Thanks, now if everyone understands the point we just made, the conversation might stop having so many disagreements and arguments! Which would be a good thing for all involved :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweets America
Printable View
Thanks, now if everyone understands the point we just made, the conversation might stop having so many disagreements and arguments! Which would be a good thing for all involved :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweets America
Er...what about husband and wife?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Why is it obvious? Aren't you falling into the very mentality you have criticized here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweets America
if the parent means it, and is motivated by love, then surely it is fine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweets America
No, actually you brought up the issue of kids by stating that incestuous relationships should be accepted where the two parties are consenting adults. So in order to explore the subject you have to fully understand and agree on what is 'consenting' and also what is 'adult' because, as with the rest of the debate, these are concepts which are imposed on us by society. Yes, the example of 3 year olds is extreme, but this was purely in response to your comment as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
but clearly it does matter, clearly by your standards 3 is too young. How young is too young? What age would you set it at? Why? Isn't this just as arbitrary?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
is it really that simple? Do you not think it is possible to secure consent and it still be abuse? Do people not abuse relationships of trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
But actually they do have lots to do with each other, because if you open the door to one then the other will follow. Take for example this comment which, in principle, I don't disagree with:Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
Ask yourself, do you choose to love your brother, or are you indoctrinated into 'loving' your brother? If you are concerned with relationships of choice, do you choose your family?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
If you're concerned with relationships of choice, being truly free to choose who you do and don't love, then surely the only way to do this is outside the family unit? Family is imposed on you, familial love (with the exception of marriage) is imposed on you from the moment you are born. How do you know you love your brother, where does that love come from, is it really a love of choice?
[QUOTE=Sweets America;555456][QUOTE=TheFifthElement;555435
I'm talking about adults who just want to be free to love each other. What you're talking about here has nothing to do with the subject. I don't see why we should forbid two adults to have sex together in order to protect kids who are not in the same situation.
[/QUOTE]
Incestuous feelings are a mental illness. It isn't like making a choice between people who aren't your relations. You can't let these people hurt themselves because in the long run, they will.
You wouldn't be though. Okay, if mental illness doesn't exist, then aren't all these 'crimes' normal?
Do you talk about incest as in lust or love?
I was talking about mental illness related to the idea of incest. And I was talking about love, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Following message has been posted by Sweets America; however, due to a glitch in Forum software, unfortunately it has been deleted:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweets AmericaJesus, reread what I wrote, it is NOT fine if only ONE of the partners is motivated by love. You're playing with words.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I also stated earlier that being an 'adult' is different for everyone, it depends on everyone's own mentality and personality, two people of the same age do not necessarily have the same views on things. Now it's up to everyone to judge if they're prepared or not, if they understand or not. I cannot make any generality about age.Quote:
No, actually you brought up the issue of kids by stating that incestuous relationships should be accepted where the two parties are consenting adults. So in order to explore the subject you have to fully understand and agree on what is 'consenting' and also what is 'adult' because, as with the rest of the debate, these are concepts which are imposed on us by society. Yes, the example of 3 year olds is extreme, but this was purely in response to your comment as follows:
but clearly it does matter, clearly by your standards 3 is too young. How young is too young? What age would you set it at? Why? Isn't this just as arbitrary?
What I don't understand is that you're using those things to back up the fact that incest is wrong. But if we follow your argumentation, all sexual relationships should be forbidden because a guy can always abuse the trust of a girl to sleep with her, this is not specific to incestuous relationships. Your argument seems to say that we should forbid everything to prevent everything from happening, and that's just not my way of living, I prefer taking risks.Quote:
is it really that simple? Do you not think it is possible to secure consent and it still be abuse? Do people not abuse relationships of trust?
Yes, I see what you mean. The difference for me between the two was that I was talking about a relationship between a baby and his father while the other example of the brother and his sister was made of two adults. And to me the sister who slept with her brother to please him chose to do so, while the baby or the very young kid does not always choose to do so. Now I see what' you're going to say, that's true that we cannot determine an age when people are responsible, but for me the adult has more experience of how human beings can abuse you, whereas the kid is new to this, and thus I am tempted to think that the sister of the example, being an adult, made a choice and decided to ignore the fact that she was coaxed, maybe because she was scared of losing the love of her brother if she did not please him, I don't know, but she chose to do what she did.Quote:
Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?
But I don't see why talking about incest between adults should imply talking about incest between adults and little kids. It's not the same thing, I think the father who wants to sleep with his little dauther must naturally see if she understands what it's about. He will feel it if he's just wanting to coax her. But consenting people should not pay for people who abuse others.
I'm not sure.Quote:
But actually they do have lots to do with each other, because if you open the door to one then the other will follow.
Well, I have always found it ridiculous that people say we're compelled to love our family members. I have some family members that I don't care about, it's not because they're from my family that I will love them. I love my brothers because of who they are. I love my mother but I have hated her as well, and at some point I felt I had no feelings for my father. It comes and goes, like in every human relationship.Quote:
Ask yourself, do you choose to love your brother, or are you indoctrinated into 'loving' your brother? If you are concerned with relationships of choice, do you choose your family?
But, I never thought we could choose to love someone either. To me, love is not a question of choice, it just happens with some people we meet, whether they're from our family or not.
This shows you don't know me at all, because I never said I wanted to choose who I love, I've never felt that love was a choice, I've loved someone with all my heart even if the relationship was impossible, and I still love him, and I will always do, and that's how it is. Consent is not synonymous with choice. You can love someone and not want to sleep with them. And again, I don't think family love is imposed on me. I've learned to love some family members like I would have learned to love anyone else.Quote:
If you're concerned with relationships of choice, being truly free to choose who you do and don't love, then surely the only way to do this is outside the family unit? Family is imposed on you, familial love (with the exception of marriage) is imposed on you from the moment you are born. How do you know you love your brother, where does that love come from, is it really a love of choice?
This idea of mental illness has been invented by people who were afraid of things which are different. And if I want to hurt myself, I will be happy if you let me do so, this is my life and my feelings. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I did read what you wrote. You too are playing with words; I didn't say that the daughter didn't love the father, you assumed that it was one way. We cannot see into the minds of other people, if the daughter loves her father, and the father loves his daughter, then by your reckoning it would be okay providing they both consented?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
Oh, and for the record, I am not Jesus.
then how do you legislate for that? How do you give people clarity about what is, and what isn't okay to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
But again, it is you who refer to 'little kids'. What I am talking about is grooming. The father who waits for his daughters 16th birthday (in UK that would be the legal age of consent) to take their 'love' to the next level. And in a society which was permissive about incest, if his mother had sex with him on his 16th birthday, and he 'consented' then it is natural for him to approach his daughter in a similar way providing she 'consents'. But this is where the difficulty lies. How did that consent arise, and was the consent of entire free will, or a product of indoctrination? Does it matter whether the indoctrination was as a result of love or of abuse? Isn't it simpler, easier to say 'don't do it' for the protection of both parties, so that the daughter doesn't realise 10 years on that she's been 'raped' and the father doesn't risk having, possibly entirely inadvertently, abused his daughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
I don't. I have no view on whether incest is wrong or right. In my country it is illegal; all I am trying to do is to help you understand the basis of the law, so perhaps in understanding it you might begin to have an appreciation of what it is trying to achieve. If you read the law (which I posted earlier on) it is entirely designed to protect relationships of trust or if you prefer, relationships which are imposed on people due to circumstance, and in which there is an imbalance of power. The law is an acceptance of how delicate these relationships are, it provides clarity to all concerned about what is, and is not deemed to be acceptable; so, as a parent it is clear to me where the boundaries of my 'love' for my son lie. It is not another thing I need to agonise about, is it okay, is it not okay, if I do this will it 'harm' him, etc, etc. It is an acknowledgement of how easy it is to turn a relationship of trust into a relationship of abuse, and it sets 'safe' boundaries within which people can be secure that they're not going to tip the balance. It's also an acnknowledgement that some relationships are forced on us - I cannot choose my father, I cannot undo the fact that he is my father. The law says, 'certain relationships are forced on you, they are not your choice, so we are going to place limits on those relationships to protect both parties', and it works. Ultimately the law has to be designed in such as way as to protect the most vulnerable of those parties, mainly children but not just children. This is, as you have acknowledged, because children have no power. In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them, which is the very thing that people, through love, or abuse or whatever, are prone to exploit. This is why the boundaries are set, if you like, conservatively, so that it limits as greatly as possible the possibility of harm resulting.Quote:
What I don't understand is that you're using those things to back up the fact that incest is wrong.
The law must provide clarity and certainty. I am comfortable that the current basis of the law (in UK) provides that.
So, let me set you a challenge. You have said that inter-familial relationships should be acceptable between 'consenting adults', which means that there are, as we have explored already, curcumstances in which you do not think inter-familial relationships should be allowed. Which, in a nutshell, means there will need to be law to regulate it. Design your revised law which specifies exactly under what circumstances it is acceptable/not acceptable to have inter-familial relationships, in such a way which does not leave it open to 'abuse'. What would be the 'penalty' for failing to comply with this law?
You still don't get what I mean and you're still playing with words. If the daughter loves her father, this love is not necessarily a sexual love. I told you already that you can love someone without wanting to sleep with them. If the father wants to sleep with his daughter but that the daughter just loves him platonically, then the father would rape her if he slept with her. You're mixing up different kinds of love.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I don't give clarity, neither do I want any law to do so, it's up to everyone to know who they want to sleep with. I'm fed up with laws, they only make generalities and I already said that everyone is different. I don't want to legislate for that and I will not decide what is ok and what is not, I can only see what is ok for me and what is not for me. For my neighbour it will be different. The only common point I would see with everyone is that things get wrong when we abuse others. Now you're going to say that maybe for my neighbor that's not true, but you'll be playing with words again. I'm only talking about relationships which cause no harm. We've been debating for ages to know if something which causes no harm is ok! The abuses are another problem, but forbidding things which are not abuses will not solve the problem. It's forbidden today, but do you think it impedes people from abusing others? If you think a law will help, you're naive. Again, we really have two categories, the consensual thing and the abuse. There will always be abuse but there will always be people who are very happy to sleep with their brother. Just leave them alone.Quote:
then how do you legislate for that? How do you give people clarity about what is, and what isn't okay to do?
Come on, it's you who says that you want a law to protect little kids, it' not me. But about your example of the father, it's not because his own mother had sex with him when he wzs 16 that he will assume that his daughter will be ok with it too! People are not robots, your reasoning is biased. Oh, it might be simpler to say 'don't do it' to prevent a risk, but that's not a solution to punish some people for what others do, I hate that. If you always did that you would forbid everything. Fifth, I just want to live, and there are other people like me who just want to live without society pissing them off about every little thing.Quote:
But again, it is you who refer to 'little kids'. What I am talking about is grooming. The father who waits for his daughters 16th birthday (in UK that would be the legal age of consent) to take their 'love' to the next level. And in a society which was permissive about incest, if his mother had sex with him on his 16th birthday, and he 'consented' then it is natural for him to approach his daughter in a similar way providing she 'consents'. But this is where the difficulty lies. How did that consent arise, and was the consent of entire free will, or a product of indoctrination? Does it matter whether the indoctrination was as a result of love or of abuse? Isn't it simpler, easier to say 'don't do it' for the protection of both parties, so that the daughter doesn't realise 10 years on that she's been 'raped' and the father doesn't risk having, possibly entirely inadvertently, abused his daughter.
Maybe my mistake is that I believe everyone can think for themselves and be responsible of his own body and sexual activities. You are not compelled to let yourself be indoctrinated. You can always say no if they don't force you, and if they blackmail you or coax you, you can always tell them to go to hell because they're not worth your love. If you believed in the indoctrination and thought it was ok to have sex, it's your choice, I think you would feel it if it felt wrong to you, you would feel that something is not right for you even if your father wants you to believe the contrary. But again, wanting to prevent those kinds of cases by forbidding everyone to have sex with their family is not a solution, you just smother a whole population.
I know the aim of the law is to protect people, but I still find it unfair. It's just like this law about the legal age to have sex, it is preposterous. Laws do not reassure me, they make me feel smothered.Quote:
I don't. I have no view on whether incest is wrong or right. In my country it is illegal; all I am trying to do is to help you understand the basis of the law, so perhaps in understanding it you might begin to have an appreciation of what it is trying to achieve. If you read the law (which I posted earlier on) it is entirely designed to protect relationships of trust or if you prefer, relationships which are imposed on people due to circumstance, and in which there is an imbalance of power. The law is an acceptance of how delicate these relationships are, it provides clarity to all concerned about what is, and is not deemed to be acceptable; so, as a parent it is clear to me where the boundaries of my 'love' for my son lie. It is not another thing I need to agonise about, is it okay, is it not okay, if I do this will it 'harm' him, etc, etc. It is an acknowledgement of how easy it is to turn a relationship of trust into a relationship of abuse, and it sets 'safe' boundaries within which people can be secure that they're not going to tip the balance. It's also an acnknowledgement that some relationships are forced on us - I cannot choose my father, I cannot undo the fact that he is my father. The law says, 'certain relationships are forced on you, they are not your choice, so we are going to place limits on those relationships to protect both parties', and it works. Ultimately the law has to be designed in such as way as to protect the most vulnerable of those parties, mainly children but not just children. This is, as you have acknowledged, because children have no power. In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them, which is the very thing that people, through love, or abuse or whatever, are prone to exploit. This is why the boundaries are set, if you like, conservatively, so that it limits as greatly as possible the possibility of harm resulting.
And I find it strange that you would need a law to see where the boundaries with your son lie. This is scary that you would base that on a law instead of feeling it yourself. I'm sure that without any law, you would feel it if you did something to your son without his consent. Laws do not set anything safe, they are illusions because peope are not robots who follow them blindly. Your law just gives you an illusion that thinsg are going to be secure and right. You say it works while we see lots of cases of people breaking those so-called laws....
Oh boy, that surely doesn't work with me. :lol: At least you can be sure I'll never sleep with your kid. Maybe a difference between you and me is that I don't see kids as innocent little things.Quote:
In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them
I never think 'interfamilial' relationships should be forbidden. Let me tell you once again that the law is not about incest, the law is about rape. If a father rapes his daughter, I will not put it in the incest thing, but in the rape one, as any other rape case. The fact that it is a father with a daughter is not relevant. They are just two people and one of them abused the other. As I already said, why not forbidding all sexual relationships between human beings so that it will prevent rape??Quote:
So, let me set you a challenge. You have said that inter-familial relationships should be acceptable between 'consenting adults', which means that there are, as we have explored already, curcumstances in which you do not think inter-familial relationships should be allowed. Which, in a nutshell, means there will need to be law to regulate it. Design your revised law which specifies exactly under what circumstances it is acceptable/not acceptable to have inter-familial relationships, in such a way which does not leave it open to 'abuse'. What would be the 'penalty' for failing to comply with this law?
I can't believe this is still going on. Where's Sleepywitch? She started this mess. :p
I have fled :D j/kQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
sorry, I'm busy with exam preparation and don't have much time too read y'all's detailed posts :(
Sweets, I think there's little benefit discussing this any further, primarily because there's no getting past this comment:
which brings us back to where we were at the beginning. True individualism, true freedom = chaos. For any social structure to work there has to be rules, those rules need to be clear and easy to follow otherwise you have chaos, people not knowing what you can do, can't do. Being part of a society means that there are benefits and sacrifices. If you're not prepared to make any sacrifices, then you have to give up the benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica
The problem is, you say "the law is not about incest, the law is about rape" but without clarity there is no "rape". And it's questionable whether people in a familial relationship are ever in a position to make a truly informed 'consent' This is what I was trying, and failing perhaps, to make clear.
It was clear to me and it added another layer to the argument. I quite agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I have been wanting to tell you that I wanted to stop discussing that anyway because we just don't see the world the same way. I'm sorry if I sounded blunt. I think I just prefer chaos. I also think entire freedom will never exist in this world anyway, and I was only trying to have the little freedom I could have on this subject. I don't feel part of society, I've never been anyway. My being here makes me part of a society to the others, but in my mind I am not. I think I just prefer being by myself. I was only defending love, that was all, but even love is not possible here, sometimes. I enjoyed discussing with you anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I posted in here near the beginning of this thread and am shocked this is still being argued about... wow, what an issue... well, just to add two more cents of my own...
In reading through the many arguments for keeping it/making it illegal, I keep seeing people arguing against it because it is immoral and not natural... some people have gone so far as to state that other animals do not commit incest... which is an entirely ludicrous claim... most species of animals commit incest, but just like with humans it isn't common, it is a small percentage... though, my brother and sister both have dogs from the same litter and the male routinely tries to hump the female.... so, again, incest does occur among other animals, only infrequently, as with humans... so this takes me to my first point...
--- too say it is not natural is entirely absurd and irrelevant.... not natural in who's opinion? is this a fact? no, it isn't... what is natural, is exactly what each person decides is natural... and there cannot be any other definition of natural... for each of us is different, what is natural for me, might be appalling and disgusting for you, and likewise, to some degree... you cannot make blanket statements regarding all humanity with regards to certain actions being natural or not... just the fact that incest has been happening among humans and animals since the beginning of time, means it is entirely natural, however few choose to participate in it...
also it is a ridiculous leap of logic, to say that because something is not natural it is therefore morally wrong, and should be illegal... how can anyone make that judgment... based on that we should rewrite the legal system than to outlaw anything that is unnatural... and legalize all natural behaviours... well as Nietzsche said, the fundamental fact is of all human history is murder, rape, abuse, violence, and so on and so forth.. these things are some of the most natural human behaviours... murder has always been common, theft, rape, violent assault... emotions of hatred leading to violence... I mean, if anything is natural among humans, it is violent crime... and not just relegated to psycopaths either... regular people have murdered one another for all of time, it may be less common now in the developed world, but that is irrelevant... so next time a murderer is up for trial, according to the natural and not natural argument we should let him off, because he was just following what is human nature... I guess then we would have to rewrite immorality and morality as well, which might suit Nietzsche fine, go "beyond good and evil", institute master morality....
last of all with regards to not being natural, as I stated above, if it is consider unnatural and that is the basis for illegality and immorality, then why don't we make cosmetic surgery illegal, anyone who gets it should go to jail... oh and lets see, I'm sure we could some up with a long list here... eating oneself into a state of obesity, which no animal does, and in fact, until recently was not all that prevalent among humans... are you saying because it is unnatural to be obese, we should send obese people to jail along with the incestuous people???
--- now the argument of immorality.... so who gave anyone here the right to decide what is immoral and moral for all humanity... for even any other person beside themself... if an action is not harming anyone it is entirely moral in my opinion... to state otherwise is incredibly egotistical and self righteous... it is saying you are so perfect a person that you can decide upon what is right and wrong for others... well, last time I checked, perfection is still a dream for everyone on this planet, and therefore no one, and I repeat, no one has a right to force their moral beliefs upon others.... the only things that are immoral are those that harm others... there is nothing else immoral, and I will stick by that statement forever...
secondly, here, if one does say that incest is still immoral, as it for some reason harms others.... well, smoking harms others but it is legal, drinking harms others but it is legal... obesity harms others, but it is legal... the cost on the health care system from obesity and smoking is enormous.... absolutely ridiculously high... and smokers and obsese people add to waiting lists that make it so others can't get health care treatment in a timely fashion.. the waiting lists here in my country are absurd for surgery.... so should we call obesity and smoking immoral and jail people for doing this, or fine them, or send them to counselling... I am confused here, for these things cause far more harm than a few isolated cases of incest...
also on morality, I keep seeing incest compared to homosexuality.. and everyone against incest says they have no problem with homosexuality and it is fine... well... until about 20 years ago, and still even now, homosexuality is widely persecuted, they don't have even close to equal rights, they are discriminated against, they are abused, picked on, insulted... and many religious based moralities still find it offensive and immoral... and for that matter, only a century or so ago it was basically considered immoral and wrong by almost the entire world... and to boot, it was considered not natural... well, now we come to incest.. and of course it is much less common than homosexuality... but who cares... it is the same type of person, still condemning others for what they do, who they love, the way they are...
---- all this is also only in regard to incestuous relationships where there is full consent by both partners... and no, I don't agree with a daughter being groomed for that role... that would need to be examined before a father would ever be allowed to marry his daughter... but in general father-daughter relationships are abusive relationships anyways, so in most cases that is harmful and therefore shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed but just the same as any other abuse should not be allowed, regardless of it being incest related or not... but on occasion, rare occasion, I am sure there are some parent-sibling relationships that aren't abuse of trust or abusive in any way, just love... so you cannot make it illegal... otherwise you are destroying freedom of choice in regards to one of the most important parts of life... love...
now a brother and sister, both fully grown... the statement I made about small numbers of most species committing incest, well it is almost always brother-sister, almost never parent-offspring... if a brother and sister fall in love and want to have a relationship, that is perfectly fine in my books, and harms no one, including themselves... but if you want to argue that it does harm someone please tell me who??? I am interested to know who is harmed by this, other than those with delicate sensibilities, who for some reason think it offensive and wrong that others should behave in any way they don't like...
in the end all I want to say is that incest is perfectly natural, for a tiny percentage of all populations.. almost all animals as well... therefore the natural argument falls apart....
secondly, the immorality argument, is entirely egotistical and self righteous.. who appointed each one of us god over all others??
third, I remember now, others stating that if it is made legal it will encourage it... that is load of garbage... encourage it???? how would it encourage incest.... as I stated animals commit incest, but only infrequently and as a tiny percentage... it would still be very infrequent... it is not as though if it was made legal, there would be advertisements with slogans such as "have an incestuous relationship today" or "marry your brother" ... how on earth would not having it be illegal encourage it... it would still be illegal to force someone, but that should be illegal regardless of whether it is incest or not... so I doubt we would see an enormous spike in incest if it was made legal... but I guess I could be wrong....
cheers