should incest between brothers and sisters be legal? [Archive]

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 06:02 AM

hey folks,
a couple of weeks ago there was a ruling by the constitutional court of Germany that incest between brothers and sisters should remain illegal. The case involved a man who had four children with his sister and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Their parents were divorced or something and they grew up in different families, so they only got to know each other as adults and fell in love. 2 of their 4 children are disabled, but doctors haven't been able to narrow down the cause of their disability. The mother (i.e. the sister of the father) is slightly mentally handicapped, too. The chief justice was in favour of legalizing incest, seeing as it is legal in some other countries, but the other judges outvoted him.
Anyways, some of the arguments against legalization that the judges cited were:
- the children of incestuous couples are likely to be disabled
- the more vulnerable/weaker of the two partners has to be protected
- the constitution says that families are the basic unit of society and have to be protected
- incest puts a lot of strain on the families involved

some arguments for legalization were:
- disability can have many causes, e.g. when one/both parent(s) in a non-incestuous relationship are disabled themselves, the children are very likely to be disabled. However, disabled ppl are, of course, allowed to marry and have children
- the incidence of incest is very low because normally children who grow up together (even if they are adopted and not genetically related at all) develop a psychological incest taboo, i.e. they will see the other children as their siblings and out of bounds sexually, even when they are NOT related. So legalizing incest would not result in a lot of ppl suddenly getting interested in it and practicing it.
- Sleepy's own argument: why should one of the partners be more vulnerable and weaker than the other, as long as they are both of age and have all their faculties intact? In this particular case, the woman (sister) was more vulnerable because she was mentally handicapped, plus the man (brother) beat her. But this isn't always the case, so how can you tell which partner needs to be protected? Plus, there can be a "weaker" partner (battered wife or husband) in any relationship and yet ppl are not generally prevented from marrying. You can only define who is the weaker partner after abuse has taken place, not before ppl marry ???

what do you think? (please refrain from comments about sodomy (sex with animals), pedophilia (I'm only referring to consenting adults, not kids or rape) and inflammatory analogies/comparisons of any kind. THANKS

sprinks

03-25-2008, 06:11 AM

I don't think it should be. But that's probably because I've always been taught that it is VERY wrong and unacceptable, and it's always been shown in a bad light in movies and books etc, where you pretty much don't have the character involved in incest if you want the audience to sympathise and agree with that characters point of view.

Pensive

03-25-2008, 06:23 AM

Frankly speaking I just can't find any proper argument against it seeing that disabled people are allowed to marry too and also seeing that quoting passages from Quran or Bible or any other religious book wouldn't be convincing for others than the believer....but you know it sounds so damn sick...but then I am just thinking on an emotional level. Would be more than happy to see anybody posting some logical argument against it.

So if it becomes legal...along with gay rights...we would be having two sisters married to each other and married brothers too. Erm interesting.

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 06:26 AM

Frankly speaking I just can't find any proper argument against it seeing that disabled people are allowed to marry too and also seeing that quoting passages from Quran or Bible or any other religious book wouldn't be convincing for others than the believer....but you know it sounds so damn sick...but then I am just thinking on an emotional level. Would be more than happy to see anybody posting some logical argument against it.

So if it becomes legal...along with gay rights...we would be having married sisters and married brothers too. Erm interesting.

yeah, I don't find the idea very appealing myself but I've never heard any logical arguments against it either. I do think we need to separate the emotional level from logic here. :thumbs_up

Chava

03-25-2008, 06:38 AM

True, it might as well be legal. What business does the state have with interfereing or deciding over individuals? Same goes for gay rights really.

Hmm, now i'm really curious to hear the logical arguments against; something other than, 'Think of the kids!', obviously there is some risk for the kids. First the genetic problems, and secondly they might find it awkward.
But then again, there are so many ways of bringing up children around the world that i both agree and disagree with, so who can judge it?

One of my close friends used to be super embarressed that her mom was living in a lesbian relationship, and never dared to invite friends over, because they were also vegan. Today though, she adores those memories. :D And well, she is bi herself.

Oh man, the complexities of this issue! (Sorry for this utterly rambling post! I appear to have walked onto a tangent)

Pensive

03-25-2008, 06:45 AM

Hmm, now i'm really curious to hear the logical arguments against; something other than, 'Think of the kids!', obviously there is some risk for the kids. First the genetic problems, and secondly they might find it awkward.

Even if one considers the genetic problem, ignoring Sleepy's argument against that genetic argument (though it shouldn't be ignored of course, and is quite interesting), shouldn't a relationship between two brothers or two sisters be okay if there are gay rights? I mean there are going to be no off-springs in this way....just a thought. Religious arguments or personal aesthetical sense, as I mentioned before, are another thing....

Chava

03-25-2008, 06:49 AM

You know, you've got a point Pen! Remarkable observation. :)

Virgil

03-25-2008, 06:59 AM

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

papayahed

03-25-2008, 07:15 AM

There was another case like this recently. I don't remember all the details but a brother and sister were adopted to different families and only found out they were brother and sister after being married (I think there were kids as well). I'm pretty sure there were no disabilities involved.

Anyways on a personal level I think it's icky, however what two consenting adults do is they're own business.

vheissu

03-25-2008, 08:01 AM

What two consenting adults do is indeed their own business but I think it's actually sad if two people who fall in love and form a family later discover that they are siblings. I can't even imagine the shock that they'd have to go through.

Thankfully it doesn't happen too often! But I don't agree with legalizing incest at all. Maybe it's because I've done too much genetics and know what could happen to future generations. It's not just the kids that can have their genetic makeup affected, its the grandkids as well.
Or maybe because I think it's just fundamentally wrong.

I'm a bit lost with gay rights getting mixed in this topic: are you saying that it's ok for two sisters or two brothers to form a more intimate relationship and that they are also protected by gay rights? Have I completely mixed it up?

sprinks

03-25-2008, 08:07 AM

I'm a bit lost with gay rights getting mixed in this topic: are you saying that it's ok for two sisters or two brothers to form a more intimate relationship and that they are also protected by gay rights? Have I completely mixed it up?

I'm a bit confused too... Does the legalisation of incest really have to do with gay rights? :confused:

Chava

03-25-2008, 08:19 AM

Well, the logical argument against incestuous relationships is the genetic outcome; mutations of the children. However, a gay relationship cannot produce offspring, hence, it should be legal for a gay pair of siblings to form a relationship.
It's not got anything to do with gay rights. One might call it an intellectual experiment. It's deductive reasoning.

Mind you deduction though common can also prove that Stevie Wonder is God, so be ware ;)

Shalot

03-25-2008, 08:20 AM

I've been trying to respond to this and I can't seem to come up with anything other than YUCK NO YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK NO NO

*** edit: Our neighbors had a bunch of cats who kept inbreeding and the final result was this kitten who had a lot of health problems and she remained small. The vet attributed her problems and her smaller than normal frame to all the inbreeding. Isn't that one of the reasons why incest is illegal - the genetic mutations that Chava mentioned above?

sprinks

03-25-2008, 08:21 AM

Sir Bartholomew

03-25-2008, 09:18 AM

read Middlesex

Chava

03-25-2008, 09:21 AM

read Middlesex

Good book. I'd completely forgotten about that part! :O

kratsayra

03-25-2008, 12:23 PM

vheissu

03-25-2008, 12:34 PM

The risk for genetic problems seems to me to be the biggest reason why it would be bad. But, actually, I suppose that people who want to have kids who are closely related could always get genetic tests to see what kinds of risks for problems their children would have. Then they could choose if they want to risk passing those problems on to their children or not.

But then, if the couple know that they are closely related to each other why would they even consider having children?!

Is it just me who thinks that a brother and sister who grew up in the same family already have a type of relationship, defined by them being siblings and sharing similar experiences? Evolving that relationship,when you already are close enough, into something different, i.e. sexual, is just weird.

I went to look for more info on the German brother/sister couple....if everything that has been said in the press is true, then there's something seriously wrong with both of them.

Chava

03-25-2008, 12:53 PM

While I can't see the appeal in a sibling relationship, I can't really see the point in judging those who do.
What makes it wrong is after all 'just' a societal indoctrination right? If anything i feel sorry for them. There was a story about a man and woman seperated at birth (twins) and they met randomly and fell totally in love with each other! They were ready for marriage and kids. Sooner or later they started noticing things that somehow 'connected' them, and they had a test done.
Imagine that? the agony of discovering the love of your life is your sibling? They split. And they can't start a normal sibling relationship. You have a loved one, finally meet a family member, and then you lose both. Awful!

Virgil

03-25-2008, 01:03 PM

Is it just me who thinks that a brother and sister who grew up in the same family already have a type of relationship, defined by them being siblings and sharing similar experiences? Evolving that relationship,when you already are close enough, into something different, i.e. sexual, is just weird.

No it's not only you. I agree. And weird is not the right word. The right word is perverse. This is perversion.

vheissu

03-25-2008, 01:03 PM

Imagine that? the agony of discovering the love of your life is your sibling? They split. And they can't start a normal sibling relationship. You have a loved one, finally meet a family member, and then you lose both. Awful!

I've mentioned that in my previous post, it must be a complete shock to discover being a sibling after the relationship has started.

But I'm referring to people who (as in the German case)already knew they were siblings and didn't stop their relationship or to what was mentioned as a 'possible solution' to the likelihood of passing down genetic defects to the children (having genetic tests before they have children). This I do find unacceptable.

metal134

03-25-2008, 01:12 PM

Just to comment on the genetics issue; I think that's poor reasoning. Let's say that there is no incestous relationship to consider, that a person has some kind of issue with theri body that is known to them that if they have children, there is a good change the child will be born with a genetic defect. Should this person, then, be legally barred from having a child? Would it be irresponsible of them? That is another discussion entirely. But just because something is irresponsible doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Granny5

03-25-2008, 01:36 PM

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

Virgil is right, how repulsive. I have six brothers and I love them, but yuk! More than YUK! Why on Earth even think of such? Anyway, if it's legal for brothers and sisters why wouldn't it be legal between fathers and daughters or sons or mothers and sons or daughters. Laws are made to protect people and society, not just on someone's whim. I think it's crazy to even consider.

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 01:54 PM

read Middlesex

thanks for the recommendation, but I've already read it :)

I've mentioned that in my previous post, it must be a complete shock to discover being a sibling after the relationship has started.

But I'm referring to people who (as in the German case)already knew they were siblings and didn't stop their relationship or to what was mentioned as a 'possible solution' to the likelihood of passing down genetic defects to the children (having genetic tests before they have children). This I do find unacceptable.

the German couple where from an extremely uneducated family. they didn't even know it was wrong or illegal until the man was sued. but you are right: they did know that they were related.

Virgil

03-25-2008, 02:05 PM

the German couple where from an extremely uneducated family. they didn't even know it was wrong or illegal until the man was sued. but you are right: they did know that they were related.

My comments so far were directed at incest in general, not this specific case. But as to this case, come on, how could anyone be so uneducated that they don't know that you can't marry your sibling? I haven't read the article, but I don't believe them. I can't even fathom such ignorance. They didn't go to school? Or religious instruction? Or talk to neighbors? Is there such a place in all of Germany where one can be so isolated?

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 02:12 PM

My comments so far were directed at incest in general, not this specific case. But as to this case, come on, how could anyone be so uneducated that they don't know that you can't marry your sibling? I haven't read the article, but I don't believe them. I can't even fathom such ignorance. They didn't go to school? Or religious instruction? Or talk to neighbors? Is there such a place in all of Germany where one can be so isolated?

of course they went to school. but these things are not treated in school the way they should be (even at the most academic of our 3 types of secondary schools) because the teachers are embarrassed. In biology we learned about details like ovulation and the anatomy of the reproductive organs, but our teacher's summary of how children are made was "People marry and then they have children". That was when we were 15/16.
I think the German couple were from Eastern Germany/ex-GDR (I'm NOT sure, though), so they probably didn't go to church.
yep, there are many places in Germany where ppl don't know the first thing about anything and probably there are many such places in other parts of the (developed) world, too.

Virgil

03-25-2008, 02:29 PM

of course they went to school. but these things are not treated in school the way they should be (even at the most academic of our 3 types of secondary schools) because the teachers are embarrassed. In biology we learned about details like ovulation and the anatomy of the reproductive organs, but our teacher's summary of how children are made was "People marry and then they have children". That was when we were 15/16.
I think the German couple were from Eastern Germany/ex-GDR (I'm NOT sure, though), so they probably didn't go to church.
yep, there are many places in Germany where ppl don't know the first thing about anything and probably there are many such places in other parts of the (developed) world, too.

I still don't believe they didn't know. Yes, sometimes I agree certain things are glossed over. Yes they teach how an egg is fertilized by sperm to create a baby and they perhaps not mention how a sperm gets to an egg. ;) The mechanics of it, I mean. :blush: But nonetheless everyone in school knew it even before class. Stuff like this is part of common talk. Goodness i just remembered how you mentioned nude coed baths that you've gone to.:lol: (You're painting some weird picture of Germany for me, Sleepy.:p I know it can't quite be like that.) How could you not know some of the basics? And i would consider incest one of those basic things people gather.

Sweets America

03-25-2008, 02:29 PM

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 02:37 PM

I have absolutely no problem with this, people can be in love with and sleep with whoever they want, that's none of anybody's business. BUT, I don't care either about making it 'legal' cause that would mean that a law would decide that it's ok, and I don't like having a law deciding about that, whether the decision is positive or not. So I say, let's do whatever we like in love and sex and if they're not happy with it, that's their business.

Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.
good point about the law, Sweets, but seeing as it's illegal at the moment it means that ppl who do it can go to prison for 2 years, so it's not like your happy-clappy scenario.

by the way, Virgil, weren't you preaching about freedom of choice when it comes to food and obesity? obese ppl are not prevented from inflicting physical harm on themselves or their children, who may copy their eating habits. so how is this issue different? why don't you (or others) extol the virtues of freedom and choice in this context?
I mean, on a personal& emotional level I totally agree that it's disgusting, but then that's none of my business.

Chava

03-25-2008, 02:45 PM

good point about the law, Sweets, but seeing as it's illegal at the moment it means that ppl who do it can go to prison for 2 years, so it's not like your happy-clappy scenario.

by the way, Virgil, weren't you preaching about freedom of choice when it comes to food and obesity? obese ppl are not prevented from inflicting physical harm on themselves or their children, who may copy their eating habits. so how is this issue different? why don't you (or others) extol the virtues of freedom and choice in this context?
I mean, on a personal& emotional level I totally agree that it's disgusting, but then that's none of my business.

Im just going to second this one... :)

Sweets America

03-25-2008, 02:46 PM

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 02:53 PM

oh yeah, I forgot to mention this: the judges themselves couldn't come up with any rational arguments, so they concluded that our "culture" does not allow incest. While the law is part of our culture, in my opinion, it is officially supposed to be independent, logic, rational etc and normally verdicts do not refer to/ rely on "culture" in such an explicit way. After all, halal meat is legal although 90+ percent of Germans are non-Muslim. So why not forbid halal meat for cultural reasons? ;)

papayahed

03-25-2008, 03:05 PM

How could you not know some of the basics?

You would be surprised at some of the things that well educated people don't know, especially about their own bodies.

Chava

03-25-2008, 03:19 PM

You would be surprised at some of the things that well educated people don't know, especially about their own bodies.

You're so right! The other day a girl asked me if she could have gotten pregnant from having sex? Did she use protection I ask? "Protection?" *blank expression*

And she was heading out to an ivy league, just to push a point... :)

Koa

03-25-2008, 03:22 PM

I have absolutely no problem with this, people can be in love with and sleep with whoever they want, that's none of anybody's business. BUT, I don't care either about making it 'legal' cause that would mean that a law would decide that it's ok, and I don't like having a law deciding about that, whether the decision is positive or not. So I say, let's do whatever we like in love and sex and if they're not happy with it, that's their business.

Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.

Je t'aime Sweets. You're not my sister so I'm allowed to :P

They did incestuous things all the time in the noble courts of the past, didn't they? Sure the result wasn't great... The genetical thing is indeed a concern, but, especially if the siblings didn't grow up together, I don't find it icky nor yucky. I guess all these people who find it icky and yucky don't approve of homosexuality and sex outside of a double bed in a room where the walls are painted white?:P

Chava

03-25-2008, 03:23 PM

Je t'aime Sweets. You're not my sister so I'm allowed to :P

Moi Aussi :)

AimusSage

03-25-2008, 03:26 PM

The LAW is always an exponent of culture. It reflects the norms and values of a culture and how these can best be protected, these norms and values change over time, and with that, the law changes. It's all through history, not such a big surprise.

When it comes to incest there might be more than just cultural conditioning that makes people think it is icky and yuck and other such exclamations of discomfort. (although culture certainly helps)

It can be related to genetics, a hard coded aversion to incest. It is survival of the fittest, and this core principle finds its way into everyday life, attractive people almost always have in common that they are physically strong specimen. A women will generally be more attracted to a tall man etc. It's subconsciously looking for signs of good genes for procreation that will create strong offspring. (high survival potential)

The tendency for genetic defects in children from incestuous relations is in our genes so to speak. Coupled with our brain understanding that there is an incestuous relation might trigger this aversion, not the actual genes themselves. (we don't have gene sniffers as a sense)

As further example; in the animal world, inbreeding is extremely rare, with groups often mixing. an example is lions, where new genetic material is introduced to a group through rogue males that wander around. (Ligers are cool though, and HUGE!)

That's all I was going to say really, to me it's a bit icky too, even yucky, but it helps to know where those feelings originate from. Then again, people do what people do.

PrinceMyshkin

03-25-2008, 03:36 PM

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

If it is too repulsive to think of, there'd be no danger of you doing it if it were legalised, would there be? Or even if it were made compulsory!

But surely some of these things that are too repulsive to think about are precisely those that need to be rethought now & then? X% of the things that you and I belive in, live by or seek to avoid, were planted in us long before we had the capacity to evaluate them. In which case to what extent can we consider ourselves free men and women?

I guess all these people who find it icky and yucky don't approve of homosexuality and sex outside of a double bed in a room where the walls are painted white?:P

Shouldn't that be on-white as opposed tooff-white?

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 03:50 PM

If it is too repulsive to think of, there'd be no danger of you doing it if it were legalised, would there be? Or even if it were made compulsory!

But surely some of these things that are too repulsive to think about are precisely those that need to be rethought now & then? X% of the things that you and I belive in, live by or seek to avoid, were planted in us long before we had the capacity to evaluate them. In which case to what extent can we consider ourselves free men and women?

compulsory incest!!!! sounds fascinating:lol:

but seriously how can one say that something like this, which harms no one else should be illegal or legal, even put in law... I mean whether it grosses you out or not should be entirely irrelevant.. if it is between two consenting adults, who are capable of making decisions for themselves, of reasoning, and they decide they want an incestuous relationship, who are we to tell them they cannot do that??? and yes I do agree with all here and I do find it quite unappealing to say the least, but they have a right to do whatever they want as long as it is doing no harm to anyone else, and incest between consenting adults doesn't harm anyone...

I suggested a tax on junk food that would go to reducing the price of healthy food, and as well to nutritional education in the "am i a fattist" thread, and got attacked for it, everyone said we should be able to eat what we want and not have the government interfere, so what is the difference here... plus I only suggested a tax, one could still eat junk food it would just cost more... and unhealthy diets are much more harmful than incest, and create far more problems, so what is the difference?? I think the taboo is just too strong for people to want to allow freedom of choice in this....

so, whether or not we find it disgusting, gross, wrong, whatever... it is none of our business, and not our place to condemn incest, when we all have so many problems and vices of our own...

PrinceMyshkin

03-25-2008, 03:52 PM

what do you think? (please refrain from comments about sodomy (sex with animals), pedophilia (I'm only referring to consenting adults, not kids or rape) and inflammatory analogies/comparisons of any kind. THANKS

Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wherefrom it follows that sexual intercourse between any two members of the human species is incestuous!

vheissu

03-25-2008, 03:52 PM

Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.

Brainwashed? Is that not just a bit extreme?
I'd like to think that I was brought up by two educated people who taught me to make my own judgements and not to base my opinion on whatever the media/mass/everyone else says. So this is purely my opinion and I'm quite sure I can judge for myself what I perceive as right or wrong.

So, in this case, I think incest is wrong. I absolutely don't care if the two involved keep it to themselves. It's their business. But I do find it particulary wrong when children are involved (there are 4 in total in this particular case) because they might have genetic defects which could have been prevented and who is going to be in charge of their upbringing? If they perceive incest as normal, will they then be incouraged to do the same?

And as Granny5 pointed out, if this is made legal or simply widely accepted as the natural or normal thing to do, then what prevents people from sleeping and having kids with other members of their family?

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 03:57 PM

Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wherefrom it follows that sexual intercourse between any two members of the human species is incestuous!

hahahha :) how many PrinceMyshkins does it take to turn a controversial, thought-provoking, SERIOUS thread into a commedy? ;) :thumbs_up

If they perceive incest as normal, will they then be incouraged to do the same?

this is a very good point which I hadn't thought about (and wasn't mentioned in any of the articles I read, either). but you could always forbid incest between the offspring of incestuous couples if there is enough evidence that there is an even higher risk of disabilities here? but again this line of argument is not water-tight, because it's still legal for non-incestuous but disabled couples to have children and their offspring are allowed to have children with other disabled ppl again and so on..... :confused:

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 04:06 PM

So, in this case, I think incest is wrong. I absolutely don't care if the two involved keep it to themselves. It's their business. But I do find it particulary wrong when children are involved (there are 4 in total in this particular case) because they might have genetic defects which could have been prevented and who is going to be in charge of their upbringing? If they perceive incest as normal, will they then be incouraged to do the same?

And as Granny5 pointed out, if this is made legal or simply widely accepted as the natural or normal thing to do, then what prevents people from sleeping and having kids with other members of their family?

genetic defects... well fetal alcohol syndrome is a birth defect, yet it is not illegal to drink while one is pregnant, although it is now becoming more common not to... but still, according to your logic drinking while pregnant should be a criminal offense...

and I seriously doubt that incest would become widespread if it was legal, or not punished, for the simple sibling relationships that one is brought up with, they kind of turn one away from it, and then societal taboos will still be there whether or not it is legal or illegal...

As PrinceMyshkin says sexual intercourse between any two members of the human species is incest... to a degree... :lol: Sleepy, I think it takes only one PrinceMyshkin to bring forth the comedy in any situation! and that is a good thing...

now going away from worldwide incest... PrinceMyshkin are you advocating bestiality???:lol:

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 04:11 PM

now going away from worldwide incest... PrinceMyshkin are you advocating bestiality???:lol:
of course he is :D he is a beast.. how would he ever manage to get... invited to parties if he didn't advocate bestiality :D *joking*

vheissu

03-25-2008, 04:13 PM

They did incestuous things all the time in the noble courts of the past, didn't they? Sure the result wasn't great... The genetical thing is indeed a concern, but, especially if the siblings didn't grow up together, I don't find it icky nor yucky. I guess all these people who find it icky and yucky don't approve of homosexuality and sex outside of a double bed in a room where the walls are painted white?:P

If the siblings didn't grow up together, it's obvious that it is nobody's fault they ended up together. You can't prevent falling in love, can you?

To clear this out, just because I don't approve of incest between two people who know they are siblings doesn't mean I don't approve of homosexuality or sex outside of a double room or that a pure, white wedding is the only way. Please don't assign stereotypes of other people because of one comment.

this is a very good point which I hadn't thought about (and wasn't mentioned in any of the articles I read, either).

A lot of things where not mentioned in the articles I found: why was the last child left with the parents and the other 3 were taken from social services?
And there are so many variations between the articles, I seriously don't know how much of the details is true.

but you could always forbid incest between the offspring of incestuous couples if there is enough evidence that there is an even higher risk of disabilities here? but again this line of argument is not water-tight, because it's still legal for non-incestuous but disabled couples to have children and their offspring are allowed to have children with other disabled ppl again and so on..... :confused:

So you're saying that the first generation of siblings can reproduce but the second, the third and so on cannot? You see though, you are hypothetically applying a regulation here. If you (or anyone, not you specifically) think the first set can have kids, then why not their kids and so on?

genetic defects... well fetal alcohol syndrome is a birth defect, yet it is not illegal to drink while one is pregnant, although it is now becoming more common not to... but still, according to your logic drinking while pregnant should be a criminal offense...

and I seriously doubt that incest would become widespread if it was legal, or not punished, for the simple sibling relationships that one is brought up with, they kind of turn one away from it, and then societal taboos will still be there whether or not it is legal or illegal...

I think it's fairly obvious I'm referring to genetic defects which affect children born from two siblings. I have not mentioned at all any other type of genetic disease, because it is not relevant to this topic.

I also seriously doubt and seriously hope that society will not turn round one day and decide incest should be widely accepted. I'd have to invest in a spaceship and find some other planet to live on :p

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 04:29 PM

I think it's fairly obvious I'm referring to genetic defects which affect children born from two siblings. I have not mentioned at all any other type of genetic disease, because it is not relevant to this topic.

but why do you think it's not relevant? the genetic aspect would be the only "scientific"/"rational" etc whatever you'd like to call it argument that any court could adduce here, but they can obviously not do that because then they would have to make a lot of things illegal: drinking during pregnancy, disabled ppl having children, maybe they'd even have to introduce genetic screening and order every disabled foetus to be aborted??? I mean in all of these cases the birth of a disabled child is very probable and could be prevented. So why is it not prevented in these cases but with incest it is? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely against this kind of eugenics, I'm just trying to understand the logic of the court rulings.

vheissu

03-25-2008, 04:46 PM

but why do you think it's not relevant? the genetic aspect would be the only "scientific"/"rational" etc whatever you'd like to call it argument that any court could adduce here, but they can obviously not do that because then they would have to make a lot of things illegal: drinking during pregnancy, disabled ppl having children, maybe they'd even have to introduce genetic screening and order every disabled foetus to be aborted??? I mean in all of these cases the birth of a disabled child is very probable and could be prevented. So why is it not prevented in these cases but with incest it is? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely against this kind of eugenics, I'm just trying to understand the logic of the court rulings.

Ok, I don't think it's relevant because the court case is referring to incest in general directing it to the possibility of producing children in particular. They are dealing with trying to define as legal the relationship these two want to continue (they're problem, as I think most in this forum have agreed) and continuing to have more kids and possibly raising the ones the already have. This is linked to...what did they say...an aspect of 'harm to society' (I'm not exactly quoting) since it involves children, which are members of a family but of society as a whole as well, and as I've already said, who exactly is responsible for these 4 children?

It is this particular case that has one of the partners having a disability. It isn't necessarily looking at the rights of procreation between disabled people in general, but at the fact that the mother/sister may have been led by the father/brother in this relationship. So, again, in this case, does the sister have different rights (will the court see her as a special circumstance? Equal blame, if they see it as a blame, to both?) from the brother?

I see it as separate from all other causes of genetic diseases (drugs, alcohol, etc) because it just simply does not apply (in my opinion as usual) to this case. Applying genetic screens, genetic tests, regulations and whatever else people will come up with as whole in order to point the finger at whoever is found not fit for parenting is just such a huge issue that it cannot be decided by one law or the decision of one court case.

Lote-Tree

03-25-2008, 04:52 PM

- the children of incestuous couples are likely to be disabled
- the more vulnerable/weaker of the two partners has to be protected
- the constitution says that families are the basic unit of society and have to be protected
- incest puts a lot of strain on the families involved

I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST.

Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.

some arguments for legalization were:
- disability can have many causes, e.g. when one/both parent(s) in a non-incestuous relationship are disabled themselves, the children are very likely to be disabled. However, disabled ppl are, of course, allowed to marry and have children
- the incidence of incest is very low because normally children who grow up together (even if they are adopted and not genetically related at all) develop a psychological incest taboo, i.e. they will see the other children as their siblings and out of bounds sexually, even when they are NOT related. So legalizing incest would not result in a lot of ppl suddenly getting interested in it and practicing it.

They are not good enough.

We have evolved to have incest taboo.

- Sleepy's own argument: why should one of the partners be more vulnerable and weaker than the other, as long as they are both of age and have all their faculties intact? In this particular case, the woman (sister) was more vulnerable because she was mentally handicapped, plus the man (brother) beat her. But this isn't always the case, so how can you tell which partner needs to be protected? Plus, there can be a "weaker" partner (battered wife or husband) in any relationship and yet ppl are not generally prevented from marrying. You can only define who is the weaker partner after abuse has taken place, not before ppl marry ???

When you put everything to consent - then anything possible.

Thus we should not for example forbid:

consensual drug taking.
consensual "murder" like the recent case with the consensual canibals...
consensual prostitution
consensual violence
consensual casual sex
consensual whipping, beating, branding
consensual [INSERT YOUR FETISH WHATEVER...] etc etc...

Yes. CONSENSUAL. You can do anything as long as you love each other etc...

No. I think this CONSENSUAL Thing is eating away our sense of morality. It is leaving us rather empty, barren and purpose-less.

I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?

papayahed

03-25-2008, 04:53 PM

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 04:56 PM

consensual casual sex

you think casual sex should be illegal? :confused:

vheissu

03-25-2008, 04:59 PM

I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?

I agree with you here!

That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation.

Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives on top of me. Does that make me a prude?

Exactly, and there must be a reason why this has stopped being so common as it was then. I can't even think of Queen E II with...I'll just stop there.

This has seriously given me a headache. I'll just refrain from looking at this thread for a good hour (it's such a coincidence that csi is on right now :p )

Lote-Tree

03-25-2008, 05:00 PM

you think casual sex should be illegal? :confused:

Yes. Sex should be sacred. Like in the olden times ;-)

But I put that in just see if anyone spots it and you picked it out of others :D

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 05:03 PM

Yes. Sex should be sacred. Like in the olden times ;-)

But I put that in just see if anyone spots it and you picked it out of others :D

heehee, good old Lote :) do you mean sacred as in the good old tantric times olden times or sacred as in "sex serves procreation and should not be fun"?

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 05:05 PM

you think casual sex should be illegal? :confused:

yes, I'm confused too... and lots of fetishes are legal, as long as they don't harm anyone... which is the case here... naysayers are basically saying two people should not be allowed to have a relationship because they are brother and sister, which is entirely unreasonable as they are harming no one else in so doing... if you don't like it, and find it disgusting and gross which is apparent, then don't pay attention to it, and secondly, a married brother and sister could live next door to you and you would probably not even know, so who does it really harm...

and to say their children are more likely to be born defective... well so are disabled people, drug addicts, alcoholics, and others, and yet they are all allowed to have relationships and children.. so to say all other cases of increased rates of genetic defect ar irrelevant is entirely wrong, as to make part of your claim for not allowing incest is the increased rate of genetic problems, therefore you should have a problem with allowing all births from people who are prone to genetice defect... that is just logic...

and i would rather gouge my eyes then see one of my relatives on top of me too Papaya, but that doesn't mean we should be able to decide for others, just because we find the thought utterly and completely appalling... back to casual sex, some people find the thought of it appalling and disgusting, yet it is allowed :D

Sweets America

03-25-2008, 05:52 PM

Yes. CONSENSUAL. You can do anything as long as you love each other etc...

No. I think this CONSENSUAL Thing is eating away our sense of morality. It is leaving us rather empty, barren and purpose-less.

I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?

That makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 06:06 PM

That makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

this is exactly what I think Sweets... Just because I do not want to sleep with my family members, does not mean I have the right to persecute others for doing so... we should respect their right to decide for themselves in regard to this... it harms no one and if it grosses you out, don't think about it...

vheissu

03-25-2008, 06:32 PM

this is exactly what I think Sweets... Just because I do not want to sleep with my family members, does not mean I have the right to persecute others for doing so... we should respect their right to decide for themselves in regard to this... it harms no one and if it grosses you out, don't think about it...

But who said anything about 'persecuting' or 'imposing your disgust to society'?

Lily Adams

03-25-2008, 06:37 PM

My biological instincts tell me "no" when I hear the word incest. I mean, who wants disabled children? It's very clear in the biological sense-the genes one gets from mom and the genes one gets from dad have to be different, or disabilities are more likely to occur. The more different the genes, the better off the child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Hypothesis_of_biological_basis

But as for the emotional part...gosh that's just really weird. I mean it's like if you say "whatever floats your boat" and they have disabled children, that costs a lot of money. It's always about money though. Darn our need to eat food.

And then there's the whole pursuit of happiness thing. Things are never black or white.

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

But it exists, Virgil. :(

papayahed

03-25-2008, 06:49 PM

and i would rather gouge my eyes then see one of my relatives on top of me too Papaya, but that doesn't mean we should be able to decide for others, just because we find the thought utterly and completely appalling... back to casual sex, some people find the thought of it appalling and disgusting, yet it is allowed :D

You have me confused, I don't care what people do in their own bedroom.

That makes me laugh out loud when you say you value freedom while you link it to morality, and thus to a sense of restraint. And to those who could not see themselves in bed with their brothers and sisters, I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society. Tolerating the fact that others have relationships with family members does not compell you to do so in any way.

Seriously, how does stating my feelings impose anything on society?

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 07:02 PM

But who said anything about 'persecuting' or 'imposing your disgust to society'?

making it illegal is persecution of people who are doing no harm to anyone... and is imposing moral disgust...

papaya I think I just misread your post... I find it very unappealing, to say the least, but what others do in the bedroom is their own choice, so I agree with you...

vheissu

03-25-2008, 07:15 PM

making it illegal is persecution of people who are doing no harm to anyone... and is imposing moral disgust...

Well, I haven't personally expressed that it should be illegal, just that I find it wrong but that I really don't care if they do, as long as it's limited to just sleeping together (last time I checked my personal opinion was not the law). I think I've said it so many times in this thread, I'm beggining to think my posts are misinterpreted or simply not read. And if you see it that way, then does making other things illegal equal to persecuting people? Is every law an imposition of moral disgust?
And I think that this whole case was started by the couple being found out by the appearance of children, so technically the concern began with the presence of the kids involved rather than just the two of them sleeping together.

naomi moon

03-25-2008, 07:18 PM

I think it's just repulsive and sick but I guess they are free to do whatever they like.

islandclimber

03-25-2008, 07:31 PM

Well, I haven't personally expressed that it should be illegal, just that I find it wrong but that I really don't care if they do, as long as it's limited to just sleeping together (last time I checked my personal opinion was not the law). I think I've said it so many times in this thread, I'm beggining to think my posts are misinterpreted or simply not read. And if you see it that way, then does making other things illegal equal to persecuting people? Is every law an imposition of moral disgust?
And I think that this whole case was started by the couple being found out by the appearance of children, so technically the concern began with the presence of the kids involved rather than just the two of them sleeping together.

ah... sorry then if I misinterpreted... I thought you were arguing for making it illegal... I should pay more attention next time... sorry...

well, all laws that prohibit things that do no harm to anyone else are imposition's of moral disgust, such as laws against gay civil marriage, etc... if someone wants to behave a particular way, live a certain lifestyle, as long as it harms no one else it should be allowed...

I agree the case started with the children, but even then it is an imposition of moral disgust that was the fabric of the case... nothing more or less...

Bakiryu

03-25-2008, 09:39 PM

I believe it should be legal, as well as gay marriage. After all, who cares what people do? If two consenting people love each other they should allowed to be together be they siblings, cousins or whatever.

papayahed

03-25-2008, 09:50 PM

Ya know, is it illegal right now? A friends parents are first cousins.

metal134

03-26-2008, 02:22 AM

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 03:38 AM

Ya know, is it illegal right now? A friends parents are first cousins.

I think first cousins is different. I'll have to research it (of course it varies depending on what country you're in, too). I it's OK if they get a special permit or something... or maybe that was 40 years ago and now you don't need a permit? :confused:

vheissu

03-26-2008, 04:03 AM

I think the whole genetics argument is a fallcy and an excuse for people to say why it should be illegal. Let's just call a spade a spade; you are preaching eugenics and there is not a whole lot in this world that screams totalitarianism more than eugenics.

And this is why I usually stear clear of these thereads. People start getting mean and get the feeling they have to find more and more ways of expressing their opinion. Preaching eugenics??!!! I never thought I'd see that even mentioned in this thread, but there you go. I really hope it wasn't directed at me or at anyone else who is opposed at the idea of incest.

The genetic argument is the only argument that can prove why incest can lead to a number of complications nobody would really want. And that includes the children involved.

I've stated more than a few times what I think of incest and won't repeat myself.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 04:05 AM

aw, poor vheissu, don't get mad, OK? :cool:
if it's any help, my head is hurting now too

vheissu

03-26-2008, 05:29 AM

:p Mad?? Oh no, don't worry, I'm back to being calm. Had breakfast with my flatmates and had my rant about this thread and they just pointed out to the fact that it's actually getting childish...rather than actually discussing this we're merely stating a sort of...'I'm right and you're wrong' opinion.
My opinion is not going to change and there's no way I'll be able to change other people's opinion either.

Anyway, have an essay for tomorrow...on clinical trials. Wonder what would happen if I started a thread on that :lol:

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 05:31 AM

I don't see why you would impose your disgust on a whole society.

The whole society has many disgusts. We have evolved these digusts and Incest is one of them.

making it illegal is persecution of people who are doing no harm to anyone... and is imposing moral disgust...

Oh yes. This - as long as it does not harming anyone - everything is permitted.

What about consensual prostitution?
What about consensual murder?
What about consensual drug taking?

Islandclimber it is about time we looked at this " as long as it does not harm anyone...everything is permitted ethos and see it for it is...on the whole it can be quite self-fish.

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 05:41 AM

The whole society has many disgusts. We have evolved these digusts and Incest is one of them.

Oh yes. This - as long as it does not harming anyone - everything is permitted.

What about consensual prostitution?
What about consensual murder?
What about consensual drug taking?

Islandclimber it is about time we looked at this " as long as it does not harm anyone...everything is permitted ethos and see it for it is...on the whole it can be quite self-fish.

You're always saying 'we have evolved', always comparing us today to other animals... with pseudo scientific evidence...

Yeah, I don't see why something which doesn't harm anyone should be forbidden. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with prostitution, I do whatever I like with my body, and you too. It's the same thing about drugs, I don't see why it would annoy anyone if I do drugs. Of course the problem would be if I did drugs and took my car and hit someone with the car cause I'm driving under influence, but taking drugs in itself is not a problem.

Now about 'consensual murder', I really don't see what you mean... :rolleyes:

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 05:58 AM

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 06:07 AM

Does anyone know the history of how incest laws came about? As I understood it, incest was not always illegal but became illegal as a result of observation of the development of deformities in children born from incestuous relationships, but I'll be honest and say that I can't direct you to any evidence to back up this understanding. That being said, it seems a sensible basis for the law.

Without knowing the history of the law it is difficult for us to debate the rights and wrongs of it. Isn't it possible that the law was put in place for an entirely valid reason as, I think, vheissu has been arguing, but because incest is no longer common we can no longer observe the adverse effects of it? Logically it seems to make sense to spread the gene pool, but logical arguments often seem to have little effect in largely emotional debates (or so I have found anyway).

What worries me, personally, about making incest legal is the fact that we already have a society in which daughters are abused by fathers, neices abused by uncles. If incest became legal then how easy would it be for children to be groomed into family relationships?

One thing I really don't understand, and is perhaps a matter for a separate debate, is why there is very prevalent view in current society that just because you want something means you can have it? I love my brother so I can have sex with him, I'm infertile but I can have a baby, I haven't got any money but I can have the latest mobile phone. What's so wrong about limits? Total, complete freedom = chaos, doesn't it?

I think the question of children is a challenging one. The debate becomes more difficult with that because while I think people are totally free to love one another and have sex together, when it comes to having a kid, things are different because a third person is thus involved and it is disturbing to bring a new person on the planet without asking for his/her point if view. But I apply that to disabled and non-disabled kids. So the question is always tricky because you force someone to be here, alive, on this planet.

I don't agree however with your argument about father abusing daughters, because if we follow such arguments, we end up not doing anything because of 'what ifs'. It's just like people who want to ban the veil to protect those who are forced to wear it.

And, about total freedom being cahos, that might be the case. But again, I don't see the problem with doing something which doesn't harm anyone else.

manolia

03-26-2008, 06:14 AM

That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation.

Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives on top of me. Does that make me a prude?

Me too ;) I am just wondering..those here who don't mind about incest would they think the same when the two consenting adults were a father and his 18 year old daughter?

I don't care what people do in their own bedroom.

Amen to that ;) I don't really care either.

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 07:20 AM

I don't agree however with your argument about father abusing daughters, because if we follow such arguments, we end up not doing anything because of 'what ifs'. It's just like people who want to ban the veil to protect those who are forced to wear it.

Oh, I didn't say it was an argument against legalisation, I said it was something that worried me, which is different entirely.

And, about total freedom being cahos, that might be the case. But again, I don't see the problem with doing something which doesn't harm anyone else.

this suggests that harm is something which can be empirically measured, but sadly life isn't as straightforward as that. How do you know if something you are doing is causing someone harm, or will cause someone harm in the future?

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 07:33 AM

this suggests that harm is something which can be empirically measured, but sadly life isn't as straightforward as that. How do you know if something you are doing is causing someone harm, or will cause someone harm in the future?

so how can the judges and courts measure harm empirically? they are only humans, too? I suppose they probably can't and this is why they are often over-protective as in "better safe than sorry". In general, I agree with this principle, but we should not delude ourselves that it was based on empirical measurements or logic.

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 07:46 AM

Oh, I didn't say it was an argument against legalisation, I said it was something that worried me, which is different entirely.
Ok, then I think I misunderstood. Sorry. ;)

this suggests that harm is something which can be empirically measured, but sadly life isn't as straightforward as that. How do you know if something you are doing is causing someone harm, or will cause someone harm in the future?

I really don't see which kind of harm it would do if my brother and I decided to sleep together, or my father and I, or even my dog and I (but here it's more tricky cause I cannot ask my dog for his consent, so let's drop that example). The only harm would be a moral one. I agree that it would certainly cause disgust in my family or for other people. It would cause questionning and incomprehension, because we all have been raised with the idea that it was wrong. It would make me feel strange to sleep with my brother too, but if I detach myself from the world I am in, I don't see anything wrong with it if we're both ok with that and if it makes us happy.

But if you consider all the moral harm things would do, you wouldn't do anything. It's not bad though, it's just another way of doing things and put morality first. This attitude is as honorable as any other one, it is just not the one I would choose.

If we worried about moral harm, homosexuals would not sleep together cause it would harm the religious ones, and the religious one would not say anything bad about homosexuals cause it would harm the homosexuals. I would not move to the US cause it would make my family sad...etc.

My attitude here is one of openness, that's all. Trying not to judge. There is a moment when I say to hell with what people think, because this is MY life, My body, My choices, and those are the liberties I am trying to have.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 07:47 AM

Wow, what a raging debate. Sorry i had to miss this last night. I had a personal emergency and couldn't get on to lit net. And what's a debate without Virgil sticking his two cents in. :D :p

There are a number of points to respond to, but so many that it will be impossible to respond to them all. First, I think Wikipedia has a very intersting entry on incest. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest. But let me pull out some highlights.

Virtually all societies have some form of incest avoidance.[1][2] The incest taboo is one of the most common of all taboos. Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages.[3] Although not universal, incest constitutes a cultural taboo in most current nations and many past societies,[4] with legal penalties in some places. In some societies, like Ancient Egypt, brother–sister, father–daughter and mother–son relations were practiced.[5][6]

Which family members constitute those covered by the incest prohibition is determined by the society in which the persons live. Some societies consider it to include only those related by birth or those who live in the same household; other societies further include those related by adoption, marriage, or clan.[7]

Some researchers hypothesize that humans have a kin recognition ability that functions in part to enable incest avoidance between close relatives, thereby protecting the gene pool of the family or tribe from excessive damage by inbreeding; and, that this kin recognition system may form a biological basis for social and psychological prohibitions against incest. [12]

Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity (the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair). This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing but, when homozygous, can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a nearly 100% chance of having hemophilia.

Psychology
Presumably because of the genetic harm done, animals inbreed only in extremely unusual circumstances: major population bottlenecks and forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics.

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans should possess similar psychological mechanisms. The Westermarck effect, that children who are raised together during the first five to ten years of life have inhibited sexual desire toward one another, is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck hypothesis, anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predictably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised communally (as if siblings) in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though the children were genetically unrelated.

Further studies have supported the hypothesis that some psychological mechanisms cause children who grow up together to lack sexual attraction to one another. Spiro's study is corroborated by Fox (1962), who found similar results in Israeli kibbutzim. Wolf and Huang (1980) reported similar aversions in Taiwanese "child marriages", in which the future wife was brought into the family and raised with her fiancé. Such marriages were notoriously difficult to consummate and led to decreased fertility of the marriage. Lieberman et al. (2003) found that childhood co-residency with an opposite-sex sibling (biologically related or not) was significantly correlated with moral repugnance toward third-party sibling incest.[12]

Laws against adult incest are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people and so should not be criminalized. Some legal systems no longer criminalize adult incest. The French Criminal Code removed its incest prohibition long ago, and other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Israel, Argentina, Brazil as well as a few other Latin American countries and several U.S. states have followed suit. In most countries where the crime of adult incest has been abolished, acts of incest involving a minor are still punishable.

From time to time proposals have been made for the repeal of incest laws, for example, the proposal in Australia by the Model Criminal Code Officer's Committee in the November 1996 discussion paper "Sexual Offences against the Person". This particular proposal was later withdrawn by the Committee due to a large public outcry. Defenders of the proposal argue, however, that the outcry was mostly based on the mistaken belief that the committee was intending to legalize sexual relations between parents and their minor children.

One thing to keep in mind is that the wiki entry conflates all types of incest into a general term, while we are particularly speaking of sibling incest, even something less dubuious as cousin incest. For me, the key paragragh is the one on psychology which I'll requote here:

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans should possess similar psychological mechanisms. The Westermarck effect, that children who are raised together during the first five to ten years of life have inhibited sexual desire toward one another, is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck hypothesis, anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predictably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised communally (as if siblings) in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though the children were genetically unrelated.

The basis of my argument rests on this: that brother/sister love is fundementally different than romantic love and to cross the two would be a perversion that would have essentially destroy the family unit and therefore undermine society. Now, you can pull that apart and say what consititutes the family as the basic social unit, but centuries of cultural formation has built it and to destroy it would be chaos. Moral laws are by nature evolved to sustain society. And people are civilized to establish moral boundaries. Civilization equates to moral boundaries. Something like sibling incest requires a moral boundary.

As to the specific case, I still doubt that these adults had no notion that siblings could not do this. They are using it as an excuse to get out of criminal prosecution. Two years does strike me as a harsh penalty for this, but then again I'm not sure what the right penalty is. Certainly changing the marriage laws to accomodate this perversion :p is out of the question.

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 07:57 AM

Moral laws are by nature evolved to sustain society. And people are civilized to establish moral boundaries. Civilization equates to moral boundaries. Something like sibling incest requires a moral boundary.

And I will second that :thumbs_up

Without boundaries family unit will not function sucessfully.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 08:04 AM

The LAW is always an exponent of culture. It reflects the norms and values of a culture and how these can best be protected, these norms and values change over time, and with that, the law changes. It's all through history, not such a big surprise.

Absolutely. The philosopher that seems to be completely ignored by modern educational systems is Edmund Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke). Your statement above Aimus is the heart of Edmund Burke's ideas.

When it comes to incest there might be more than just cultural conditioning that makes people think it is icky and yuck and other such exclamations of discomfort. (although culture certainly helps)
Quite right.

If the siblings didn't grow up together, it's obvious that it is nobody's fault they ended up together. You can't prevent falling in love, can you?

To clear this out, just because I don't approve of incest between two people who know they are siblings doesn't mean I don't approve of homosexuality or sex outside of a double room or that a pure, white wedding is the only way. Please don't assign stereotypes of other people because of one comment.

Ditto for me. If siblings don't know they're siblings, then they are not at fault. However, once they are aware of such a transgression, they have to understand that they should no longer continue. Hey one of western culture's founding works of literature is Oedipus Rex, who is personally disgraced and ashamed from unknowlingly having incest with his mother. And he is quite right to feel so. It is a moral transgression of incredible magnitude. And let me spell out again what that moral transgression is: the crossing of romantic love with family love.

Thanks Lote. And let me second your post, which i wanted to highlight on its own:

I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST.

Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.

They are not good enough.

We have evolved to have incest taboo.

When you put everything to consent - then anything possible.

Thus we should not for example forbid:

consensual drug taking.
consensual "murder" like the recent case with the consensual canibals...
consensual prostitution
consensual violence
consensual casual sex
consensual whipping, beating, branding
consensual [INSERT YOUR FETISH WHATEVER...] etc etc...

Yes. CONSENSUAL. You can do anything as long as you love each other etc...

No. I think this CONSENSUAL Thing is eating away our sense of morality. It is leaving us rather empty, barren and purpose-less.

I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?

That is a magnificent outlining of why such laws exist.

ben.!

03-26-2008, 08:24 AM

Personally, I'm not going to go into the law ramifications of incestual relationships. However, I believe that if it is indeed love, then why repress it?

I'm for love of any form, if it is the warm loving kind that we are all fond of. :)

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 08:25 AM

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 08:29 AM

just to tease you two guys and pick up on the most harmless point Lote mentioned:
how would you guys go about making sure that nobody has casual sex?

As I said I have thrown that in to give you handle ;-) and you duly picked on it and disregarded the rest. Just as I predicted ;-)

if it were to be illegal (as Lote said it should be), would you send police officers snooping around ppl's homes, checking on them to see if anyone's having casual sex? ;)

Erm same goes for incest. How can you police that?

Would you ask every sister and brother that they had sex?

It's nonsense isn't it?

It's not the application of law that is important here. Its the moral ground.

Can you see the difference?

I can't really see how this idea goes together with the freedom you value so highly

You can't have Absolute Freedom.

Society and civilisations arose by moderating Freedom.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 08:33 AM

just to tease you two guys and pick up on the most harmless point Lote mentioned:
how would you guys go about making sure that nobody has casual sex? if it were to be illegal (as Lote said it should be), would you send police officers snooping around ppl's homes, checking on them to see if anyone's having casual sex? ;) I can't really see how this idea goes together with the freedom you value so highly :D

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." :p :lol: Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 08:35 AM

As I said I have thrown that in to give you handle ;-)

Erm same goes for incest. How can you police that?

Would you ask every sister and brother that they had sex?

It's nonsense isn't it?

It's not the application of law that is important here. Its the moral ground.

Can you see the difference?
yep, I guess I can, or at least I try to.
well, if you want to talk about morals and separate them from the application of the law, that's fine with me. but in that case, you have just underminded your own argument. there are many things that may be immoral but not illegal, e.g. drinking, smoking, lying, adultery, rudeness, exploiting the developing world etc. all of these are immoral but legal. so you've got kinda hoisted on your own pedard?

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 08:37 AM

so how can the judges and courts measure harm empirically? they are only humans, too? I suppose they probably can't and this is why they are often over-protective as in "better safe than sorry". In general, I agree with this principle, but we should not delude ourselves that it was based on empirical measurements or logic.

I didn't say that it was.

This is the danger in only reading part of the discussion, what I said about the law was :

Does anyone know the history of how incest laws came about? As I understood it, incest was not always illegal but became illegal as a result of observation of the development of deformities in children born from incestuous relationships, but I'll be honest and say that I can't direct you to any evidence to back up this understanding. That being said, it seems a sensible basis for the law.

Without knowing the history of the law it is difficult for us to debate the rights and wrongs of it. Isn't it possible that the law was put in place for an entirely valid reason as, I think, vheissu has been arguing, but because incest is no longer common we can no longer observe the adverse effects of it? Logically it seems to make sense to spread the gene pool, but logical arguments often seem to have little effect in largely emotional debates (or so I have found anyway).

and

One thing I really don't understand, and is perhaps a matter for a separate debate, is why there is very prevalent view in current society that just because you want something means you can have it? I love my brother so I can have sex with him, I'm infertile but I can have a baby, I haven't got any money but I can have the latest mobile phone. What's so wrong about limits? Total, complete freedom = chaos, doesn't it?

to which Sweets said :

And, about total freedom being cahos, that might be the case. But again, I don't see the problem with doing something which doesn't harm anyone else.

which leads you back to where you started, but in answer to your statement the judges and the courts don't measure harm. They don't make the law, they merely implement the laws enacted by the government of the country in which they're in. If there's a fault it lies with the legislature, not the judiciary. Looking at the judges is just looking in the wrong place.

My attitude here is one of openness, that's all. Trying not to judge. There is a moment when I say to hell with what people think, because this is MY life, My body, My choices, and those are the liberties I am trying to have.

Sweets, I have no problem with your choices, but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum, and the truth is that we all judge including you, and including me, for example:

Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.
which is in itself a judgemental comment, not critical, but definitely judgemental.

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

This probably illustrates the problem with all laws. Either society deems that all things can be done, or it imposes limits. As soon as limits are imposed, because of the nature of such things, those limits will be imperfect. Some will want the line drawn here, others over there. It'll never be 100% right for everyone.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 08:37 AM

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." :p :lol: Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

so, I'm 26, my bf is 27 we are not married and live together and if you were my dad you'd not allow it? ;)

chasestalling

03-26-2008, 08:39 AM

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 08:45 AM

yep, I guess I can, or at least I try to.
well, if you want to talk about morals and separate them from the application of the law, that's fine with me.

Policing brother and sister incest. It can't be done. It would be silly.

there are many things that may be immoral but not illegal, e.g. drinking,
smoking, lying, adultery, rudeness, exploiting the developing world etc. all of these are immoral but legal. so you've got kinda hoisted on your own pedard?

How does any of the above equate with the Trust that is required in a family unit for it to function?

Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?

Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 08:55 AM

Policing brother and sister incest. It can't be done. It would be silly.

How does any of the above equate with the Trust that is required in a family unit for it to function?

Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?

Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?

nope, but e.g. if parents smoke inside their own home and their children are around and inhale all the second-hand smoke it harms the children. i.e. it is immoral, but it is not illegal.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 08:59 AM

so, I'm 26, my bf is 27 we are not married and live together and if you were my dad you'd not allow it? ;)

Well, I couldn't stop you, nor would I. But I would show my disapproval, yes.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 09:03 AM

Well, I couldn't stop you, nor would I. But I would show my disapproval, yes.

heehee, well, if my real dad forced me to marry my hubbers this would mean that my hubbers would be legally obliged to feed me (which my dad is legally obliged to do until I'm 27 and still studying). my hubbers doesn't have enough money to feed me, so I'd have to claim welfare. so the state would have to give me money which had better go to ppl who don't have a rich dad. which would be very harmful for society. :D alternatively, I could sue my dad, which would be very harmful to the functioning of our family unit.. :D

vheissu

03-26-2008, 09:04 AM

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

:p hmmm, ok.

Though I'll refrain from stating anything new, I'll just say thank you to Virgil for looking up and posting all the published info and to FifthElement, I very much agree with you.

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 09:04 AM

nope, but e.g. if parents smoke inside their own home and their children are around and inhale all the second-hand smoke it harms the children. i.e. it is immoral, but it is not illegal.

Here in the UK smoking in public transports and council premises are illegal. This part can be policed.

But you can't equate immorality of incest with smoking second hand smoke?

That would be ludicrous won't it?

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 09:06 AM

Here in the UK smoking public transports and council premises are illegal. This part can be policed.

But you can't equate immorality of incest with smoking second hand smoke?

That would be ludicrous won't it?

yep it's illegal in public transport and buildings plus in pubs over here,too.
second hand smoke can cause cancer and result in the children dying a slow painful death. heheheh, but at least when they are dead they can't procreate and endanger the gene pool :lol: so I guess you are right, it's not comparable.

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 09:11 AM

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

Yes Lote, that's what I said too! See :

but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum,
and

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line.

Do we agree? Oh goodness, I must be having a mental breakdown! (only joking :) )

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 09:11 AM

yep it's illegal in public transport and buildings plus in pubs over here,too.
second hand smoke can cause cancer and result in the children dying a slow painful death. heheheh, but at least when they are dead they can't procreate and endanger the gene pool :lol: so I guess you are right, it's not comparable.

I think you make a light of an issue of incest which is about trust in a family unit.

Without Trust family does not work.

My father smoked 60 a day. But his smoking did not break the trust that required in the family and none of us got cancer.

And neither did millions of others whose fathers smoked.

But if millions of others had incestous relationships?

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 09:15 AM

I think you make a light of an issue of incest which is about trust in a family unit.

Without Trust family does not work.

My father smoked 60 a day. But his smoking did not break the trust that required in the family and none us got cancer.

And neither did millions of others who fathers smoked.

but how does incest break the trust in the family unit when both partners are of age and consent? there is no rape, coercion, violence etc involved.
in this particular case, I think it was a good idea to take the children away from them, because their whole family was already dysfunctional even before the siblings had children. e.g. the brother (father) beat the sister (mother) but on the other hand, how will sending the father to prison for 2 years help the children? Also I wonder if this had happened in a middle class family which was otherwise not dysfunctional, i.e. where the is no violence involved and everybody's happy with the situation, would they be so ready to break up the family and put the father in prison?
edit: we're not talking about millions of others Lote, it's only like 1 or 2 percent of the population and due to the psychological factors that Virge quoted, making it legal would not result in an increase. However, I think vheissu was very right to point out that if the children grew up thinking that incest is OK, they might be more inclined to practice it themselves, so there would be an increase in the long run

Virgil

03-26-2008, 09:24 AM

heehee, well, if my real dad forced me to marry my hubbers this would mean that my hubbers would be legally obliged to feed me (which my dad is legally obliged to do until I'm 27 and still studying). my hubbers doesn't have enough money to feed me, so I'd have to claim welfare. so the state would have to give me money which had better go to ppl who don't have a rich dad. which would be very harmful for society. :D alternatively, I could sue my dad, which would be very harmful to the functioning of our family unit.. :D

:lol: Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents. :p ;)

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 09:25 AM

but how does incest break the trust in the family unit

It does because it is basesd on not wanting to have sexual relationship.

That is what distinguishes these types of relationship from others. This is the trust in the family unit. It is this Trust that we have evolved to respect with incest taboo. And the reasons for these taboos -others have given in plenty.

Do we agree? Oh goodness, I must be having a mental breakdown! (only joking :) )

Don't worry it happens all the time.

But agreeing is boring isn't it? ;-)

I agree
You agree
End of debate.

See? :D

Virgil

03-26-2008, 09:36 AM

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

This probably illustrates the problem with all laws. Either society deems that all things can be done, or it imposes limits. As soon as limits are imposed, because of the nature of such things, those limits will be imperfect. Some will want the line drawn here, others over there. It'll never be 100% right for everyone.

This is a very wise post. Many times politics is argued in black and white extremes but the reality is that legislatures try to find a balance point. That results in a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that it tries to solve the problem where each side has some satisfaction. Unfortunately the bad thing is that it also creates cynacism because during politicing the values are promised in the absolute and the result is a comprimise.

Actually as a side note, i'm recalling two famous rock songs on that expresses such cynacism: The Who's "Wont Get Fooled Again",

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
and The Rolling Stones, "Street Fighting Man":

Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
'Cauce where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well then what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy London town
There's no place for a street fighting man
No!

papayahed

03-26-2008, 09:40 AM

Oh...I thought you meant between a nun and a monk in which case I would've said -- but never mind

HaHa, best line of the thread.

The crux of the situation is that incest "just isn't right". One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

Morality can't be legistlatively regulated.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 10:15 AM

The crux of the situation is that incest "just isn't right". One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

Morality can't be legistlatively regulated.

Ok, so let's say that 1% of the current population commits incest. What if legalizing it created a situation where now 10-20% might participate? Drug studies I've seen say that legalizing drugs increases the population's use. Once society removes boundaries of norms, then participation in that behavior goes up. As an anology, pre-marital sex was seen as immoral, and certainly it occured, but certainly not by everyone. But once that moral stigma was removed, everyone participates in pre-marital sex.

papayahed

03-26-2008, 10:23 AM

Virgil

03-26-2008, 10:25 AM

See I don't even know, is incest currently illegal?

Good question. I have no idea.

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 10:59 AM

:lol: Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents. :p ;)

in that case my dad, mom and me would be very dysfunctional together (which is why I moved out in the first place) and hubber's sister would be even more dysfunctional and cry her eyes out because she would have to move out of hubber's room. also Father-in-Law would have to sort out arguments between hubbers and Sister-in-Law which would be very harmful to him, seeing as his wife as MS and lives in a nursing home and the poor man raised the kids alone and deserves some rest. see, it would only make everyone involved very unhappy. besides, my parents live in another town, so I couldn't go to my univ and my univ is better than the one at their place. so if I had to change univ, I would have poorer teaching, get worse marks and end up unemployed. then I'd have to claim unemployment benefit and would be a huge burden for society and of course I would do drugs, drink and eat junkfood. then I'd grow obese and be an even huger burden by requiring treatment for obesety. and then I'd go on a talkshow and whine and have fight with a b****y woman on the talkshow and I would strangle her and go to prison and use up a lot of tax money there. :D edit: while in prison, I would get raped by gangster women and then I would take it out on others and become a very mean and nasty person. so what's worse, pre-marital cohabitaion or all of this? :D

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 11:05 AM

See I don't even know, is incest currently illegal?

It is in UK, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, article 27 (as below)

Family relationships (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if—
(a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or
(b) it would be within one of those subsections but for section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (status conferred by adoption).
(2) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) one of them is the other’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt or uncle, or
(b) A is or has been B’s foster parent.
(3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and—
(a) one of them is or has been the other’s step-parent,
(b) A and B are cousins,
(c) one of them is or has been the other’s stepbrother or stepsister, or
(d) the parent or present or former foster parent of one of them is or has been the other’s foster parent.
(4) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) A and B live in the same household, and
(b) A is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “aunt” means the sister or half-sister of a person’s parent, and “uncle” has a corresponding meaning;
(b) “cousin” means the child of an aunt or uncle;
(c) a person is a child’s foster parent if—
(i) he is a person with whom the child has been placed under section 23(2)(a) or 59(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (fostering for local authority or voluntary organisation), or
(ii) he fosters the child privately, within the meaning given by section 66(1)(b) of that Act;
(d) a person is another’s partner (whether they are of different sexes or the same sex) if they live together as partners in an enduring family relationship;
(e) “step-parent” includes a parent’s partner and “stepbrother” and “stepsister” include the child of a parent’s partner.

this extends the prohibition to both family members and people who are, or have been, in a position of trust over the other. If you're really bored the whole Act is here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_3

Virgil

03-26-2008, 11:38 AM

in that case my dad, mom and me would be very dysfunctional together (which is why I moved out in the first place) and hubber's sister would be even more dysfunctional and cry her eyes out because she would have to move out of hubber's room. also Father-in-Law would have to sort out arguments between hubbers and Sister-in-Law which would be very harmful to him, seeing as his wife as MS and lives in a nursing home and the poor man raised the kids alone and deserves some rest. see, it would only make everyone involved very unhappy. besides, my parents live in another town, so I couldn't go to my univ and my univ is better than the one at their place. so if I had to change univ, I would have poorer teaching, get worse marks and end up unemployed. then I'd have to claim unemployment benefit and would be a huge burden for society and of course I would do drugs, drink and eat junkfood. then I'd grow obese and be an even huger burden by requiring treatment for obesety. and then I'd go on a talkshow and whine and have fight with a b****y woman on the talkshow and I would strangle her and go to prison and use up a lot of tax money there. :D edit: while in prison, I would get raped by gangster women and then I would take it out on others and become a very mean and nasty person. so what's worse, pre-marital cohabitaion or all of this? :D

Hmm, i guess that's for your father to decide. You could get a female roommate and split the costs with her as you must with hubbers.

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 11:48 AM

Virgil:

Oh I would not make that illegal. I grew up with the notion that casual pre-marital sex was wrong. Of course it occured and I took part, but it was not something I went and told my parents. I did not go to my mother and say, "hey mom, guess what I just did for the first time today." Today I'm frankly shocked at how parents let their children live together with an unmarried lover. I would not approve of my children doing it.

I think it is perfectly ok to do so as long as you do not force your kids to follow your own ideas, as long as you don't blackmail them or whatever.

Fifth:

Sweets, I have no problem with your choices, but one thing you can't choose to do is live in a moral vacuum, and the truth is that we all judge including you, and including me, for example:

which is in itself a judgemental comment, not critical, but definitely judgemental.

Yes I am being judgemental because I am a human being, and this is what I hate in myself, but I try to go beyond as much as I can.

I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we can do something does that mean we should do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons why it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?

I am just not fond of morality. I am part of a society but I don't feel like it. I am an individual and I intend to live my life as I want to, as long as I don't hurt people. The key is tolerance. I think life on this planet is already difficult enough to piss ourselves off with morality when we don't see the point of it. We all live in restraint. I have felt restrained from being myself for many years and today I just want to be as free as I can. Human beings are always putting barriers everywhere and making their own lives a living hell until they finally die. I am just confused.

Lote:

Yes. But it is also selfish.

No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.

Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

This " as long as it does not harm anyone..." ethos is flawed. It is short-sighted and selfish.

Yes of course it is selfish. But if you must spend your life restraining yourself to please the others, I don't see the point of being an individual with his/her own mind. I am having to argue as if incest were something terribly mean to do to the others, as if I were a bad person for wanting to be free to love someone who also loves me. That's crazy. I'm confused again.

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 12:25 PM

I am just not fond of morality. I am part of a society but I don't feel like it. I am an individual and I intend to live my life as I want to, as long as I don't hurt people. The key is tolerance. I think life on this planet is already difficult enough to piss ourselves off with morality when we don't see the point of it.

isn't tolerance a form of morality?

isn't it possible that the restrictions have a point, but as we are not all experts in all things the point is not immediately apparent to us?

manolia

03-26-2008, 12:33 PM

One of my coworkers was just telling me about his stint as a health inspector in the northwestern region of the US. In this day and age there are remote areas and towns that have a large percentage of birth defects due to inbreeding, this isn't a case of one generation this is a case of manay, many generations of inbreeding. The mind set in these communities is that they don't like strangers and they very much keep to themselves. The government agencies are fully aware of these situations. Even if you make incest illegal that won't stop the acts from happening.

OMG that's what i wanted to say!! (ermmm something to that effect i mean). I remember a conversasion i had with one of my moms friends, a doctor, who told me that in some islands in greece there are high records (when compared to the rest of the country) of various mental deseases and one of the main reasons for this is that these areas were isolated and occupied in the past (when the country wasn't yet liberated) and they couldn't get in touch with the greek populations of the mainland, so they ended up marrying their first cousins etc. I don't know if that's true, i have no scientific knowledge on the subject ;)

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 01:28 PM

isn't tolerance a form of morality?

isn't it possible that the restrictions have a point, but as we are not all experts in all things the point is not immediately apparent to us?

I am not sure that tolerance is a form of morality. It could really be, and that's interesting. I guess that means I am ok with some forms of morality and not with some others? However, I always try to tolerate the forms of morality that I do not share as long as they are not imposed on me.

Now about the second part of what you said, I agree very much. But I guess I don't want to care about what ifs right now. Which might be irresponsible of me. But I'm not sure I am in a responsible mood.

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 02:16 PM

Yes of course it is selfish.

And we don't like selfishness do we now lassie? :D

But if you must spend your life restraining yourself to please the others, I don't see the point of being an individual with his/her own mind.

The Axial Age Philosophers have said it is when we let go of our Egotism then we can truly be human...it is then that we take part in a Larger Existence.

metal134

03-26-2008, 02:24 PM

And this is why I usually stear clear of these thereads. People start getting mean and get the feeling they have to find more and more ways of expressing their opinion. Preaching eugenics??!!! I never thought I'd see that even mentioned in this thread, but there you go. I really hope it wasn't directed at me or at anyone else who is opposed at the idea of incest.

The genetic argument is the only argument that can prove why incest can lead to a number of complications nobody would really want. And that includes the children involved.

I've stated more than a few times what I think of incest and won't repeat myself.

First off, what makes you think it was directed at you? If you are not talking about making it illegal, then why would my comment on the legislation of such a thing be directed at you? And secondly, how is it mean? As I said, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 02:31 PM

And we don't like selfishness do we now lassie? :D

The Axial Age Philosophers have said it is when we let go of our Egotism then we can truly be human...it is then that we take part in a Larger Existence.

Ah, we don't like selfishness. But if people consider it selfish to have one's own ideas for one's own damn life without compelling anyone to follow them, then what can I say? This is preposterous. Now if we say that, perhaps someone else could say that it is selfish not to let people live their lives the way they intend to do so just because the way they would like to live their own lives does not appeal to us. Yeah.
And I won't comment on how to become truly 'human' because I don't have the same definition of 'human' as you have.

Oniw17

03-26-2008, 02:32 PM

Incest doesn't always cause health problems. It brings out the recessive genes. If it did necessarily cause the children to be retarded, then the entire non-African human population would have ~60 IQ. Also, the royal families of Europe practiced incest. Of course it should be legal. Like public nudity, making it legal isn't going to make it the next big fad.

ejbean

03-26-2008, 02:55 PM

I think its disgusting.
**** happens in this world thats imperfect, and once in a while two people might fall in love only to find out they share a parent- thats the world we live in. Its screwed up. But it doesn't mean we should accomodate our laws or our morals to EVERY single circumstance, there are exceptions to be made in this world, is up to each of us to make our own I'm an understanding person, but the fact that things like this are even questionable makes me wonder about out our foundation, we have become so accustomed to accepting everyone for who they are that its turned into welcoming some flat out crazy ****. I do not beleive in persecuting anyone, its their business, but i'm sure as hell not going to go around wondering, just because these particular circumstances are exceptional, if this is acceptable across the board. Its not. Its gross. What's next someone wants to marry their dog? Have sex w their kids? I mean be serious.

metal134

03-26-2008, 02:59 PM

What's next someone wants to marry their dog? Have sex w their kids? I mean be serious.
Well there would no longer be CONSENTING ADULTS involved, now would there?

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 03:18 PM

Well there would no longer be CONSENTING ADULTS involved, now would there?

I Agree. Th difference is one of consent. But...I love my doggies. ;) Dogs are the partners that suit me best, but that's another problem, isn't it?

TheFifthElement

03-26-2008, 03:23 PM

I am not sure that tolerance is a form of morality. It could really be, and that's interesting. I guess that means I am ok with some forms of morality and not with some others? However, I always try to tolerate the forms of morality that I do not share as long as they are not imposed on me.

But morality is imposed on you whether you like it or not. Is killing moral or immoral, is rape moral or immoral, is stealing moral or immoral? Society and the law has taken a view on this and this view is imposed on you, in some cases to the point where the 'societal' moral view is almost impossible to distinguish from your personal choice.

I suppose what I am getting at is that there's no point blaming morality, if you blame morality then you may as well blame arms and legs. Perhaps the problem with morality is that it is generally couched in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' whereas perhaps it would be better to say 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' based on the common consensus. In society laws are made based on the common consensus of what that society deems to be acceptable and unacceptable, but this will differ from society to society, so we don't conduct ritual sacrifice in my culture but it has been acceptable in the past, and may be acceptable in other societies. That doesn't make it immoral, just a different kind of morality which does not concord with my morality or the morality of the society in which I live. In living in a society one must accept that there will be aspects of the law with which we agree, and those with which we do not agree, and if the law is successful then it will, in most areas, create an environment which the vast majority find to be 'acceptable' and yet protects the ongoing survival of the human population. Or perhaps I am just too much of a socialist, but it seems to make sense to me this way.

I'm pretty uncomfortable, on the whole, with this concept of 'tolerance'. True tolerance would mean having no opinion on any subject because a truly tolerant person would 'tolerate' all sides of the argument. I'm not entirely sure that tolerance really exists, or if it is just a convenient way of saying 'do what you want so long as it doesn't affect me', which I'd say is more ambivalence than tolerance.

Now about the second part of what you said, I agree very much. But I guess I don't want to care about what ifs right now. Which might be irresponsible of me. But I'm not sure I am in a responsible mood.
:lol: well, at least you're honest Sweets! But really, forget about responsibility and irresponsibility. Do you want to make your moral choices without having all the available facts, or more importantly (based on your previous statements) without fully consideration of whether acting in a certain manner will, or will not, cause harm?

I guess the difficulty with this subject, as with many subjects, is making an informed choice. Lots of opinions, but not many facts.

Janine

03-26-2008, 03:39 PM

Wow, this is the hot topic of the day, eh? I went online to investigate, and see if there was any solid information, since I am not an anthropologist or a doctor, or qualified individual to profess to know anything truthful about this subject.

So to start with here is something I found in Wikipedia; I thought it was interesting and might throw some light on the whole debate.

A social response to the costs of incest
One theory is that the observance of the taboo would lower the incidence of congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding. A society that had noticed this might tend to form an incest taboo.

Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population.

One might complain that a society would have to have a fairly advanced understanding of genetics to recognise this potential "benefit" of incest, whereas the increased prevalence of birth defects is relatively easy to spot.

Second, anthropologists have pointed out that in the Trobriand case a man and the daughter of his father's sister, and a man and the daughter of his mother's sister, are equally distant genetically. In that particular case, the prohibition against relations is not based on or motivated by concerns over biological closeness.

Sociologist Ian Robertson gives three main social reasons why incest taboo exist as a cultural universals. The first is that early human beings-living primarily in small kinship groups of hunters and gatherers- needed to protect themselves by forming alliances with other groups. By forcing their children to marry into families outside their own, each group widened its social links and provided itself with allies in time of famine or other hazards. These groups faced the alternatives of marrying out or dying. Marriage in most traditional societies is a practical alliance between groups, not a love match between individuals. That is why marriages are arranged by the parents, often when their offspring are still children and sometimes even before they are born. The second reason for the incest taboo is that the family itself could not function without it, for the statuses of family members would be utterly and hopelessly confused. As Kingsley Davis points out: " The incestuous child of a father-daughter union would be a brother of his own mother, i.e. the son of his own sister; a stepson of his own grandmother; possibly a brother of his won uncle; and certainly a grandson of his own father." The third reason is that without an incest taboo, sexual rivalry among family members would disrupt the normal roles and attitudes of the various relatives. the father, for example, might experience role conflict as both the disciplinarian and the lover of his daughter; the mother might be jealous of both; and the child, of course, would be caught in the middle. Faced with constant conflict and tension, the family institution might simply disintegrate. The incest taboo has developed over time because it is vital to the survival of the family and thus of society itself. Of course, neither traditional nor modern societies consciously appreciate the reasons for the taboo. They and we simply accept it as natural and moral.

cral

03-26-2008, 03:48 PM

In its utmost simplicity, incest simply betrays all that the concept of 'family' supposedly is. Even ignoring the whole genetic defect issue, there's confused familial relations to consider (e.g. are you my sister or my mother?), as well as the whole competition issue. If we're just focusing on siblings, what of the family with many siblings? I just can't imagine sexual rivalry actually happening in the home of all places.

I can't remember the source, but I recall somewhere hearing/reading how all young girls want to marry their father. It was probably a TV show or something silly like that, so I'm not pushing it as accurate, but that's one kind of love and romance is another. It'd be interesting to find out whether those who pursue incestuous relationships ever had any other? Maybe it's because they were limited to familial love alone that they thought it the only kind.

I apologise if I'm merely repeating everyone else, hah.

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 03:48 PM

Ah, we don't like selfishness.

There you have it. Rest is mere details in justificaitons of selfishness ;-)

And I won't comment on how to become truly 'human' because I don't have the same definition of 'human' as you have.

Perhaps when you are ready let go of selfishness...you shall know it ;-)

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 04:02 PM

But morality is imposed on you whether you like it or not. Is killing moral or immoral, is rape moral or immoral, is stealing moral or immoral? Society and the law has taken a view on this and this view is imposed on you, in some cases to the point where the 'societal' moral view is almost impossible to distinguish from your personal choice.
There is a difference between killing someone and sleeping with my brother. Because in killing someone you easily see how I harm someone. The same goes for stealing. Also, killing is not always immoral. If someone did something very wrong to someone I love, I would be tempted to kill the person in question.

I suppose what I am getting at is that there's no point blaming morality, if you blame morality then you may as well blame arms and legs. Perhaps the problem with morality is that it is generally couched in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' whereas perhaps it would be better to say 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' based on the common consensus. In society laws are made based on the common consensus of what that society deems to be acceptable and unacceptable, but this will differ from society to society, so we don't conduct ritual sacrifice in my culture but it has been acceptable in the past, and may be acceptable in other societies. That doesn't make it immoral, just a different kind of morality which does not concord with my morality or the morality of the society in which I live. In living in a society one must accept that there will be aspects of the law with which we agree, and those with which we do not agree, and if the law is successful then it will, in most areas, create an environment which the vast majority find to be 'acceptable' and yet protects the ongoing survival of the human population. Or perhaps I am just too much of a socialist, but it seems to make sense to me this way.
I think the difference between you and me is that you think in terms of society whereas I think in terms of individuals. To tell you the truth, I'm damn sick of being part of this whole. I want people to leave me alone, I want to go away. I've always wanted that but sometimes I want it more. However, I do think that what you are saying here is accurate, I mean yes, when you are part of a society it's better to accept the rules. But there is this part of me which hates it very much and this part has waken up for several weeks. I don't know, sometimes I just think life as humans live it is a big big joke. That's a waste.

I'm pretty uncomfortable, on the whole, with this concept of 'tolerance'. True tolerance would mean having no opinion on any subject because a truly tolerant person would 'tolerate' all sides of the argument. I'm not entirely sure that tolerance really exists, or if it is just a convenient way of saying 'do what you want so long as it doesn't affect me', which I'd say is more ambivalence than tolerance.

Oh, but this is exactly what I try to do. This is an ideal for me, not to enclose myself into any opinion and to tolerate everything. However I might sound different lately, even judgemental as you pointed out, because I'm having a feeling which makes me want to tell the whole planet to eff off.

:lol: well, at least you're honest Sweets! But really, forget about responsibility and irresponsibility. Do you want to make your moral choices without having all the available facts, or more importantly (based on your previous statements) without fully consideration of whether acting in a certain manner will, or will not, cause harm?

Huh...Yeah. And I don't want to make 'moral' choices, I just want to make my choices. I think I'm under the influence of the books I'm currently reading. Makes me discover new things, makes me want to detach myself from the person I've always tried to be, this ideal... makes me want to go towards another kind of ideal. I need to. I want freedom, dreams, poetry on top of a mountain while watching the moon. So...do not worry if I sound inconsistent.

Perhaps when you are ready let go of selfishness...you shall know it ;-)

I don't want to. I don't want to be human.

In its utmost simplicity, incest simply betrays all that the concept of 'family' supposedly is.
The problem in this sentence is supposedly is. It's all blocked on one concept, one idea.

I can't remember the source, but I recall somewhere hearing/reading how all young girls want to marry their father.

That's the Oedipus complex, and that's not in a TV show, that's in Sigmund Freud. :p

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 04:10 PM

I don't like the concept of "society". it's an abstract term. do judges or the legislative take polls about what is acceptable to a majority? NO. I'd feel better represented by them if they actually took polls on important issues and then put into practice what a majority of people have voted for. But it's just assumed that they know what "society" wants or prefers.
Plus, noone can choose to be part of "society", you get born into it and arguments along the lines of "If you don't like this country, go somewhere else" are nonsense, in my opinion. Of course, you can go to another country, but this country will have its own "society". Plus, ppl might like to stay in the place where they were born because their family live there or because they like the landscape or the weather or the food or whatever and they have a right to stay there, but that does not mean that they were given any choice to be born in this place or that they owe anything to the "society" they find themselves in.

edit to add: I've just thought of something: some of you have mentioned that if incest btw siblings was legal, incest btw parents and (grown up) children would have to be legal, too. well... let's say there's a father/mother who has sex with their (grown up) child. provided they are still married to the mother/father at that time, this would be adultery! While adultery is not illegal in many countries, it is grounds for divorce there. So if judges/legislators or any defenders of moral wanted to make sure this doesn't happen they could still kinda stress that it is adultery and can result in divorce and is therefore immoral. Even if they couldn't really do anything about incest btw. parents/adult children if incest between siblings were allowed, there'd still be the issue of adultery to prevent ppl from parent/child thingies?

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 04:35 PM

I don't want to. I don't want to be human.

Then why engage here in this debate?

It's pointless isn't it?

I don't like the concept of "society".

Human's beings are social animals whether you like it or not ;-)

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 04:41 PM

Human's beings are social animals whether you like it or not ;-)

I do not deny that human beings are social beings, but social can mean two things: 1. prone to live together with others, cooperate with them etc, 2. relating to "society".
I'm not saying we should be totally antisocial and live on our own and only for ourselves. I do not mind communities (groups where everyone knows every one else). but society is not a community, it's an abstract concept. Who do we mean when we talk about "society"?

pretty_princess

03-26-2008, 04:44 PM

I don't think that is right not just because I was taught that was wron, but just because it seems right. Your suppose to fall in love with someone like that outside of your family!

PrinceMyshkin

03-26-2008, 04:57 PM

Bakiryu

03-26-2008, 04:58 PM

I don't think that is right not just because I was taught that was wron, but just because it seems right. Your suppose to fall in love with someone like that outside of your family!

...why?

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 05:01 PM

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 05:58 PM

There is all the difference in the world to me between

1) It is wrong, profoundly wrong, disgusting, genetically dangerous and morally at odds with how families ought to be. I would NEVER consider doing it; and

2) I don't want others to be allowed to do it.

You don't have to find something disgusting to say it is wrong!

Wrongness can exist without any disgust attached to it.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said.

If don't want to be human then human predicaments should not concern you.

Your position is like fish debating whether they need bicycles ;-)

Sweets America

03-26-2008, 06:07 PM

If don't want to be human then human predicaments should not concern you.

Your position is like fish debating whether they need bicycles ;-)

Ah sure.....:rolleyes:
You don't understand that my problem and questionning about the human species is actually what makes me think and talk about it. No, that thought has not reached your brains yet, apparently. Anyway, let's go back to the subject, if you please.

Lote-Tree

03-26-2008, 06:18 PM

No, that thought has not reached your brains yet, apparently.

No yet I am quite thick lassie ;-)

I just take "I don't want to be human as I don't want to be human"...

My apologies for being simplistic ;-) :D

Shalot

03-26-2008, 07:39 PM

Ok, so let's say that 1% of the current population commits incest. What if legalizing it created a situation where now 10-20% might participate? Drug studies I've seen say that legalizing drugs increases the population's use. Once society removes boundaries of norms, then participation in that behavior goes up. As an anology, pre-marital sex was seen as immoral, and certainly it occured, but certainly not by everyone. But once that moral stigma was removed, everyone participates in pre-marital sex.

I don't think society removes boundaries of norms - I think over time, people come to their own decisions about some of these issues, through observing their parents, friends and relatives. Over time, more and more people reach the same conclusions and cultural norms shift. They realize their beliefs might need modification. It's a gradual shift.

Take the above example of pre-marital sex. It's not the like sixties happened overnight and suddenly everyone started practicing free love. I think over time, men and women observed their parents in unhappy marriages and eventually got up the courage to bring it out in the open in a movement and declare that they were going to have sex outside of marriage. They weren't buying the "you get married and live happily ever after" line anymore. They were not going to find themselves sealed into an unhappy situation that they couldn't get out of. I mean, you wouldn't buy a car without taking it out for a test drive. What if it sputtered and stalled? What if it wouldn't start at all?

Of course, there are problems with that, such as kids without fathers and STD's, but it's not like these issues were non-existent before. As a society we're learning how to take care of those issues. Individuals can take it upon themselves to NOT get knocked up or knock someone up. They can get treated for STD's instead of being ashamed and spreading it on to more people if they're educated about the nature of viruses and bacteria, instead of lying to themselves and to others about what what they're doing.

As far as drugs go, people want to use drugs and the law says certain substances are illegal. So what do people do? They buy acetone, anti-freeze, lantern fuel and drano and cook up some meth. It's much better to have a methhead in a make shift lab with volitile chemicals in some apartment than it is to legalize and regulate drugs.

And as for incest, most cases that I've heard about involve abuse of a younger child, or weaker person (either physically, mentally handicapped, or emotionally disturbed) by an older or dominnat person. I just haven't heard of many consensual incest cases that didn't arise out of some weird circumstance of adoption or separation and I couldn't believe that someone had actually created a thread about whether it was right or wrong. And I was even more surprised when my YUCK response was criticized and the thought of me being brainwashed or misinformed about Incest never crossed my mind.

I was reading about the specific case that prompted the creation of this thread and I began to wonder if this was the beginning of some major cultural shift. What if, in the future, I have to take an alternate route through town to avoid some Incest Rights Movement? Is this little case in Germany the beginning of a cultural movement? What if there are closeted incestual relationships all over the world? I doubt that, but then again, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder up until 1973.

As progressive as I like to think I am, I am going to have to step back and declare myself misinformed, brainwashed, and narrowminded on this issue of incest and I stand by initial Yuck No reaction. If I can't smoke marijuana, then Patrick Stuebing can't diddle his sister.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 08:26 PM

I don't think society removes boundaries of norms - I think over time, people come to their own decisions about some of these issues, through observing their parents, friends and relatives. Over time, more and more people reach the same conclusions and cultural norms shift. They realize their beliefs might need modification. It's a gradual shift.

Take the above example of pre-marital sex. It's not the like sixties happened overnight and suddenly everyone started practicing free love.

Your post had a lot in there that I might agree with Shalot. But let me highlight a word "suddenly" above that I somewhat disagree. The sixties weren't really the "sixties" as people understand them today until the late sixties, and the sixties revolution was fairly complete by the late seventies. That's a ten year span. Ten years is a blink of an eye compared to the centuries of established sexual inhibitions. So I would say it was rather sudden.

Shalot

03-26-2008, 09:04 PM

Your post had a lot in there that I might agree with Shalot. But let me highlight a word "suddenly" above that I somewhat disagree. The sixties weren't really the "sixties" as people understand them today until the late sixties, and the sixties revolution was fairly complete by the late seventies. That's a ten year span. Ten years is a blink of an eye compared to the centuries of established sexual inhibitions. So I would say it was rather sudden.

I took a class in college (and that makes me an expert, because I took a class ;) ) and we discussed the fifties, and how that decade is perceived and has been portrayed in popular culture. And we discussed what had been going on in the decades leading up to the fifties and how instead of the fifties being the last decade of the golden age and happy days and innocence and gee things are swell, they were actually a transitional period. There wasn't some sudden shift between 1959 and the free love, hippie, late sixties --- it was coming, it was brewing and the cultural shift was underway way long before you saw long-haired hippie boys in bellbottoms.

Of course, I wasn't even born then so I am no expert on this at all and I have nothing to go on other than what was presented in this class that I took several years ago. Still, the idea of gradual change in regard to sexual norms makes sense to me.

Then again if you could be brainwashed into thinking a certain sexual behavior is disgusting, then you could be brainwashed into thinking that other sexual behaviours are okay as well (I guess).

It's all so confusing. As far as incest goes, I still say, "Yuck, No, Pervert. Nasty."

papayahed

03-26-2008, 09:16 PM

I took a class in college (and that makes me an expert, because I took a class ;) ) and we discussed the fifties, and how that decade is perceived and has been portrayed in popular culture. And we discussed what had been going on in the decades leading up to the fifties and how instead of the fifties being the last decade of the golden age and happy days and innocence and gee things are swell, they were actually a transitional period. There wasn't some sudden shift between 1959 and the free love, hippie, late sixties --- it was coming, it was brewing and the cultural shift was underway way long before you saw long-haired hippie boys in bellbottoms.

Of course, I wasn't even born then so I am no expert on this at all and I have nothing to go on other than what was presented in this class that I took several years ago. Still, the idea of gradual change in regard to sexual norms makes sense to me.

Then again if you could be brainwashed into thinking a certain sexual behavior is disgusting, then you could be brainwashed into thinking that other sexual behaviours are okay as well (I guess).

It's all so confusing. As far as incest goes, I still say, "Yuck, No, Pervert. Nasty."

You jogged my memory, I remember a show/class/something where they pinpointed prohibition as a turning point in social norms. It was the first time that men and women interacted socially on that large a scale, not to mention the automobile which gave more oppotunities for sexual relations. So in actuality the 60's really started in the 20's.

Virgil

03-26-2008, 09:16 PM

It may have been brewing in the fifties but it still wasn't the late sixties. But ok 20 years is still a blink of an eye. It's one generation.

JBI

03-27-2008, 12:09 AM

No it should not be legalized. Though I personally wouldn't care if two siblings late in life decide, "What the hell" (yes I find it grotesque, but it is really not my problem). The legalization of it would create an opportunity for older siblings (generally male ones I would argue) to take advantage of younger siblings (either male or female). This to me is a problem. How can there be consent, truly, between siblings. The incestuous upbringing can be manipulated to create a master-slave relationship between siblings which is wrong and disgusting. So no, I don't think it should be legalized, but yes, I have no problem with people logically consenting to it.

TheFifthElement

03-27-2008, 05:17 AM

There is a difference between killing someone and sleeping with my brother. Because in killing someone you easily see how I harm someone. The same goes for stealing.
but it's not that simple is it. Your statement relies on everyone having the same definition of 'harm' but this can only exist because we have set ourselves rules, which the majority concord with, about what is designated as 'harm'. But if you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, then you have to throw all of the 'common' rule books away, not just selective ones. For example:

Imagine this scenario. A person (person A) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. This person is walking in the park and sees a homeless person (person B). This person is emaciated, starving, cold and suffering. So person A kills person B, thereby relieving person B from their suffering. This was done as an act of compassion, person A took no pleasure in the act. Has person A caused harm, even though the act of killing the person was a compassionate act? If so, why do you think this is causing harm?

Imagine a different scenario -person A (again) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. Person B has a debilitating, painful and terminal illness. Person A kills person B thereby relieving them from their suffering. Has person A caused harm? If so, why? Would your view be different if a few days after person B was killed they discovered a cure for the terminal illness?

But see, you also admit that the lines are blurred, here:

Also, killing is not always immoral. If someone did something very wrong to someone I love, I would be tempted to kill the person in question.

I think the difference between you and me is that you think in terms of society whereas I think in terms of individuals.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

Huh...Yeah. And I don't want to make 'moral' choices,

but you do, in fact you can't stop yourself. I wonder, do you associate 'morality' with 'disgust'? There's been a lot of talk of disgust on the thread, but I don't think that having a law against certain acts and being disgusted by them necessarily go together.

To tell you the truth, I'm damn sick of being part of this whole. I want people to leave me alone, I want to go away.

Then perhaps this is something you need to work out, but think, could you have lived this long without being 'part of this whole'? Could you go to Oregon and fulfil your fream without being 'part of this whole'? Existing in a vacuum, separated entirely from human 'society' would mean just that, build your own home, find your own water, source your own food, learn everything yourself entirely from scratch with no help, no support. Is that really what you want? Because in your truly free, truly individualistic world there would be no room, no time, and no need for this:

I want freedom, dreams, poetry on top of a mountain while watching the moon.

So, perhaps (after going on so long!) what I'm saying is, I think that rather than tolerance we should be seeking compromise.

Perhaps when you are ready let go of selfishness...you shall know it ;-)

Lote, everyone is selfish, and selfishly motivated. Even altruism is selfish. In fact I'm not sure that altruism really even exists.

Lote-Tree

03-27-2008, 05:25 AM

Lote, everyone is selfish, and selfishly motivated.

The Axial Age Philosophers weren't ;-)

Buddha even tramped all over india demonstrating the ego-less existence.

We can't all be Buddhas but we can at least aspire towards it...

Even altruism is selfish. In fact I'm not sure that altruism really even exists.

Altruism exists but that is obiviously a discussion for a separate thread ;-)

Sweets America

03-27-2008, 07:10 AM

Fifth, your comments are always challenging and interesting, I love them. :)

Imagine this scenario. A person (person A) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. This person is walking in the park and sees a homeless person (person B). This person is emaciated, starving, cold and suffering. So person A kills person B, thereby relieving person B from their suffering. This was done as an act of compassion, person A took no pleasure in the act. Has person A caused harm, even though the act of killing the person was a compassionate act? If so, why do you think this is causing harm?

Here I think that yes, the person harmed the other one, not because he killed him, but because he did so 'according to his own point of view of what would be better for person B'. See? We should not impose our views on other people. It would have been ok here if person B had killed himself or asked person A to help him do so.
A lot of things work like that. Like parents who impede their kids from doing this or that because 'it is better for them'. I don't like having someone deciding at my place, even if I recognize that the person does it thinking it is right to do so.

Imagine a different scenario -person A (again) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. Person B has a debilitating, painful and terminal illness. Person A kills person B thereby relieving them from their suffering. Has person A caused harm? If so, why? Would your view be different if a few days after person B was killed they discovered a cure for the terminal illness?

I don't see why person A would choose to kill person B even if person B is suffering! I would wait that person B wants to die, or tells person A to help him to die. Then it would be ok cause person A would have decided for himslef, according to his own beliefs and choices.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

I see what you mean and you've got a point here. It is just that I am not sure it is really possible to exist as a free individual within society, because we are always smothered. This has no solution other than taking my car and run away...but there is no 'away' because there will always be another society with new rules. The only solution for me would be to become an outlaw or a bum of some sort.

but you do, in fact you can't stop yourself. I wonder, do you associate 'morality' with 'disgust'? There's been a lot of talk of disgust on the thread, but I don't think that having a law against certain acts and being disgusted by them necessarily go together.
No, I don't associate them. I associate morality with each individual's choices on what is right or wrong, and my desire to escape from morality might be a sort of morality in itself. I don't know.

Then perhaps this is something you need to work out, but think, could you have lived this long without being 'part of this whole'? Could you go to Oregon and fulfil your fream without being 'part of this whole'? Existing in a vacuum, separated entirely from human 'society' would mean just that, build your own home, find your own water, source your own food, learn everything yourself entirely from scratch with no help, no support. Is that really what you want? Because in your truly free, truly individualistic world there would be no room, no time, and no need for this:

Yeah, I see. Of course the Oregon thing as it is works thanks to my being part of a group. But, without that, I still could have gone to Oregon by myself. All that you're talking about here, water supply and the like, is not something which is imposed on me like a law. Humans have worked together to make things like that available and that's ok. What is not ok for me is how they want to build a frame about how people should live their lives inside of this environment.

So, perhaps (after going on so long!) what I'm saying is, I think that rather than tolerance we should be seeking compromise.

I think compromise is good, but I still prefer tolerance cause compromise involves restraint on personal choices which do not affect the choices or freedom of others. Compromise would be ok in your previous example: A thinks it would be better if B died, but B doesn't have the same beliefs as A, so A will say 'ok it's your choice, if it had been me, I would have died, but I am not you so I will let you choose and I will maintain my own choices for my own life'.

Virgil

03-27-2008, 07:32 AM

I think the difference between you and me is that you think in terms of society whereas I think in terms of individuals. To tell you the truth, I'm damn sick of being part of this whole. I want people to leave me alone, I want to go away. I've always wanted that but sometimes I want it more. However, I do think that what you are saying here is accurate, I mean yes, when you are part of a society it's better to accept the rules. But there is this part of me which hates it very much and this part has waken up for several weeks. I don't know, sometimes I just think life as humans live it is a big big joke. That's a waste.
...I don't want to. I don't want to be human.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

Wow, have you two been reading D.H. Lawrence? These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.

Lote-Tree

03-27-2008, 07:43 AM

Wow, have you two been reading D.H. Lawrence? These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints.

I haven't but I have made the same realisation ;-)

There you don't need books :D

Virgil

03-27-2008, 07:59 AM

I haven't but I have made the same realisation ;-)

There you don't need books :D

:lol: Yes, if we looked at our lives we can draw our own conclusions. Some people think that writerws have some greater insight into life than the rest of us. No, it's the same, it's just that they have an ability to write.

TheFifthElement

03-27-2008, 08:25 AM

Here I think that yes, the person harmed the other one, not because he killed him, but because he did so 'according to his own point of view of what would be better for person B'. See? We should not impose our views on other people. It would have been ok here if person B had killed himself or asked person A to help him do so.
but if everyone is free to act according to their personal beliefs then Person A has exercised their freedom of choice and acted accordingly. According to their personal belief they have not caused harm. The fact that the other person might not have wanted it is irrelevant, because all we are concerning ourselves with is our own freedom of choice. The very statement 'we should be free to choose as we wish as long as it does not cause harm' is a morally restricted statement (and an imprecise one at that) which requires consensus. If we were totally free without moral restriction then the statement would be 'we should be free to choose as we wish.'. No more, no less.

There is then the question of how far do we go down the route of 'not imposing our views on other people'. There is in all dealings between people an 'assumption' that we have common frames of reference. I assume that you are a sentient person in the same way as I am, though your thoughts might differ to mine. I assume that you exist, that you are a real person. If I did not make this assumption then every encounter with another person would be like making alien contact, but then it is still a method of 'imposing my view' because I am imposing my assumptions about myself as a sentient human being onto you. This may be a mistake, but if I did not do so it would be virtually impossible to operate in life at all.

Yeah, I see. Of course the Oregon thing as it is works thanks to my being part of a group. But, without that, I still could have gone to Oregon by myself.

not necessarily because your going to Oregon at all relies on a co-operative society, it requires that USA and France have agreed rules between themselves by which they agree or don't agree to accept each other's citizens, it also requires someone (unless you have worked and saved up and paid) for someone to stump up the cash for you to go, to pay for you while you are there, to pay for the university to run, it requires someone to risk operating an aircraft or boat to take you there, it requires a man to be prepared to give up his time to fly a plane or sail a boat that will take you there, etc, etc, etc. Society is a big massive interlinked web, you can't unravel one part of it without affecting the whole; which leads onto this point here:

All that you're talking about here, water supply and the like, is not something which is imposed on me like a law. Humans have worked together to make things like that available and that's ok. What is not ok for me is how they want to build a frame about how people should live their lives inside of this environment.

again, all part of the web. These things, these amenities exist only because we work within a co-operative society. Why would anyone start a company generating a water supply, which involves cost, time and resources, if they had no means of securing payment for these services? Why would you pay for water from a central water supply if you had no means of ensuring that the water supplied was drinkable and would not poison you or make you sick? It is true that you do not have to accept a water supply, but it is also true that there would not be a water supply without laws existing to protect all parties involved in both the supply and the consumption of it. This is why compromise is necessary, we accept minor infringements on our absolute freedom because the alternative is either unacceptable or the benefits are greater. Idealism is great, this concept of personal freedom, but if you take your personal freedom literally then you consign yourself to a life of toiling in the dirt, and your dream of poetry on the mountainside is overwhelmed by simply surviving. This is the compromise of living in a human social structure, with all its warts and all its beauty. I get clean water, but in so doing I have to agree not to have sex with my brother. I think that's a pretty fair deal ;) (but then my brother does look like he's been dragged through a hedge most of the time!).

These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.

interesting Virgil, I'll give that one a read.

Koa

03-27-2008, 11:39 AM

And as for incest, most cases that I've heard about involve abuse of a younger child, or weaker person (either physically, mentally handicapped, or emotionally disturbed) by an older or dominnat person. I just haven't heard of many consensual incest cases that didn't arise out of some weird circumstance of adoption or separation and I couldn't believe that someone had actually created a thread about whether it was right or wrong. And I was even more surprised when my YUCK response was criticized and the thought of me being brainwashed or misinformed about Incest never crossed my mind.

Well I personally hadn't thought of this because I was thinking of CONSENSUAL incestuous relations, as the example that opened the thread. I think the way those things are described is rather "abuse" than incest, well of course technically it is incest but if it's not consensual then it's first of all abuse. But then yeah, if it were legal I guess all those creepy men wouldn't mind abusing their daughter even more ok.
And still the idea of a brother and sister marrying, especially if they didn't grow up together, doesn't make me go yuck, while the idea of anyone abusing of anyone, be it a little (or big) sister, a daughter, or the first person who happened to cross the street tonight, does make me go yuck.

Sweets America

03-27-2008, 02:22 PM

First, Virgil,
I have never read DH Lawrence but it sounds interesting. Thanks. :)

Now, Fifth... :p

but if everyone is free to act according to their personal beliefs then Person A has exercised their freedom of choice and acted accordingly. According to their personal belief they have not caused harm. The fact that the other person might not have wanted it is irrelevant, because all we are concerning ourselves with is our own freedom of choice. The very statement 'we should be free to choose as we wish as long as it does not cause harm' is a morally restricted statement (and an imprecise one at that) which requires consensus. If we were totally free without moral restriction then the statement would be 'we should be free to choose as we wish.'. No more, no less.

You are great. What you say really pisses me off because it is true. :D No, it scares me more than it pisses me off, actually. Because I see the value of what you say here and that contradicts my ideals. I know my ideals might remain ideals and that I will never have my freedom anyway in this world as it is made, but that makes me sad.
But, the thing is, here person A wants to be free to kill person B, which should be ok according to what I said. But, it is not ok because I also said that we must be free as long as what we do does not erase other people's freedom. So that means that I put a limit to my own freedom. I dislike that. God.
But, the other thing is that I was talking about freedom only regarding the things which did not affect the spehre of other people's lives. By killing someone, I enter this person's sphere. By making love with my brother, I do not. So my question actually was not one of absolute freedom, it was one of wondering why we couldn't be free regarding things which did not enter the sphere of someone else. See? There is a difference. I am only questionning one kind of actions, those which are personal. My question is not 'why can't we be free to do anything we like?'. My question rather is 'why can't we be free to do the things which only affect ourselves?'.

There is then the question of how far do we go down the route of 'not imposing our views on other people'. There is in all dealings between people an 'assumption' that we have common frames of reference. I assume that you are a sentient person in the same way as I am, though your thoughts might differ to mine. I assume that you exist, that you are a real person. If I did not make this assumption then every encounter with another person would be like making alien contact, but then it is still a method of 'imposing my view' because I am imposing my assumptions about myself as a sentient human being onto you. This may be a mistake, but if I did not do so it would be virtually impossible to operate in life at all.

I don't assume that we have common references, and this is why I will not force you to do something according to my own preferences. (oh and for me, every encouter with humans is like an alien contact :p ). I am not sure I follow you here, but I think you've got a point, somehow.

not necessarily because your going to Oregon at all relies on a co-operative society, it requires that USA and France have agreed rules between themselves by which they agree or don't agree to accept each other's citizens, it also requires someone (unless you have worked and saved up and paid) for someone to stump up the cash for you to go, to pay for you while you are there, to pay for the university to run, it requires someone to risk operating an aircraft or boat to take you there, it requires a man to be prepared to give up his time to fly a plane or sail a boat that will take you there, etc, etc, etc. Society is a big massive interlinked web, you can't unravel one part of it without affecting the whole; which leads onto this point here:

That's true. And that makes me think again that I can never really escape from humanity. But I think we are going away from the subject here. I mean, since we somehow have to live amongst people, why couldn't we decide for our own life? I'm not deciding for anyone else's life. No, again, I think I should go away. On another planet.
I don't see the link between water supply and sleeping with my brother. The only link is this web we're all part of, but I see myself as an individual, a solitary one and I cannot stand the idea of someone entering my sphere, my own little world. That would feel like a denial of myself. I easily feel smothered. That's why I don't like having too many people around me. Only some that I carefully select because I'm fond of their personality or mind, or whatever. People that I can learn from but only because I want to, not because they impose anything on me.

SleepyWitch

03-27-2008, 03:31 PM

wow, I was ill today and didn't log on and you guys wrote loads of long interesting posts in less than 24 hours. I'll read them in detail tomorrow.
heehee, no one can accuse me of starting silly pointless threads, eh Virge?

I still haven't voted in my own poll by the way :)

Lote-Tree

03-27-2008, 03:36 PM

I still haven't voted in my own poll by the way :)

The vote should be now obvious one ;-)

If it otherwise I shall have to banish you to deepest unliveable parts of Germany ;-)

SleepyWitch

03-27-2008, 03:39 PM

The vote should be now obvious one ;-)

If it otherwise I shall have to banish you to deepest unliveable parts of Germany ;-)

hahahahha :D I'm already there :)

Lote-Tree

03-27-2008, 03:50 PM

hahahahha :D I'm already there :)

And you still complain...let's see - outer mongolia! That will teach ya!!

Oniw17

03-27-2008, 07:37 PM

Human's beings are social animals whether you like it or not ;-)

What's that have to do with not liking society? Human beings are pack animals, which evolved living in small, pack-like tribal groups. Cities(modern society) hardly resemble such groups.

Petrarch's Love

03-27-2008, 11:30 PM

Virgil

03-28-2008, 12:51 AM

I bet the title of this thread really caught your eye, Petrarch. ;)

SleepyWitch

03-28-2008, 02:52 AM

To completely change the subject, I was amazed at this post Sleepy...no, not because you and your hubbers are unmarried but because you say that your father is legally obligated to support you until you are 27?! Here in the states parents are only legally obligated to support children until they are out of their minority at age 18. Is that true only for students in Germany? Is there some sort of minimum he has to pay? What about parents who are low income and would have to really strain to support someone for 27 years?
heheh, clever questions, PL. yep, it's only for ppl who are still studying at univ or taking vocational training or taking an apprenticeship (I think). low income families can claim a monthly student grant from the state. If your parents are middle/ upper middle class/well-off you can apply for it, of course, but you're not likely to get it. half of the student grant is a loan with zero interest and you (the student) have to repay it gradually once you make more than a certain amount of money a year. but if you can't get a good job and never make more than that amount, you don't have to give it back at all. the other half is like a gift, i.e. you don't have to repay it at all.
if a family has 3 or more children who are studying/training at the same time, the 3rd (4th etc) child pays no study fees.
the parents still get child support from the state every months (160 Euros per child if you have only 1 or 2 children) until your 27. I don't know if there's a minimum they have to pay the child, but I guess it's got to be enough so the child can have a roof over their head (either living with the parents or in a student hall or other appartment), eat, buy clothes and study materials... :confused:
I'll look up the details if you're interested.

And you still complain...let's see - outer mongolia! That will teach ya!!

hahahha :) I've been there and I loved it :) you'd do me a favour if you banned me there

vheissu

03-28-2008, 06:12 AM

heheh, clever questions, PL. yep, it's only for ppl who are still studying at univ or taking vocational training or taking an apprenticeship (I think).

That's actually quite good though. Don't think the same applies here in the UK, the only good thing you get by being a student is that you don't pay taxes (council taxes) and, depending on your or your parent's income, you'll be allowed to apply for student grants.

Virgil

03-28-2008, 08:46 AM

27 and still dependending on good old dad? You know behinds were made for a good kick out the door. :p :p :D

Petrarch's Love

03-28-2008, 10:59 AM

heheh, clever questions, PL. yep, it's only for ppl who are still studying at univ or taking vocational training or taking an apprenticeship (I think). low income families can claim a monthly student grant from the state. If your parents are middle/ upper middle class/well-off you can apply for it, of course, but you're not likely to get it. half of the student grant is a loan with zero interest and you (the student) have to repay it gradually once you make more than a certain amount of money a year. but if you can't get a good job and never make more than that amount, you don't have to give it back at all. the other half is like a gift, i.e. you don't have to repay it at all.
if a family has 3 or more children who are studying/training at the same time, the 3rd (4th etc) child pays no study fees.
the parents still get child support from the state every months (160 Euros per child if you have only 1 or 2 children) until your 27. I don't know if there's a minimum they have to pay the child, but I guess it's got to be enough so the child can have a roof over their head (either living with the parents or in a student hall or other appartment), eat, buy clothes and study materials...
I'll look up the details if you're interested.

That's interesting. I would be interested in knowing more about how that works out. It does at least seem fair if the parents are receiving child support from the state each month. That also implies that the state pays child support for every child throughout their minority. Wow. Do you have to keep up a certain standard of grades or show that you're fully enrolled in a reputable school with some sort of reasonable goals? I would imagine there must be some sort of standards so that people aren't just taking a couple of do nothing classes and not really going anywhere while sponging off the folks.

27 and still dependending on good old dad? You know behinds were made for a good kick out the door.

I think we should ship Virg. to Germany and have him adopt a lovely student to support. :D

SleepyWitch

03-28-2008, 12:06 PM

27 and still dependending on good old dad? You know behinds were made for a good kick out the door. :p :p :D

yeah, that's what my dad's been saying since the day I was born :D
but you have to keep in mind our school and univ system is different. we graduate highschool around 19/20, sometimes even at 21. that's because we've got different types of highschools and the ones that grant univ entrance have take 9/8 years. plus, most kids used to start school at 6 or even 7. that's changed now, though and it's easier to start primary school earlier.

metal134

03-28-2008, 12:11 PM

I absolutely agree. Once consensual incest becomes legal, then it follows that consensual "anything" would become legal and with it, the breakdown of civilized society. People would say:

"We can murder one another in our group; it's consensual."

"We can take drugs in our group; it's consensual." (And never mind if, while taking those drugs, they harm others, who haven't consented.)

"We can conduct prostitution in our group; it's consensual." (But never mind if one person contracts AIDS or another STD and then subsequently leaves the group and passes it on to an innocent person who never even heard of the "consensual prostitution group.")

Sure, the children of many unrelated persons are disabled, but the children of siblings, first cousins, etc. are far more likely to be disabled and perhaps those children, if able to marry, will want to marry someone they are not related to. Then, their chance for having a child without disabilities is almost nil.

I think if incest is occurring, one of the partners is definitely weak and the other is predatory. The weaker one should be protected.

Incest leads to the breakdown of the family unit and the breakdown of the family unit leads to the breakdown of society.

While I don't have any interest what others are doing in their bedrooms, I do care that those "others" aren't closely related because if enough of them are, then what they're doing is eventually going to have an impact on my life as well.
Yeah, that's the way it will go. This is such an epidemic that it will lead to the downfall of society. That's just ridiculous. People have been using the "what's next?" line since the beginning of time as an argument to why this or that should be not allowed. I could name any hundred things that people said the allowance of would be the downfall of scoiety and yet, we're still here.

SleepyWitch

03-28-2008, 12:13 PM

That's interesting. I would be interested in knowing more about how that works out. It does at least seem fair if the parents are receiving child support from the state each month. That also implies that the state pays child support for every child throughout their minority. Wow. Do you have to keep up a certain standard of grades or show that you're fully enrolled in a reputable school with some sort of reasonable goals? I would imagine there must be some sort of standards so that people aren't just taking a couple of do nothing classes and not really going anywhere while sponging off the folks.

I think we should ship Virg. to Germany and have him adopt a lovely student to support. :D great idea :)
yep, every family gets child support, including rich ppl. that doesn't make too much sense to me, but then it's better to give to everyone, even those who don't need it, than to give to no one at all :)
if you want a student grant you have to stick to the prescribed number of terms for each course. that is you have to take your "intermediate exams" (after the first half of your studies) after 4 terms (2 years). If you don't get a grant you can take these exams after your 5th term. As for grades, nope you don't have to be a good student to get a grant. the idea of it is equal opportunities for everyone, it's not like a scholarship for especially gifted students but rather aims at giving students from all backgrounds a chance. this doesn't really work out, though, because those from working class backgrounds don't make it into the top kind of secondary schools in the first place (only 15% of pupils in these schools are from low income families). so they can't get A-levels (at least not without several detours) and can't go to univ.

Koa

04-02-2008, 02:14 PM

I've only had a chance to skim the huge amount of response to this thread. You know how to get people talking, Sleepy. As for the OP, I don't personally approve of incest and think it's morally wrong and probably highly unusual. (I can't imagine it's actually as large as 1 to 2% of the population engaging in fully consensual adult incestuous relationships. Surely that statistic Sleepy quoted must include cases of childhood abuse). That said, I don't believe that people should spend years in jail for any kind of fully consensual, non abusive sexual relationship between two adults. The one exception might be for cases in which the incestuous relationship is one between a parent and, say an 18 year old child which began with childhood abuse, in which case the offense during the child's minority would be more than enough justification for jail time. I don't think incestuous marriages should be legal, but that's much different than saying a person should be locked up because of such a relationship. I would imagine that most cases of fully consensual incest must be cases in which people weren't aware of having been siblings however. Really it must be phenomenally rare for a brother and sister who grew up together to want to have a sexual relationship.

This is the most sensible summary of the whole thing, in my view...

heheh, clever questions, PL. yep, it's only for ppl who are still studying at univ or taking vocational training or taking an apprenticeship (I think). low income families can claim a monthly student grant from the state. If your parents are middle/ upper middle class/well-off you can apply for it, of course, but you're not likely to get it. half of the student grant is a loan with zero interest and you (the student) have to repay it gradually once you make more than a certain amount of money a year. but if you can't get a good job and never make more than that amount, you don't have to give it back at all. the other half is like a gift, i.e. you don't have to repay it at all.
if a family has 3 or more children who are studying/training at the same time, the 3rd (4th etc) child pays no study fees.
the parents still get child support from the state every months (160 Euros per child if you have only 1 or 2 children) until your 27. I don't know if there's a minimum they have to pay the child, but I guess it's got to be enough so the child can have a roof over their head (either living with the parents or in a student hall or other appartment), eat, buy clothes and study materials... :confused:
I'll look up the details if you're interested.

Well in Italy it technically works the same, as in most people don't move out, or if they do for uni partly depend on their parents, until they're well over 30 and/or until they get married (or, these days, they move in with their partner in sin like Sleepy ;)) ...with the MINOR difference that State help does not exist so it's all on your parents' shoulder or, if they give you the famous kick in the ar-se, on yours. :roll: I'm 26 and I moved out basically a couple of years ago but I would have never made it if hadn't had loads of savings due to having lived with my parents all my life... I don't know how English people do it as they seem to live on their own since they're 18 in the most common cases... (only 2 of my friends in Italy have moved out, both with their boyfriends, plus one who also lived abroad like me but now she came back at her parents' of course. Not to mention the social pressure I get for this terrible sin called living abroad on my own - while I get the feeling it'd be socially acceptable if I had a man by my side, as in the Middle Ages are still here, but that's another topic ;))

RJbibliophil

04-02-2008, 11:33 PM

Oh Sleepy, please. How repulsive to even think this. Come on.

I second that! :p

According to parliamentary procedure:

It has been moved and seconded to discontinue this topic because of repulsiveness. Any discussion, any discussion, any discussion? Seeing none, we will now proceed to vote: All in favor say, "I". *chorus of "I"s* All opposed same sign. *silence* Motion carries. *one gable tap*

metal134

04-03-2008, 12:44 AM

You think society hasn't fallen?
Nope.

Koa

04-03-2008, 10:10 AM

You think society hasn't fallen? With all the murder, drug use, robberies, etc.? Granted, those things have always been around and probably always will be, but society seems to be more and more "approving" of wrong actions all the time.

There's something definitely wrong with a society where we have to have alarm systems in our homes, where kids have to walk through metal detectors at schools, where our cellular phones have to lock, etc.

Some people aren't still here - Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. and some people don't think of society as "civilized" now. I'm only in my thirties and I can see society's decline. There were no metal detectors in schools when I went to school and no need for them and no "road rage." Now, people think "road rage" is a perfectly acceptable behavior. I could go on and on, but what's the point? People just aren't acting "right" and a very permissive society is partly to blame.

Ok not too relevant but shall I remind you that in most of the world a metal detector at school is unheard of? And that in most places, including my country which happens to be one of the most industrialised or so the G8 thingy thinks, most school wouldn't probably be able to afford a metal detector? (ok it's been almost a decade but my school had more immediate problems such as holes in the wall and stuff :lol:)
And I don't think that two adult siblings marrying willingly contribute to this decline. Maybe people who make children without being able to bring them up sensibly are more to blame?

My grandmother keeps repeating "oh what a terrible world we live in". Last time my dad reminded her that the previous world sucked hard as well. Two world wars, anyone?

Janine

04-03-2008, 03:14 PM

Voted, don't want to discuss it.

An opinion, which you're entitled to, of course, as everyone is, but not a valid argument with no facts to back it up.

Voted, don't want to discuss it. I'm not out to change anyone's opinion and it's fruitless for anyone to try to change mine - at least on this topic. Siblings and those more closely related than second cousins should never, never have a romantic relationship.

Now, I'll unsubscribe. Arguments and debates, unless about literature, are not for me, whether the tide is "for" my opinion as this one is by the vote count, or "against" it, doesn't matter, so I should have never wandered into this thread. It's coming too close to argument for my personal comfort. I'm more comfortable out of the discussion. My mistake in even posting here when I have no intention of debating.

Antiquarian, I would definitely agree with you, with what you have posted above. Luckily, I posted once or twice and then I did vacate, awhile ago. To be honest with you, I don't have time these days, for these types of debate - nothing against anyone. If I were you, I listen to your own words and quickly vacate this thread; stick to the non-combative ones like literature/music/film discussions, etc. I don't see what this thread has to do, at all with literature. As you said, you voted and have nothing more to discuss on the matter. I feel the same way.

papayahed

04-03-2008, 04:06 PM

huh? So you guys are posting to say you're not going to post??

Sweets America

04-03-2008, 04:15 PM

:lol: papayahed said it all. And Janine, this is 'general chat' here, while you have all the rest of the site to talk about Literature. :rolleyes:

I understand how some people are fed up with silly threads, but this one, in my opinion, is absolutely not silly, it is on the contrary very interesting. And it's not about changing anyone's opinion, it's about opening ourselves to other ways of thinking. I disagreed with a lot of people here, but I'm not going to ask anyone to change their minds. Debates are not about that for me...

Janine

04-03-2008, 04:45 PM

huh? So you guys are posting to say you're not going to post??

:lol: Yeah!!!! pretty funny, don't you think?;) Papaya?:lol:

metal134

04-03-2008, 04:53 PM

An opinion, which you're entitled to, of course, as everyone is, but not a valid argument with no facts to back it up.
You want facts to back it up? How about the centuries upon centuries of literature and other media in which people have said "society has fallen". I could pull a book from over 1000 years ago off my shelf and read about how terrible a place the world is and rememeber how much better it used to be? It is an ever present senitiment. In 50 years, people will be talking about how terrible the wolrd has become and harkening back to how much better things where in the good ol' days of 50 years prior.

Koa

04-03-2008, 10:32 PM

Virgil

04-03-2008, 10:46 PM

Gosh, that's why this forum gets so boring at times... too many peaceful people. I don't know what's life without debate and arguments... I'd hate it. Well anyway, to each its own, have a nice day in your shell and please try not to get out into the real world, that might hurt...

:lol: Well, we Italians aren't afraid of a little argument. ;)

Antiquarian and Janine, I don't mean anything harsh toward either of you, but why are you so afraid of a little back and forth, even if a couple of elbows are jabbed? It doesn't hurt to be a little Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know. :p Anyway, your opinions are respected. :)

Sweets America

04-04-2008, 03:13 AM

TheFifthElement

04-04-2008, 03:59 AM

Debating doesn't necessarily means being angry at each other. I just love debating, just for the sake of it. Sometimes I even defend opinions which are not mine, only for the sake of debating. :D
I'm nutty. :p

I'm nutty too! I agree Sweets, a debate doesn't have to be an argument or personal. To me discussion of any kind is about opening your mind to other people's views and being prepared for your views to be challenged, because if no one ever challenges us how are we ever supposed to learn or grow. That being said, sometimes the debates can get a little 'close to the bone' and I think people ought to be aware of how their comments may be interpreted by the reader, if it's not the intention for the comment to be 'personal' then you need to be really careful about the type of language used. I think this is especially difficult in the written form. For example,metal134, not to single you out, but sometimes I read your comments and think 'ouch', because, to me, sometimes your comments seem very blunt and sarcastic. Now you may not intend it so, but as a reader that's the 'tone' I pick up. But then that's just me, other people might read what you've said and think nothing of it. For me personally, I think I run the risk of coming across as patronising when, again, it is not intended. I'd hope someone would tell me so (nicely!) if that was the case.

We're all from very different cultural backgrounds - this doesn't mean that we shouldn't debate, I think it's especially valuable to debate 'difficult' subjects, but when debating we should perhaps be careful to ensure that we are careful in the use of language because it can be interpreted in so many different ways. If that weren't so, what would there be to discuss about literature?

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 05:18 AM

Sometimes I even defend opinions which are not mine, only for the sake of debating. :D

That is just plain dishonest!

I despise such people ;-)

TheFifthElement

04-04-2008, 08:24 AM

Sometimes I even defend opinions which are not mine, only for the sake of debating.

That is just plain dishonest!

I despise such people ;-)

it's not dishonest, but a really great way to see the issue from another point of view. This is the way mediators work - Sweets, have you considered a career in mediation? I think you'd be pretty good at it.

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 09:27 AM

it's not dishonest, but a really great way to see the issue from another point of view.

It is shallow and deceptive.

This is the way mediators work - Sweets, have you considered a career in mediation? I think you'd be pretty good at it.

Mediation is not debate!

Sweets America

04-04-2008, 09:28 AM

That is just plain dishonest!

I despise such people ;-)

I think you absolutely don't get my point, Lote. And thank you for despising me. How nice.

What I am trying to explain is that I love debating because I love hearing other people's views, and I love when they challenge mine, and TheFifthElement does that in a particularly interesting and intelligent way. This is why I really appreciate discussing with people like her. I can learn too. I have learnt a lot by discussing about dogs with her. It's all about that: learning.

And I also discuss ideas without necessarily be attached to them, I love ideas for themselves, ideas are everywhere, I grasp them, examine them and discuss them, I don't care if they are mine or not. This can sometimes provoke misunderstandings.

When I see that someone has an opinion about something, I love bringing the opposite opinion, even if I tend to agree with the person. I just want to always be open, but sometimes I fail, it's difficult, but at least I try.

Discussions, debates, abstract things, I love that. And if you still think it's being dishonest, there is nothing I can do for you. What I think might be dishonest, however, is to have a guy pretending he's read all the books on everything, visited the whole planet and has a personal experience on everything because he's a scientist.....:rolleyes:
I willingly recognize that I know nothing really, I am just discussing and all the doors are opened in front of me, I will not imprison myself in any room.

Oh, Fifth, I'm not sure about my career. My ex-lover thought I would be great in the United Nations as a diplomat. :p But, I don't know, I think I would be better in a quiet kind of work, with books or something, with words, with the English language...

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 09:54 AM

And thank you for despising me. How nice.

It was designed to provoke ;-)

Sweets America

04-04-2008, 10:05 AM

It was designed to provoke ;-)

You won't need to provoke me any longer because I think I will just stop debating with you from now on. There are other people in here with whom I'll be happy to discuss.

TheFifthElement

04-04-2008, 10:21 AM

It is shallow and deceptive.

Oh I strongly disagree. It is, in my opinion, by far the best way to test the validity of your own opinions, by trying to convince yourself otherwise (arguing the opposing view). If you can find holes in your own opinion then maybe your opinion isn't so valid. The alternative is the 'ostrich' method. I know which I prefer.

Mediation is not debate!

didn't say it was, I was just pointing out the similarity. If you'd ever been party to, or seen mediation in action I guess you'd understand. It's all about seeing the other point of view, testing it, questioning yourself. This is very much the process Sweets was describing.

Sweets America

04-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Oh I strongly disagree. It is, in my opinion, by far the best way to test the validity of your own opinions, by trying to convince yourself otherwise (arguing the opposing view). If you can find holes in your own opinion then maybe your opinion isn't so valid. The alternative is the 'ostrich' method. I know which I prefer.

didn't say it was, I was just pointing out the similarity. If you'd ever been party to, or seen mediation in action I guess you'd understand. It's all about seeing the other point of view, testing it, questioning yourself. This is very much the process Sweets was describing.

Yeah, you see what I mean. :) I think the only difference between you and me here is that I don't wish to really have my opinion and to test it, it makes me cringe to have my opinion. I'm sure however that I do have opinions about some things, I cannot help it. But seeing the other's point of view is then a helpful way for me to detach myself and not feel enclosed. :)

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 10:48 AM

Oh I strongly disagree. It is, in my opinion, by far the best way to test the validity of your own opinions

I don't debate with opinions. Only with evidence ;-)

Debating with opinions is like deciding on the best flavour of Ben and Jerries icecream :D

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 10:49 AM

You won't need to provoke me any longer because I think I will just stop debating with you from now on. There are other people in here with whom I'll be happy to discuss.

No problem lassie.

Go in peace.

TheFifthElement

04-04-2008, 10:50 AM

it makes me cringe to have my opinion. I'm sure however that I do have opinions about some things, I cannot help it. But seeing the other's point of view is then a helpful way for me to detach myself and not feel enclosed. :)

But then, does not having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you attached to being detached? ;)

I don't debate with opinions. Only with evidence

You've found talking evidence?!! That is impressive ;)

Lote-Tree

04-04-2008, 10:58 AM

But then, does not having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you attached to being detached? ;)

You've found talking evidence?!! That is impressive ;)

Evidence speaks for itself ;-)

Sweets America

04-04-2008, 11:05 AM

But then, does not having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you attached to being detached? ;)

This is a good example of why I love you. :p You're right here, I am restricting myself in wanting to have no opinion, I am enclosed in this idea. This is terrible, I have always been searching for a solution but there seems to be no possible complete freedom and detachement.

TheFifthElement

04-05-2008, 08:42 AM

This is a good example of why I love you. :p You're right here, I am restricting myself in wanting to have no opinion, I am enclosed in this idea. This is terrible, I have always been searching for a solution but there seems to be no possible complete freedom and detachement.

Oh Sweets, you're so nice! I guess what you describe is similar to my experience with my Mother who was, when I was a teenager, slightly overbearing. I spent a long time doing exactly the opposite of what she wanted, only to realise later than in so doing I was also, in some cases, giving up what I wanted. I spent a lot of time trying to be something, but in the end I figured it's best just to be. Life is hard enough without trying to live up to other people's, or even our own, expectations.

metal134

04-05-2008, 01:40 PM

For example,metal134, not to single you out, but sometimes I read your comments and think 'ouch', because, to me, sometimes your comments seem very blunt and sarcastic. Now you may not intend it so, but as a reader that's the 'tone' I pick up. But then that's just me, other people might read what you've said and think nothing of it. For me personally, I think I run the risk of coming across as patronising when, again, it is not intended. I'd hope someone would tell me so (nicely!) if that was the case.
Actually, I am quite blunt. Not sarcastic (at least, not usually) but yes, I am quite blunt and to be perfectly honest, I see no problem with that. I have never be one to adhere to diplomacy, I just calls em' as I sees em'. I wouldn't think that the members on this board would be so non-combative that bluntness would be an issue. To me, unless it gets personal, there is really no issue.

V.Jayalakshmi

04-10-2008, 03:12 AM

Dear members,

God!!I feel there should never be anything like this.No question of legalising such a thing too.In Tamil language( From India),too a novel by M.Varadarasan( MU.VA.) dealt with such a situation.The unthinkable should never be legalized.

SleepyWitch

04-10-2008, 03:47 AM

muhsin

04-10-2008, 06:05 AM

No! Don't have much time to say more but no and no!

Nice piece, Sleepy.

papayahed

04-10-2008, 07:35 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7334649.stm

muhsin

04-10-2008, 08:02 AM

Have read that embrassing news. What surprised me much is the fact that these two shameless couple let themselves be broadcasted all over the world. Oops!

Virgil

04-10-2008, 08:09 AM

Have read that embrassing news. What surprised me much is the fact that these two shameless couple let themselves be broadcasted all over the world. Oops!

You're right. How could they not be hiding in shame? Shame is something that doesn't exist anymore.

Pensive

04-10-2008, 09:19 AM

Shame is something that doesn't exist anymore.

Interesting statement.

SleepyWitch

04-10-2008, 09:35 AM

You're right. How could they not be hiding in shame? Shame is something that doesn't exist anymore.

but wouldn't it be even more weird to do something (whether it's incest or whatever else) and then hide in shame? why not either do it and be open about it or leave it altogether in the first place?

papayahed

04-10-2008, 09:42 AM

but wouldn't it be even more weird to do something (whether it's incest or whatever else) and then hide in shame? why not either do it and be open about it or leave it altogether in the first place?

Reminds me of some of the religious right. They preach and rally against certain things but then latter get caught doing those same things. Why even brooch the subject if you know you do it????

kelby_lake

04-10-2008, 09:45 AM

No! It's disgusting!
'The law is nature! The law is only another word for what has a right to happen. If the law is wrong, that's because it is unnatural'

Bakiryu

04-10-2008, 11:21 AM

No! It's disgusting!
'The law is nature! The law is only another word for what has a right to happen. If the law is wrong, that's because it is unnatural'

there are many things that are not legal and yet perfectly natural, a conundrum perhaps?

************************************************** **

In my opinion, everyone should stop butting in each others lives, as long as they do not harm them let people do what they will. Morality is a matter of opinion after all.

why do people feel the need to involve themselves in others lives, it's their own bodies for goddess sake. If you don't like it then about it, but don't preach or condemn or make laws that cannot be fully put into place.

Leave people be as they are.

Virgil

04-10-2008, 11:34 AM

but wouldn't it be even more weird to do something (whether it's incest or whatever else) and then hide in shame? why not either do it and be open about it or leave it altogether in the first place?
I guess you're right. But coming out with it only shows what a lack of understanding they have on this.

Reminds me of some of the religious right. They preach and rally against certain things but then latter get caught doing those same things. Why even brooch the subject if you know you do it????
There are those who preach and follow and those that preach and fail. Human failing is universal. Actually you were more outraged when i said I spit out my gum than over incest. It goes to show you everyone preaches something. Or all the peaching I hear over global warming and not using fossil fuels. It's a question of values. Spitting out my gum is pretty insignificant to me. But I consider incest contemptable behavior.

papayahed

04-10-2008, 01:13 PM

There are those who preach and follow and those that preach and fail. Human failing is universal. Actually you were more outraged when i said I spit out my gum than over incest. It goes to show you everyone preaches something. Or all the peaching I hear over global warming and not using fossil fuels. It's a question of values. Spitting out my gum is pretty insignificant to me. But I consider incest contemptable behavior.

I think you're confused. This is what I'm talking about:

David Vitter:

In 2006, he told The Times-Picayune, “I’m a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history.”[43]

Why would you come out and say something like that when you know you're visiting a prostitute on a regular basis??

Vitter, a Republican senator in his first term, has acknowledged being involved with Palfrey's escort service. But after issuing brief statements apologizing for "a very serious sin," he has ducked follow-up questions. At trial, he would not have that luxury.

As for gum and incest. You're right I don't care about incest, it's not something I would personally partake in however I'm not interested in what other people do in their bedroom. Now gum, there is a possiblity I may step on your gum and that will be a pain in the butt to scrap off. I have a thing about littering, I think it's low class to throw stuff on the ground one could easily throw in a garbage can.

As for global warming I don't see the preaching. The facts are humans are putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then ever before. It's been proven that the earth goes through climate changes periodically; We may be in one of those now changes now and It's hard to quantify the impact humans are having on that change.

What I know is that humans are pumping toxins into the air, into the land, and into our waters. Hell, I do all three on a daily basis. Looking for ways to minimize that impact and talking about it is hardly hypocritical (a word you throw around quite often). What's the issue? You've already mentioned your views on the issue many times and despite that some people here are environmentalists and believe it's a worthwile cause.

Nightshade

04-10-2008, 01:17 PM

The only thing I have to say to this whole thread is this really I didnt know half the stuff that is illegal in the UK is illegal, and that is disturbing, and also raises the question if you look at the stepsiblings bit how many people actually know thats illegal? and why if people are concious of this is it often marketed as'romantic' to young teens in teen romance novels, and in quite a few teen non romance novels that I can picture in my head but think what they are called...disturbing,

It is in UK, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, article 27 (as below)

Family relationships (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if—
(a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or
(b) it would be within one of those subsections but for section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (status conferred by adoption).
(2) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) one of them is the other’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt or uncle, or
(b) A is or has been B’s foster parent.
(3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and—
(a) one of them is or has been the other’s step-parent,
(b) A and B are cousins,
(c) one of them is or has been the other’s stepbrother or stepsister, or
(d) the parent or present or former foster parent of one of them is or has been the other’s foster parent.
(4) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if—
(a) A and B live in the same household, and
(b) A is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “aunt” means the sister or half-sister of a person’s parent, and “uncle” has a corresponding meaning;
(b) “cousin” means the child of an aunt or uncle;
(c) a person is a child’s foster parent if—
(i) he is a person with whom the child has been placed under section 23(2)(a) or 59(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (fostering for local authority or voluntary organisation), or
(ii) he fosters the child privately, within the meaning given by section 66(1)(b) of that Act;
(d) a person is another’s partner (whether they are of different sexes or the same sex) if they live together as partners in an enduring family relationship;
(e) “step-parent” includes a parent’s partner and “stepbrother” and “stepsister” include the child of a parent’s partner.

this extends the prohibition to both family members and people who are, or have been, in a position of trust over the other. If you're really bored the whole Act is here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_3

TheFifthElement

04-10-2008, 01:40 PM

Virgil

04-10-2008, 04:04 PM

I think you're confused. This is what I'm talking about:

David Vitter:

Why would you come out and say something like that when you know you're visiting a prostitute on a regular basis??

Why am I confused? Like I said some preach and follow and some preach and fail. Obviously he failed. Frankly one of the insinuations of what I got was that you were implying that I preach but behind the scenes I practice incest. I'm preaching against incest. If you want to blur the argument with all sorts of extraneous issues, then we'll have a convoluted discussion.

As for gum and incest. You're right I don't care about incest, it's not something I would personally partake in however I'm not interested in what other people do in their bedroom. Now gum, there is a possiblity I may step on your gum and that will be a pain in the butt to scrap off. I have a thing about littering, I think it's low class to throw stuff on the ground one could easily throw in a garbage can.

As for global warming I don't see the preaching. The facts are humans are putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then ever before. It's been proven that the earth goes through climate changes periodically; We may be in one of those now changes now and It's hard to quantify the impact humans are having on that change.

What I know is that humans are pumping toxins into the air, into the land, and into our waters. Hell, I do all three on a daily basis. Looking for ways to minimize that impact and talking about it is hardly hypocritical (a word you throw around quite often). What's the issue? You've already mentioned your views on the issue many times and despite that some people here are environmentalists and believe it's a worthwile cause.
Right. Like I said it's a question of values. You see an impact to society from what makes you outraged. Others who think that incest is wrong equally see it having a deleterious impact to society. You seem to be scoffing at others values. Which is ok, I proudly scoff at the environmentalist's values.

Edit: Actually that's not true. I scoff at their assessment of the data and the impact, not their values.

papayahed

04-10-2008, 05:10 PM

Why am I confused? Like I said some preach and follow and some preach and fail. Obviously he failed. Frankly one of the insinuations of what I got was that you were implying that I preach but behind the scenes I practice incest. I'm preaching against incest. If you want to blur the argument with all sorts of extraneous issues, then we'll have a convoluted discussion.

oh bull****, virgie I in no way insinuated you are a closet incestigator. You know that I was responding to Sleepys comment about hiding in shame, (which reminds me of David Vitter, Larry Craig etc...)

Right. Like I said it's a question of values. You see an impact to society from what makes you outraged. Others who think that incest is wrong equally see it having a deleterious impact to society. You seem to be scoffing at others values. Which is ok, I proudly scoff at the environmentalist's values.

The only thing I said was I don't care, I don't see that as scoffing

Edit: Actually that's not true. I scoff at their assessment of the data and the impact, not their values

Which is funny because I scoff at your assessment. I've seen some of the impact toxins can have on our environment and humans firsthand. Save the flathead minnows!!!!

Virgil

04-10-2008, 08:44 PM

oh bull****, virgie I in no way insinuated you are a closet incestigator.
:lol: Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace. :) "Incestigator?" :lol: :lol: Is there such a word. :D

You know that I was responding to Sleepys comment about hiding in shame, (which reminds me of David Vitter, Larry Craig etc...)
Actually I didn't know, but if you're being fair you can add some politicians of the other political party. You can add Eliot Spitzer of New York to that list. Hypocrisy goes around to every one. Like I said human failing is universal.

Which is funny because I scoff at your assessment. I've seen some of the impact toxins can have on our environment and humans firsthand. Save the flathead minnows!!!!
That's not global warming. If there are real environmental issues, and I'm sure they're out there, I support them for the most part. But a cost-benefit analysis has to be performed. Yeah you can find traces of anything in tap water, but just because it's there to a minimal level doesn't mean it's harmful. My environmental passion is relegated to preserving wilderness, wetlands, and wildlife. Actually I'm disheartened that wolf hunting will be allowed in the northwest. It's good that wolves have made a comeback through the wildlife act, but now some will actively kill them because of their success.

papayahed

04-10-2008, 09:27 PM

:lol: Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace. :) "Incestigator?" :lol: :lol: Is there such a word. :D

haha, just making sure you knew I wasn't calling you an incestigator (I'm pretty sure that's not a word). We definately have different opinions but I would never insinuate such a thing.

Actually I didn't know, but if you're being fair you can add some politicians of the other political party. You can add Eliot Spitzer of New York to that list. Hypocrisy goes around to every one. Like I said human failing is universal.

Yeah, that jackass too. I couldn't remember his name or I would have put him down.

kelby_lake

04-11-2008, 10:43 AM

there are many things that are not legal and yet perfectly natural, a conundrum perhaps?

************************************************** **

In my opinion, everyone should stop butting in each others lives, as long as they do not harm them let people do what they will. Morality is a matter of opinion after all.

why do people feel the need to involve themselves in others lives, it's their own bodies for goddess sake. If you don't like it then about it, but don't preach or condemn or make laws that cannot be fully put into place.

Leave people be as they are.

Legalising it is encouraging things which are mentally harmful. Incest, like rape, has psychological reasons behind it. I do not mean that the two are equally as awful by the way before I get shouted at. There's a storyline in a soap about a half-brother and sister who commit incest. Incest is NOT the same as normal sex.

Janine

04-12-2008, 05:35 PM

:lol: Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace. :) "Incestigator?" :lol: :lol: Is there such a word. :D

:lol: :lol: that is a good one Papayahed!

Actually I didn't know, but if you're being fair you can add some politicians of the other political party. You can add Eliot Spitzer of New York to that list. Hypocrisy goes around to every one. Like I said human failing is universal.

Yeah, really - there is quite a pick out there to choose from, any party!

That's not global warming. If there are real environmental issues, and I'm sure they're out there, I support them for the most part. But a cost-benefit analysis has to be performed. Yeah you can find traces of anything in tap water, but just because it's there to a minimal level doesn't mean it's harmful. My environmental passion is relegated to preserving wilderness, wetlands, and wildlife. Actually I'm disheartened that wolf hunting will be allowed in the northwest. It's good that wolves have made a comeback through the wildlife act, but now some will actively kill them because of their success.

Oh God, that is disheartening. Can they use traps, too? I read a novel about wolf hunting and it made me sick. The book was called "The Loop" and that stands for this horrible devise that actually catches the baby wolves, the pups, and they die slowly and painfully; I won't go into the details, but this is so cruel and inhuman. I certainly hope that is forbidden.

Oops..... I wandered in here again. I just had to comment on these posts.:D

Janine

04-12-2008, 06:58 PM

LOL I only wandered in here because I saw you had posted and couldn't resist reading what you had to say. :)

I agree with you about the traps. It's cruel. It's awful. They should be outlawed. I can't stand to think of any living thing suffering.

:lol: this is so funny; I wondered if you had wandered in her because you saw my name come up....geez, we sure do think alike. So now, I am wandering back in because I saw your name come up. We two are hilarious!

Yes, my son told me about that book and he kept asking me if I come to the part about the trap - 'the loop'....I can't tell you how sickening it was, when I did read about it. I could not believe that people could be that cruel to defenseless animals and these being puppies. Then again, I have a next door neighbor who has been killing squirrels and I am outraged. I don't want to know how he is doing it, and it sickens me when I see one wander innocently into his yard. I haven't seen one squirrel this spring. Is it legal to kill squirrels, do you know?
Otherwise, this neighbor is a really good person and always comes to our rescue and helps us around the house. I just don't understand his new obsession with killing these tiny helpless animals. I can't very well oppose, since he is so good to us. I feel sickened by it though.

Janine

04-12-2008, 08:18 PM

I don't know if it's legal to kill squirrels or not, Janine. I would hope not. There is a squirrel's nest in the trees in our front yard. We often see the cute little squirrels standing on the lawn with a nut in their little paws. So cute.

Once, there were some squirrels that would actually come to our front door and take food right from my father's hand. They were adorable. My father would give them lots and lots of nuts to bury for the winter.

Here's the thing. My neighbor to the left of my house, has feed the squirrels for years, she has even named a few who came to her door for food. We all live with properties running up to a pond. We all enjoy the wildlife and the benefits of living here and we feel blessed. Now it is true, that by feeding them continually, for a few years the neighborhood was over-run with squirrels. So the neighbor on the right trapped them and took them away to a more rural wooded area. He has a vegetable garden enclosed by a fence. Now, I guess he got fed-up and decided to just 'out and out' kill them. I think he traps them and then - who knows? I just hope it is quick. I keep thinking of Sweeny Todd's method...ick! Still I get sad thinking he might be kiliing an adult, leaving babies in a nest. They are adorable when young and we have hand feed them, too. I admit when they get older, they can be a nuisance, but normally we just laugh at their antics and I still do think they are so cute and have a right to live here like the rest of the wildlife. I would get mad sometimes when they dug up my seeds or my garden. But the birds eat the seed too, so what does one do? Go and shoot all the birds? I know a lot of people hate squirrels but that is silly. They were here first!

Should incest between consenting squirrels be legal? :lol:

njepsen

04-12-2008, 09:20 PM

I think that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish to do. I would never do it, but if thats how some people feel, who are we to take that away?

sprinks

04-12-2008, 10:39 PM

No, not even among squirrels! :lol: It's against nature. Actually, I don't think animals commit incest, which shows what I've maintained all along - they have more sense than humans.

Well from what I've heard they do... But I think that is more when they are in captivity and have no other option. But some animals, rabbits for example... Well rabbits breed like rabbits no matter what!:lol: I think with animals their primary need is to reproduce and survive so they really don't care if there's no other option....

Janine

04-12-2008, 11:00 PM

I know what you mean, Janine. Something once ate hundreds of bulbs I planted. I only had a few tulips in the spring. I don't think it was squirrels, but yes, they can be a nuisance. But I couldn't kill one. Heck, we humans might be a nuisance to them. The crickets drive me nuts in the summer when they get in the laundry room. Now, my husband gets fed up with the noise and will kill them, but my brother catches them and puts them outside again. They promptly come right back in. LOL

It could have been moles or shrews; also chipmunks will eat them. I had some just vanished but then there were underground holes so I think it was moles or shrews. My friend had stuff torn out from the roots but she lives in the country and she found out it was a ground hog and trapped it; animal control came to pick it up. She fairly hates those now but she said they are so cute and I did see baby ones once - they are just adorable; I saw them in refuge and they fight like crazy for their food and yelp or squeal, too. I don't like killing crickets either - they are kind of ugly and big bugs but hey, sometimes I even let spiders go. I figure they actually are good for your garden - they eat other pests! Funny how those crickets really learn their way around!:lol:

My feeling is you can't kill them all or even trap them all so why bother. It is a useless thing and sad to think they have to die for no real reason. One cannot whipe out the problem that way.

No, not even among squirrels! :lol: It's against nature. Actually, I don't think animals commit incest, which shows what I've maintained all along - they have more sense than humans.

I didn't think they did either. Good point! Tab one up for our side. Glad you mentioned the issue...we were beginning to turn this thread into "Wild Kingdom"....:lol:

Going now to watch "Atonement" - library had it in. Yeah!

Janine

04-13-2008, 01:24 AM

Janine, I really think the deer ate them. The house backed up to a large woods. I just gave up with the garden. The deer, or chipmunks, or whatever they were, were more important to me.

Enjoy "Atonement!" So glad you have it now. Be sure to let me know what you thought, okay? Anxiously awaiting your opinion. :)

I just took a short break; I think it is nearly over. I love it - it is a stunning movie! That house is so gorgeous (I love antiques!) and love the photography. I love James McAvoy; I think he is one of the finest actors today. He is amazing in this film and so was the little girl playing Briney. Her eyes are mesmerizing. I must see this film twice, absolutely!
Oops....this is not the movie thread....:lol: I will write more in there in a few days. Going to my son's tomorrow to see baby's room....furniture came today....what fun that will be!

metal134

04-13-2008, 02:09 AM

sprinks

04-13-2008, 05:25 AM

They might be sick, but they are not criminals.
But if it is illegal then technically they are criminals?....

sprinks

04-13-2008, 10:17 AM

Others: Now, we return you to, "Incest: Yes, It is a Crime." Does anyone care to refute my argument that we are genetically and biologically predisposed against it?

Nope. I second the idea that it is completely wrong, and we are genetically and biologically predisposed against it... I'm with you 100% Antiquarian! It's just not right.

Virgil

04-13-2008, 11:27 AM

Janine: Isn't that house gorgeous? And they found the house and fountain, etc. all on one location in England. It's such a gorgeous movie. I knew you'd absolutely love it.

Others: Now, we return you to, "Incest: Yes, It is a Crime." Does anyone care to refute my argument that we are genetically and biologically predisposed against it?

Anti, I don't know if you read the entire thread, but I cite that and I also site how rare it is for animals to do the same. I think it's on the first or second page.

sharlot

04-13-2008, 12:59 PM

Some animals do 'commit' incest, though the word implies an understanding that I doubt exists. The fact is that most of the offspring of such matings are flawed and therefore the incestuous strain dies out of its own accord. In humans, however, we tend to pamper and protect the weaker members of the tribe and therefore genetic flaws from incestous matings can be passed on...hence the age-old prohibition against incestuous matings.

That having been said, and in light of the fact that our world is now awash in a soup of pollutants and toxins that can cause abberations in the gene pool, it may be a moot point if a relatively small number wish to mate with siblings and produce offspring.

kelby_lake

04-13-2008, 01:15 PM

You guys are getting off the beaten path. It's unnatural and has potential genetic consequences. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not people who commit incest are criminals. They might be sick, but they are not criminals.

I refer you back to a neat quotation from a very good play: 'The law is nature. The law is only another word for what has a right to happen'

Therefore commiters of incest are criminals because incest isn't natural.

metal134

04-13-2008, 02:22 PM

Well I happen to disagree. If you want to look at it in that light, then every human is a criminal every single day.

But if it is illegal then technically they are criminals?....
THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! That's why it shouldn't be illegal because the notion that these people are criminals is ludicrous. They shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

kelby_lake

04-13-2008, 04:26 PM

Legalising it implies that it's okay. It's not okay, it's NOT RIGHT.
There is a psychological reason for why they do it, it's not a choice. It is not the same as normal sexual attraction.
Maybe the law shouldn't be a jail sentence but an obligatory visit to councilling.
If something isn't illegal, it is legal, right? And referring you back to my quote at the top of page 17, is incest natural? No.

metal134

04-13-2008, 04:47 PM

Legalising it implies that it's okay.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Sweets America

04-13-2008, 06:02 PM

You amaze me, people, with your 'it's just NOT right', 'we are predisposed against it'{edit}. The truth is, you're just disgusted with incest and you're trying to find reasons to make your judgements accepted. That's all. You have every right to be disgusted with incest but who do you think you are to state that everyone should think your way and that you are the 'normal' ones while the others are not? That's totally crazy. I'm not normal either, you know, but I'm perfectly ok with it, I'm myself and I'll sleep with my brother if we're happy with it.
You're just trying to reassure yourself in saying that no, you're not like that, and by looking at people who are different from you with disgust in your eyes. This is not surprising though, as sad as it is. This is human beings.

Why do you waste your energy in trying to find pseudo-psychological reasons for a behavior which does not appeal to you? Some people think the same way about homosexuals, because oh my God that's not right, {edit} call the police and put them in jail so that we can forget that it exists! Ok, yiippeeeee, that's the world we live in.

Also, a lot of people here who are outraged when it comes to incest do not think for one second that behind the pseudo pathology, there might be love, that's all, just love, sometimes it happens. But it needs to be destroyed or transformed into something dirty and unacceptable, I wonder why.

I don't know, it just amazes me and depresses me at the same time to see that. Poeple who are so closed-minded that they don't realize they are because the strong barriers that have been put around them have become part of their little world, as everything else. That's the way it is for them and that's the way it should be for everyone. Hell, not for me.

Bakiryu

04-13-2008, 06:22 PM

Amen Sweets! You tell it like it is.

Scheherazade

04-13-2008, 06:24 PM

R e m i n d e r

Please discuss the ideas but not each other.

Posts resorting such comments will be deleted without any further notice.

metal134

04-13-2008, 07:02 PM

Why? We don't legalize things that are wrong. Murder, robbery, assult, harassment, neglect, speeding, driving without a seat belt, all these things are "not okay" and all are illegal. Why, exactly, would it be ridiculous to imply that incest, if legal, would be "okay?"
You mention these things that are pretty much seen as universally immoral and using them to illustrate how legality = morality? Legality does not equal morality. It is legal to cheat on your spouse. I guess that makes it morally OK. It is illegal to sit at home and drink a beer at the age of 19. Doesn't make it immoral. In many middle eastern countries, it is legal to beat your wife. I guess that makes it moral. Oh, wait, maybe the legality = morality rule only applies to the United States; we have eveything down pat. I absolutley refuse to listen to the legality equals morality argument. There is a huge overlap, but I absolutley refuse to aknowledge a universal legality equals morality sentiment.

Virgil

04-13-2008, 08:54 PM

Anti, I don't want to drift off topic and I certainly support you in this argument, but I'm under the impression that no one can be turned away at the emergency room. Even illegal aliens.

Well I happen to disagree. If you want to look at it in that light, then every human is a criminal every single day.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! That's why it shouldn't be illegal because the notion that these people are criminals is ludicrous. They shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

Jay walking is illegal and people don't go to jail for it. I've gotten a ticket for not putting money in the parking meter. That's obviously illegal. My uncle actually got a ticket for spitting in the NYC subway platform. He was spitting onto the tracks. Spitting is illegal. I've said i don't believe these people who committed incest should not go to jail, but there needs to be a penalty and a boundary or right and wrong established.

Virgil

04-13-2008, 09:33 PM

I don't think they can be if it's a life-threatening emergency, Virgil, or at least the law says they can't be, but I think they can be for non life-threatening emergencies. Please correct me if I'm wrong, okay? :) I do know at the hospital near me, the first thing they ask for is one's insurance card, but I also know people who've gone there with no insurance and no money and have been treated, so I'm really not 100% sure about this one.

I think it's morally wrong that in such a wealthy country some people don't get the medical and dental care they need, that there are people living in boxes under a bridge, going hungry, without coats, shoes, education, etc. However, it's not illegal.

Anti, I think you're wrong on that. Yes they ask you for the insuance card, but they still have to treat you if you don't have one. I've been to emergency rooms with what I'm sure are illegal aliens. In fact a number of years ago, my father collapsed from heat and was taken to the hospital and he didn't have his medical card with him, and actually we couldn't find it back home for a couple of days. But they treated him and admitted him.

metal134

04-13-2008, 10:08 PM

No, legality and morality aren't always the same thing and I didn't say they were. I did not put forth that argument. I just asked why it was the most ridiculous thing you'd ever heard that legalizing incest makes it okay. You still haven't said why.
Yes I did say why. If legality does not equal morality, then something being legal doesn't mean it's OK and something being illegal doesn't mean it's not OK. Fairly cut and dry.

Shalot

04-13-2008, 10:17 PM

Anti, I don't want to drift off topic and I certainly support you in this argument, but I'm under the impression that no one can be turned away at the emergency room. Even illegal aliens.

I think that's right. I am not sure about the illegal alien part of it, but if there is an emergency, it seems like the hospital could get in trouble for NOT treating someone, so it's probably better to just treat everyone and then try to collect as much as possible later. I used to work for a non-profit hospital in the Accounting Department. The Mission Statement of the hospital was to provide treatment for everyone - it was a stated a little differently though, in that "Mission Statement" language, but that was the gist. And there are procedures for accounting for charity treatments, but I wasn't involved in that specific procedure. In fact, I wasn't involved in any kind of patient billing or collecting, but I did receive phone calls from patients who called the wrong number and I got chewed out a bunch. One lady screamed at me because she was turned over to a collection agency after going to the Emergency Room for a bladder infection. She put off treatment because she didn't have a job or health insurance and went to the emergency room when it was so bad that she couldn't stand it. She paid what she could and then was turned over to collection for the rest after she thought she had worked it out with patient billing. She then called me and gave me a piece of her mind. Normally, I don't stand for people chewing me out for things that aren't my fault and that I have no control over, so I just listened and did what I could to get her connected to the right person. I just felt kind of bad for her. That would suck!

(btw: this topic is still going strong! how funny!)

TheFifthElement

04-14-2008, 03:36 AM

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 05:01 AM

{edit}

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to make you see the barriers that are around you. You've been put into this way of thinking since you were born and you don't even know why incest is wrong, you just know that it is. I'm not saying incest is right, I'm just saying that it's neitehr right or wrong, it just is and I'm not going to tell anyone what they have to do with their asses and feelings. Saying that incest is right or wrong is the same as saying that the blue sky is right or wrong. That's nonsense. Incest can be wrong for you, but that does not make it wrong for the whole population. I think it's very sad that you're so into your opinion that you even deny the possibility of love in an incestuous relationship. That's scary.

Also, Antiquarian, I'm terrified when I hear you say that you would bring yor kid to a psychiatrist if he/she did something that you would not do yourself. Wow. Do you realize what that means? Some people do the same with their kids because of homosexuality. You would not do that, but you would still do it for incest. If you think that some people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about incest, maybe you can understand what I'm talking about. Imagine if everyone sent everyone to a psychiatrist everytime they do something which people find NOT right?

Once again you compare incest with things like murder which involve a victim. Incest does not involve a victim when both persons are ok with it. It is too easy and revolting to compare that to murder just to freak people out.

You don't know why I'm getting upset? Well, I'm getting upset when I see how the world is. Maybe you would get upset too if you were in love with your brother and people wanted to send you to a loony bin because of that. It's about freedom.

The whole question about 'should it or shouldn't it be legalized' is preposterous anyway, because of the word 'should'.

The fifthElement, you are mixing sexual abuse with consensual incest, that's nonsense and the same strategy as that of comparing it with murder. I don't know how you can say that it isn't about love. It's not black or white.
I don't think your experience should make you judge the whole thing. I myself might have had the experience you mention in my childhood, I'm not sure, but that will not blind me and make me judge others. To each their own story.
And about mistaking love with something that isn't, first nobody really knows what love is, but I think people are responsible for their own choices. I don't like this idea of always trying to prevent things from happening by forbidding everything. In that case I would not go out cause I might get hit by a car, we would actually forbid cars because they can cause death..... we could as well commit suicide right away.

sprinks

04-14-2008, 05:49 AM

Once again you compare incest with things like murder which involve a victim. Incest does not involve a victim when both persons are ok with it. It is too easy and revolting to compare that to murder just to freak people out.

But it is possible that incest could have a victim, if children are produced. They will most likely be ridiculed and have a horrible chlidhood if the truth about their parents is known, and also there is the possible genetic problems the child might have as a result. The child did nothing to deserve any of it, they are a victim of their parents relationship.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! That's why it shouldn't be illegal because the notion that these people are criminals is ludicrous. They shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

Okay, sorry, I wondered if that is the way you meant it, the way I read it first was that you were saying that they just aren't criminals regardless, not that they shouldn't be criminals. I apologise for kind of misinterpreting your words.

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 06:07 AM

But it is possible that incest could have a victim, if children are produced. They will most likely be ridiculed and have a horrible chlidhood if the truth about their parents is known, and also there is the possible genetic problems the child might have as a result. The child did nothing to deserve any of it, they are a victim of their parents relationship.

I'm talking about incest between two people, not about the kids that they can have. I already said that it was two different problems. About this question of the kids, here is what I have to say:

-no kid ever asks to be born, even with what you all call 'normal' parents. People who have kids always do so without asking for the kids' consent.

-instead of caring about what people will think, about the 'ridicule', it might be better to stand up for oneself, and those who ridicule you can really go to hell because they're a bunch of morons. Moreover, you don't need to be in this situation to have people think you're ridicule. I've had a horrible childhood myself and met horrible kids and people, but well, I survived. Impeding oneself from doing something because of what people will think is never a solution;

-I see what you mean about the genetic problems. That can happen and that's a tough question. That's the same question when 'normal' people have a disabled kid. It's all very tough, because for me even having a 'normal' kid is a tough question since you don't ask for his consent.

But I think this question of the kids is just a pretext because even when there is no kid involved, people are still against incest and they will always judge and ridicule people who are different. Now before someone says that I'm judging you because you feel differently than I do about this subject, i'd like to remind you that I have no problem with the way you think, I just have a problem with the way you want to impose your way of thinking to the others, or the way you are disgusted with people who behave differently than you do.

Virgil

04-14-2008, 07:16 AM

Hmm, some interesting points raised here. Just out of curiosity, if incest were not a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment what penalty would you propose? Would it be enough to put people off.

Sweets, appreciate you feel quite strongly about this one, primarily because you are concerned with love. From my experience, and no doubt from the experience of many others who have been in a position of sexual abuse at the hands of a family member, most frequently love has nothing to do with it. The law protects vulnerable people, especially children, from harm. If you start blurring the boudaries between what is and what isn't acceptable then it is likely that more children will be harmed. I'd prefer to live in a world where it's illegal for young girls to be groomed into sexual relationships with older relatives, than one where it isn't. But perhaps my opinion is clouded by personal experience. The law, in this respect, has protected me and I'm grateful for it. Perhaps you underestimate how easy it is for a juvinile to be groomed, perhaps you don't see the risk, but it is easy, and without the protection of the law, and with the acceptance of family where does the 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old go for protection? It's easy to say 'if they love each other' but heck, even in non-incestuous relationships how many times have you, or I mistaken something for love which turned out not to be? What about when it's not about love? You can't write that into the law.

I thought this was an incredibly profound post. Thanks Fifth. I don't know if people outside the US have followed this cult that was discovered in Texas. http://www.livescience.com/health/080409-cults-sects.html Not sure if incest took place, but certainly polygamy and child abuse of a sexual nature. Similar to what Fifth decribes.

As to what the the legal punishment should be, that's hard for me. I'm certainly not a legal scholar. If children are born from the incest, then it really is a difficult one. Any punishment tends to punish the children too, and that is unfair. I think that any legal benefits of marriage should certainly be stripped. You would think that public ridicule would have some effect and be punishment enough, but given all the defenders of this that I see, I don't know if public ridicule even exists anymore. I can't beleive all the day time TV shows where people proudly display their lowest, most disgustful desires and "accomplishments." It shows that we've entered a world public morality is meaningless. I don't know how society functions in this way.

TheFifthElement

04-14-2008, 08:33 AM

The fifthElement, you are mixing sexual abuse with consensual incest, that's nonsense and the same strategy as that of comparing it with murder. I don't know how you can say that it isn't about love. It's not black or white.

I didn't say it wasn't about love, I said most frequently love has nothing to do with it.

Neither am I confusing sexual abuse with consensual incest, rather I'm saying that if incest is legal then sexual abuse becomes consensual incest. It is not the same as comparing it with murder. If an older relative taps you up at the age of 0 as a sexual target, then by the time you're 16 it's consensual because they're in a position to 'groom' you into believing that it is right, and it is love when in fact it's nothing to do with love at all. Allow incest and sexual abuse of children by family members becomes non-existent, in fact it becomes accepted. Then, once the allowance of sexual relationships between family members becomes acceptable, it's just a matter of age, why 16, why not 14, why not 12? If it's consensual, then it doesn't matter, does it?

Let me ask you a different question; if you were a legislator, and you wanted to prevent children being abused by people in a position of trust over them, how would you legislate for it? How would you design a law which would prevent older relatives (and we can be talking brothers/sisters here, my brother and sister are both over 10 years older than me) from grooming younger relatives into a, by all accounts consensual, sexual relationship once they reach the age of 16?

blp

04-14-2008, 08:34 AM

One the basic binary: I can't really see why it shouldn't be legal.

Re these specific cases where siblings met one another after being separated as children, aren't they just doing what a lot of people do when they look for a partner: feeling attraction to someone who is 'similar' to them? It's sort of narcissistic, one might say, but 'normal'; sort of narcissism-lite. The implication is, it's rather unfair that they should be punished for such an ordinary impulse, but then, conversely, perhaps it's because it's so normal that the incest taboo exists, as if, as a lot of other societal conventions to do with work and leaving home suggest, we have to be prised away from home, hearth, kith and kin and forced to 'grow up' in confronting the world in all its otherness.

papayahed

04-14-2008, 08:51 AM

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 08:57 AM

I didn't say it wasn't about love, I said most frequently love has nothing to do with it.

Yes, but I just don't know why you can say that. It really depends on people and their relationships. For my part, I just cannot say any general thing about that because I just don't know about everyone in the world being in an incestuous relationship and I cannot draw conclusions. Neither can you, because you're only talking about the cases you've heard about, cases which have been judged according to the point of view of a closed-minded society.

Neither am I confusing sexual abuse with consensual incest, rather I'm saying that if incest is legal then sexual abuse becomes consensual incest. It is not the same as comparing it with murder. If an older relative taps you up at the age of 0 as a sexual target, then by the time you're 16 it's consensual because they're in a position to 'groom' you into believing that it is right, and it is love when in fact it's nothing to do with love at all. Allow incest and sexual abuse of children by family members becomes non-existent, in fact it becomes accepted. Then, once the allowance of sexual relationships between family members becomes acceptable, it's just a matter of age, why 16, why not 14, why not 12? If it's consensual, then it doesn't matter, does it?

Yes you are confusing the two, you yourself say that if incest is legal then sexual abuse become consensual incest, which is total nonsense. Those are absolutely different. Sexual abuse is sexual ABUSE, that is with a person who did not give his/her consent. CONSENSUAL incest is a relationship where both partners agree. You can see that 'abuse' and 'consensual' cannot go together. It is absolutely not the same thing.
I absolutely disagree with what you say about older relatives making younger ones believe that it was right and that they were ok with it when they had sex with them earlier. The younger one, if he is not ok with it, can easily state that he is not ok and in this case, it's not called 'consensual', it's called rape. Then if some people accept to be brainwashed by older relatives, that's their problem. Everyone can think for themselves. I'm sure my family would think that incest is wrong, but that does not mean I will think like them. I believe victims of rape by their brothers or fathers are able to know if they agreed with it or not. If they were very young when it happened and thought it was ok at the time because of what the older one told them, when they grow up they can realize that it was actually a rape. And making incest legal would not make rapes in families more frequent because whether it's legal or not, there will always be rapes and people can always know if they were ok with the sexual relationship or not.
I think you're really mixing up two things which have nothing to do with one another.
And yes, if it's consensual, it doesn't matter even if the kid is young. The kid can decide if he's ok with it or not. And as I said, if the older one has abused him mentally to make him think it was right, then it is rape, not a consensual relationship.

Let me ask you a different question; if you were a legislator, and you wanted to prevent children being abused by people in a position of trust over them, how would you legislate for it? How would you design a law which would prevent older relatives (and we can be talking brothers/sisters here, my brother and sister are both over 10 years older than me) from grooming younger relatives into a, by all accounts consensual, sexual relationship once they reach the age of 16?

The thing is that nothing can be prevented. You can make all the laws you want, there will always be rapes, murders and the like. If someone came to see me to tell me that their older brother had sex with them while they did not agree, it would fall into the category of rape. Relationships between brothers and sisters, or fathers and kids have nothing to do with that, the only relevant point is whether the persons were ok with it or not from ther own judgement as persons with a freedom of thought.
Maybe the problem is that when we use the word 'incest', it immediately sounds wrong.

Sweets America

04-14-2008, 09:14 AM

There are many things I would not do and many things I don't think are right, however, not many of them would prompt me to take a child of mine to a psychiatrist. Incest, however, would. Incest can be very psychologically damaging, not to mention illegal, and that psychological damage can last a lifetime.

The thing is this view about incest is only yours and I don't see why you would impose it on your child. Of course I know you would just want to protect your child, but that still bugs me.

If I had a child under eighteen, I would be responsible for that child and I think I would be shirking my responsibility if I didn't take children engaging in an incestuous relationship to a psychiatrist. They would, at the very least, need someone impartial to talk to, and quite frankly, by condoning an illegal act, I would put myself in danger of facing jail time and having my children taken away from me. I would not want that and I think it would be traumatic for the children. Certainly a psychiatrist who would attempt to understand their feelings and listen impartially would be better than a mother in jail and separate foster homes (because you know the court would separate incestuous children).

Also, I don't see why psychiatrists would always be the solution and why they would detain the truth and know what is right about every human behavior. What they work on are only theories, beliefs like any other.

Now, if I had a child who was starving herself to be unduly thin, wouldn't I be irresponsible if I didn't take her to a doctor who treats anorexia? Should I just let her starve and die and say, "Well, it's your choice?" That would be criminal on my part, not to mention unloving.

This is a very tough question. That makes me think about suicide. If someone really wants to die, I'm not sure anyone has the right to save the person in question. It's their choice. You save the person and then what? You let him/her go back to the life they wanted to leave. Of course some persons might recover and live after all, but I really have trouble with people deciding for other people's lives. Or, if you save someone who's been attemting to commity suicide, then it's your duty to help that person to feel better and want to live again. The question of choice is very important to me. I've read a book written by an anorexic girl who just wanted to die and I could really feel her anger at people who forced her to eat and live. She was never grateful about that and in the end, she finally succeeded in leaving this world, very young, 21 years old, but she was a wonderful writer, and actually, she wrote a wonderfully beautiful book about an incestuous relationship between a brother and his younger sister, and how the whole world judged them while their love was so pure. They won too, they died together. It is scary sometimes how there seems to be no other solution but leaving this world when you're persecuted by people who want to decide at your place.

vheissu

04-14-2008, 09:26 AM

{edit}
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to make you see the barriers that are around you. You've been put into this way of thinking since you were born and you don't even know why incest is wrong, you just know that it is. I'm not saying incest is right, I'm just saying that it's neitehr right or wrong, it just is and I'm not going to tell anyone what they have to do with their asses and feelings. Saying that incest is right or wrong is the same as saying that the blue sky is right or wrong. That's nonsense. Incest can be wrong for you, but that does not make it wrong for the whole population. I think it's very sad that you're so into your opinion that you even deny the possibility of love in an incestuous relationship. That's scary.

You don't know why I'm getting upset? Well, I'm getting upset when I see how the world is. Maybe you would get upset too if you were in love with your brother and people wanted to send you to a loony bin because of that. It's about freedom.

Though you say that you're trying not to convince anyone you are implying that people who don't approve of incest have barriers, which you can't really prove for everyone to be true. Vice versa, anyone else could say that you are the ones with barriers for the way you think (not that I'm saying you do!)
What I'm trying to say is that you may think we've come to believe of incest as wrong because that is what we were told from a young age (which is probably the truth in most cases) but you don't know how we all grew up. Everybody had different events affecting his/her childhood, variables which will have influences the way they see things.

And freedom. Well, unfortunaltely, absolute, pure and complete freedom for everyone, without any restrictions whatsoever, will never exist. I don't think humans could actually cope with it.

But I think this question of the kids is just a pretext because even when there is no kid involved, people are still against incest and they will always judge and ridicule people who are different. Now before someone says that I'm judging you because you feel differently than I do about this subject, i'd like to remind you that I have no problem with the way you think, I just have a problem with the way you want to impose your way of thinking to the others, or the way you are disgusted with people who behave differently than you do.

People do judge. We judge everyone and everything, whether it's our place to judge or not and sometimes not really caring what the object of our judgement will have to say about it. It just happens. You can't stop that. The only thing that differs is that some people judge more than others and try to impose their judgement, believe it's right, no matter what everyone else says.

I'll have to disagree (yet again) on considering the issue of the children as a pretext. There is a possibility that children will be born from couples who have a very close family relationship. Though you say that nobody was asked to be born in the first place, don't you think that in this case there should be some kind of way to prevent it?
Incestuous relationships will still be present, even if it becomes illegal, because people are good at keeping secrets. And that's fine. But why want to have children as well, which will probably suffer in such a family?
And though I've mentioned this before, in the case of the German couple's story, which originally started this thread, there are 4 kids, 3 of which have a disability and have been taken away from their parents. Who is now responsible for their upbringing? And when and if they ask why they are not living with their parents, what exactly should be told to them?

1n50mn14

04-14-2008, 09:46 AM

Frankly, I think it should be allowed, as what two consenting adults to is their own business. To me, personally, it seems exceptionally strange and I can't understand why anybody would want to have sexual relations with their brother or sister, but to each their own.

If children resulting from incestual relationships are proven to have a higher risk of being handicapped, then I don't think children should be allowed to result from the relationship (though I am also a fairly firm beleiver in eugenics that aren't based upon a religious or racial bias). Again, if handicapped people who are more likely to produce a handicapped child are allowed to have children, then stopping incestual relationships would be completely ignorant or unfair.

In short: it shoud be allowed. I don't understand it, I don't get it (then again, a lot of people don't understand homosexuality or why women shave their heads), but denying people that right also seems wrong to me.

TheFifthElement

04-14-2008, 10:00 AM

Yes you are confusing the two, you yourself say that if incest is legal then sexual abuse become consensual incest, which is total nonsense.

"Daddy loves you, this is what people who love each other do".

Is that a lie?

Is it 'consensual'?

Is it 'abuse'?

If that's what you've been taught since you were 0, how do you know it is wrong? What if you believe it, is it wrong then?

The difficulty here Sweets is that you're talking from a society where incest is considered wrong. Turn it on its head and what we now call 'abuse' isn't necessarily abuse at all.

I absolutely disagree with what you say about older relatives making younger ones believe that it was right and that they were ok with it when they had sex with them earlier. The younger one, if he is not ok with it, can easily state that he is not ok and in this case, it's not called 'consensual', it's called rape. Then if some people accept to be brainwashed by older relatives, that's their problem.

I find that final comment (in bold) very disturbing. It makes me want to go and hug a 5 year old (platonically, of course). How easy it is to throw children to the wolves.

Everyone can think for themselves.

Not so, even you disagree with this, see:

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just trying to make you see the barriers that are around you. You've been put into this way of thinking since you were born...

I believe victims of rape by their brothers or fathers are able to know if they agreed with it or not. If they were very young when it happened and thought it was ok at the time because of what the older one told them, when they grow up they can realize that it was actually a rape.

Would you still be able to pursue this as a criminal offence, a rape? Isn't this rather unfair on the other family member? Imagine a scenario. An older brother really loves his sister, the sister really loves her brother. They have sex, and as far as the brother is concerned his sister was okay with it. Years later she says she only did it to please him. Has he raped her? He didn't think it was rape, he thought it was consensual. What if it turns out that he 'coaxed' her into it. Is it rape then? When does 'coaxing' become 'mental abuse'?

And yes, if it's consensual, it doesn't matter even if the kid is young. The kid can decide if he's ok with it or not. And as I said, if the older one has abused him mentally to make him think it was right, then it is rape, not a consensual relationship.

See above, same problem. Also, what if the person was 8 years old, or 5 years old, or 3 years old?

Maybe the problem is that when we use the word 'incest', it immediately sounds wrong.

Yes, I agree with you here. I suppose the difficulty is, however you state it, it will always be a restriction. It isn't perfect, but it is about achieving a balance - drawing the line in the place where it causes restriction to the least, and protection for the many.

[BeccaT]If children resulting from incestual relationships are proven to have a higher risk of being handicapped, then I don't think children should be allowed to result from the relationship[/quote]

Becca, I understand this. However, how would you prevent it? What if the pregnancy was accidental - would you force abortion?