should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

[Virgil]

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.

[TheFifthElement]

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

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

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

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

[blp]

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

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

[papayahed]

{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.

[Sweets America]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sweets America]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vheissu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1n50mn14]

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

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

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

[TheFifthElement]

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

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

Is that a lie?

Is it 'consensual'?

Is it 'abuse'?

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

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

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

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

Everyone can think for themselves.

Not so, even you disagree with this, see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scheherazade]

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?

[Sweets America]

]"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[sprinks]

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."

[Sweets America]

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.

[sprinks]

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)

[Sweets America]

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.