

Hm...not sure if anyone is being specifically cavalier, but this is one of those threads I've had to jump around in. I would agree that incest, regardless of consent, is capable of great harm in multiple ways, even if it's just social. I am just personally not sure if legislating it is the appropriate response.

A little self disclosure, I was sexually molested by an adult relative. I am particularly disturbed by the idea of incest. I am just trying to set aside that disgust in order to think objectively about the idea of legislating the issue.

Im sorry to hear this happened to you(hugs).

To me incest is disturbing due to lack of consent in most cases but not gross(pukey kind of gross) and I can't explain why that is in my case if I had to guess maybe it's due to trauma.

 

[Firenze]

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. And maybe there's a natural revulsion to this whole topic which is contributing to this. When I say natural, I mean that literally. Maybe someone will correct me, but, as far as I know there is a natural ( physiological ? / psychological ? ) aversion to this.

That said, isn't it possible to postulate / consider a healthy happy relationship that is identitcal in each and every way to other healthy happy relationships with one exception: they happen to be close siblings?

I'm uber-optimistic, so, I can almost always imagine any situation with puppy-dogs, rainbows, champaigne, and roses. But even if I put that down, temporarily, without any religious doctrine influence, I cannot fathom the problem with this on a universal scope.

Thoughts?

I don't know why Christians would have an aversion to a practice they think served to originally populate the world. I think it more likely there is a learned cultural aversion based on the science rather than a natural one.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not sure but it sure is scary.

I dislike the notion of 'consent' is all that's needed, because that ends up justifying a whole lot of things. Some animals believe humans are their mates and approach them for intercourse, should we allow bestiality? It seems ludicrous. Some older teenagers give consent to sex with those of age, but we know this is statutory rape. Consent as a model is very flawed, but the fact some people are now using it for acts that have always been considered and should always be considered perverted is the reason we had such draconian sexual norms itfp. The slippery slope is real. In the mid 20th c. Britain had a legal paedophile exchange network. We need to be very careful with sex.

Most people I know who value consent (both medical and sexual consent) as a meaningful impact on right and wrong behavior don't think consent means just the ability to say yes. *Informed* consent. Coercion, imbalance of power, drugs, mental capabilities, etc all impact consent, legally and ethically.

And while that might take some nuance. I'll take that over the infantile behavior of aforementioned draconians who tortured and killed untold LGBT, neurodivergent and people of different races on pure gut feeling any day.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hm...not sure if anyone is being specifically cavalier, but this is one of those threads I've had to jump around in. I would agree that incest, regardless of consent, is capable of great harm in multiple ways, even if it's just social. I am just personally not sure if legislating it is the appropriate response.

A little self disclosure, I was sexually molested by an adult relative. I am particularly disturbed by the idea of incest. I am just trying to set aside that disgust in order to think objectively about the idea of legislating the issue.

You and I have that in common. My sincerest empathy

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You and I have that in common. My sincerest empathy

You have my empathy as well.

Im sorry to hear this happened to you(hugs).

I appreciate it.

To me incest is disturbing due to lack of consent in most cases but not gross(pukey kind of gross) and I can't explain why that is in my case if I had to guess maybe it's due to trauma.

It's interesting how people react differently to situations involving "disgust." My partner and I were just talking about that in relation to our jobs in special education. We both have had students that require bathroom help. I find helping a kid in the bathroom viscerally disturbing (that's a reaction to bathroom stuff and I want to emphasize that these students have high needs and I am careful about treating them with dignity they deserve). My partner has no problem with doing it.

That is of course very different than incest, but I think how we react viscerally (gut reaction to "gross") in different ways and to different things is normal.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

You are the one ranting about what would happen if incest became normal in my view.

I think incest will never become normal even if it is legalised due to the psychological disposition against it.

That's why I see your concerns over it becoming normalised as a strawman when we are not arguing to normalise it, only to legalise instances of it that dont infringe on other laws.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's interesting how people react differently to situations involving "disgust."

My brother in law has a physical reaction to changing nappies. I always figured it to be a way of avoiding a yucky job (and that reinforces the reaction, I reckon) but he literally vomits, which is a little more extreme than most.
Meanwhile I've seen him deal with pretty serious injuries both to himself and those around him without too many dramas.

 

[YmirGF]

Hm...not sure if anyone is being specifically cavalier, but this is one of those threads I've had to jump around in. I would agree that incest, regardless of consent, is capable of great harm in multiple ways, even if it's just social. I am just personally not sure if legislating it is the appropriate response.

A little self disclosure, I was sexually molested by an adult relative. I am particularly disturbed by the idea of incest. I am just trying to set aside that disgust in order to think objectively about the idea of legislating the issue.

I am so sorry you had to endure being taken advantage of.
In all fairness, there is no need to change any laws, to appeal to the peccadilloes of a few.
As a society, we have much more pressing issues. This topic is an unimportant, but peculiar, distraction from them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My brother in law has a physical reaction to changing nappies. I always figured it to be a way of avoiding a yucky job (and that reinforces the reaction, I reckon) but he literally vomits, which is a little more extreme than most.
Meanwhile I've seen him deal with pretty serious injuries both to himself and those around him without too many dramas.

Dude, same. I can handle blood and guts and all that with no issue. Cannot handle vomit and poop though. Unfortunately, **** (literally) happens in the medical field so I've had to deal with all of the above. I don't know how I got through the latter without adding to the mess.

 

[Rival]

You are the one ranting about what would happen if incest became normal in my view.

I think incest will never become normal even if it is legalised due to the psychological disposition against it.

That's why I see your concerns over it becoming normalised as a strawman when we are not arguing to normalise it, only to legalise instances of it that dont infringe on other laws.

Legalising it would normalise it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are the one ranting about what would happen if incest became normal in my view.

I think incest will never become normal even if it is legalised due to the psychological disposition against it.

That's why I see your concerns over it becoming normalised as a strawman when we are not arguing to normalise it, only to legalise instances of it that dont infringe on other laws.

Why are you arguing it, though?
I'll be buggered if I can understand the perceived benefit.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay. I'll bite. Can you provide any evidence for this? What type of harm are we talking about?

Because adults have the right to choose who they have sex with, as long as the other person is a consenting adult. Denying this right is harm.

You're not talking about passing laws, you're talking about rolling them back. In other words you're arguing for an action, not against one. Why should we take this action?

By this logic, we could pass a law saying that no one is allowed to cut apples up using a chainsaw if it is a rainy day and you are wearing a green hat.

Even if the law isn't hurting anyone, such ridiculous laws should be removed.

It is, but that's part of my argument. Laws deal poorly with grey areas. AoC laws in Australia are 16 generally, but include a lot of limitations designed to make illegal sexual encounters where there is a power imbalance.

So, let's pass laws that address that power imbalance, and not something that can be but isn't always associated with it.

So the AoC for incestuous relationships is 18 in your hypothetical?
A father could sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday if she consents?

First of all, you don't appear to know what "barely legal" means.

Secondly, there is the issue of grooming in such a case. If the daughter was groomed, then I would say no, it should not be allowed. But that's because there was grooming, and not because it's incest.

I understand your position. It's not mine, and whilst both your situations would be considered 'incest' one would....in addition...fall foul of all sorts of child endangerment laws. They are not treated the same.

And the child endangerment laws are the only ones I would claim apply.

As mentioned, bringing up 5 year olds is an edge case. But according to you we are not talking about little kids. So why are we talking about little kids?

Because so many of the people against incest can only present arguments by using the "But won't someone think of the children!" argument.

You might need to source that. Legally they can be charged with every law they break. All of them. But plea bargains happen, particularly where it might be hard to prove higher charges. That has nothing to do with incest laws subverting child endangerment laws.

Here's my source on that: Opinion | The Incest Loophole (Published 2005)

From the article:

"In New York, sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. The law is indexed appropriately, in the chapter on sex offenses. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law provides for radically more lenient treatment. In such cases, the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. This is not listed as a sex offense, but instead as an "offense affecting the marital relationship," listed next to adultery in the law books. It is a Class E felony, for which even a convicted offender may be granted probation."

I gave a simple specific example, which you of course disregarded as irrelevant because it wasn't specifically about 2 adults who are definitely not children, and are definitely not in a coercive or controlling relationship needing to screw.

Yeah, that doesn't tell me why you think that Billy and Sally shouldn't be allowed ton have sex.

Yeah, nah. Not even vaguely close to any claim I've ever made.

You miss my point.

People like to have sex. Sex is fun. If two consenting adults want to have sex for fun, why shouldn't they?

*shrugs*

You do you. Your assessment of what is a valid argument is a wee bit self serving. If you're trying to convince anyone of your position, I'm somewhat at a loss as to your method. If you're trying to convince YOURSELF, you don't need me.

My argument is that there's no justification for banning it.

Incest between consenting adults does not involve emotional manipulation or cause any physical harm. The only reasons that I've ever seen to explain it is because of the risk of genetic defects in any children (which is negated by cheap, easy, and effective birth control), and the ick factor (which isn't a valid reason for passing laws).

Grooming laws don't adequately cover situations like the direct question I asked earlier about a father having sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday. You can think that's fine if you like, but I think it's worth you addressing your position on that case at least.

And I did.

I outlined a bunch of information about grooming laws in an earlier post in this thread (albeit not addressed to you)
I'm on my phone so it's a little hard to link, but it's in the last 2 pages.

[Edit : Post #148]

Yep, I saw that.

Your argument about it was that you don't think it's a good thing (without explaining your justification for that conclusion), and you said there's no benefit to society at all. But since when does every act of sex HAVE TO produce a benefit to society? And if I have sex with my partner, what benefit to society is produced?

Yup.

I understand what you are arguing.

Yup.

Wait a minute...
The idea of what is acceptable is subjective, but I need more than my subjective opinion to convince you of what's acceptable? Yeeesh.

I need scientific evidence for you? Hmm...you first. What is the scientific or otherwise objective case that there is societal benefit to allowing incest?

The Benefits of a Healthy Sex Life | Center for Women's Health | OHSU

"All women deserve to enjoy a healthy sexual life," says Nicole Cirino, M.D. She helps women who are struggling with emotional or mental health barriers to a healthy sex life.

www.ohsu.edu

Do any of these not apply when the two consenting adults are related?

Yup...that's exactly what I said. And having reduced my comments to a nonsense, you can sleep easier knowing you won...or something.

I'm just not sure why you think your argument is going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with it.

I'm married. I feel sexual attraction towards people outside my marriage. I don't screw them. It's really not hard to understand that attraction and action are different. Unless you're a rabbit, I guess.

I'm polyamorous. Respond to that however you want.

 

[Tiberius]

Sex with someone else's significant other, sex with co-workers, sex with congregants, sex with someone that has children by someone else, all of these situation effect those other people. So when these instances of sex are engaged in selfishly (disregarding the effect on others) it damages those other people. It causes suspicion and resentment at work, at church, in the home, and between family members.

No, the act of sex in those cases doesn't affect others. It is the revelation of the sex act that causes the effect. And since I said PRIVATE, that doesn't really apply, does it?

In any case, you are still being vague. I'm polyamorous, so I have multiple relationships. I've had a relationship with a married woman, with the full knowledge of her husband. And the husband has had relationships with the full knowledge of his wife. So going to bed with someone else's spouse is only an issue if you decide that it's going to be an issue. Should polyamorous people be prevented from having non-monogamous relationships based on your argument here?

And I could go on with most of your other examples as well.

You seem to think you live in this world as an isolated being, but you don't. None of us do. And every time we behave selfishly because we ignore how we effect other people, we cause them to fear and doubt and to become selfish in turn just to protect themselves from people like us. So this selfish disregard for others becomes contagious.

You seem to think that everything I do makes some change in the world. Tell me, if I'd had sex with my partner this morning, how would the world be different right now? How would your life be different? How would my neighbour's life be different?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Ah. The old, "Most people don't do it, therefore anyone who DOES do it must be wrong" argument.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

And now we have the, "It's wrong because it's depraved, and it's depraved because it's wrong," argument. How very circular.

 

[danieldemol]

Legalising it would normalise it.

I disagree, do you honestly think legislation has an effect on peoples psychological aversions?

If it did we could simply legislate that whoever has a psychological aversion to poop could see it as normal in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

Why are you arguing it, though?
I'll be buggered if I can understand the perceived benefit.

Its like this, some people for lack of a better term are soul mates, by which I mean they mesh well together as opposed to being a reference to spirit partners.

So its no use if I'm white and my soul mate is black saying "there are plenty of white fish in the see for you to partner with, she doesn't *need* to be black".
And there is no use saying to a bisexual man who's soul mate is another man "there are plenty of female fish in the sea, your partner doesn't need to be a male".
And the same goes for related soul mates *who dont break other laws* in my view.

If someone separated you from your mrs im sure you'd take offence if their argument was "because there's plenty of other fish in the sea".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Its like this, some people for lack of a better term are soul mates, by which I mean they mesh well together as opposed to being a reference to spirit partners.

I'm not buying the 'one person who's right for you' argument. At all.
But if I did, I'd wonder if settling for the person who raised you is really the most effective method of exploring available options.

Having 'a lot in common' and a shared worldview is hardly surprising when one literally imparted these on the other. Including, I would strongly assume, views on incest, and whether a parent child sexual relationship is 'loving' or 'coercive'.

So its no use if I'm white and my soul mate is black saying "there are plenty of white fish in the see for you to partner with, she doesn't *need* to be black".
And there is no use saying to a bisexual man who's soul mate is another man "there are plenty of female fish in the sea, your partner doesn't need to be a male".
And the same goes for related soul mates *who dont break other laws* in my view.

I'm not telling you to avoid black men, black women, white transexuals or any other broad group.
I'm suggesting that there is no societal benefit to you literally sleeping with one of a very small group of direct relations.

If someone separated you from your mrs im sure you'd take offence if their argument was "because there's plenty of other fish in the sea".

Not really the point. I have 28 years of shared life as an intimate couple and three kids with her.

But I've had crushes on a bunch of people both before and after we got together. Part of my decision making progress on which to pursue is the appropriateness of the relationship and the harm it might cause.

To whit, if I broke up with my wife, I'm not going to start screwing her sister, let alone mine.

 

[PureX]

Reasonable restraint makes sense. I think even in strict societies where sex is highly regulated, unnecessary suffering occurs, including from the regulations. Consider how at one point sexual assault was considered to be legally acceptable in marriage. Or some of the Old Testament laws regarding women being put to death over being raped.

Reasonable becomes very subjective. Not too long ago marriage laws regarding same sex or couples with different skin tones were considered reasonable, but clearly led to unnecessary suffering.

I think focusing on consent in its various forms makes the most sense for "reasonable" because it puts the responsibility on individuals capable of making choices while understanding consequences.



Aside from the above example, I would argue that rejecting social restraint in some cases for freedom can result in stronger innovation and progress. For instance, disallowing scientific experimentation due to dogmatic tradition leads to stagnation. Simultaneously, I do think certain restraints are necessary at times, especially when it comes to human and animal scientific experimentation. I just don't think I can agree that social restraint has any more precedence over individual liberty than the other way around. It seems to me that both have their place.

The precedent is that humans are a social, cooperative species. We cannot survive as lone agents. So group security and cohesion are more important to our survival as a species than our selfish desires and the freedom to pursue them. However, once that president is met, we need to allow people to pursue their selfish desires to the degree that we can to make their survival worth it. As we humans are also value driven creatures.

 

[PureX]

No, the act of sex in those cases doesn't affect others. It is the revelation of the sex act that causes the effect. And since I said PRIVATE, that doesn't really apply, does it?

In any case, you are still being vague. I'm polyamorous, so I have multiple relationships. I've had a relationship with a married woman, with the full knowledge of her husband. And the husband has had relationships with the full knowledge of his wife. So going to bed with someone else's spouse is only an issue if you decide that it's going to be an issue. Should polyamorous people be prevented from having non-monogamous relationships based on your argument here?

And I could go on with most of your other examples as well.

You seem to think that everything I do makes some change in the world. Tell me, if I'd had sex with my partner this morning, how would the world be different right now? How would your life be different? How would my neighbour's life be different?

That depends on who the partner is; your boss, your student, your priest, someone else's significant other? Did you have to buy their consent with money, or favors, or threats, or coerce them with mind games? Or they, you? You're trying to ignore all the details of human interaction so you can pretend it's innocuous. But it never really is when we act from the motive of selfishness.

Which is why we need constraints placed upon human interactions, and especially human sexual interactions, because it's an area of human behavior that is very often driven by the selfishness of one's own physical pleasure.