should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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/08...lts-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

{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?

---

I'm one of the people who said that I don't give a crap about what other people do, however I wouldn't do it myself.

However, I have to agree with Antiquarian if someone I cared about was having an incestuous relationship I would also want them to seek professional counseling. There is a difference between familial love and romantic love. All sorts of things could happen to make people, especially young people, confuse the two or be coerced into something they're not sure about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

{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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Everyone can think for themselves.

---

Not so, even you disagree with this, see:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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?

Just wondering... How many of those who do not have issues with incest actually have children of their own?

Or what their reaction would be if their mother or father expressed an interest in starting a "romantic" relationship with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement;555435[QUOTE

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

Is that a lie?

Is it 'consensual'?

Is it 'abuse'?

---

Of course it's a lie, because it's obvious that the father is trying to mentally abuse the kid. If the kid realizes when he's older that he's been raped, then he can have the father condemned. You're mixing up everything to make people believe that relationships between two consenting people are wrong. At first you brought up the idea of kids, then you bring up the idea of little kids of 3 years old. Of course at 3 you cannot really know if you want to have sex, but I'm not talking about that. 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. I think it's lgical that an adult knows when a kid doesn't understand what it means to have sex, and if the adult still has sex with the kid while the kid does not get it, it's a rape.

Quote:

---

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?

---

It is wrong because the other person lied to you in order to satisfy their own feelings or impulses.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Abuse is when you do something to someone without their consent, that's all.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Come on, I'm only saying that everyone can judge if they were raped or not. Legalizing incest would not make rapes increase because it's always a question of consent, whether it is legal or not.

Quote:

---

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'?

---

Again, this is not rape, she agreed with it, she judged the situation and decied she wanted to please her brother, this is her fault if she regrets if after, the brother has done nothing wrong. We all make love for different reasons, and we all take our own decisions. It's too easy to accuse the guy in this case, the girl had every right to say no. This is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, but I dislike the idea that you restrain someone to protect someone else when the two cases have nothing to do with one another. That reminds me of people who want to forbid hijab to protect women who are forced to wear it, and they in the meantime restrain those who do want to wear it. That's not a solution.

Oh, and dear Scheherazade, if my father wanted to have sex with me, I would explain him that I'm not interested, as I would do with any guy I am not interested in. No big deal.
And no, I don't have kids, but that doesn't impede me from having views on the question, thank you.
See, I didn't break the rules this time, I'm not banned yet.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Come on, I'm only saying that everyone can judge if they were raped or not. Legalizing incest would not make rapes increase because it's always a question of consent, whether it is legal or not.

---

But what if they can't judge if they were or not? Maybe just as most of us here have been brought up to believe incest is wrong, there is most likely others out there who have been taught that what is happening is right, even though according to society it is not right, and they don't know any different and they don't know that they have the choice to tell the person what they are doing is wrong? Maybe I've misread something along the way or missed something and so there is more to this comment, if so, I apologise sincerely, but from what I understand right now, this comment could be incorrect; people can't always judge if they were raped or not. It depends on the individual situation.

From what I've read, the argument seems to get quite heated at points, generally due to misunderstanding other people.

I think there is a few reasons why this keeps happening...

1. No one really seems to know what is being discussed, the topic changes from incest to the impact on the children to being compared with gay rights to rape, and everything else.

and

2. There isn't one situation being used. People one second will generalise about all instances of incest, then it becomes a specific example, then it becomes incest with children produced, then it becomes incest among people who didn't know they were related, then it becomes about incest in animals, then it becomes incest being rape, then it becomes incest among homosexual siblings. People then seem to get agitated because "That's not what they were talking about."

The question is "Should it be legal" not "Should it be legal in certain circumstances with certain outcomes for certain situations."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sprinks

But what if they can't judge if they were or not? Maybe just as most of us here have been brought up to believe incest is wrong, there is most likely others out there who have been taught that what is happening is right, even though according to society it is not right, and they don't know any different and they don't know that they have the choice to tell the person what they are doing is wrong? Maybe I've misread something along the way or missed something and so there is more to this comment, if so, I apologise sincerely, but from what I understand right now, this comment could be incorrect; people can't always judge if they were raped or not. It depends on the individual situation.

---

Yes, maybe it's more complicated than what I said. The thing is, I was brought up with the idea that incest was wrong, but that did not impede me from thinking by myself and telling myself that if I want to make love with my brother and he wants too, I'll have no problem with it. I believe people can detach themselves, it's all in detachment, they can ponder the question when they have developed their personality and ways of seeing the world, and they can decide what they want or not.
It's not the same for little kids, because their world is built around their parents, so I see what you mean, but once they grow up, they can decide if what their parents did was right or wrong according to them. Of course if they decide it was wrong, it's too late. But the thing is what I wanted to talk about in the beginning was not kids, it was relationships between two consenting people, and everyone can judge things properly at a different age. I just think that bringing the idea of little kids into the question only aims to touch people's feelings and make them say 'yes, we should forbid incest'. I just don't support this strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

But the thing is what I wanted to talk about in the beginning was not kids, it was relationships between two consenting people, and everyone can judge things properly at a different age. I just think that bringing the idea of little kids into the question only aims to touch people's feelings and make them say 'yes, we should forbid incest'. I just don't support this strategy.

---

This is pretty much exactly the type of thing I was getting at in my other post before this one (post 274)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sprinks

This is pretty much exactly the type of thing I was getting at in my other post before this one (post 274)

---

This is exactly what I thought too, you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

This is exactly what I thought too, you are right.

---

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 Antiquarian

Sexual relations, in my opinion, are not a part of familial love, nor should they ever be.

---

Er...what about husband and wife?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

Of course it's a lie, because it's obvious that the father is trying to mentally abuse the kid.

---

Why is it obvious? Aren't you falling into the very mentality you have criticized here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweets America

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.

---

if the parent means it, and is motivated by love, then surely it is fine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

At first you brought up the idea of kids, then you bring up the idea of little kids of 3 years old.

---

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

And yes, if it's consensual, it doesn't matter even if the kid is young.

---

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

Abuse is when you do something to someone without their consent, that's all.

---

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

Again, this is not rape, she agreed with it, she judged the situation and decied she wanted to please her brother, this is her fault if she regrets if after, the brother has done nothing wrong. We all make love for different reasons, and we all take our own decisions. It's too easy to accuse the guy in this case, the girl had every right to say no. This is ridiculous.

---

Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

Yes, but I dislike the idea that you restrain someone to protect someone else when the two cases have nothing to do with one another.

---

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

I'm talking about adults who just want to be free to love each other.

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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.

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 America

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Why is it obvious? Aren't you falling into the very mentality you have criticized here:

if the parent means it, and is motivated by love, then surely it is fine?

---

Jesus, reread what I wrote, it is NOT fine if only ONE of the partners is motivated by love. You're playing with words.

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?

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

Ridiculous indeed, but..wait a minute, isn't this exactly what you said here?

---

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.

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.

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.

---

I'm not sure.

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?

---

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.

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.

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 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:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

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.

---

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 SweetsAmerica

Jesus, reread what I wrote, it is NOT fine if only ONE of the partners is motivated by love. You're playing with words.

---

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?

Oh, and for the record, I am not Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

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.

---

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 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.

---

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:

---

What I don't understand is that you're using those things to back up the fact that incest is wrong.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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?

---

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:

---

then how do you legislate for that? How do you give people clarity about what is, and what isn't okay to do?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.
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.

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.

---

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.
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....

Quote:

---

In fact the only power children have is the power to make people like them

---

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:

---

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 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??

I can't believe this is still going on. Where's Sleepywitch? She started this mess. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I can't believe this is still going on. Where's Sleepywitch? She started this mess. :p

---

I have fled :D j/k
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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetsAmerica

I don't give clarity, neither do I want any law to do so

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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

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.

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.

---

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.

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

Sex is always such an issue for people. It doesn't matter whether you're doing it by yourself or with your legal, married, heterosexual spouse -- there is always some kind of mental "OH NO OMG" associated with it.

Honestly, we could be arguing about whether it's okay to cheat on your spouse, and we could probably get as many responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

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....

---

What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.

Quote:

---

--- 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...

---

Estabished culture of thousands of years across every culture.

Quote:

---

secondly, the immorality argument, is entirely egotistical and self righteous.. who appointed each one of us god over all others??

---

You live in a democracy? Do you know of any politician anywhere in the world that is running on legalizing incest? I dare any politician to run on this issue. I dare anyone to bring it up as a referendum. It would fail miserably. You have a biased demographic here on lit net of young people who believe in complete unadulterated freedom. And it still lost 37-12. That's over three to one. In the general population this would easily lose 10 to 1 if not even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.


Estabished culture of thousands of years across every culture.


You live in a democracy? Do you know of any politician anywhere in the world that is running on legalizing incest? I dare any politician to run on this issue. I dare anyone to bring it up as a referendum. It would fail miserably. You have a biased demographic here on lit net of young people who believe in complete unadulterated freedom. And it still lost 37-12. That's over three to one. In the general population this would easily lose 10 to 1 if not even worse.

---

are you serious??? Majority means right, eh???

well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...

and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...

oh, I know about natural law, and how legal systems like to build off it... or say they do anyways... off some supposed natural laws... natural laws eh??? well everyone who has responded ignored most of my post... there is a natural law called law of the jungle where the bigger, faster, stronger are the better.. maybe we should revert to that as well... if you are stronger you can take from those who are weaker with impunity.. that is so called natural law.... maybe we should just revert to primitive caveman culture... I would argue against the existence of any so called natural laws... it is a dead philosophy.. natural theories maybe, but laws... I think not... there are no objective, universal truths or laws about nature and humanity... that is the nature of the world... mankind has invented some to suit his purpose... if you want to take them as fact that is your choice... but don't force them upon me... as well, everything any human does is natural to that person, just for the fact they are doing it... we do what we feel is natural to us... so you are calling everyone who doesn't follow the common, and majority way of being natural, well you are basically calling us all a little off our rockers... or perverse, or however you want to put it.. you are saying there is something wrong with not following the natural path of the majority... well I have many ways I walk the far from natural path... am I a perversity?

and the animals that commit incest are not ostracized, nor persecuted.. hmm.. stating that other animals don't seem to mind... I guess that's human rationality and reason, or these supposed faculties, I guess they are operating so well here.... oooohhh,,, someone I don't know is in love with their brother... put them in jail or else the world will fall into corruption and perversity...

and you concentrate on one part of my post... what about the others.. I am interested to see what is thought here... obesity happens in no animals besides humans... well, not wild animals anyways... and I doubt it happened before we started leading our sedentary modern lifestyles... so as I asked before shouldn't we put these people in jail too.... oh and the smokers, they are harming infinitely more people than people commiting incest... and for that matter lets put everyone who drives a big suv, or a truck in the city in jail as well.. they're polluting the planet and harming all of humanity... and so on and so forth...

but instead we should concentrate on keeping love from happening at all cost when it is incestuous... not because it harms anyone... but because we have delicate sensibilities with regards to it...

homosexuality was also considered a perversion and evil by all these established cultures over thousands of years, that you speak of, or most anyways... should we start condemning and persecuting them again... is that what you are saying, condemn all people who aren't into the traditional and so called normal way of life? I just can't see that working for some reason... no one is perfect, and condemning people because they have a different morality then you is not the answer... so these cultural/religious moralities have already shown their inherent fallibility in many ways... usury at one point was one of the worst sins... read Dante's "Inferno"... now it is the most common way to lend money.. excessive interest rates... as said above, homosexuality... ummm, lets see.. premarital sex was a sin... having a bast&)d child was definitely not okay for ages and ages... adultery at different times was punishable by death... some cultures girls were married off at 10 years old... I don't think that the fact a culture has a long established morality has anything to do with it being right... that is laughable, in fact with what many cultures, well, all cultures have supported and propped up with regards to morality and ethics for thousands of years, and in many cases continue to do so... lawyers are supposed to lie in court... haha.. if your client admits that he murdered someone, but he wants to say he didn't you either have to let someone else take the case, or defend him by lying... and we worry about harmless incest...

Quote:

---

Well, running on a platform that included legalized incest would certainly pound several nails into any political career! You certainly got that right, Virgil. I think the politician would be stoned or run out of town in disgrace.

Good point about the biased demographic here. I'm in the "over thirty" group of "older persons," myself. Call me "Grandma." LOL I think 10-1 in very conservative, though. More like 1000-1. Complete, unadulterated freedom is anarchy, is it not?

---

unadulterated freedom? freedom to do what harms no one is not unadulterated freedom, and is not anarchy... if it is please do explain? I am not saying people should be able to murder or rape, or steal, or abuse or various other harmful crimes... I am saying they should be free to do as they please as long as it harms no one... but instead we should continue to concentrate on persecuting those who harm no one, while ignoring almost all of the white collar crime, tax evasion, fraud, etc. that goes on in the western world... yes, lets focus on incest and how it offends us so therefore should be a crime...

as well, again, who cares whether it is 1000-1... does majority mean right automatically... because as I said above, this says that mass genocides of the past were perfectly excusable because the majority of those countries thought they were correct.... and it doesn't matter that this is the majority of all humans that thinks this way... who cares... what right does the majority have to impose their moral belief system on anyone else with regards to things that harm no one????? I repeat again for emphasis: harm no one... does that mean nothing, that it harms no one.

and good for the politician who would be willing to be stoned out of town in disgrace for advocating freedom of choice, free will... I would be one of his very few votes...

Quote:

---

well look at the holocaust, a majority got convinced that murdering jewish people was the answer to all problems...

and rwanda in 94... well, the entire hutu population with very few dissenters decided they needed to wipe the entire tutsi population off the face of the earth with machetes... hmmm... again majority rules as you say... so those people were right in your books??? or anyone else who makes the leap of logic that majority means the way it should be...

---

What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.

Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.

I think religion is perverse and harmful, but I'm not clamoring to outlaw it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.

Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.

---

yes we disagree and that is okay...

It really does not matter whether those countries are democracies or not, as the majority of people participated in these things in those countries... if the majority in a democracy got convinced that the best path was to wipe out another population they would probably do it... the majority is easily manipulated, not that this is the cause of the illegality of incest, but it shows that majority is often wrong... so whether they were democracies or not the majority of people still committed awful atrocities and participated in genocide... and most of these people were normal people... at least before it began... in Rwanda hutus sliced up their neighbours and their friends, if they were tutsis for an example of how badly a majority can be manipulated... and how wrong they can be..

I did not claim to be god.. at least I don't recall... everyone is their own god with regards to what they believe is moral or immoral... that is quite obvious, whether some people take their moralities from an external source, it is still their choice to follow them.. even the law... with regards to the law though, the only things it should regulate and not allow are things that are harmful to others in my opinion... and who cares whether incest is anti-social... we can't persecute people for being anti-social... I am most often anti-social.. I want nothing to do with 99 percent or more of people... should I be condemned for that... but I will not judge others for what they do if it harms no one... and even then I won't but that is my choice... and I will do as I please as long as it harms no one, the law is irrelevant here... or so I believe... but it doesn't matter...

this thread is tiresome, it should go in the religious forum where people argue back and forth with no one ever changing their mind :D

There is no "societal impact" of incest. You know why? because legal or illegal, not that many people are doing it. It's not an epidemic and it's not going to be an epidemic. Let's just call a spade a spade. You want to legislate your reservations. It's just like Nietzsche said; democracy is the oppresion of the masses. So what if 99% of all people don't want it. Who cares? People suck anyway. It's like Neitzche said; democracy is just the oppression of the masses (which, by the by is why, contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a democratic republic and there is a huge difference). And, by the way, though I know this comment wasn't directed at me Virgil, I feel the need to address it anyway. You say, "we disagree, incest is perversion." Well, uh, no. We don't disagree. Incest is perversion, I just don't want to legislate what I feel is perversion because it's none of my business. And also, I really could not care less about the damaging long term effects of consensual adult incest. They made the decision, they have to live with it and I refuse to aknowledge it as a reason for saying it should be illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What kind of logic is this??? The very fact that it's a small (not just small but infintesmal) percentage tells yopu that this is unnatural. There are always anomalies, and in this case this anomaly is a perversion. If you don't understand natural law and how most legal systems build upon it, look it up.

---

I suppose he means "anything that can happen in nature (no matter on how small a scale) = by definition natural".
I agree with this. but this does not mean anything that is natural should be illegal. e.g. murder should clearly be illegal. the point is that as humans culture is our nature. we cannot appeal to nature to judge about one thing and to culture/morality to decide about another. the funny thing about the "nature" argument is that it seems to be always brought up when all other arguments fail. after all the legal, social etc. pro's and con's have been weighed and ppl are almost ready to legalize whatever it is, someone will shout "It's unnatural".
in my opinion, nothing that exists in nature can be "unnatural". who would have put it there if it's not part of nature? Un-Nature, the evil goddess of incest? ;) Satan? the tooth fairy? Whether we like these things or not is an entirely different question and when we discuss such issues we should always be aware that "nature" has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What are you talking about? None of these are examples of democracies. I can turn the question around on you. Who made you God to decide what is not moral? Society has deemed a social impact to incest. There are victums and the blurring, not just blurring, obliterating of the distinction between familial love and romantic love is anti social.

Well, we disagree. Incest is perversion.

---

as for consensual adult incest and democracy, I think it's legal in France and France certainly is a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

When we start legalizing one wrong action, others follow.

---

And in response to that, I would make the same argument in reverse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Well, if sibling incest is ever legalized, then I want the right to withhold my tax dollars. As I said, it would be a victimless crime as the withheld money would benefit me more than the government, who's rich enough as it is. In fact, in a roundabout way, it would benefit the government.

---

If you're expecting me to disagree with you on that point, the I'm sorry to disappoint.