Should Incest be banned?

[Rival]

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.

Err, yes it does. Just look at the stats for aversion to homosexuality over the decades.

How we treat mentally ill people / closing asylums.

Etc.

First cousin marriage is legal where I am and I've never seen anything weird about that, until you learn others don't see it as normal at all because it's illegal where they come from.

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

If you'd actually bothered ready any of my posts in this thread you'll see it's more than that.

But you don't want to because you have already decided everyone who argues against you is wrong.

Have fun with that.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

I've already ruled out legalising grooming and/or paedophilia so I'd suggest you are knocking over a strawman.

As for your other concern about siblings with a generational gap I believe it would not be unworkably hard to have a panel of judges agree on an age gap that represents a generational gap and set an appropriate grooming age gap ruling.

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.

I believe you have something backwards. When did you have to demonstrate there is societal benefit to you screwing your Mrs *before* it would be made legal?

One should not have to demonstrate there is a societal benefit to them bonking for it to be legal in my view, rather one should demonstrate there is sufficient harm to who your bonking for it to be made illegal.

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.

Well my wife doesn't have a sister, but I'm not about to start screwing my sister either way. But I see who you or I would bonk as irrelevant. I wouldn't screw another man but you don't hear me saying the old anti homosexuality laws should remain in place till gays can demonstrate their bonking has some societal benefit and you wouldn't have heard me saying that when such laws were in place.

 

[danieldemol]

Err, yes it does. Just look at the stats for aversion to homosexuality over the decades.

Homosexuality has not become normalised, it has remained about 10% of the population. Incest will remain a tiny minority of the population for similar reasons

How we treat mentally ill people / closing asylums.

The number of mentally ill people in society has not increased, we just have greater awareness of what mental illness is and how to treat it, and there are still mental health hospitals where people mentally unfit to be free amongst society are incarcerated pending treatment where such treatment is available. Just because they aren't called asylums changes little.

Etc.

First cousin marriage is legal where I am and I've never seen anything weird about that, until you learn others don't see it as normal at all because it's illegal where they come from.

ROFL I see first cousin marriage as weird (wouldn't even know if its legalised in Australia). If you dont see it as weird then you are already partially accepting of incest couples and I would suggest that there is less wrong with a couple of adult gay twins bonking each other than with first cousins since the incest gay couple wouldn't produce any offspring who may feel uncomfortable at being poked fun at for having incest parents in my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

What harm? Saying it don't make it so.

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.

I'm not asking anyone to pass any laws. You're asking them to remove them. If you want to pass a law around green hard and chainsaws, get your local rep to do so, and let democratic process have at it.

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

Nope. Removing laws requires a process to be followed, not your assessment that it's 'ridiculous'. You might not like democratic process, and you might think society are idiots, but there it is.

But my assessment is that the law hurts no-one whilst the lack of law would be potentially problematic. Even 'potentially' outweighs 'hiets no-one', particularly when you're talking about an existing law.

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

Sure. Wordify them for me.
Would part of it include not screwing people you raised from diapers? My version would, I think.

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

A strange assessment. I'm asking for a direct opinion on a simple example. One that for whatever reason is never used. Do you think a father should be able to legally sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday? Morally?

They're not hard questions, and I'm assuming your answer is yes, but it's never been mentioned.

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.

What does grooming mean in this case? Does telling your daughter 'its fine to have sex with daddy, once you're 18' count as grooming?

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

I know.

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

Not really my argument though, is it?

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."

Sorry, it's behind a paywall for me (maybe because I'm Australian). But I appreciate you providing the link, and am happy to accept the quote as presented.

However, as you're aware that is almost 20 years old. Are you aware that it sparked a campaign that within 12 months (so...still almost 20 years ago) resulted in the Circle of Trust bill being passed unanimously in New York State?

So...umm...

*shrugs*

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

Explain Billy and Sally's circumstances. Then I can answer. Is Billy Sally's father?

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?

I don't 'miss your point'. I disagree with it.
Because things have consequences, and it takes a peculiar lack of acknowledgement of that to assume otherwise.

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

As I've said...many times...I understand that's your position.

Incest between consenting adults does not involve emotional manipulation or cause any physical harm.

That's quite the claim. I should believe that why, exactly?

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).

Well, of course. You're ignoring, negating or ridiculing any other rationale.

And I did.

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?

I didn't suggest there is no benefit to society in incestuous sex. Although of course there is not.
I suggested there is no benefit to society in changing the law. Further, I can see harm, at least in some cases.

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?

I'm not stopping anyone from having sex. I am yet to hear from you in response to my questions about exactly who needs to have sex with their father/mother/son/daughter.

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 don't need it to be. Incest laws are in place.

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

I could care less. And you missed my point. Which was...quite simply...that there is a separation between attraction and action. Unless you just screw anyone you're attracted to who will let you. In which case I wish you good luck.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've already ruled out legalising grooming and/or paedophilia so I'd suggest you are knocking over a strawman.

Nope. A father having sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday is neither grooming nor pedophilia. You might be okay with that in a legal sense, but I'm not.

It's not a strawman, it's a hypothetical situation. Feel free to answer it as you wish.

As for your other concern about siblings with a generational gap I believe it would not be unworkably hard to have a panel of judges agree on an age gap that represents a generational gap and set an appropriate grooming age gap ruling.

Grooming requires an offense to occur, as per my earlier posting to you.

I believe you have something backwards. When did you have to demonstrate there is societal benefit to you screwing your Mrs *before* it would be made legal?

Societal benefit? I did not. Nor did I claim I needed to.
It would be reasonably easy to do so, I guess, but it's not my argument, so I won't bother.

Instead I'd ask you to think about this a little more deeply.
What I suggested is that there is no societal benefit to removing incest laws. None. Absolutely zero. There is increased risk of harm. It's a simple enough utilitarian position.

One should not have to demonstrate there is a societal benefit to them bonking for it to be legal in my view, rather one should demonstrate there is sufficient harm to who your bonking for it to be made illegal.

No one has asked for incest 'to be made illegal'. It is illegal. If you want that to change, explain why. Who does the law harm? How do you mitigate against the risks of removing it. Simple.

Well my wife doesn't have a sister, but I'm not about to start screwing my sister either way. But I see who you or I would bonk as irrelevant. I wouldn't screw another man but you don't hear me saying the old anti homosexuality laws should remain in place till gays can demonstrate their bonking has some societal benefit and you wouldn't have heard me saying that when such laws were in place.

Okay. I personally think allowing people to sleep with their preferred gender does have societal benefits. Repression of homosexuality is not at all good for society in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that there are people who have a preferred relation to sleep with?
No...I don't think so. I don't think you're marching on behalf of people whose sexuality demands they sleep with their sister. And I think comparing that to the battle for homosexual rights is pretty tawdry.

Instead your argument must reduce to the level of individuals being allowed to do whatever they want as long as the other party agrees. It's an argument about individual rights...not about societal or group rights.

You can disagree with me, I don't much care. But I do kinda wish people would stop misrepresenting my position.

 

[danieldemol]

Nope. A father having sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday is neither grooming nor pedophilia. You might be okay with that in a legal sense, but I'm not.

It's not a strawman, it's a hypothetical situation. Feel free to answer it as you wish.

I'm saying that if that is your moral objection to incest existing paedophilia or grooming laws could be modified to accommodate such a moral objection to make such a scenario a felony without a blanket ban on incest

Grooming requires an offense to occur, as per my earlier posting to you.

Societal benefit? I did not. Nor did I claim I needed to.
It would be reasonably easy to do so, I guess, but it's not my argument, so I won't bother.

Instead I'd ask you to think about this a little more deeply.
What I suggested is that there is no societal benefit to removing incest laws. None. Absolutely zero. There is increased risk of harm. It's a simple enough utilitarian position.

So what is the harm that comes from the two monogamous gay adult twin brothers bonking each other again?

No one has asked for incest 'to be made illegal'. It is illegal. If you want that to change, explain why. Who does the law harm? How do you mitigate against the risks of removing it. Simple.

Giving people harmless freedoms doesn't require benefit to society in my view. As for how to mitigate against the risk of removing it I believe I've adequately addressed your concerns in this post in above comments.

Okay. I personally think allowing people to sleep with their preferred gender does have societal benefits. Repression of homosexuality is not at all good for society in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that there are people who have a preferred relation to sleep with?

On an individual level two monogamous adult gay twin brothers may prefer to sleep with each other than others.

Instead your argument must reduce to the level of individuals being allowed to do whatever they want as long as the other party agrees. It's an argument about individual rights...not about societal or group rights.

Societal rights strike me as a selfish pretext to oppress minorities because they make us feel uncomfortable. If they are not harming us (or each other) I dont see why we have special rights as a society to demand they don't exercise their freedoms.

You can disagree with me, I don't much care. But I do kinda wish people would stop misrepresenting my position.

Well I'm doing my best, but your arguments do strike me as eerily similar to anti-homosexual arguments.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm saying that if that is your moral objection to incest existing paedophilia or grooming laws could be modified to accommodate such a moral objection to make such a scenario a felony without a blanket ban on incest

Nobody engages with this basic question. Should a father be allowed to have sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday in your opinion?

As a bonus, I'd love to know what this purported modification to existing pedophilia and grooming laws actually looks like, rather than just talking about it in magical terms, but I'd settle for a simple answer on the first.

So what is the harm that comes from the two monogamous gay adult twin brothers bonking each other again?

Let's take existing incest laws and add a clause allowing twin gay brothers to go nuts then. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? You're just finding the absolute least harmful expression of familial incest you can imagine.

Giving people harmless freedoms doesn't require benefit to society in my view. As for how to mitigate against the risk of removing it I believe I've adequately addressed your concerns in this post in above comments.

I must have missed it. I saw no such mitigation strategies. Just vague references to mitigation as a concept.

On an individual level two monogamous adult gay twin brothers may prefer to sleep with each other than others.

They may. It might even harm them if such a relationship is illegal. Oh wait...it really won't.

Societal rights strike me as a selfish pretext to oppress minorities because they make us feel uncomfortable. If they are not harming us (or each other) I dont see why we have special rights as a society to demand they don't exercise their freedoms.

I never claimed accepting incest doesn't harm us, so perhaps don't assume that. I claimed there is no benefit. Surely the difference is obvious enough?

Well I'm doing my best, but your arguments do strike me as eerily similar to anti-homosexual arguments.

Then I'll assume good faith and try and explain a different way.

If I point to someone in the street, you might be able to assign their gender. It's a class of people, notwithstanding that the class is less obviously defined than in the recent past. I could point at the same person and probably make the same assessment.

If I point to someone in the street, you might be able to assign their race. That's less certain, and at some level race is complete bunk, but still...you might at least be able to say 'mostly Asian', or 'indigenous' or something. I could point at the same person and probably make the same assessment.

If I point to someone, could you tell me 'my mother' or 'my brother' or 'my daughter'? And would I then make the same assessment?

No, of course not. One is a broad classification, and one is a specific blood relationship.
These are not the same.

Allowing for incest would;
- Provide no societal benefit.
- Fulfill no individual need.
- Potentially open up opportunity for coercion and harm.
- Require a legal change no one has even vaguely tried to outline, which would obviously require review and assessment in a more detailed manner (even at a guiding principles level)

On the plus, we could become a fashionable destination for incestuous couples if we do get this through.

 

[Tiberius]

What harm? Saying it don't make it so.

Did it cause harm when gay couples weren't allowed to have sex with each other? If so, demonstrate it.

I'm not asking anyone to pass any laws. You're asking them to remove them. If you want to pass a law around green hard and chainsaws, get your local rep to do so, and let democratic process have at it.

When did I call for people to abolish the laws? I've said that the laws are unjustified.

Sure. Wordify them for me.
Would part of it include not screwing people you raised from diapers? My version would, I think.

Do you really think we don't already have laws against grooming people for sex?

A strange assessment. I'm asking for a direct opinion on a simple example. One that for whatever reason is never used. Do you think a father should be able to legally sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday? Morally?

They're not hard questions, and I'm assuming your answer is yes, but it's never been mentioned.

You're hilarious. Let's go over how we got here.

You said, "Can a 17 year old give informed consent for sex with a 40 year old?"

I said, "I was very clearly using the example of consenting ADULTS. Not "barely legal" teens, but actual adults."

You said, "A father could sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday if she consents?"

I said, "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."

So you've REPEATEDLY used the "barely legal" example, even though I have at multiple times VERY CLEARLY stated I'm not talking about such issues. You've also refused to acknowledge the issue of grooming and are asking me to apply a one-size-fits-all judgement to something that has many variables, such as the issue of grooming which you refuse to provide information on.

In short, you're forcing a discussion about something that doesn't fit the situation I've been talking about from the start of this thread and you are deliberately asking me to make a judgement without the full information, and then you're claiming I failed when I refuse to play with your strawman.

What does grooming mean in this case? Does telling your daughter 'its fine to have sex with daddy, once you're 18' count as grooming?

"Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them." SOURCE

Not really my argument though, is it?

Sorry, it's behind a paywall for me (maybe because I'm Australian). But I appreciate you providing the link, and am happy to accept the quote as presented.

However, as you're aware that is almost 20 years old. Are you aware that it sparked a campaign that within 12 months (so...still almost 20 years ago) resulted in the Circle of Trust bill being passed unanimously in New York State?

So...umm...

*shrugs*

But it does show that it can provide loopholes for perpetrators to get away with lesser convictions.

Explain Billy and Sally's circumstances. Then I can answer. Is Billy Sally's father?

You miss my point.

If you say that Billy and Sally should be allowed to have sex since they are consenting adults, but then change your mind when you learn they are related, then your only problem is with your new perspective, not from the situation itself.

I don't 'miss your point'. I disagree with it.
Because things have consequences, and it takes a peculiar lack of acknowledgement of that to assume otherwise.

And what consequences are there that don't also exist with non-related people having sex?

As I've said...many times...I understand that's your position.

Given that you've misrepresented my position several times, I don't think you do understand.

That's quite the claim. I should believe that why, exactly?

Because people who are not related can have sex without those things. You make the unwarranted assumption that harm and manipulation MUST apply in all cases of incest, when this has not been shown.

Well, of course. You're ignoring, negating or ridiculing any other rationale.

Sorry, I didn't realise that any other rationale had been presented. Could you present an argument against incest that does NOT fall under 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)?

I didn't suggest there is no benefit to society in incestuous sex. Although of course there is not.

So you ARE suggesting that there is no benefit.

I suggested there is no benefit to society in changing the law. Further, I can see harm, at least in some cases.

If I have sex with my partner, what benefit is provided to society?

I'm not stopping anyone from having sex. I am yet to hear from you in response to my questions about exactly who needs to have sex with their father/mother/son/daughter.

Why does anyone need to have sex with anyone else?

I could care less.

So then you DO care?

And you missed my point. Which was...quite simply...that there is a separation between attraction and action. Unless you just screw anyone you're attracted to who will let you. In which case I wish you good luck.

I don't need luck.

 

[Tiberius]

If you'd actually bothered ready any of my posts in this thread you'll see it's more than that.

But you don't want to because you have already decided everyone who argues against you is wrong.

Have fun with that.

Then please, go into more detail.

I mean, you said it was immoral, perverted, wrong, disgustingly selfish, and depraved. But at no point did you ever actually say WHY it is any of these things. You just have the ICK response, and assume that everyone else will have the same response and thus you don't need to justify it because you can't understand that everyone doesn't already agree with you.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Wow, you really can't understand that other people have different worldviews than you, can you?

I did not buy off the woman I had a relationship so I could sleep with her. We met, we got on well and had an emotional connection, and we went to bed together and had a lot of fun. It's as simple as that.

The fact that you can't imagine how this could happen without assuming that there was some nefarious motive behind it says a lot more about your attitudes than mine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm saying that if that is your moral objection to incest existing paedophilia or grooming laws could be modified to accommodate such a moral objection to make such a scenario a felony without a blanket ban on incest

Nobody engages with this basic question. Should a father be allowed to have sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday in your opinion?

As a bonus, I'd love to know what this purported modification to existing pedophilia and grooming laws actually looks like, rather than just talking about it in magical terms, but I'd settle for a simple answer on the first.

So what is the harm that comes from the two monogamous gay adult twin brothers bonking each other again?

Let's take existing incest laws and add a clause allowing twin gay brothers to go nuts then. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? You're just finding the absolute least harmful expression of familial incest you can imagine.

Giving people harmless freedoms doesn't require benefit to society in my view. As for how to mitigate against the risk of removing it I believe I've adequately addressed your concerns in this post in above comments.

I must have missed it. I saw no such mitigation strategies. Just vague references to mitigation as a concept.

On an individual level two monogamous adult gay twin brothers may prefer to sleep with each other than others.

They may. It might even harm them if such a relationship is illegal. Oh wait...it really won't.

Societal rights strike me as a selfish pretext to oppress minorities because they make us feel uncomfortable. If they are not harming us (or each other) I dont see why we have special rights as a society to demand they don't exercise their freedoms.

I never claimed accepting incest doesn't harm us, so perhaps don't assume that. I claimed there is no benefit. Surely the difference is obvious enough?

Well I'm doing my best, but your arguments do strike me as eerily similar to anti-homosexual arguments.

Then I'll assume good faith and try and explain a different way.

If I point to someone in the street, you might be able to assign their gender. It's a class if people, notwithstanding that the class is less obviously defined than in the recent past. I could point at the same person and probably make the same assessment.

If I point to someone in the street, you might be able to assign their race. That's less certain, and at some level race is complete bunk, but still...you might at least be able to say 'mostly Asian', or 'indigenous' or something. I could point at the same person and probably make the same assessment.

If I point to someone, could you tell me 'my mother' or 'my brother' or 'my daughter'? And would I then make the same assessment?

No, of course not. One is a broad classification, and one is a specific blood relationship.
These are not the same.

Allowing for incest would;
- Provide no societal benefit.
- Fulfill no individual need.
- Potentially open up opportunity for coercion and harm.
- Require a legal change no one has even vaguely tried to outline, which would obviously require review and assessment in a more detailed manner (even at a guiding principles level)

On the plus, we could become a fashionable destination for incestuous couples if we do get this through.

 

[danieldemol]

Nobody engages with this basic question. Should a father be allowed to have sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday in your opinion?

I believe i already answered a basic variant of this same question several posts back, but since you seem to have missed it my answer was no.

As a bonus, I'd love to know what this purported modification to existing pedophilia and grooming laws actually looks like, rather than just talking about it in magical terms, but I'd settle for a simple answer on the first.

Magical terms? It would need to specifically worded by professional law makers, but I would look at existing grooming laws and simply modify them if the job was mine.

Let's take existing incest laws and add a clause allowing twin gay brothers to go nuts then. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? You're just finding the absolute least harmful expression of familial incest you can imagine.

Actually ill take that as a partial win. If you're ok with that lets agree to exclude them from incest laws.

The only difference I would see between brothers with no generational gap and a brother and sister with no generation gap is potential offspring concerns which I think is a eugenics argument quite frankly.

I must have missed it. I saw no such mitigation strategies. Just vague references to mitigation as a concept.

Well if you are after specific wording professional law makers would have to be consulted. I personally don't even know the exact wording of existing grooming laws.

Allowing for incest would;
- Provide no societal benefit.

Allowing oral sex doesn't provide societal benefit either.
But suppose a brother impregnated his sister. Would you jail the parents leaving a child without the benefit of its biological parents? That doesn't seem beneficial to society either.

- Fulfill no individual need.

Oral sex doesn't fulfill a need either.

- Potentially open up opportunity for coercion and harm.

Not if laws surrounding coercion and harm are updated accordingly in my view.

- Require a legal change no one has even vaguely tried to outline, which would obviously require review and assessment in a more detailed manner (even at a guiding principles level)

Yeah we get this kind of scare tactic whenever a dramatic new piece of legislation is proposed, but details can be worked out before legislation is passed. The important thing is getting the ball rolling in parliament for change. Sounds like you already agree about twins being exempt so that should be enough for a review of existing law to be put before parliament.

On the plus, we could become a fashionable destination for incestuous couples if we do get this through.

They are welcome provided they don't cause harm in my books

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did it cause harm when gay couples weren't allowed to have sex with each other? If so, demonstrate it.

This provides access to findings of 300 studies. Obviously not all are limited to the impacts of homosexual sex, many deal more generally with discrimination.

What does the scholarly research say about the effects of discrimination on the health of LGBT people? | What We Know

Overview We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English before October 2018 that assessed the effects of discrimination on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States. We identified 300 studies that...

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu

When did I call for people to abolish the laws? I've said that the laws are unjustified.

Okay. So noted.

Do you really think we don't already have laws against grooming people for sex?

Did you read my earlier post on grooming laws? I don't believe grooming laws would apply if there was no offence committed as a result of the grooming.
So, an adult having sex with another adult, with incest laws removed, does not constitute an offence. So no grooming.

Feel free to indicate otherwise, but that was the rationale in the example provided.

You're hilarious. Let's go over how we got here.

You said, "Can a 17 year old give informed consent for sex with a 40 year old?"

I said, "I was very clearly using the example of consenting ADULTS. Not "barely legal" teens, but actual adults."

Noted. So to your mind the 17 year old is a child, and unable to give informed consent to the 40 year old I'm assuming. That holds up legally here, if the 40 year old is in a position of authority, control, etc. Which I'd assume a father would meet. No idea on a brother.
And someone 12-16 here can have sex with someone else within 2 years of age of them without breaking the law. So a 13 year old with their 15 year old brother, for example. That seems problematic, but you may disagree.

You said, "A father could sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday if she consents?"

I said, "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 don't believe either grooming or age of consent laws would apply once the girl is 18.

So you've REPEATEDLY used the "barely legal" example, even though I have at multiple times VERY CLEARLY stated I'm not talking about such issues.

As I've said, I get that you are talking about examples of clearly adult persons, with clearly no coercion or control, where there is no issues around pregnancy.
As I've mentioned...repeatedly...that's a highly idealised view. I'm more of a pragmatist, arguing from a position of utility.

You've also refused to acknowledge the issue of grooming and are asking me to apply a one-size-fits-all judgement to something that has many variables, such as the issue of grooming which you refuse to provide information on.

I provided an entire post on grooming laws, directed you to it, and linked to government sources on the topic, highlighting a couple of issues.

If you want to land on a position that 'incest is fine, in some cases, but holy heck it's hard working out how that world work legally' then great. We are not so far apart. If you're talking idealistically, though, you're going to have to deal with specific examples not fitting into your contrived limitations.

In short, you're forcing a discussion about something that doesn't fit the situation I've been talking about from the start of this thread and you are deliberately asking me to make a judgement without the full information, and then you're claiming I failed when I refuse to play with your strawman.

It's not a strawman, but I otherwise agree with this.

"Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them." SOURCE

Again, you're just avoiding a direct question. I understand what grooming is, and made a full post on it earlier.
If there has been no offence committed, my understanding is that no grooming has occurred in a legal sense. The 18 year old is a specific question for a specific purpose. Not a strawman in any sense. Grooming has not occurred where there are no incest laws, and a father sleeps with his daughter on her 18th birthday, because no offence has occurred.

If you have information to the contrary, let me know. I read through the link you provided but saw nothing to contradict this. I'm basing this assumption on the information I linked to and quoted earlier.

But it does show that it can provide loopholes for perpetrators to get away with lesser convictions.

We should do away with manslaughter laws then...

Look, you provided 18 year old information that was made redundant 17 years ago by specific law changes partially driven by the very article you linked to.
The advocacy groups that had got the law changed weren't pro-incest.

You miss my point.

If you say that Billy and Sally should be allowed to have sex since they are consenting adults, but then change your mind when you learn they are related, then your only problem is with your new perspective, not from the situation itself.

That's not how the world works. As I become aware of more information, my opinion develops. That is normal and healthy. The alternative is fundamentalism, or at least idealism divorced from reality.

And what consequences are there that don't also exist with non-related people having sex?

Increased chance for coercive relationships.
Increased chance for impact on familial members and relationships.
Increased change for 'grooming' colloquially, that wouldn't be legally prohibited.
It's not massive, but I'm offsetting it against little or no discernible benefit.

Given that you've misrepresented my position several times, I don't think you do understand.

Ok. What have I misrepresented?

Because people who are not related can have sex without those things. You make the unwarranted assumption that harm and manipulation MUST apply in all cases of incest, when this has not been shown.

Nope. I've suggested it can, that it's very hard to frame a law that acts in defence of that, and that there is little or no discernible benefit. Also that the current law effectively harms no one.

Sorry, I didn't realise that any other rationale had been presented. Could you present an argument against incest that does NOT fall under 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)?

I don't believe I've mentioned birth defects or 'ick'. You don't need to accept my position, and you may not understand it. That's not the same as 'sorry, I didn't realise that any other rationale had been presented'.
I appreciate the attempted drama, though.

So you ARE suggesting that there is no benefit.

Societal benefit? I'm not, that's correct. I don't think I've prevaricated on that.

If I have sex with my partner, what benefit is provided to society?

Not much. What harm?
I don't know your partner, or the context of your relationship.

Why does anyone need to have sex with anyone else?

'Need'...as I mentioned before...is somewhat shorthand, but if we are adults I'm sure we can agree that there is a natural and healthy drive to have sex. Are you suggesting that some need to have sex with their mums, and that removing that as a valid option levels them looking at a sexless life?

So then you DO care?

Ooooh. Snappy.

I don't need luck.

True enough.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe i already answered a basic variant of this same question several posts back, but since you seem to have missed it my answer was no.

If I missed it I apologise, and I thank you for the simple response. I don't see how that is protected if incest laws are removed.

Magical terms? It would need to specifically worded by professional law makers, but I would look at existing grooming laws and simply modify them if the job was mine.

Okay. I would too. But my modification would include parents not sleeping with their children.

Actually ill take that as a partial win. If you're ok with that lets agree to exclude them from incest laws.

The only difference I would see between brothers with no generational gap and a brother and sister with no generation gap is potential offspring concerns which I think is a eugenics argument quite frankly.

No, it's nothing to do with that. It's an argument about control and coercion. Older siblings are part of how younger siblings learn about the world.
Nothing to do with eugenics, and I've carefully excluded any arguments about offspring entirely, since then I'm sure someone will suggest 'its okay if they are sterile then...'

(Not you...I actually believe you are arguing in good faith. I just mean in general terms)

Well if you are after specific wording professional law makers would have to be consulted. I personally don't even know the exact wording of existing grooming laws.

I linked to government site on grooming earlier, and highlighted than for grooming to have occurred, an offence needs to ultimately occur. Hence I don't see how a coercive relationship that crosses no legal barrier prior to adulthood is legally 'grooming'.

Allowing oral sex doesn't provide societal benefit either.
But suppose a brother impregnated his sister. Would you jail the parents leaving a child without the benefit of its biological parents? That doesn't seem beneficial to society either.

I'm gaoling the parents only if they were aware of the relationship and did not seek to prevent or limit it. And whilst I think we need to invest more efficiently in child services to make that more effective, I absolutely think there is societal benefit to interfering in that situation. 100%

Oral sex doesn't fulfill a need either.

It's a way to achieve sexual intimacy without the risk of pregnancy I suppose. But are you suggesting we ban it?

Not if laws surrounding coercion and harm are updated accordingly in my view.

Y'all keep saying things like this. But nobody wants to tackle what the law would actually entail.

I'll have a crack...I'd remove restrictions on cousins having sex, assuming they didn't live together. I'd leave other incest laws in place, but ensure the DPP had enough discretionary powers to deal with unusual situations (eg. Separated siblings who sleep together without knowledge).

Yeah we get this kind of scare tactic whenever a dramatic new piece of legislation is proposed, but details can be worked out before legislation is passed. The important thing is getting the ball rolling in parliament for change. Sounds like you already agree about twins being exempt so that should be enough for a review of existing law to be put before parliament.

*shrugs*

Go for it.
I was reading the 'twin brother' scenario as a placeholder for 'some relationships that are currently considered incestuous are not as likely to cause harm as others'.

I agree with that. I wouldn't literally have a clause for gay twin brothers, but some adjustment to existing laws is always okay to discuss.

They are welcome provided they don't cause harm in my books

We have different books.

 

[danieldemol]

It's a way to achieve sexual intimacy without the risk of pregnancy I suppose. But are you suggesting we ban it?

I'm suggesting that in a hypothetical world where it already was banned your so called utilitarian approach wouldn't be able to unban it, which I think highlights the ridiculousness of requiring to demonstrate benefit to society or need before allowing people to indulge in harmless behaviour .

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm suggesting that in a hypothetical world where it already was banned your so called utilitarian approach wouldn't be able to unban it, which I think highlights the ridiculousness of requiring to demonstrate benefit to society or need before allowing people to indulge in harmless behaviour .

'so-called' utilitarian approach.

Okay.
It's hardly an edgy philosophy, and there are thousands of books and websites that can expose it to all sorts of ridiculous levels. But regardless, all I'm suggesting here is that action should be measured on benefit.

 

[lukethethird]

Should Incest be banned?​

Whatever is decided, use a condom.

 

[Firenze]

I keep hearing that incest between an adult child and their parent is ‘harmless’. I read an article in a psychology journal many moons ago that made the point that the complex relationship between parent and child persists even in adulthood and that harm is almost always the result. Your child is always your child. It’s why they suffer when their parents get divorced regardless of their age.

 

[Tiberius]

This provides access to findings of 300 studies. Obviously not all are limited to the impacts of homosexual sex, many deal more generally with discrimination.

What does the scholarly research say about the effects of discrimination on the health of LGBT people? | What We Know

Overview We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English before October 2018 that assessed the effects of discrimination on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States. We identified 300 studies that...

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu

Thank you. Those studies show very clearly that denying people the right to have relationships with the people they want to have relationships causes harm.

Okay. So noted.

Did you read my earlier post on grooming laws? I don't believe grooming laws would apply if there was no offence committed as a result of the grooming.
So, an adult having sex with another adult, with incest laws removed, does not constitute an offence. So no grooming.

Feel free to indicate otherwise, but that was the rationale in the example provided.

Right, so then what harm is done when two related consenting adults have sex when there is no grooming?

Noted. So to your mind the 17 year old is a child, and unable to give informed consent to the 40 year old I'm assuming. That holds up legally here, if the 40 year old is in a position of authority, control, etc. Which I'd assume a father would meet. No idea on a brother.
And someone 12-16 here can have sex with someone else within 2 years of age of them without breaking the law. So a 13 year old with their 15 year old brother, for example. That seems problematic, but you may disagree.

You seem incapable of actually addressing the point I am making.

Consenting ADULTS.

You seem to insist on going to the extreme younger end of "adult" in order to try to make some point, despite the fact that I repeatedly and clearly stated that wasn't what I was talking about.

I don't believe either grooming or age of consent laws would apply once the girl is 18.

Again, you missed the part where I CLEARLY said I wasn't talking about "barely legal" situations.

As I've said, I get that you are talking about examples of clearly adult persons, with clearly no coercion or control, where there is no issues around pregnancy.
As I've mentioned...repeatedly...that's a highly idealised view. I'm more of a pragmatist, arguing from a position of utility.

And you seem incapable of understanding WHY I am using that example.

I am using that example to eliminate as much as possible the issues of grooming.

I provided an entire post on grooming laws, directed you to it, and linked to government sources on the topic, highlighting a couple of issues.

That's not what I meant.

I was referring to the fact that your example of a father having sex with his daughter as soon as she turns legal age and asking whether that constitutes grooming. I said you didn't provide enough information because you gave absolutely no information to determine whether the father had groomed this hypothetical young woman or not.

If you want to land on a position that 'incest is fine, in some cases, but holy heck it's hard working out how that world work legally' then great. We are not so far apart. If you're talking idealistically, though, you're going to have to deal with specific examples not fitting into your contrived limitations.

My point is that we don't need ANY laws against incest. In any cases of incest that have caused harm, such as adults sexually abusing children, or people grooming family members, we have non-incest laws that will serve adequately to provide punishments for the perpetrators.

It's not a strawman, but I otherwise agree with this.

So you agree you are asking me to answer a question when you have deliberately not provided me with enough information to answer it?

At least you can admit to the intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Again, you're just avoiding a direct question. I understand what grooming is, and made a full post on it earlier.
If there has been no offence committed, my understanding is that no grooming has occurred in a legal sense. The 18 year old is a specific question for a specific purpose. Not a strawman in any sense. Grooming has not occurred where there are no incest laws, and a father sleeps with his daughter on her 18th birthday, because no offence has occurred.

If you have information to the contrary, let me know. I read through the link you provided but saw nothing to contradict this. I'm basing this assumption on the information I linked to and quoted earlier.

Again, I will point out that your hypothetical situation INTENTIONALLY left out the information I need in order to judge whether grooming has occurred or not.

It's like if I say that I go into a store and walk out five minutes later with a loaf of bread. Did I commit theft or not? The information you need just isn't there. You are doing the same thing but not giving the information I need to answer your question of whether the young woman was groomed or not.

We should do away with manslaughter laws then...

And yet manslaughter is a clearly defined thing that is not covered by other laws.

Look, you provided 18 year old information that was made redundant 17 years ago by specific law changes partially driven by the very article you linked to.
The advocacy groups that had got the law changed weren't pro-incest.

My point was that there are cases where laws specifically for incest can provide loopholes that let people get away with lesser sentences.

That's not how the world works. As I become aware of more information, my opinion develops. That is normal and healthy. The alternative is fundamentalism, or at least idealism divorced from reality.

Then perhaps you'd care to explain how genetic similarity makes it bad?

Increased chance for coercive relationships.
Increased chance for impact on familial members and relationships.
Increased change for 'grooming' colloquially, that wouldn't be legally prohibited.
It's not massive, but I'm offsetting it against little or no discernible benefit.

All of those things happen outside incestuous relationships.

Ok. What have I misrepresented?

You have misrepresented my position by claiming I am calling for the laws to be removed. I am pointing out there is no justification for those laws. If I was trying to get those laws repealed, I'd take action by writing to the law makers, not posting on an internet forum.

Nope. I've suggested it can, that it's very hard to frame a law that acts in defence of that, and that there is little or no discernible benefit. Also that the current law effectively harms no one.

But such manipulation and harm also happen in cases of non-incestuous sex. If the claim of manipulation and harm is enough justification to forbid incest, then why isn't it sufficient to forbid ANY sexual relationships where such manipulation and harm could occur?

I don't believe I've mentioned birth defects or 'ick'. You don't need to accept my position, and you may not understand it. That's not the same as 'sorry, I didn't realise that any other rationale had been presented'.

The only other argument I've seen you present is the "But it doesn't cause any social benefit" line. The same logic would have us conclude that same sex partnerships don't produce any social benefit, so we should have left the laws banning those as well.

Of course, the whole idea of "social benefit" is completely vague. How do you determine the social benefit of something?

And it also assumes that something must be of benefit to society, and if it isn't, we can ban it and no harm is done. Why must everything have social benefit?

Not much. What harm?
I don't know your partner, or the context of your relationship.

And your understanding is required, is it, in order for it to be judged right or wrong?

'Need'...as I mentioned before...is somewhat shorthand, but if we are adults I'm sure we can agree that there is a natural and healthy drive to have sex. Are you suggesting that some need to have sex with their mums, and that removing that as a valid option levels them looking at a sexless life?

Look, we are making progress. You agree that people have a natural and healthy drive to have sex.

Do I need to hold your hand through the rest of it?

Who can people NOT have sex with?

People can NOT have sex with someone who doesn't consent, because that is rape, and rape has clear harmful effects.

People can NOT have sex with children, because children are not emotionally and/or physically mature enough to deal with the physical and emotional consequences of sexual activity.

See how I've done this? I've presented a subset of the population and explained in specific terms why it is harmful to have sexual activity with them.

Now, let's see you do this for incestuous sex between consenting adults.

 

[Tiberius]

Nobody engages with this basic question. Should a father be allowed to have sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday in your opinion?

Again, you leave out the important information that would allow us to answer the question.

Has the father been grooming the daughter?