# General > General Chat >  should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

## SleepyWitch

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

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

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

----------


## sprinks

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

----------


## Pensive

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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Frankly speaking I just can't find any proper argument against it seeing that disabled people are allowed to marry too and also seeing that quoting passages from Quran or Bible or any other religious book wouldn't be convincing for others than the believer....but you know it sounds so damn sick...but then I am just thinking on an emotional level. Would be more than happy to see anybody posting some logical argument against it.
> 
> So if it becomes legal...along with gay rights...we would be having married sisters and married brothers too. Erm interesting.


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

----------


## Chava

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

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

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

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

----------


## Pensive

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


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

----------


## Chava

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

----------


## Virgil

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

----------


## papayahed

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

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

----------


## vheissu

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

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

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

----------


## sprinks

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


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

----------


## Chava

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

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

----------


## Shalot

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

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

----------


## sprinks

> Well, the logical argument against incestuous relationships is the genetic outcome; mutations of the children. However, a gay relationship cannot produce offspring, hence, it should be legal for a gay pair of siblings to form a relationship.


Ok thanks I get it now  :Smile:

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

read Middlesex

----------


## Chava

> read Middlesex


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

----------


## kratsayra

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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

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

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

----------


## Chava

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

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

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

----------


## metal134

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

----------


## Granny5

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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> read Middlesex


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




> I've mentioned that in my previous post, it must be a complete shock to discover being a sibling *after* the relationship has started. 
> 
> But I'm referring to people who (as in the German case)_already knew_ they were siblings and didn't stop their relationship or to what was mentioned as a 'possible solution' to the likelihood of passing down genetic defects to the children (having genetic tests before they have children). This I do find unacceptable.


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

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I have absolutely no problem with this, people can be in love with and sleep with whoever they want, that's none of anybody's business. BUT, I don't care either about making it 'legal' cause that would mean that a law would decide that it's ok, and I don't like having a law deciding about that, whether the decision is positive or not. So I say, let's do whatever we like in love and sex and if they're not happy with it, that's their business.
> 
> Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.


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

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

----------


## Chava

> good point about the law, Sweets, but seeing as it's illegal at the moment it means that ppl who do it can go to prison for 2 years, so it's not like your happy-clappy scenario.
> 
> by the way, *Virgil*, weren't you preaching about freedom of choice when it comes to food and obesity? obese ppl are not prevented from inflicting physical harm on themselves or their children, who may copy their eating habits. so how is this issue different? why don't you (or others) extol the virtues of freedom and choice in this context?
> I mean, on a personal& emotional level I totally agree that it's disgusting, but then that's none of my business.


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

----------


## Sweets America

> good point about the law, Sweets, but seeing as it's illegal at the moment it means that ppl who do it can go to prison for 2 years, so it's not like your happy-clappy scenario.
> 
> by the way, *Virgil*, weren't you preaching about freedom of choice when it comes to food and obesity? obese ppl are not prevented from inflicting physical harm on themselves or their children, who may copy their eating habits. so how is this issue different? why don't you (or others) extol the virtues of freedom and choice in this context?
> I mean, on a personal& emotional level I totally agree that it's disgusting, but then that's none of my business.


I think it is crazy to send people to jail cause they love each other. Once again that makes me want to climb on top of a mountain and escape that joke. This is so crazy, this human being thing.

----------


## SleepyWitch

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

----------


## papayahed

> How could you not know some of the basics?



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

----------


## Chava

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


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

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

----------


## Koa

> I have absolutely no problem with this, people can be in love with and sleep with whoever they want, that's none of anybody's business. BUT, I don't care either about making it 'legal' cause that would mean that a law would decide that it's ok, and I don't like having a law deciding about that, whether the decision is positive or not. So I say, let's do whatever we like in love and sex and if they're not happy with it, that's their business.
> 
> Wow, now I am appaled at the number of people who think that's disgusting, wrong, perverse or whatever. You're judging that from the point of view of the society you've always been in. The weird thing for me is that you don't even realize that you've been brainwashed in order to think that this or that is wrong.


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

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

----------


## Chava

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


Moi Aussi  :Smile:

----------


## AimusSage

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

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


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

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




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


Shouldn't that be _on_-white as opposed to_off_-white?

----------


## islandclimber

> If it is too repulsive to think of, there'd be no danger of you doing it if it were legalised, would there be? Or even if it were made compulsory! 
> 
> But surely some of these things that are too repulsive to think about are precisely those that need to be rethought now & then? X% of the things that you and I belive in, live by or seek to avoid, were planted in us long before we had the capacity to evaluate them. In which case to what extent can we consider ourselves free men and women?


compulsory incest!!!! sounds fascinating :FRlol:  

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

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

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

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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


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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


hahahha  :Smile:  how many PrinceMyshkins does it take to turn a controversial, thought-provoking, SERIOUS thread into a commedy?  :Wink:   :Thumbs Up: 




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


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

----------


## islandclimber

> So, in this case, I think incest is wrong. I absolutely don't care if the two involved keep it to themselves. It's their business. But I do find it particulary wrong when children are involved (there are 4 in total in this particular case) because they might have genetic defects which could have been prevented *and* who is going to be in charge of their upbringing? If they perceive incest as normal, will they then be incouraged to do the same? 
> 
> 
> And as *Granny5* pointed out, if this is made legal or simply widely accepted as the natural or normal thing to do, then what prevents people from sleeping and having kids with other members of their family?


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

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


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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> now going away from worldwide incest... *PrinceMyshkin* are you advocating bestiality???


of course he is  :Biggrin:  he is a beast.. how would he ever manage to get... invited to parties if he didn't advocate bestiality  :Biggrin:  *joking*

----------


## vheissu

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


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

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






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


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





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


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




> genetic defects... well fetal alcohol syndrome is a birth defect, yet it is not illegal to drink while one is pregnant, although it is now becoming more common not to... but still, according to your logic drinking while pregnant should be a criminal offense...
> 
> and I seriously doubt that incest would become widespread if it was legal, or not punished, for the simple sibling relationships that one is brought up with, they kind of turn one away from it, and then societal taboos will still be there whether or not it is legal or illegal...


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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

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



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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST. 

Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.




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


They are not good enough. 

We have evolved to have incest taboo.




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


When you put everything to consent - then anything possible.

Thus we should not for example forbid:

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

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

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

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

----------


## papayahed

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



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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> consensual casual sex


you think casual sex should be illegal?  :Confused:

----------


## vheissu

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


I agree with you here!





> That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation. 
> 
> Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives on top of me. Does that make me a prude?


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


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> you think casual sex should be illegal?


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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Yes. Sex should be sacred. Like in the olden times ;-)
> 
> But I put that in just see if anyone spots it and you picked it out of others


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

----------


## islandclimber

> you think casual sex should be illegal?


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

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

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

----------


## Sweets America

> Yes. CONSENSUAL. You can do anything as long as you love each other etc...
> 
> No. I think this CONSENSUAL Thing is eating away our sense of morality. It is leaving us rather empty, barren and purpose-less.
> 
> I value freedom and individuality. This freedom has to be with Responsibility to yourself and the society you live in...it is too easy to say as long as you love each other everything is possible...I think it's about time we say No it's quite selfish...?


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

----------


## islandclimber

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

----------


## Lily Adams

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

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

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




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


But it exists, Virgil.  :Frown:

----------


## papayahed

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


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




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



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

----------


## islandclimber

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


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

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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

----------


## naomi moon

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

----------


## islandclimber

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


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

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

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

----------


## Bakiryu

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

----------


## papayahed

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

----------


## metal134

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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




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


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

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

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

----------


## Sweets America

> The whole society has many disgusts. We have evolved these digusts and Incest is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes. This - as long as it does not harming anyone - everything is permitted. 
> 
> What about consensual prostitution?
> What about consensual murder?
> What about consensual drug taking?
> ...


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

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

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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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

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

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

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

----------


## Sweets America

> Does anyone know the history of how incest laws came about? As I understood it, incest was not _always_ illegal but _became_ illegal as a result of observation of the development of deformities in children born from incestuous relationships, but I'll be honest and say that I can't direct you to any evidence to back up this understanding. That being said, it seems a sensible basis for the law. 
> 
> Without knowing the history of the law it is difficult for us to debate the rights and wrongs of it. Isn't it possible that the law was put in place for an entirely valid reason as, I think, vheissu has been arguing, but because incest is no longer common we can no longer observe the adverse effects of it? Logically it seems to make sense to spread the gene pool, but logical arguments often seem to have little effect in largely emotional debates (or so I have found anyway). 
> 
> What worries me, personally, about making incest legal is the fact that we _already_ have a society in which daughters are abused by fathers, neices abused by uncles. If incest became legal then how easy would it be for children to be groomed into family relationships?
> 
> One thing I really don't understand, and is perhaps a matter for a separate debate, is why there is very prevalent view in current society that just because you _want_ something means you _can_ have it? I love my brother so I _can_ have sex with him, I'm infertile but I _can_ have a baby, I haven't got any money but I _can_ have the latest mobile phone. What's so wrong about limits? Total, complete freedom = chaos, doesn't it?


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

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

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

----------


## manolia

> That's kind of a leap don't you think? I don't see the correlation. 
> 
> Quite honestly I consider myself pretty open and accepting of others lifestyles but *I would rather gouge my eyes then see any one of my relatives* on top of me. Does that make me a prude?


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




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


Amen to that  :Wink:  I don't really care either.

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


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




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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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


Ok, then I think I misunderstood. Sorry.  :Wink:  





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


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

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

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

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

----------


## Virgil

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

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




> Virtually all societies have some form of incest avoidance.[1][2] The incest taboo is one of the most common of all taboos. Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages.[3] Although not universal, incest constitutes a cultural taboo in most current nations and many past societies,[4] with legal penalties in some places. In some societies, like Ancient Egypt, brothersister, fatherdaughter and motherson relations were practiced.[5][6]
> 
> Which family members constitute those covered by the incest prohibition is determined by the society in which the persons live. Some societies consider it to include only those related by birth or those who live in the same household; other societies further include those related by adoption, marriage, or clan.[7]





> Some researchers hypothesize that humans have a kin recognition ability that functions in part to enable incest avoidance between close relatives, thereby protecting the gene pool of the family or tribe from excessive damage by inbreeding; and, that this kin recognition system may form a biological basis for social and psychological prohibitions against incest. [12]
> 
> Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity (the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair). This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing but, when homozygous, can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a nearly 100% chance of having hemophilia.





> Psychology
> Presumably because of the genetic harm done, animals inbreed only in extremely unusual circumstances: major population bottlenecks and forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics.
> 
> Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans should possess similar psychological mechanisms. The Westermarck effect, that children who are raised together during the first five to ten years of life have inhibited sexual desire toward one another, is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck hypothesis, anthropologist Melford E. Spiro demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predictably linked to co-residency. In a cohort study of children raised communally (as if siblings) in the Kiryat Yedidim kibbutz in the 1950s, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though the children were genetically unrelated.
> 
> Further studies have supported the hypothesis that some psychological mechanisms cause children who grow up together to lack sexual attraction to one another. Spiro's study is corroborated by Fox (1962), who found similar results in Israeli kibbutzim. Wolf and Huang (1980) reported similar aversions in Taiwanese "child marriages", in which the future wife was brought into the family and raised with her fiancé. Such marriages were notoriously difficult to consummate and led to decreased fertility of the marriage. Lieberman et al. (2003) found that childhood co-residency with an opposite-sex sibling (biologically related or not) was significantly correlated with moral repugnance toward third-party sibling incest.[12]





> Laws against adult incest are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people and so should not be criminalized. Some legal systems no longer criminalize adult incest. The French Criminal Code removed its incest prohibition long ago, and other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Israel, Argentina, Brazil as well as a few other Latin American countries and several U.S. states have followed suit. In most countries where the crime of adult incest has been abolished, acts of incest involving a minor are still punishable.
> 
> From time to time proposals have been made for the repeal of incest laws, for example, the proposal in Australia by the Model Criminal Code Officer's Committee in the November 1996 discussion paper "Sexual Offences against the Person". This particular proposal was later withdrawn by the Committee due to a large public outcry. Defenders of the proposal argue, however, that the outcry was mostly based on the mistaken belief that the committee was intending to legalize sexual relations between parents and their minor children.


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



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


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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


And I will second that  :Thumbs Up:  

Without boundaries family unit will not function sucessfully.

----------


## Virgil

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


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




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


Quite right.




> If the siblings didn't grow up together, it's obvious that it is nobody's fault they ended up together. You can't prevent falling in love, can you?
> 
> To clear this out, _just because_ I don't approve of incest between two people who know they are siblings doesn't mean I don't approve of homosexuality or sex outside of a double room or that a pure, white wedding is the only way. Please don't assign stereotypes of other people because of one comment.


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

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




> I think one thing missing from the above is TRUST. 
> 
> Without it family unit will not function sucessfully.
> 
> 
> 
> They are not good enough. 
> 
> We have evolved to have incest taboo.
> ...


That is a magnificent outlining of why such laws exist.

----------


## ben.!

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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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




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


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

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

It's nonsense isn't it?

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

Can you see the difference?




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


You can't have Absolute Freedom.

Society and civilisations arose by moderating Freedom.

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> As I said I have thrown that in to give you handle ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Erm same goes for incest. How can you police that?
> 
> Would you ask every sister and brother that they had sex?
> 
> It's nonsense isn't it?
> ...


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


I didn't say that it was.

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



> Does anyone know the history of how incest laws came about? As I understood it, incest was not _always_ illegal but _became_ illegal as a result of observation of the development of deformities in children born from incestuous relationships, but I'll be honest and say that I can't direct you to any evidence to back up this understanding. That being said, it seems a sensible basis for the law. 
> 
> Without knowing the history of the law it is difficult for us to debate the rights and wrongs of it. Isn't it possible that the law was put in place for an entirely valid reason as, I think, vheissu has been arguing, but because incest is no longer common we can no longer observe the adverse effects of it? Logically it seems to make sense to spread the gene pool, but logical arguments often seem to have little effect in largely emotional debates (or so I have found anyway).


and




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


to which Sweets said : 




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


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




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


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




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


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

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

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## chasestalling

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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




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


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

Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?

Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?




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


Yes. But it is also selfish.

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

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

There can be no absolute freedom.

Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Policing brother and sister incest. It can't be done. It would be silly. 
> 
> 
> 
> How does any of the above equate with the Trust that is required in a family unit for it to function?
> 
> Do you have a Trust between your drink and yourself?
> 
> Do you have Trust between your smoking and yourself?


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

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


 :Tongue:  hmmm, ok.

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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

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

That would be ludicrous won't it?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Here in the UK smoking public transports and council premises are illegal. This part can be policed. 
> 
> But you can't equate immorality of incest with smoking second hand smoke?
> 
> That would be ludicrous won't it?


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Yes. But it is also selfish.
> 
> No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.
> 
> Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.
> 
> There can be no absolute freedom.
> 
> Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.
> ...



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




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


and



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


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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

Without Trust family does not work.

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

And neither did millions of others whose fathers smoked.

But if millions of others had incestous relationships?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I think you make a light of an issue of incest which is about trust in a family unit.
> 
> Without Trust family does not work.
> 
> My father smoked 60 a day. But his smoking did not break the trust that required in the family and none us got cancer.
> 
> And neither did millions of others who fathers smoked.


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

----------


## Virgil

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


 :FRlol:  Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents.  :Tongue:   :Wink:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> but how does incest break the trust in the family unit


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

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




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


Don't worry it happens all the time.

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

I agree
You agree
End of debate.

See?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> I think the problem I have with your statement that it is 'My life, My body, My choices' is that, yes, it is true that you can choose to do anything, and humans have the ability to do a great many things, but included in that is a question 'just because we _can_ do something does that mean we _should_ do it? This is where morality comes in, and as a species (as all human societies appear to have laws/rules of some kind) we have chosen to say that somewhere we must draw the line. You can choose to sleep with your brother, that is true, but you must also accept that by doing so, if you do so in a country where it is illegal, you are breaking the law. You must also accept that whilst you may not understand the reasons _why_ it is illegal, there may well be very good, very justifiable reasons why it is illegal. Just because you or I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there, which is the point I was alluding to in the beginning. It is difficult to debate because the reason we might not see the harm now, is because by making it illegal the harm that it causes is simply no longer visible to us. It is also difficult to draw the line by saying, it's okay so long as the two people don't have children. Biology is a tricky thing, what if there was an accidental pregnancy - the answer would be that either the baby is born, or the State forces abortion. Who would find forced abortion palatable? If the baby is born then so is the next one, and the next one. Where does it end?
> 
> This probably illustrates the problem with all laws. Either society deems that all things can be done, or it imposes limits. As soon as limits are imposed, because of the nature of such things, those limits will be imperfect. Some will want the line drawn _here_, others _over there_. It'll never be 100% right for everyone.


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

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



> I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
> Take a bow for the new revolution
> Smile and grin at the change all around
> Pick up my guitar and play
> Just like yesterday
> Then I'll get on my knees and pray
> We don't get fooled again


and The Rolling Stones, "Street Fighting Man":



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

----------


## papayahed

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




HaHa, best line of the thread.

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

Morality can't be legistlatively regulated.

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## papayahed

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


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

----------


## Virgil

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


Good question. I have no idea.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Well, the solution would be that you would have to live at home and hubbers would have to live at his parents.


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


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




> Family relationships (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if 
> (a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or 
> (b) it would be within one of those subsections but for section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (status conferred by adoption). 
> (2) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if 
> (a) one of them is the others parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt or uncle, or 
> (b) A is or has been Bs foster parent. 
> (3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and 
> (a) one of them is or has been the others step-parent, 
> (b) A and B are cousins, 
> ...


this extends the prohibition to both family members and people who are, or have been, in a position of trust over the other. If you're really bored the whole Act is here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003..._20030042_en_3

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## Sweets America

Virgil:



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


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

Fifth:



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


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




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


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

Lote:



> Yes. But it is also selfish.
> 
> No man or woman is an Island. We part of the main.
> 
> Our choices have consequences. Not only to ourselves and the society we live in.
> 
> There can be no absolute freedom.
> 
> Freedom needs to be moderated or else everything falls apart.
> ...


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


isn't tolerance a form of morality? 

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

----------


## manolia

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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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


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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Yes of course it is selfish.


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




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


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

----------


## metal134

> And this is why I usually stear clear of these thereads. People start getting mean and get the feeling they have to find more and more ways of expressing their opinion. _Preaching eugenics_??!!! I never thought I'd see that even mentioned in this thread, but there you go. I really hope it wasn't directed at me or at anyone else who is opposed at the idea of incest. 
> 
> The genetic argument is the only argument that can prove why incest can lead to a number of complications nobody would really want. And that includes the children involved. 
> 
> I've stated more than a few times what I think of incest and won't repeat myself.


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

----------


## Sweets America

> And we don't like selfishness do we now lassie? 
> 
> 
> 
> The Axial Age Philosophers have said it is when we let go of our Egotism then we can truly be human...it is then that we take part in a Larger Existence.


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

----------


## Oniw17

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

----------


## ejbean

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

----------


## metal134

> What's next someone wants to marry their dog? Have sex w their kids? I mean be serious.


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

----------


## Sweets America

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


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


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

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

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




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


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

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

----------


## Janine

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

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




> A social response to the costs of incest
> One theory is that the observance of the taboo would lower the incidence of congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding. A society that had noticed this might tend to form an incest taboo.
> 
> Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population.
> 
> One might complain that a society would have to have a fairly advanced understanding of genetics to recognise this potential "benefit" of incest, whereas the increased prevalence of birth defects is relatively easy to spot.
> 
> Second, anthropologists have pointed out that in the Trobriand case a man and the daughter of his father's sister, and a man and the daughter of his mother's sister, are equally distant genetically. In that particular case, the prohibition against relations is not based on or motivated by concerns over biological closeness.
> 
> Sociologist Ian Robertson gives three main social reasons why incest taboo exist as a cultural universals. The first is that early human beings-living primarily in small kinship groups of hunters and gatherers- needed to protect themselves by forming alliances with other groups. By forcing their children to marry into families outside their own, each group widened its social links and provided itself with allies in time of famine or other hazards. These groups faced the alternatives of marrying out or dying. Marriage in most traditional societies is a practical alliance between groups, not a love match between individuals. That is why marriages are arranged by the parents, often when their offspring are still children and sometimes even before they are born. The second reason for the incest taboo is that the family itself could not function without it, for the statuses of family members would be utterly and hopelessly confused. As Kingsley Davis points out: " The incestuous child of a father-daughter union would be a brother of his own mother, i.e. the son of his own sister; a stepson of his own grandmother; possibly a brother of his won uncle; and certainly a grandson of his own father." The third reason is that without an incest taboo, sexual rivalry among family members would disrupt the normal roles and attitudes of the various relatives. the father, for example, might experience role conflict as both the disciplinarian and the lover of his daughter; the mother might be jealous of both; and the child, of course, would be caught in the middle. Faced with constant conflict and tension, the family institution might simply disintegrate. The incest taboo has developed over time because it is vital to the survival of the family and thus of society itself. Of course, neither traditional nor modern societies consciously appreciate the reasons for the taboo. They and we simply accept it as natural and moral.

----------


## cral

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

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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Ah, we don't like selfishness.


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




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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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


There is a difference between killing someone and sleeping with my brother. Because in killing someone you easily see how I harm someone. The same goes for stealing. Also, killing is not always immoral. If someone did something very wrong to someone I love, I would be tempted to kill the person in question.




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




> In its utmost simplicity, incest simply betrays all that the concept of 'family' supposedly is.


The problem in this sentence is *supposedly is*. It's all blocked on one concept, one idea. 




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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


Then why engage here in this debate?

It's pointless isn't it?




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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## pretty_princess

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

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

There is all the difference in the world to me between

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

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

----------


## Bakiryu

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


...why?

----------


## Sweets America

> There is all the difference in the world to me between
> 
> 1) It is wrong, profoundly wrong, disgusting, genetically dangerous and morally at odds with how families ought to be. I would NEVER consider doing it; and
> 
> 2) I don't want others to be _allowed_ to do it.


Yes I agree. 

Lote



> Then why engage here in this debate?
> 
> It's pointless isn't it?


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> There is all the difference in the world to me between
> 
> 1) It is wrong, profoundly wrong, disgusting, genetically dangerous and morally at odds with how families ought to be. I would NEVER consider doing it; and
> 
> 2) I don't want others to be _allowed_ to do it.


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

Wrongness can exist without any disgust attached to it.




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


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

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

----------


## Sweets America

> If don't want to be human then human predicaments should not concern you.
> 
> Your position is like fish debating whether they need bicycles ;-)


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


No yet I am quite thick lassie ;-) 

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

My apologies for being simplistic ;-)  :Biggrin:

----------


## Shalot

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Virgil

> I don't think society removes boundaries of norms - I think over time, people come to their own decisions about some of these issues, through observing their parents, friends and relatives. Over time, more and more people reach the same conclusions and cultural norms shift. They realize their beliefs might need modification. It's a gradual shift. 
> 
> Take the above example of pre-marital sex. It's not the like sixties happened overnight and suddenly everyone started practicing free love.


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

----------


## Shalot

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






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

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

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

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

----------


## papayahed

> I took a class in college (and that makes me an expert, because I took a class  ) and we discussed the fifties, and how that decade is perceived and has been portrayed in popular culture. And we discussed what had been going on in the decades leading up to the fifties and how instead of the fifties being the last decade of the golden age and happy days and innocence and gee things are swell, they were actually a transitional period. There wasn't some sudden shift between 1959 and the free love, hippie, late sixties --- it was coming, it was brewing and the cultural shift was underway way long before you saw long-haired hippie boys in bellbottoms. 
> 
> Of course, I wasn't even born then so I am no expert on this at all and I have nothing to go on other than what was presented in this class that I took several years ago. Still, the idea of _gradual_ change in regard to sexual norms makes sense to me. 
> 
> Then again if you could be brainwashed into thinking a certain sexual behavior is disgusting, then you could be brainwashed into thinking that other sexual behaviours are okay as well (I guess). 
> 
> It's all so confusing. As far as incest goes, I still say, "Yuck, No, Pervert. Nasty."



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

----------


## Virgil

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

----------


## JBI

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

----------


## TheFifthElement

> There is a difference between killing someone and sleeping with my brother. Because in killing someone you easily see how I harm someone. The same goes for stealing.


but it's not that simple is it. Your statement relies on everyone having the same definition of 'harm' but this can only exist because we have set ourselves rules, which the majority concord with, about what is designated as 'harm'. But if you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, then you have to throw _all_ of the 'common' rule books away, not just selective ones. For example:

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

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

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



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





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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Lote, _everyone_ is selfish, and selfishly motivated.


The Axial Age Philosophers weren't ;-)

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

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




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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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




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


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




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


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





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


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





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


No, I don't associate them. I associate morality with each individual's choices on what is right or wrong, and my desire to escape from morality might be a sort of morality in itself. I don't know. 





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


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




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


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

----------


## Virgil

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





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


Wow, have you two been reading D.H. Lawrence? These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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

There you don't need books  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> I haven't but I have made the same realisation ;-)
> 
> There you don't need books


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Here I think that yes, the person harmed the other one, not because he killed him, but because he did so 'according to his own point of view of what would be better for person B'. See? We should not impose our views on other people. It would have been ok here if person B had killed himself or asked person A to help him do so.


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

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




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


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




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


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




> These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.


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

----------


## Koa

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


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

----------


## Sweets America

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

Now, Fifth...  :Tongue:  



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


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




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


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





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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


The vote should be now obvious one ;-)

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

> The vote should be now obvious one ;-)
> 
> If it otherwise I shall have to banish you to deepest unliveable parts of Germany ;-)


hahahahha  :Biggrin:  I'm already there  :Smile:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> hahahahha  I'm already there


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

----------


## Oniw17

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


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

----------


## Petrarch's Love

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




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


To completely change the subject, I was amazed at this post Sleepy...no, not because you and your hubbers are unmarried but because you say that your father is legally obligated to support you until you are 27?! Here in the states parents are only legally obligated to support children until they are out of their minority at age 18. Is that true only for students in Germany? Is there some sort of minimum he has to pay? What about parents who are low income and would have to really strain to support someone for 27 years?

----------


## Virgil

I bet the title of this thread really caught your eye, Petrarch.  :Wink:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> To completely change the subject, I was amazed at this post Sleepy...no, not because you and your hubbers are unmarried but because you say that your father is legally obligated to support you until you are 27?! Here in the states parents are only legally obligated to support children until they are out of their minority at age 18. Is that true only for students in Germany? Is there some sort of minimum he has to pay? What about parents who are low income and would have to really strain to support someone for 27 years?


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




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


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

----------


## vheissu

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


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

----------


## Virgil

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

----------


## Petrarch's Love

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



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



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


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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## metal134

> I absolutely agree. Once consensual incest becomes legal, then it follows that consensual "anything" would become legal and with it, the breakdown of civilized society. People would say:
> 
> "We can murder one another in our group; it's consensual."
> 
> "We can take drugs in our group; it's consensual." (And never mind if, while taking those drugs, they harm others, who haven't consented.)
> 
> "We can conduct prostitution in our group; it's consensual." (But never mind if one person contracts AIDS or another STD and then subsequently leaves the group and passes it on to an innocent person who never even heard of the "consensual prostitution group.")
> 
> Sure, the children of many unrelated persons are disabled, but the children of siblings, first cousins, etc. are _far more likely_ to be disabled and perhaps those children, if able to marry, will want to marry someone they are _not_ related to. Then, their chance for having a child without disabilities is almost nil.
> ...


Yeah, that's the way it will go. This is such an epidemic that it will lead to the downfall of society. That's just ridiculous. People have been using the "what's next?" line since the beginning of time as an argument to why this or that should be not allowed. I could name any hundred things that people said the allowance of would be the downfall of scoiety and yet, we're still here.

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## Koa

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


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




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


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

----------


## RJbibliophil

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


I second that!  :Tongue:  

According to parliamentary procedure:

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

----------


## metal134

> You think society _hasn't_ fallen?


Nope.

----------


## Koa

> You think society _hasn't_ fallen? With all the murder, drug use, robberies, etc.? Granted, those things have always been around and probably always will be, but society seems to be more and more "approving" of wrong actions all the time.
> 
> There's something definitely wrong with a society where we have to have alarm systems in our homes, where kids have to walk through metal detectors at schools, where our cellular phones have to lock, etc.
> 
> Some people _aren't_ still here - Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. and some people don't think of society as "civilized" now. I'm only in my thirties and I can see society's decline. There were no metal detectors in schools when I went to school and no need for them and no "road rage." Now, people think "road rage" is a perfectly acceptable behavior. I could go on and on, but what's the point? People just aren't acting "right" and a very permissive society is partly to blame.


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

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

----------


## Janine

> Voted, don't want to discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> An opinion, which you're entitled to, of course, as everyone is, but not a valid argument with no facts to back it up.
> 
> Voted, don't want to discuss it. I'm not out to change anyone's opinion and it's fruitless for anyone to try to change mine - at least on this topic. Siblings and those more closely related than second cousins should never, never have a romantic relationship.
> 
> Now, I'll unsubscribe. Arguments and debates, unless about literature, are not for me, whether the tide is "for" my opinion as this one is by the vote count, or "against" it, doesn't matter, so I should have never wandered into this thread. It's coming too close to argument for my personal comfort. I'm more comfortable out of the discussion. My mistake in even posting here when I have no intention of debating.


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

----------


## papayahed

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

----------


## Sweets America

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

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

----------


## Janine

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


 :FRlol:  Yeah!!!! pretty funny, don't you think? :Wink:  Papaya? :FRlol:

----------


## metal134

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


You want facts to back it up? How about the centuries upon centuries of literature and other media in which people have said "society has fallen". I could pull a book from over 1000 years ago off my shelf and read about how terrible a place the world is and rememeber how much better it used to be? It is an ever present senitiment. In 50 years, people will be talking about how terrible the wolrd has become and harkening back to how much better things where in the good ol' days of 50 years prior.

----------


## Koa

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

----------


## Virgil

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


 :FRlol:  Well, we Italians aren't afraid of a little argument.  :Wink:  

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

----------


## Sweets America

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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


That is just plain dishonest!

I despise such people ;-)

----------


## TheFifthElement

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





> That is just plain dishonest!
> 
> I despise such people ;-)


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


It is shallow and deceptive.




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


Mediation is not debate!

----------


## Sweets America

> That is just plain dishonest!
> 
> I despise such people ;-)


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

> And thank you for despising me. How nice.


It was designed to provoke ;-)

----------


## Sweets America

> It was designed to provoke ;-)


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

> It is shallow and deceptive.


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





> Mediation is not debate!


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

----------


## Sweets America

> Oh I strongly disagree. It is, in my opinion, by far the best way to test the validity of your own opinions, by trying to convince yourself otherwise (arguing the opposing view). If you can find holes in your own opinion then maybe your opinion isn't so valid. The alternative is the 'ostrich' method. I know which I prefer.
> 
> didn't say it was, I was just pointing out the similarity. If you'd ever been party to, or seen mediation in action I guess you'd understand. It's all about seeing the other point of view, testing it, questioning yourself. This is very much the process Sweets was describing.


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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


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

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

----------


## Lote-Tree

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


No problem lassie.

Go in peace.

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


But then, does _not_ having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you _attached_ to being _detached_?  :Wink: 




> I don't debate with opinions. Only with evidence


You've found talking evidence?!! That _is_ impressive  :Wink:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> But then, does _not_ having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you _attached_ to being _detached_? 
> 
> You've found talking evidence?!! That _is_ impressive


Evidence speaks for itself ;-)

----------


## Sweets America

> But then, does _not_ having an opinion become a restriction in itself, are you _attached_ to being _detached_?


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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


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

----------


## metal134

> For example,*metal134*, not to single you out, but sometimes I read your comments and think 'ouch', because, to me, sometimes your comments seem very blunt and sarcastic. Now you may not intend it so, but as a reader that's the 'tone' I pick up. But then that's just me, other people might read what you've said and think nothing of it. For me personally, I think I run the risk of coming across as patronising when, again, it is not intended. I'd hope someone would tell me so (nicely!) if that was the case.


Actually, I am quite blunt. Not sarcastic (at least, not usually) but yes, I am quite blunt and to be perfectly honest, I see no problem with that. I have never be one to adhere to diplomacy, I just calls em' as I sees em'. I wouldn't think that the members on this board would be so non-combative that bluntness would be an issue. To me, unless it gets personal, there is really no issue.

----------


## V.Jayalakshmi

Dear members,

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


hm, but as you can see it is thinkable  :Confused:

----------


## muhsin

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

Nice piece, Sleepy.

----------


## papayahed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7334649.stm

----------


## muhsin

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

----------


## Virgil

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


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

----------


## Pensive

> Shame is something that doesn't exist anymore.


Interesting statement.

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


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

----------


## papayahed

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


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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## Bakiryu

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


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

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

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

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

Leave people be as they are.

----------


## Virgil

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


I guess you're right. But coming out with it only shows what a lack of understanding they have on this.




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


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

----------


## papayahed

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


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

David Vitter:




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



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




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


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

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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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



> It is in UK, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, article 27 (as below)
> 
> Family relationships (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if 
> (a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or 
> (b) it would be within one of those subsections but for section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (status conferred by adoption). 
> (2) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if 
> (a) one of them is the others parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, aunt or uncle, or 
> (b) A is or has been Bs foster parent. 
> (3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and 
> ...

----------


## TheFifthElement

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


step siblings were added to the Sexual Offences Act in 2003, perhaps a reflection of the increasing fluidity of the family unit; so it is probably that the fiction you're referring to pre-dates the offence.

----------


## Virgil

> I think you're confused. This is what I'm talking about**:
> 
> David Vitter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you come out and say something like that when you know you're visiting a prostitute on a regular basis??


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




> As for gum and incest. You're right I don't care about incest, it's not something I would personally partake in however I'm not interested in what other people do in their bedroom. Now gum, there is a possiblity I may step on your gum and that will be a pain in the butt to scrap off. I have a thing about littering, I think it's low class to throw stuff on the ground one could easily throw in a garbage can.
> 
> As for global warming I don't see the preaching. The facts are humans are putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then ever before. It's been proven that the earth goes through climate changes periodically; We may be in one of those now changes now and It's hard to quantify the impact humans are having on that change. 
> 
> What I know is that humans are pumping toxins into the air, into the land, and into our waters. Hell, I do all three on a daily basis. Looking for ways to minimize that impact and talking about it is hardly hypocritical (a word you throw around quite often). What's the issue? You've already mentioned your views on the issue many times and despite that some people here are environmentalists and believe it's a worthwile cause.


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

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

----------


## papayahed

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


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






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


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




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


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

----------


## Virgil

> oh bull****, virgie I in no way insinuated you are a closet incestigator.


 :FRlol:  Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace.  :Smile:  "Incestigator?"  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Is there such a word.  :Biggrin:  




> You know that I was responding to Sleepys comment about hiding in shame, (which reminds me of David Vitter, Larry Craig etc...)


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




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


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

----------


## papayahed

> Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace.  "Incestigator?"   Is there such a word.



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





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


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

----------


## kelby_lake

> there are many things that are not legal and yet perfectly natural, a conundrum perhaps?
> 
> ************************************************** **
> 
> In my opinion, everyone should stop butting in each others lives, as long as they do not harm them let people do what they will. Morality is a matter of opinion after all.
> 
> why do people feel the need to involve themselves in others lives, it's their own bodies for goddess sake. If you don't like it then about it, but don't preach or condemn or make laws that cannot be fully put into place.
> 
> Leave people be as they are.


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

----------


## Janine

> Ok sorry if I hit a nerve. Peace.  "Incestigator?"   Is there such a word.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  that is a good one *Papayahed!*





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


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






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


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

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

----------


## Janine

> LOL I only wandered in here because I saw you had posted and couldn't resist reading what you had to say. 
> 
> I agree with you about the traps. It's cruel. It's awful. They should be outlawed. I can't stand to think of any living thing suffering.


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

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

----------


## Janine

> I don't know if it's legal to kill squirrels or not, Janine. I would hope not. There is a squirrel's nest in the trees in our front yard. We often see the cute little squirrels standing on the lawn with a nut in their little paws. So cute.
> 
> Once, there were some squirrels that would actually come to our front door and take food right from my father's hand. They were adorable. My father would give them lots and lots of nuts to bury for the winter.


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

Should incest between consenting squirrels be legal?  :FRlol:

----------


## njepsen

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

----------


## sprinks

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


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

----------


## Janine

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


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

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




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


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

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

----------


## Janine

> *Janine*, I really think the deer ate them. The house backed up to a large woods. I just gave up with the garden. The deer, or chipmunks, or whatever they were, were more important to me.
> 
> Enjoy "Atonement!" So glad you have it now. Be sure to let me know what you thought, okay? Anxiously awaiting your opinion.


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

----------


## metal134

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

----------


## sprinks

> They might be sick, but they are not criminals.


But if it is illegal then technically they _are_ criminals?....

----------


## sprinks

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


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

----------


## Virgil

> *Janine:* Isn't that house gorgeous? And they found the house and fountain, etc. all on one location in England. It's such a gorgeous movie. I knew you'd absolutely love it.
> 
> *Others:* Now, we return you to, "Incest: Yes, It is a Crime." Does anyone care to refute my argument that we are genetically and biologically predisposed against it?


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

----------


## sharlot

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

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

----------


## kelby_lake

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


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

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

----------


## metal134

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




> But if it is illegal then technically they _are_ criminals?....


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

----------


## kelby_lake

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

----------


## metal134

> Legalising it implies that it's okay.


That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

----------


## Sweets America

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

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

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

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

----------


## Bakiryu

Amen Sweets! You tell it like it is.

----------


## Scheherazade

*R e m i n d e r 

Please discuss the ideas but not each other.

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

----------


## metal134

> Why? We don't legalize things that are wrong. Murder, robbery, assult, harassment, neglect, speeding, driving without a seat belt, all these things are "not okay" and all are illegal. Why, _exactly_, would it be ridiculous to imply that incest, if legal, would be "okay?"


You mention these things that are pretty much seen as universally immoral and using them to illustrate how legality = morality? Legality does not equal morality. It is legal to cheat on your spouse. I guess that makes it morally OK. It is illegal to sit at home and drink a beer at the age of 19. Doesn't make it immoral. In many middle eastern countries, it is legal to beat your wife. I guess that makes it moral. Oh, wait, maybe the legality = morality rule only applies to the United States; we have eveything down pat. I absolutley refuse to listen to the legality equals morality argument. There is a huge overlap, but I absolutley refuse to aknowledge a universal legality equals morality sentiment.

----------


## Virgil

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




> Well I happen to disagree. If you want to look at it in that light, then every human is a criminal every single day.
> 
> 
> THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! That's why it shouldn't be illegal because the notion that these people are criminals is ludicrous. They shouldn't have to go to jail for it.


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

----------


## Virgil

> I don't think they can be if it's a life-threatening emergency, Virgil, or at least the law says they can't be, but I think they can be for non life-threatening emergencies. Please correct me if I'm wrong, okay?  I do know at the hospital near me, the first thing they ask for is one's insurance card, but I also know people who've gone there with no insurance and no money and have been treated, so I'm really not 100% sure about this one.
> 
> I think it's morally wrong that in such a wealthy country some people don't get the medical and dental care they need, that there are people living in boxes under a bridge, going hungry, without coats, shoes, education, etc. However, it's not illegal.


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

----------


## metal134

> No, legality and morality aren't _always_ the same thing and I didn't say they were. I did not put forth that argument. I just asked why it was the most ridiculous thing you'd ever heard that legalizing incest makes it okay. You still haven't said why.


Yes I did say why. If legality does not equal morality, then something being legal doesn't mean it's OK and something being illegal doesn't mean it's not OK. Fairly cut and dry.

----------


## Shalot

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



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

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

----------


## TheFifthElement

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.

----------


## 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?

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

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

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

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

----------


## sprinks

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


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




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



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

----------


## Sweets America

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


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Virgil

> 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. :Smile:

----------


## 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.

----------


## sprinks

> 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  :Smile:

----------


## blp

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


Er...what about husband and wife?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> 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:




> 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? 




> 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:




> 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?




> 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? 




> 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? 




> 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*





> 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:




> 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_?

----------


## kelby_lake

[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.

----------


## 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?

----------


## Sweets America

> 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.

----------


## Scheherazade

Following message has been posted by Sweets America; however, due to a glitch in Forum software, unfortunately it has been deleted:


> 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.
> ...

----------


## TheFifthElement

> 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.




> 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? 




> 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. 




> 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?

----------


## Sweets America

> 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.




> 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.






> 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.





> 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....




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


Oh boy, that surely doesn't work with me.  :FRlol:  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.




> 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??

----------


## Virgil

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

----------


## SleepyWitch

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


I have fled  :Biggrin:  j/k
sorry, I'm busy with exam preparation and don't have much time too read y'all's detailed posts  :Frown:

----------


## TheFifthElement

Sweets, I think there's little benefit discussing this any further, primarily because there's no getting past this comment:




> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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.

----------


## Sweets America

> 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.

----------


## islandclimber

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

----------


## Shalot

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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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.




> --- 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. 




> 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.

----------


## islandclimber

> 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...




> 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...

----------


## Virgil

> 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.

----------


## metal134

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

----------


## islandclimber

> 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  :Biggrin:

----------


## metal134

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.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> 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?  :Wink:  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.




> 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.

----------


## metal134

> When we start legalizing one wrong action, others follow.


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

----------


## metal134

> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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...


I can't speak about the majority of Rwandans, I don't know enough about it. But the majority of Germans *did not* participate in the halocaust. 

Set that aside, your logic then proposes that majorities don't and shouldn't control anything. That's rediculous.




> I lived in a pure democracy for years - Switzerland. I, personally, never called the US a democracy because I know it's not. There are differences, I agree, but I don't agree they're huge.


Do you mean that the US is a republic? And if so, Switzerland is not a republic? They have pure democracy there?




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


Well, I'm sure if it ever became prevelant, it would be made illegal. The very fact that is is so unusual -actually *unnatural* - saves them on this. In fact it's disgraceful.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes, Switzerland is a pure, or direct, democracy. Parliament is powerless to pass any law. Everything must be voted on by the citizens. We voted at the Town Hall (Gemeinde) almost every Sunday. The preseident is not elected by the people but rotates every year among the members of Parliament, one from the Swiss canton, then the French canton, then the Italian canton, usually.
> 
> I always thought the US was a federal republic.


I did not know that about Switzerland. On one level that is good, on another it is bad. But I can see how it would prevent Switzerland from being a world power. I've never supported that kind of a system. In some cases on a State level in the US we have referendums, and to me I don't think citizens are qualified to understand the intracies of most issues. We elect and pay legislatures to study and discuss and debate issues. If we don't like their decisions we vote them out. And I wonder how many citizens in Switzerland actually vote every week. You don't have to answer that. It'll take the thread off topic.

Yes, the US is a Federal Republic. I wasn't sure what you meant in that post.

----------


## metal134

> Oh, that doesn't disappoint me at all. I'm tired, but have to be up, and I'm still trying to figure out what your argument in reverse would be. Sorry I'm so dense tonight. It's nearly three in the morning here.


My argument in reverse would be that if you start outlawing something just because you find it disagreeable, other opressive laws will follow.

----------


## metal134

> I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.
> 
> I find it very disagreeable and annoying that so many people use the street I live on to cut through to another street, especially early in the morning when I'm still sleeping, but I don't think it should be outlawed.
> 
> I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL
> 
> I don't think people should be able to play their car stereo so loud that it disturbs other drivers even when their windows are up, but I don't mind that much. I think there is a law against that, though, but I don't really care.
> 
> Incest, though, is a different matter. It's so potentially psychologically damaging. Some people say let the damaged ones lie in the bed they made, but often, it's the taxpayers who are paying the bill. It's that way in France.


Yeah, YOU don't want to make any of those things illegal, but what if SOMEBODY ELSE does. Incest is a different matter TO YOU. To ME, it is oppressive, uneccessary and ridiculous legislation. And you guys keep coming back to that "society has to have laws, lines ahve to be drawn, etc. etc." argument. What I and others are saying is this shouldn't be a law and this is not where the line should be drawn.

----------


## TheFifthElement

Not that Wikipedia should be considered necessarily a 'reliable' source of information, but there's an interesting article here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

I think incest is a hard issue to argue on a moral stand point. I completely understand the basis of the UK law (which is based around relationships of 'circumstance', primarily where there is a disproportion of power between the two involved in said relationship of 'circumstance', and therefore easy to abuse without it necessarily being 'abuse') and it seems to make sense; and I understand why it would have to be a criminal offence with a fairly hefty penalty (if you're going to 'outlaw' it, fines aren't going to cut it), but I don't know about US law, or anywhere else for that matter. Does anyone know, or is anyone prepared to comment on the basis or construction of the law ex-UK? 

Can you have an opinion on the law if you don't know what the law actually is?

----------


## metal134

> It's just a fact of life that laws aren't going to please everyone. I'm not pleased by all of them. But, that's life.


If that's the case, then don't complain about something you think should be illegal but others don't That argument only works here because it's a law YOU favor. If it was a law YOU were adamantley against being discussed, would YOU be so quick to say, "Oh, well we can't please everyone." And at the risk of sounding even more blunt than I usually do, I think that in this case, those of you who think it should be illegal are the ones who should not have your pleasure satiatited because, quite frankly, it's none of your business what they do. We can't please everyone, so why shouldn't YOU be the one who is unpleased in this case?

----------


## Scheherazade

*Final Warning:*



> *R e m i n d e r 
> 
> Please discuss the ideas but not each other.
> 
> Posts resorting such comments will be deleted without any further notice.*

----------


## kelby_lake

There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.

----------


## Virgil

> There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
> However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
> People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
> In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.


Very good post Kelby. You say this:



> However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.


I would like to think that true, but based on what i've been reading in this thread, I don't know. I'm actually shocked that there are this many people that would defend this perversion.

----------


## sprinks

> However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.


Good point... I don't think everyone here who defended the decision maybe really thought about what would happen if one of their family members tried to commit incest with them. But from what most people have said, they wouldn't care all that much even if it was their own family where the incest was occuring; but that is more directed at other people being involved, although I do believe some people said they _would_ do it. 
Also I think peoples reaction to a relative offering to commit it with them would depend on how the relative went about it. Most people will claim to have some creepy relative who hits on them... But maybe if it's a one of question thing, you say no, they understand and give up, I think most people could get over that easy, whereas others would still not be able to look at that person the same ever again though; but generally it would be better than if the relative kept harrassing you to do it. 
I hope this makes sense... I know what I'm trying to say, but it's harder to say it at 4 am  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> I wouldn't want to laws against something just because I find it disagreeable.
> 
> 
> I hate flip-flops in a restaurant, even a casual one. I hate flip-flops anywhere but the beach. They aren't real shoes and feet are dirty and ugly. But I don't think a law should be made outlawing flip-flops. Or feet. LOL



 :FRlol:  *Antiquarian,* I would be locked up, if they were illegal...OMG...I have a whole collection of flip-flops! They are the fancier 'sandal' type ones, not the ugly flat ones. They are the only thing comfortable for my big toe, which has a bone spur on it and hurts when it swells in the humidity :Frown:  . Do you feel same way about sandals? I wear open shoes all summer long. My feet need air! I do polish my toenails and make sure my feet are clean and groomed. If they became illegal, I would be  :Bawling:  I'm 58 and proud to be a flip-flop wearer! It's true though - some feet should definitely not be revealed - ughly! Hope you still like me.... 

Otherwise - I see the contraversay rages on in here concerning the real topic. I think this thread has now become the most popular on the forum.

----------


## Janine

> Oh, *Janine*! I only meant those totally flat plastic beach things that are barely there. I think sandals are quite nice. I'm sorry if I offended you. Hope you still like me!


 :FRlol:  OMG, you did not offend me at all, *A*...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.

I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.

----------


## Shalot

> I have no "issues" with my personal sexual life. I never have had.


I wasn't talking about YOU personally. In general, society has a hard time about what is acceptable in regards to sex, whether it's sexual behaviour, or sex education. 

I can't believe we're still talking about this. I am going to have to get another forum.

----------


## Virgil

> OMG, you did not offend me at all, *A*...I really thought your post was hilarious. I liked all the things you brought up. Yes, the really sloppy ones, I hate too; I hate people wearing those jeans with all the big rips in them, like across the knees. There are many modern/fade type things I hate, but we can discuss that later, privately. I don't really want to offend anyone on here. NO, you did not offend me one bit. I just laughed, because I am wearing them this minute and I even wear them all winter, as my bedroom slippers....pretty weird, huh? I am kind of 'flip-flop' addicted by now.
> 
> I actually did get annoyed with my son on his 30th birthday - we took him to a nice restaurant and we all dressed up and he was dressed nicely, too, but had on flip-flops - I told him I was could not believe he was wearing those! He said "It is my birthday and I feel like wearing them". I thought they looked pretty silly.


Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men.  :Tongue:   :FRlol:  Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail.  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

> Well, I don't mind open sandles on women, but I can't help feeling that it looks so wimpy on men.   Now I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of ate mail.


*Blurts out a huge laugh!*  :FRlol:  I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, *Virgil!* 

Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)!  :Wink:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> *Blurts out a huge laugh!*  I am laughing at the 'hate mail 'part! You are such a riot, *Virgil!* 
> 
> Probably, in the hate mail, they will call you a sexist or an anti-feminist/feminist(?)!


 :Biggrin:  Glad I made you laugh.

----------


## metal134

> actually shocked that there are this many people that would defend this perversion.


Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.

----------


## islandclimber

> There was loads of fuss about cannabis being taken down from class b to class c. Legalising incest would imply that it is acceptable.
> However broad-minded a person people claim to be, they would be disgusted if they actually knew someone who's committed it or a relative offered to commit it with them. This is just a fact.
> People have said 'It's their business' but it doesn't just affect them. What about their family, their friends, the people they know? Especially the family. 'Difference' can only be stretched so far- what about psychopaths? They're not 'different', they're ill. Not that incest and psycopathy on on a par but you understand what I'm saying.
> In the UK, and most other places, people who commit incest will never be accepted into society, which is what our law is based around. Most people take the law as their guide- you may not admit it but you do- to what is right and what is wrong. Even if you legalised it, the few that have committed it, will essentially be imprisoned anyway by society and will never lead a normal life. That's as good as being in jail.


With regards to cannabis... it is absurd that it is considered an illegal and dangerous drug when alchohol is not... alchohol is much more dangerous and messes your mind and body up far far far more than marijuana... people who are drunk, are much more susceptible to acts of violence, etc. as well... other drugs maybe are more problematic and i will not start an argument here about legalizing all drugs, whatever my opinion on the subject :Biggrin:  .... but marijauna... give me a break... make alchohol illegal first...

secondly, you are trying to say that no matter how broadminded a person may be they would be disgusted and appalled if they new someone who committed incest or had a relative approach them... what gave you this window into everyone's mind??? how do you claim to speak for all humanity... that is a ridiculous generalization that has no substance at all.. yes, maybe the majority, even the overwhelmingly large majority may be disgusted, but not all... and I am one of the tiny minority... and I am proud of it... and if a relative approached me, well, I would most likely say no, but frankly, I would have no problem with it, and would not find it in the least disgusting... and far more so if it was just people I knew who were committing incest... if it is love, good for them, I applaud them... and I always will... as well... if I did happen to say fall in love with a cousin or other relative, and they were in love with me, I would have no problem with committing incest myself.... now, that I think puts me wholly in the realm of the ridiculously perverse according to almost everyone here.... hahaha.... good, I like it... I love it... I don't see myself committing incest as I have met my relatives and am not in love with any of them, nor am I attracted to them in that way, but if one came along and we had something special, I would not hesitate however much of an outcast that makes me...

also, family and friends... well if they were accepting and actually cared for these people in a loving relationship they would have no problem... they make it their own problem and choose to be appalled and disgusted by it... so in my opinion the shocked family and friends rejecting them, they are the ones with the serious and perverse problem... and implying something is acceptable does not mean we are going to have an outbreak of it, I really don't see this happening... it is only a tiny minority who will ever be attracted to a relative, and much less to a sibling... so really, I don't follow this argument as being one of any validity...


Antiquarian, you posted examples of studies... well those studies are inherently biased in the first place because of how culture already regards incest and most likely the people conducting the studies... second the statement about most were not of a benign or positive nature to the female involved... well I think I have made it clear I do not support abusive relationships of any kind, incestuous or not, so that statement is irrelevant to this discussion... third, those people have not studied every single case of incest.... and I am sure some are based on just love... you can argue against that all you want, but the fact of the matter is, these people will be persecuted regardless and some great and amazing psychologist (sarcasm) will find some reason to say it wasn't real love and was harmful, or will convince those involved that they are seriously messed up and need help regardless of reality... so again you haven't shown me anything...

and incest is only psychologically damaging because society shuns these people and psychologists and friends, and family all do their best to convince them they are so messed up and borderline insane... so there is the problem... society's narrowminded nature... oh well, I guess it can't be helped...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.


I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?

----------


## metal134

That is our business because there's a victim. But what consensual adults do is none of our business.

----------


## islandclimber

> I have to disagree with you Metal. To say that matters like this are none of our business is to bury our heads in the sand. What about sexual abuse of children? In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?


wow!!! again I have to ask: are you serious????

You are comparing incest to child molestation???

child molestation is abusing the defenseless... incest where there is only love involved is hurting no one... no matter what anyone says... seriously.... tell me who it actually harms.... and explain to me how... I would like to know... I really would... tell me how it harms just the normal person... the person who doesn't self inflict the harm upon themselves by getting all worked up and disgusted over the issue...

and by saying that in some cultures it is normal for children to have sexual experience with adults, you are only supporting the argument that thousands of years of culturally developed moralities mean nothing at all... zip... zilch... zero... nothing.... for if thousands of years of moral development lead to the idea that it is okay for adults to be sexually intimate with children.. well then I think it is safe to assume that just because a morality has been progressing for hundreds or thousands of years, it doesn't mean a thing with regard to being right in my books, or in another culture's viewpoint... 

I am done with this thread... I have only found self-righteousness here... we are all human... we all have flaws... we all have perversities, if you would like to call them that... we all are different and that is what makes us interesting... that is what makes us unique... that is what makes us essentially human: the fact we choose for ourselves, our own path, our own nature, our own morality... everything a single human being does is natural, essentially, to that person... this is obvious... whether it is natural to all humans is an absurd point to ponder... there are no objective and universal laws in the universe.. none whatsoever... just theories.. and one may have faith in a theory, but at the same time they need to *respect* everyone else's right to have faith in their own ideas and theories! this should be obvious, but it is apparent from this thread and well my experience with humanity in general that this respect is seriously lacking... I am no judge of others, and I do not and will not ever judge another human being for doing something that harms no one... I will not, myself, even judge a human being for anything... who made me god... I try to love every single thing on this planet, as everything deserves love, whatsoever it is they may have done.... in my opinion the only immorality is something that harms someone else... everything else... and I repeat, everything else is moral!! in my opinion... but the narrowmindedness will prevail, as it always does, and people will continue persecuting others for being different, however harmless.. I guess if their is a natural law, it would be this... that humans persecute anyone different from the norm... whether it be the religiously different, the sexually different, the physically different, the mentally different... the fundamental fact of human history is that difference has always been persecuted...

goodnight.

----------


## metal134

> In some cultures it is normal for a child to be "educated" sexually by an adult, but we frown upon it greatly here. If this started happening here, would you say that it is also none of our business? Should child molesting not be criminal either?


I would also add to this that I am completely unconcerned with what they do in other cultures. Did you know that in other cultures, they find eating beef to be about one of the worst crimes you can commit? So should we be worrying about what other cultures are thinking or doing?

And islandclimber pretty much hit the nail squarley on the head.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

I am most desperately sorry for having offended anyone. This was never my intention. My argument was to the extreme and I am sincerely sorry.

Please allow me to clarify my position. My argument refers to incestuous couples having children. Of course it is no one's business what two consensual adults do, and I would absolutely never take away from the love between two people, no matter what their relationship. 

I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for _anyone_ to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents. 

Again, my most sincere apologies. I certainly do not mean to offend and I'll be more careful about my rash choice of words in the future.

----------


## metal134

> I do, however, believe that there are some things for which every couple should be accountable. That, of course, is having a child. I do not think it is fair for _anyone_ to bring a child into the world when there is such a high risk that the child will have serious health issues. To intentionally give birth to child whose life will be one of hardship is not fair, in my eyes. Is this child not, in a small way, a victim?Of Course, I know that this is not always the case, and I do not mean to imply that the couple could not be the most capable, loving, and devoted parents. I do, however, think that there are other ways if such a couple wishes to be parents.


But again, what about two people in a non-incestous relationship who have serious genetic problems with a high risk of passing it on to their children? Should they then be barred from having children?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

I'm not saying anyone should be barred, or that they shouldn't! I'm not naive enough to think that that could or should ever happen. I'm simply saying that they have a much greater responsibility when deciding to take on such an endeavour.

----------


## metal134

Of course they do. But I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using the potential gentic problems as a reason for criminalization of incest. I've heard all of the arguments and I agree that there are many negatives. I just haven't seen or heard anything compelling enough to warrant a law.

----------


## mahishi

According to my point of view ,I think its not good,but they can love each other.

----------


## Virgil

> Nobody is defending incest. We are are simply saying; it is none of our business. There are any number of things I find disgusting and perverse, but they are none of my business. So it's perverse; why is that grounds for criminilization? That's not good enough for me.


Correct. Not everything that is disgusting and perverse should be illegal. Just things that have a detrimental effect to society. And I think there is a solid case for that when it comes to incest.


I'm actually sick of this thread. I've made my case. I've listened to the counter arguments. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm done.

----------


## kelby_lake

yep. we aren't exactly going to change each other's mind so it's agreeing to disagree

----------


## barbara0207

This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml

----------


## papayahed

I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.

----------


## barbara0207

> I was wondering if someone was going to post about that.


Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?) 

I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?

----------


## papayahed

> Do you disapprove (of posting it, I mean?) 
> 
> I was wondering how a crime like that could go unnoticed by family, friends, neighbours and authorities. Or did people just keep their mouths shut?


I don't disapprove (I was thinking about posting it myself).

I was wondering the same thing? Didn't the wife/mother/grandmother say she didn't know?

----------


## barbara0207

Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.

----------


## papayahed

> Yes, she did. But I can't imagine she had no idea or at least suspicion. But Fritzl is said to be a tyrant. Perhaps she did not dare to say anything because she was too afraid.


That's true, an article said that three of the kids grew up with the grandparents, how did people not wonder where those three came from?

----------


## barbara0207

Fritzl told them his daughter was living with a sect now and, being unable to raise her children, had laid the newborn babies at his door. But credulous must you be to believe that?

----------


## Virgil

> This case is not about brother and sister, but father and daughter, but I thought I'd post it here. Most of you may have heard about it already.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/news.jhtml


I saw it in yesterday's newspaper. Absolutely incredible that it could go on for 24 years. It's hard to believe she couldn't have had an opportunity to escape. I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.

----------


## metal134

I would love to hear his justification. That would be amusing.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I hope this man gets the harshest of punishment. Frankly he's lowest of the low.


I hope so, too.
He must have planned everything so meticulously and his whole life must have revolved around locking up those ppl and heaving children with his daughter.... I don't see what anyone gets out of planning such a crime and basing his whole life on it...  :Confused:   :Mad:

----------


## Sweets America

I can't believe people put this in the incest thread. That has nothing to do with incest between consenting people, it's RAPE and abuse. You people really use any means to reach your end, but I hope some people out there will avoid falling into the trap of "incest is wrong" because of this video.

----------


## vheissu

*Sweets* I think you have a fair point: this last case is one of rape and abuse, even if the victim was that horrible's man daughter, so it doesn't really relate to the what this thread has been discussing.


Since it has been brought up though here and not anywhere else:

I just read that Fritzl will probably get 15 years of imprisonment. Which I thought unfair, he should get _at least_ the same amount of time that his daughter and the 3 kids were locked up for.
The wife has apparently been cleared of not knowing anything. Which I just can't believe: how can you live with someone and not pick up, even slightly, on their manners and moods? Wasn't she even suspicious that something was going on? 

The saddest part will be for the victims to get used to life 'outside'.

----------


## Sweets America

> *Sweets* I think you have a fair point: this last case is one of rape and abuse, even if the victim was that horrible's man daughter, so it doesn't really relate to the what this thread has been discussing.
> 
> 
> Since it has been brought up though here and not anywhere else:
> 
> I just read that Fritzl will probably get 15 years of imprisonment. Which I thought unfair, he should get _at least_ the same amount of time that his daughter and the 3 kids were locked up for.
> The wife has apparently been cleared of not knowing anything. Which I just can't believe: how can you live with someone and not pick up, even slightly, on their manners and moods? Wasn't she even suspicious that something was going on? 
> 
> The saddest part will be for the victims to get used to life 'outside'.


Thanks, at least one person understands my point.  :Tongue:  
I don't know about his wife not knowing about the situation. I think that it's possible to live with someone, think you know them very well and actually you realize one day that you never really knew them. That's scary, but I think that's possible, some people are real manipulators. There has been another story like that, I think it was in France, about a woman who was married and had three kids and she killed all the babies and put them into the freezer. Her husband was never aware that she was pregant until he found the freezed babies. Well, he claimed he was not aware of it. But I think this might be possible.

Yeah, the kids will have to get used to life outside now, but the sad thing is that life outside is not necessarily great either.

----------


## Virgil

You're point is well noted Sweets.  :Smile:

----------


## kelby_lake

It's horrible and all the more worse because it's incestuous

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I just read that Fritzl will probably get 15 years of imprisonment. Which I thought unfair, he should get _at least_ the same amount of time that his daughter and the 3 kids were locked up for.


yeah, vheissu, I agree with you. I don't know about the law in Austria, but I think in Germany a "life" sentence means a maximum of 15 years (or maybe it was 25?). I think they can't actually lock anyone up for their whole life or 999 years like in the US (I might have got it wrong, though).  :Mad: 
edit: I did get it wrong, it's the_minimum_ that's 15 years, not the maximum. but in practice, they normally don't lock up an old man for longer than that, assuming that a) he will die before the end of the sentence anyway and b) that an old person deserves to spend their final days outside of prison, even a perverted criminal

----------


## Nightshade

humm I was wondering if this thread would be woken up, but here is my question isnt what he did just _"evil"_ on its own with out the incest bit being added into the mix, surley he should be getting the same punishment eitther way, yes the incest additin was twisted and horrid but any man keeping a woman in a dugenon for 24 years deserves server punishment.

----------


## barbara0207

Sorry I posted it here. I see your point, sweets. I didn't think about the implications for people who are for incest between consenting adults. (Just don't call me "people" next time you want to reproach me.  :Smile:  )

----------


## Sweets America

> Sorry I posted it here. I see your point, sweets. I didn't think about the implications for people who are for incest between consenting adults. (Just don't call me "people" next time you want to reproach me.  )


Yes, I see what you mean about 'people'.  :Blush:  I hesitated between that and 'barbara' but I thought it was not only about you, more about those who would use what you posted to back up the idea that incest was wrong.

----------


## barbara0207

> Yes, I see what you mean about 'people'.  I hesitated between that and 'barbara' but I thought it was not only about you, more about those who would use what you posted to back up the idea that incest was wrong.


I had completely forgotten about the heated discussion concerning consenting adults, I just thought this might be something for the incest thread. Of course, Nightshade is right in a way. 




> here is my question isnt what he did just _"evil"_ on its own with out the incest bit being added into the mix, surley he should be getting the same punishment eitther way, yes the incest additin was twisted and horrid but any man keeping a woman in a dugenon for 24 years deserves server punishment.


However, I wouldn't call it "incest bit", that makes it seem too harmless. A parent is usually someone a child trusts, and abusing your own daughter is one of the most horrid things you can do to your offspring - short of murdering them. Perhaps it's even worse than murder - because by abusing her and imprisoning her he killed her soul.

----------


## mad_troll

Brother and Sister consensual incest is o.k. Look at ancient Egyptians.

----------


## librarius_qui

No, without the exclam mark ... (Which was why I didn't vote.)

The Torah forbids it. So do the Greeks. & The Romans ... Is there any legislator in their mind that thinks it to be healthy?!

----------


## Zee.

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAhA

Oh this thread is hilarious.

Incest is unnatural. Period.

----------


## AshleyEliz

I simply just... see it as wrong. 

Plus, I'm sure science can show that there are definitely SOME medical conditions that can be attributed to incest. 

But I don't really know.
I just think it's, for lack of a better work, icky.

----------


## JacobF

This is an interesting situation because you'd think, all past incidents involving 'forced' incest aside, that two consenting adults have the right to participate in a sexual act that does not harm any other parties. But as others have mentioned there are repercussions to incest, like genetic deformities. I hate using children as a reason to choose one side of an issue, because it's so trite and abused in this society, however I think this is one situation where we must think of children. Just because two adults want to indulge in their sexual fantasies does not mean a child they bring into the world should suffer for it. Plus, I don't think its in anyones best interest to bring genetically inferior human beings into the world (on purpose). 

Obviously, not all couples who engage in incest are going to reproduce -- they would ideally use protection -- but not every one of them will. And sterilization does not seem viable to me. If a couple were to engage in incest and didn't want to have a child they would use a condom. So, I think incest should be illegal. But my main gripe with the OP's question is that, even if a law was passed, consensual couples would probably still engage in incest. It's not like killing a bunch of people where it's obvious that you've committed a crime -- it's behind closed doors.

----------


## Joreads

> No, without the exclam mark ... (Which was why I didn't vote.)
> 
> The Torah forbids it. So do the Greeks. & The Romans ... Is there any legislator in their mind that thinks it to be healthy?!


I am with Lib here NO!

----------


## Virgil

> I am with Lib here NO!


If you read through the thread you will see that some people amazingly support it. Unbelievable. Moral relativism at its worst.

----------


## sprinks

I can't believe this got woken up!

----------


## Silas Thorne

I think it's great!  :Wink:  We can all slowly devolve back into fish people, like in the stories of the great prophet H.P. Lovecraft.

----------


## Silas Thorne

And bring back lead pipes!

----------


## Joreads

> If you read through the thread you will see that some people amazingly support it. Unbelievable. Moral relativism at its worst.


Oh I didn't go to far back and now I am glad that I didn't

----------


## sprinks

> Oh I didn't go to far back and now I am glad that I didn't


Yeah it isn't worth it. We never got anywhere, there was a reason we all stopped discussing it!!

----------


## Silas Thorne

oh and I also voted: No, exclamation mark.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Wow this thread got nasty a long time ago, Im surprised it wasn't locked!

I'll just say that the Genetics homework sitting in front of me is saying it might not be such a good idea...

----------


## optimisticnad

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


I'm totally with you. Has everyone gone bonkers? Eugh. 

My question - once you start thinking incest between siblings is 'ok' 'tolerable' - then next you'll be saying father/daughter mother/son is ok too. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I mean why not if you think its ok between siblings? There are no logical arguments against it because it has nothing to do with logic in the first place! I didn't no threads like this existed. Wow.

----------


## kandaurov

"Marriages with cousins,” said Mrs. Swithin, “can’t be good for the teeth."
Virginia Woolf, in _Between the Acts_ 

This is very interesting indeed.

Incest used to be common practice. According to the Bible, all Mankind is the product of an incestuous relationship, since Adam and Eve were the only humans and, moreover, had no daughters. In _Odyssey_, the keeper of the winds, if I remember correctly, had 12 sons and daughters, all of which were intermarried. Up until some centuries ago, the typical aristocratic family was essentially a group of inbreds.

But as you’ve said, genetics-wise, incest is a bad idea. It weakens us, deforms us, under the ruthless “survival of the fittest” rule we wouldn’t have stood a chance back when utmost physical health was vital to our existence.

To prevent this, we have attached to incest an incredibly powerful stigma (the most powerful one, alongside that attached to rape) in order to disencourage us from practicing it. That’s why we feel such visceral disgust when the very topic of “incest” is brought about”.

I’m happy to see that the proposal for decriminalisation of incest was met with such fierce resistance, but all I want is you to understand exactly _why_ you feel this way. You can’t just say it’s _wrong_. It’s important to at least realise a) that we react like this because we’re influenced by an inhibiting stigma, and b) why does the stigma exist.

Having said that, I’d vote like Lib would: no. Not no with exclamation mark, because that would be my irrational response to it, but no all the same, for the abovementioned reasons.

----------


## Zee.

It's unnatural. I mean, we all know the genetic deformities that come of it. That should be your answer right there. If it goes against nature, which it does, it is - to me, wrong.
But i'm talking about instances when they have children...

And even if they didn't - it's just.. icky.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Incest, if it produces offspring, is wrong. Simply because, genetically it is unfair and irresponsible for brothers to father their sisters children, as this creates all kinds of genetic problems. In fact, in the Muslim community, where first cousins frequently marry and inter-breed there are a higher percentage of genetic problems in children than in the general populace. 

Take out the reproductive element, however, and the 'wrongness' of incest becomes less obvious. In fact, other than possible psychological problems that might occur with incestuous relationships, I cannot see where non-productive incestuous sex is wrong. In fact, I'm not even sure that psychological problems would necessarily arise in such relationships. I once knew this girl who kind of hero-worshipped her brother. One day she told me how she had seen him almost naked in the house, and as she told me this, I knew that she had at some point developed a crush on him, maybe even still did. I never really thought of that as anything to be ashamed of, or to keep hidden. But it was certainly a feeling to be careful about.

----------


## Zee.

Its not just irresponsible but it's like I said.. unnatural. Children or not.

----------


## kandaurov

Point well taken, padma, and I understand how you're trying to undermine the moral (more like visceral?) argument. But the original question must be answered, and it concerns legalisation. How do you monitor whether it is for reproduction or pleasure? If you were to legalise incest when not practiced for reproduction purposes you would be creating a dangerous precedent which would most certainly result in the birth of many inbred children.

----------


## Zee.

Incestural ( I don't even think that's a word.. ) relationships of any kind, children or not... 

wow.

I don't think there should be any hesitation about this matter.
The whole idea makes me sick.

Put aside culture, religion, personal.. whatever it may be, we all know what can come as a result of it. It is, like i've said quite a lot in this thread -
unnatural.

----------


## kandaurov

Well yes, it's supposed to make you sick. Like I've said in the other page, there's a powerful stigma attached to incest. But I think we _should_ be able to discuss incest; indeed, we should be able to discuss _anything_; otherwise we are full of dogmas instead of thought-through opinions. Taboos go against everything I believe in, and what I believe in is that everything is debatable, and that if you're right on any matter at all, than you should be able to prove it with logic and arguments.

All I'm saying is that we won't go very far if we roadblock some roads just because they're slippery.

----------


## Virgil

I not going to get back into this repulsive argument. This was my case in post #79 earlier in this thread:




> Wow, what a raging debate. Sorry i had to miss this last night. I had a personal emergency and couldn't get on to lit net. And what's a debate without Virgil sticking his two cents in. 
> 
> There are a number of points to respond to, but so many that it will be impossible to respond to them all. First, I think Wikipedia has a very intersting entry on incest. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest. But let me pull out some highlights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me reiterate and highlight my main argument:
*The basis of my argument rests on this: that brother/sister love is fundementally different than romantic love and to cross the two would be a perversion that would have essentially destroy the family unit and therefore undermine society.*

----------


## kandaurov

Well Virgil, since you've stated your opinion so clearly earlier you really don't have to get back into this argument. Your point is well taken. You might feel strongly about it, but certainly we're allowed to _have_ this debate, right? If only to confirm your suspicions. Hell, I myself would have voted "no". Just trying to keep an open mind and see how opposing views defend themselves.

----------


## optimisticnad

> Well Virgil, since you've stated your opinion so clearly earlier you really don't have to get back into this argument. Your point is well taken. You might feel strongly about it, but certainly we're allowed to _have_ this debate, right? If only to confirm your suspicions. Hell, I myself would have voted "no". Just trying to keep an open mind and see how opposing views defend themselves.


The last sentence - within this context - i'm sorry - but it has to be the most bizarre thing I've read in a long long long time.

----------


## kandaurov

Opti, I respect and to some extent understand your opinion. However, this has to be the first time my having an open mind has been criticised just because the subject matter is "gross", or, which would be far worse, taboo.

You know what, this is really not worth it. I can see this is a sensitive issue to some people and I'm not here to pick up fights. I'm not posting here anymore, no point being mistaken for a sick pervert when all I want is us to be able to debate every possible issue. May this be a lesson to me. Virgil, you're a good man, Opti, you're great fun. Forgive me if I offended either of you in any way.

----------


## Niamh

> In fact, in the Muslim community, where first cousins frequently marry and inter-breed there are a higher percentage of genetic problems in children than in the general populace.


I think you will find its not just some muslim communities that marry their first or second cousin (think its third cousins that is taboo), but a lot of western countries (alot of christian countires i might add) have done this in the past, especially amongst the gentry. (see mansfeild park by Austen for an example.) And i'm sure there are still people that do. I worked with a guy who had been seeing his cousin for a couple of years. A brother and sister on the other hand, i dont think is right and definitely NOT and parent and child. There has just been a big incest case over here.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking32.htm

----------


## optimisticnad

> You know what, this is really not worth it. I can see this is a sensitive issue to some people and I'm not here to pick up fights. I'm not posting here anymore, no point being mistaken for a sick pervert when all I want is us to be able to debate every possible issue. May this be a lesson to me. Virgil, you're a good man, Opti, you're great fun. Forgive me if I offended either of you in any way.


 :Blush:  you've not offended me at all. i hope i haven't offended you either. i just feel quite strongly, as do you. it's great that you have an open mind but i feel like some issues just aren't debatable - like you wouldn't tell someone 'oh i'm trying to keep an open mind about what Hitler did.' Now how wrong does that sound? That's how i feel about this topic, it's like you telling me to you'e keeping an open mind about mass genocide. wrong. and there's no logical reason against it is there? there's moral, as with this issue.

----------


## atiguhya padma

There is a huge gulf between the moral issues revolving around Hitlers activities and the question of incest. I can't believe the two can be considered equivalent.

----------


## Taliesin

> you've not offended me at all. i hope i haven't offended you either. i just feel quite strongly, as do you. it's great that you have an open mind but i feel like some issues just aren't debatable - like you wouldn't tell someone 'oh i'm trying to keep an open mind about what Hitler did.' Now how wrong does that sound? That's how i feel about this topic, it's like you telling me to you'e keeping an open mind about mass genocide. wrong. and there's no logical reason against it is there? there's moral, as with this issue.


I call Godwins law on your post.
I am afraid you just lost the debate.

For my two cents, I myself don't really feel that I am in the position to throw stones at other peoples sexual habits - the argument that it feels icky is a question of aesthetics and not ethics.

The argument that it can produce children that have genetic problems is plausible, however, what if they don't? Why not criminalize having children between relatives if that is the problem and not the all incesters - plus, the incest law in UK apparently also covers step-brothers and -sisters and homosexual incest - in that case it seems absurd.

The argument that it can be difficult to be fully consenting with a person who is a relative - well, if they are both adults and have agreed to it, then it is their problem and theirs only - if it messes up their heads then too bad - regular couples manage to mess each other up too. It is not the business of others.

The argument that it destroys the social system. Well, I have been hearing a quite similar argument against gay civil union laws here which probably explains why this argument especially annoys me (together with the "icky and unnatural" argument".)
Well, first, as Virgil cited, people tend to have a high natural aversion against incest - which means that only a tiny per cent will ever do it. Which means that they really wouldn't be much noticed anyway.
Call me naive, if you wish, but somehow I think that what forms ones' family as the cornerstone of society is the love and other warm fuzzy feelings and towards each other - and not what some other two people somewhere else are doing in their beds. 
I wonder if sex between relatives would be decriminalized, would it decrease the feelings you have for your family? Would you suddenly feel that all your family relationships are suddenly a total mess and would need to go to a psychiatrist because a few folks somewhere are doing things the way you find distasteful? 
Somehow, I think not.

----------


## Amundsen

hmmm. And what about legal murder? Stalin or Hitler as a saint? Burning books? Watching executions in TV? Or I can be your new god? Incest isn't good thing. That's my opinion. I don't force you take my opinion but in judging what will be good and what will be bad be wise, very wise. Incest with you brothers and sisters.

----------


## Taliesin

How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?

----------


## kandaurov

Tal, do like I did and just stop trying. This is going nowhere...

----------


## optimisticnad

> Tal, do like I did and just stop trying. This is going nowhere...


 :Brickwall: 

Just move on. Plenty more topics to discuss....

I'm all up for freedom of speech but not when it's for the sake of provoking others. After this post I refuse to come here again. Good day.

----------


## Calidore

Wow, the threads you come across when looking down search results....

----------


## Volya

I'm surprised that the vast majority of people voted 'No'. I thought most people here were open-minded.

----------


## AuntShecky

In the context of the Internet, this is an extremely "old" thread.

You can't really discuss this topic as a real life possibility-- there's too much of a "yick!" factor. But it does appear in literature. It exists as a theme in mythology (the ancient gods and goddesses.) By the way, whom did Adam and Eve's children marry? Back in '09 some Litnutter mentioned "Middlesex," an excellent novel by Jeffrey Eugenides, but a century earlier Thomas Mann had a short story (maybe a novella) about a brother and sister. The title was their names, but I can't think of it! I believe the boy and girl shared their names with characters in the Ring cycle. Anybody know what the title
is?

----------


## Volya

I just find it remarkably bigoted that most people seem to think that just because they personally find it disgusting (as I do too, the notion of having sex with one of my siblings is horrific to be quite frank) that means other people should not be allowed to do it. It's not as though it hurts anyone else (with the possible exception of their children, but we haven't made lots of other things that hurt children illegal).

----------


## papayahed

Well this is a blast from the past.... Good Times, Good Times...

----------


## cacian

oh my should even the question arise how does one begin let alone be.
anyway it is not about legality people would still what they want to do.
it is about the concept. I guess it is the pharaohs all around.

----------


## Oedipus

Reproduction has to be avoided; or the fetus screened for genetic problems and aborted if they have them. The thing itself is alright; if consensual - why shouldn't it be? People had the same reaction about miscegenation once.

----------


## tonywalt

I had two male cousins who dated each other. Didn't bother me and there's no risk of a 'special needs' child.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

For the people who are offended that more people on here aren't "open-minded" enough, what does open-mindedness really mean to you? Just blindly condoning everything or considering the arguments from both angles and thinking them over carefully before coming to a conclusion? The latter is the real thing. The first one is just stupidity and refusing to think. I am not saying that if you support incest you're stupid, but don't be offended if not everyone supports it for other reasons.

----------


## Buh4Bee

Personally, incest to any degree does not sit well with me. But if two consenting adult siblings want to hit the sack, I guess what they do in privacy is their private business.

----------


## cacian

> For the people who are offended that more people on here aren't "open-minded" enough, what does open-mindedness really mean to you? Just blindly condoning everything or considering the arguments from both angles and thinking them over carefully before coming to a conclusion? The latter is the real thing. The first one is just stupidity and refusing to think. I am not saying that if you support incest you're stupid, but don't be offended if not everyone supports it for other reasons.



i agree. open mindedness is to recognise that other people may differ in opinions.
incest is medically/genetically wrong to start with and that should be enough to deter people from doing it.
two of my mother's cousins married and have two grown up children who are now both on wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
same blood situation. .
i went to school with this girl who use to sit next to me. she was tall blond and quite nice looking but she was completely disabled. she could not talk walk properly. she was disabled from head to toe. here parents were cousins. again same blood situation. i felt sorry for her.
it was not her fault.

not a very nice thing to do incest. you could imagine the worseness of it even more when tow siblings are it. utter wrongness for the reasons i stated.

----------


## cacian

> I'm surprised that the vast majority of people voted 'No'. I thought most people here were open-minded.


open minded about incest? 
open mindedness is to accept that other people would have a different opinion from you.
that is what it means. incest is not right to the majority of people and that is an opinion that must be accepted. that is open mindedness.

----------


## cacian

> Personally, incest to any degree does not sit well with me. But if two consenting adult siblings want to hit the sack, I guess what they do in privacy is their private business.


indeed LOL it is them it is not you. you can't stop it but you can prevent it.

----------


## cacian

> How many times do I have to call Godwins law on this topic?


how is Godwin to do with it Taliesin? i live on Godwin road as it happens  :Wink: 
Freudian slip may have a take on it or two.

----------


## Delta40

I don't believe incest is right and I'm not referring to 'incest property' laws which bore no threat of inbreeding but was self serving marital laws from the dark ages classified as incest to ensure that families didn't lose their property. I mean incest in its truest form both as a moral and biological wrong - although there is probably a stronger argument for the biological but I don't have any shame in throwing my moral standard in here for good measure having been a victim of incest myself. Having said that, it doesn't take experience to know that incest is a moral wrong. As responsible beings, we can discern rights and wrongs without having to be subject to them. It just means we have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the affect the wrong can have upon us if we do experience it.

----------


## Oedipus

Most of the arguments against non-reproductive, consensual incest - what we are, in the main, discussing here - center around two main themes.

The first is rationalisation of personal dislike; I would argue that you shouldn't oppose two people of age doing a thing they both wish to do because - simply and entirely - it makes you feel 'icky'. Remember that only a few decades ago, or even less, we would have seen exactly the same arguments used against gay and lesbian couples - in fact you can modify many of these arguments to refer to homosexuals without too much modification, and the arguments have the same merit in both cases.

The other is a resort to the naturalistic fallacy - again, for the longest time, homosexuality was 'unnatural', and now, because of a different set of biases in society, it is not. Exactly the same could happen for incest.

Again I do not refer to incest that results in reproduction. Today, however, we have any number of ways to prevent birth; and we do not prevent two people with recessive genes that could result in defects from reproducing, if they are not related: why is this different?

----------


## Delta40

You can put that argument forward if you like. I guess some sisters like their brothers to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make incest illegal.

What about the ick factor of consent? I mean can you f uck the family dog as well even though it can't actually say ok? And if that's the case, why the need to ask for a family member's permission? I'm sure there are families that bring the meaning of 'honour thy father and mother' to a whole new level anyway without ever having 'asked' but were raised to do as they were told. What do you have to say to this sort of practice?

----------


## Eman Resu

> What about the ick factor of consent? I mean can you f uck the family dog as well even though it can't actually say ok?



I wish that I could see the correlation here between non-consensual sexual relations with animals and consensual relations between people who are related by accident of birth. According to the recent Vegetarian Times study, more than 300 million people _in America alone_ don't subscribe to vegetarianism, and yet none of them seems concerned with obtaining the consent of the animals they eat, so I don't see much validity in a once-removed comparison at all, but for the vegetarian, there's one heckuvan "ick factor" in other people eating animals without their consent.





> I'm sure there are families that bring the meaning of 'honour thy father and mother' to a whole new level anyway....


Again, I'm uncertain what Ephesians 6:2, or Deuteronomy 5:16 (or the Fourth or Fifth Commandment, depending upon your slant on Life) is doing here, but I'd always thought that these verses were geared primarily toward obedience in Children, so as to make order out of chaos. Wouldn't "****ing" someone with whom you shared no Love - no intimacy on the intellectual, emotional nor Spiritual levels - be at least as dishonourable to one's Parents as would enjoying physical intimacy with a Cousin with whom you already shared Love, intellectual intimacy, emotional intimacy and Spiritual intimacy? I suppose that would depend upon one's Parents in the end. Those who referred to sexual congress within a Loving relationship as "****ing" - and who encouraged their progeny to do likewise - probably wouldn't feel particularly "dishonoured" that their offspring were communing with one another anyway.

----------


## cacian

> Most of the arguments against non-reproductive, consensual incest - what we are, in the main, discussing here - center around two main themes.
> 
> The first is rationalisation of personal dislike; I would argue that you shouldn't oppose two people of age doing a thing they both wish to do because - simply and entirely - it makes you feel 'icky'. Remember that only a few decades ago, or even less, we would have seen exactly the same arguments used against gay and lesbian couples - in fact you can modify many of these arguments to refer to homosexuals without too much modification, and the arguments have the same merit in both cases.
> 
> The other is a resort to the naturalistic fallacy - again, for the longest time, homosexuality was 'unnatural', and now, because of a different set of biases in society, it is not. Exactly the same could happen for incest.
> 
> Again I do not refer to incest that results in reproduction. Today, however, we have any number of ways to prevent birth; and we do not prevent two people with recessive genes that could result in defects from reproducing, if they are not related: why is this different?


isn't nature telling you something if it is defective? there is a reason for it. it is defective so do not do it is what nature is telling you. incest is wrong and in now way should be encouraged.

would you drive a car if it does not take petrol ? no you would not you could not.

----------


## Delta40

I don't use the word love when it comes to incest. I love my brother but that's because he's my brother and I don't see why my love for him should be used to justify incest. Sure, we can have 'nice' incest and 'bad' incest if you like. Consensual incest where two family members love each other and say it's ok to be intimate with each other and those who don't actually get afforded such a privilege but are raised in an environment where such practices are the norm but incest is incest however it gets dressed. Either way, I object to it. 

Someone I once knew bore the child of her father and is now a chronic alcoholic. He was a very gentle, loving parent and she trusted him always and strove to please him in every way possibly imaginable. She was coerced through love into that situation. It wasn't her who reported him and she was distraught when he went to jail. Her father could not deal with her husband taking his place and things just fell apart for him - that's how the child came about. 

Your comments are baseless. You don't ask bugs or flora if it's ok to kill them either so get off your circle of life high horse. This isn't a biblical debate thread (I was being witty - get a SOH) You are well acquainted with the other two threads that would welcome them!

----------


## Volya

Delta, I don't understand how you can't see you are being just as prejudiced as a homophobe.

There is nothing wrong with incest as long as it is consensual and is non-reproductive. I personally find the notion gross, I also find the idea of putting my penis in another man's mouth to be gross, but I have no problem if other people want to do that in their own time.

----------


## Delta40

Volya I hear what you're saying but even you are putting a standard on incest. So long as it is consensual. So long as it is non-reproductive. It's the same argument when people say that abortion is ok so long as..... You're either ok with incest 100% no matter how it comes about or you're 100% against it. Who are you to pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not ok? Should family members submit incest application forms and get approval from you based on criteria?

----------


## Volya

> Volya I hear what you're saying but even you are putting a standard on incest. So long as it is consensual. So long as it is non-reproductive. It's the same argument when people say that abortion is ok so long as..... You're either ok with incest 100% no matter how it comes about or you're 100% against it. Who are you to pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not ok? Should family members submit incest application forms and get approval from you based on criteria?


Why do I have to be 100% for or against it? 

Who am I to pick and choose? Who are you to outright ban people from doing it? I know that the majority of people think it should be illegal and that the odds are it will never be legal in my lifetime, but that shouldn't stop me from putting forward my opinion of it and doing my best to change the minds of others.

----------


## cacian

> Delta, I don't understand how you can't see you are being just as prejudiced as a homophobe.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with incest as long as it is consensual and is non-reproductive. I personally find the notion gross, I also find the idea of putting my penis in another man's mouth to be gross, but I have no problem if other people want to do that in their own time.


incest is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a brother and a sister a family and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside the family circle because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice incest suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.

----------


## Volya

'homosexuality is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a wife or a husband and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside your gender because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice homosexuality suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.'

How does that sound cacian.

----------


## cacian

> 'homosexuality is not healthy it is something no one should practice. the whole idea is that you have a wife or a husband and that you keep it at that. it is family. intimacy is to be practiced outside your gender because it is healthier and people go on reproducing to make more families. to say there is nothing with it is not the way forward. those who practice homosexuality suffer deep seated psychological issues which should treated rather then encourage to be practiced. it and say it is Ok because it is not.
> surely a better progressive way of looking at it is to address it in order to move on from it rather then stagnate it.'
> 
> How does that sound cacian.


LOL Ok let's see.
homosexuality is different. one is born gay and therefore that one person will move on later on in life to be with the same sex partner.
incest is not. a brother and a sister are born to the same mother or father and therefore areof the same blood line family related.
this means they are born brother and sister first and by that they are to fulfil that bond of brother and sister which means no sex between them. that is the meaning of brother and sister. the minute they enter into sex it becomes incest.
that is quite different from homosexuality.

----------


## Volya

I can see I'm not going to change anyone's mind here so I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

----------


## Oedipus

> You can put that argument forward if you like. I guess some sisters like their brothers to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make incest illegal.



You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?

The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.

Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?

----------


## Delta40

As has been pointed out before, people are born gay. Incest is not a sexual orientation. For many its a learned behaviour and they would grow into consenting adults. You might not have a problem with that but I do especially if the family pattern is going to repeat itself.

----------


## Oedipus

> As has been pointed out before, people are born gay. Incest is not a sexual orientation. For many its a learned behaviour and they would grow into consenting adults. You might not have a problem with that but I do especially if the family pattern is going to repeat itself.


 What part of 'non-reproductive' don't you understand? "or many its a learned behaviour"? Unless you have some evidence, that's just an argument by assertion.

----------


## Delta40

So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!

----------


## cacian

> You wouldn't do something personally so you want to make it illegal for others?
> 
> The rest is incoherent; I clearly said we were considering consenting adults.
> 
> Also: I guess some men like other men to f uck them and others don't. I'm definitely in the don't category and would campaign heavily to uphold the laws which make homosexuality illegal. See how it's no different to what you said?


please do not put homosexuality next to incest. it is not the same.
one is born gay and so naturally one pursues a life style of that of same sex relationship. this does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together.

incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.

a brother and a sister are blood related. by definition a sister and a brother means they have the same mother or father which means they are to apply to what a sister and a brother mean. this include no sex between them otherwise they are no longer seen as brother and sister.

look at it like a role play:
four people get a card each telling them they are : gay/gay then brother/sister. they all four act out what their titles/roles are.
the two with a cards that says gay on them will act out a gay relationship which m ay or may not involve sex depending.
those with a card that says brother/sister will act out their roles as that and therein no sex is involved whatsoever just family bond.
because they are brother and sister born to that title and therefore must stick to the definition of family.

----------


## Oedipus

> So society doesn't have a right to say who can f uck each other but it can say who has the right to reproduce? What hypocrisy!


Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.

----------


## Oedipus

> [Homosexuality] does not involve others being hurt or molested when two gay people get together. 
> 
> incest involves non-consensual sex too. where by one imposes sex on the other.


We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.

----------


## Delta40

> Perhaps you ought to look up 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.


Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled. 

How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted? 

You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .

----------


## Oedipus

> Go ahead pick on my use of words instead of admitting where you think society has a say. I say no from the get go while you think there is healthy incest which can be controlled. 
> 
> How come the law doesn't prevent bad heterosexuals from reproducing or marrying? We don't do background checks on whether a couples relationship is healthy or not because its none of our damn business. All heterosexuals - even convicted rapists and murderers cannot be excluded so why should incestuous families have the door slammed in their face if the incest law is lifted? 
> 
> You can't pick and choose a select few from one group when the same law doesn't discriminate at all for another group .


Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.

----------


## cacian

> Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.


yes it has. it sets the wrong example to others that it is ok when it is not. it is very clear what the role of a brother and sister in a family set up means. anything outside this compound that results in sexual contact between them is outside the frame of what a sister and a brother mean. it is borderline lunacy to think it has no impact on anyone.

----------


## cacian

> We are talking about consensual incest only. Non-consensual incest would be wrong because non-consensual sex is wrong, not because incest is.


incest is has negative input and it only carries one meaning and that is of inappropriate undesired sexual act. a sister is to treat her brother like a brother and vice versa because that is what their respective titles suggest and what nature suggests too.

----------


## Delta40

> Incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring - the state has a vested interest in preventing this. This has no impact on the morality of consensual sex that does not result in children.


You're missing the point completely. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

The law of marriage for heterosexuals doesn't have any criteria attached to it at all. Obviously the state should have a vested interest in preventing all birth disorders don't you think? Yet even people with genetic diseases can reproduce and pass their problems down because that is their right so your argument that incestuous reproduction results in disorders in offspring is not a defense to include some incestuous couples but exclude others. 

The fact is, if you lift the law on incest, you will have to face the reality that all people who engage in this practice, no matter what the relationship and however it came about, will have the thumbs up to marry AND reproduce. They don't have to account for their relationship nor will they have to ask for permission to reproduce because heterosexuals are not required to meet this standard. Goose. Gander.

At the moment, people who are engaged in incest are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition. 

At the end of the day, the law against incest is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.

----------


## Oedipus

[At the moment, people who are engaged in miscegenation are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition. 

At the end of the day, the law against miscegenation is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.

[At the moment, people who are engaged in homosexual relationships are treated as second class citizens. By allowing marriage we demonstrate approval and validation of the practice. I won't allow this to happen. They can certainly live de-facto and reproduce to their hearts content but their relationship doesn't warrant legal recognition. 

At the end of the day, the law against homosexual relationships is society's way of saying we don't approve of the practice and although we can't prevent these unions, we won't formally legitimize them.]

----------


## Oedipus

If we allow incest, we ought to let incestuous couples have children. Nice strawman.

----------


## Oedipus

I now leave the thread for the same reasons as Volya

----------


## Delta40

So you should. The fact that homosexuals get used as a basis for comparison for the acts of an entirely different group is an absolute insult to them and I think they deserve an apology.

----------


## Aylinn

> If we allow incest, we ought to let incestuous couples have children. Nice strawman.


But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?

----------


## cacian

> But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?


I think incest should be sterilized.i am against sterilizing people it is not the right thing to do.
there are others ways to teach people not to.

----------


## islandclimber

> But, how would you make sure that incestuous couples will not have children? Will we have to force them to get sterilized?


And should we sterilize people born with genetic disorders? Or people with a familial disposition towards creating offspring with genetic disorders?

You're treading dangerous ground here... Eugenics. Nothing screams totalitarianism like Eugenics. Nazi Germany was quite obsessed with Eugenics. 

The pretence of moral absolutism is disgusting. It's an invented fiction. Moral relativism is at its finest with this societally developed distaste for incest. You can try to make the argument that it is morally wrong to reproduce with that heightened chance for disorder, yet at the same time you would be arguing for laws against reproduction for all who might be predisposed to creating offspring with disorder. 

Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.

----------


## Buh4Bee

> So you should. The fact that homosexuals get used as a basis for comparison for the acts of an entirely different group is an absolute insult to them and I think they deserve an apology.


Delta, Apparently, we have no psychologist s on this forum. But you have argued a coherent balanced point. There is no correlaton between these two groups and to draw one based on reproduction shows ignorance. It's beyond offensive.

----------


## Aylinn

> And should we sterilize people born with genetic disorders? Or people with a familial disposition towards creating offspring with genetic disorders?
> 
> You're treading dangerous ground here... Eugenics. Nothing screams totalitarianism like Eugenics. Nazi Germany was quite obsessed with Eugenics. 
> 
> The pretence of moral absolutism is disgusting. It's an invented fiction. Moral relativism is at its finest with this societally developed distaste for incest. You can try to make the argument that it is morally wrong to reproduce with that heightened chance for disorder, yet at the same time you would be arguing for laws against reproduction for all who might be predisposed to creating offspring with disorder. 
> 
> Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.


You misunderstood me. *Oedipus* is the one in favour of consensual and non-reproductive incestuous couples. I am merely asking her/him? how would he/she stop incestuous couples from reproducing and whether he/she has a better solution than forcing them to get sterilized.

----------


## islandclimber

> You misunderstood me. *Oedipus* is the one in favour of consensual and non-reproductive incestuous couples. I am merely asking her/him? how would he/she stop incestuous couples from reproducing and whether he/she has a better solution than forcing them to get sterilized.


Ahh. I'm sorry. I see that now.

Yet my response stands for whomever. Eugenics is dangerous ground to tread upon. Where do we stop in terms of who we allow to reproduce? And who decides that? The majority? Like the majority decided who was to live in Rwanda in 1994? 

Do we have a society where the weak or genetically ill-disposed are prohibited from breeding? Do we abort all babies that show signs of disability? If two unrelated people with a high chance for a child with severe disability are allowed to reproduce then why are a brother and sister not allowed to reproduce?

Suggesting that incest should be illegal as though there is some kind of moral absolutism knowable to humankind, is absurd. As I stated the only somewhat valid argument could be the biological one against reproduction, but then one must also follow the course there, in order to not be a hypocrite, and outlaw reproduction for a much larger percentage of the population.

----------


## cacian

> Besides, incest is natural in a large number of species, not as a prevalent notion, but as the practice of a tiny minority. Then again, behaviour that is diametrically opposed to societal norms is always persecuted by the majority. If there is one thing the majority has always reeked of, it is intolerance. Human history, summed up briefly, intolerance for difference.


this is not about prosecution. this is about something that is damaging long term. incest is not natural to humans if it was then there should be no genetics defect from the onset. that is the bottom line. if it was natural then nature would allow it to flourish and since it does it rejects it abominably and so it is should do. rightly so. it is like weeds unwanted but forceful it grows and when it does it needs to be pulled out because it gets in the way of other plants.

----------


## Eman Resu

> this is not about prosecution. this is about something that is damaging long term. incest is not natural to humans if it was then there should be no genetics defect from the onset. that is the bottom line. if it was natural then nature would allow it to flourish and since it does it rejects it abominably and so it is should do. rightly so. it is like weeds unwanted but forceful it grows and when it does it needs to be pulled out because it gets in the way of other plants.


To a weed, another weed is a wondrous flower.

----------


## cacian

> To a weed, another weed is a wondrous flower.


weed is weed. there is no another weed. a flower however has many other flowers.  :Smile:

----------


## islandclimber

> this is not about prosecution. this is about something that is damaging long term. incest is not natural to humans if it was then there should be no genetics defect from the onset. that is the bottom line. if it was natural then nature would allow it to flourish and since it does it rejects it abominably and so it is should do. rightly so. it is like weeds unwanted but forceful it grows and when it does it needs to be pulled out because it gets in the way of other plants.


Children of incestuous relationships are not guaranteed to have genetic defects, there is just a higher probability of them. The same with the children of certain unrelated people who have genetics prone to defects. Should we screen against all such defects in the populace Cacian? Anyone with a raised chance of having a child disability should not be allowed to reproduce then? Nature seems to reject reproduction by these unrelated people according to your standards as well? I have a good friend who has a severely autistic child. Should that have been screened for beforehand, and she and her partner not allowed to reproduce? Because if your argument against incest is that there is a raised chance of genetic defect in offspring, than according to your logic we should make it illegal for any human with this same raised chance to reproduce and by extension of this, to basically have an unrestricted relationship.

This is eugenics. Cleansing the population of unwanted genetic traits. It is disgusting. Much more so than incest.

----------


## Oedipus

I know that I said I would leave, but islandclimber's points are so strong that I feel compelled to comment on my agreement. 

Despite what I said earlier, it would indeed be indefensible to support consensual incest without supporting reproduction; therefore I revise my position: I support consensual incest and reproduction by incestuous couples. As for the link between the anti-incest argument and the anti-homosexual one, I make no apologies; my own best friend, who is gay, saw no problem with it. Perhaps Delta would retract his/her statement if they realized that I was not comparing homosexuals and incestuous couples, but merely noting that the argument they used was identic to many that were (and, sadly, are) used against homosexuals.

----------


## cacian

I have never suggested screening against people for people.
I personally go with the meaning of what a brother and a sister mean in the dictionary and that is to fulfil role to brotherly or sisterly relationship, a family bond relationship, which means no sex between them whatsoever.
I keep it simple.
anything outside the meaning of either word is incongruent. I stick to the language definition. It makes sense to me.
if you were to role play the meaning of a sister to a brother on stage/in life you will have keep to the meaning to the words. that is what language requires and that is what logic and sense is.
to against it is to go against sense. 
for this very reason I do not support consensual incest or incest.
it is a bit like saying let's play football and you suddenly start playing tennis. I am going to start thinking you are gonne a bit mad.
stick to what the meaning says is the bottom line.
if you insist on an incest relationship then you have to remove brother and sister out of the equation because the act does not match the meaning. but since it is practically impossible to do so then removing incest is the only option.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Cacian, you are suggesting that somehow refraining from sexual intimacy is intrinsic to the definition of what it means to be siblings, which is not the case. Siblings are simply children of the same parents. Any other qualifications are ascribed by people such as yourself, not the relationship itself. 

What you have done in this case is not 'keep it simple', but made it far more complicated by qualifying the sibling relationship with what you think it entails (whatever "family bond" means to you). Not everyone accepts the same terms as you.

----------


## cacian

I am not sure I complicated it. I tried to simplify it to what the title of brother and sister mean.


how do you define sex?
it is an act between two people.
define these people?
they are either lovers/partners/husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend.
anything else you can think of you can add.

what is the definition of a family? 
a family consists of a brother/sister/mother/father.

how do I know the difference between a brother and a sister and two lovers just by looking at them?
lovers enjoy sex.
a brother and a sister enjoy a family bond. they do not have sex.

in order for me to be able to tell a brother from a lover I need to use sex to separate them.
sibblings do not have sex.
lovers do.

how else would you differentiate between the two?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I am not sure I complicated it. I tried to simplify it to what the title of brother and sister mean.
> 
> 
> how do you define sex?
> it is an act between two people.
> define these people?
> they are either lovers/partners/husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend.
> anything else you can think of you can add.


I don't see where any of those words exclude people who happen to be siblings. 




> what is the definition of a family? 
> a family consists of a brother/sister/mother/father.


That's a pretty limited definition, but I'll go with it.




> how do I know the difference between a brother and a sister and two lovers just by looking at them?
> lovers enjoy sex.
> a brother and a sister enjoy a family bond. they do not have sex.


If you see a couple walking down the road holding hands, you can tell whether or not they have sex? You can see that just by looking at them, can you? 





> in order for me to be able to tell a brother from a lover I need to use sex to separate them.
> sibblings do not have sex.
> lovers do.


So, what if your father had a child you didn't know about. And one day, without knowing, you met this person. Are you saying that you would somehow, instinctively know that you are related, or are somehow unable to have sex with this person because you are siblings? What if you fell in love, neither of you knowing that you were related? Or do you think somehow that such a thing is just not possible?




> how else would you differentiate between the two?


My point is that you cannot. The fact that the word "incest" exists implies that relatives do in fact have sex. 

Siblings are children of the same parents.
Lovers are two individuals in a sexual relationship.

The two are not, by those definitions, mutually exclusive. 

Any other characteristics are not part of the definition, but a description of what you think the relationship entails. The terms you have laid out are your own set of characteristics, and are not implied by virtue of the relationships themselves. 

The notion that relatives do not engage in sexual relationships is based on your own observations, experiences, or assumptions. It is not, a priori, a part of the linguistic definition of a sibling or relative. 

If you want to get technical, the word "relative" actually includes people who are married. Married couples typically have sex. They are both family, and lovers. How does that suit your definition?

----------


## cacian

Ok I get what you are saying.
let's take cognitive behaviour for example:
in order for siblings to prove they are siblings they are to refrain from having sex.
why?
because
lovers will need it to prove they are lovers.

you can only have one or the other. lovers have sex and siblings have a family relationship.
that is the bottom line. I can only be in one place at any given time. sex is the same. sex is with lovers and family bond with sibblings. sex cannot be in two places at once.




> If you see a couple walking down the road holding hands, you can tell whether or not they have sex? You can see that just by looking at them, can you?


normally a couple holding hand suggest they are lovers/companions/partners. the clue is in the word 'couple'. that is what I would think straight away.




> So, what if your father had a child you didn't know about. And one day, without knowing, you met this person. Are you saying that you would somehow, instinctively know that you are related, or are somehow unable to have sex with this person because you are siblings? What if you fell in love, neither of you knowing that you were related? Or do you think somehow that such a thing is just not possible?


this is slightly complex but yes normally you should. instinct is key. you mentioned it yourself. blood is thicker than water or so they say.




> My point is that you cannot. The fact that the word "incest" exists implies that relatives do in fact have sex.


yes should be able to tell the difference. if I were to act a sister role then sex in the act is out of the equation.




> If you want to get technical, the word "relative" actually includes people who are married. Married couples typically have sex. They are both family, and lovers. How does that suit your definition?


relative yes many do intermarry it is not necessarily a good idea. married couple have sex yes. they are both family and lovers no.
they are either family or they are lovers. it cannot be both.
they are family to me means they have children. when they have children they are a family.
or they are family means they are siblings/ related and so on.
I can only be in one place at an given time.
I am a sister to my brother. that is once.
I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.
to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
the same apply to life.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Ok I get what you are saying.
> let's take cognitive behaviour for example:
> in order for siblings to prove they are siblings they are to refrain from having sex.
> why?
> because
> lovers will need it to prove they are lovers.


That's not what I am saying at all. Behaviour creates lovers. Behaviour does not create siblings. Siblings are so by nature of their genetics. Lovers are so by virtue of their choices. That is why being part of one does not exclude being part of the other. 




> you can only have one or the other. lovers have sex and siblings have a family relationship.
> that is the bottom line. I can only be in one place at any given time. sex is the same. sex is with lovers and family bond with sibblings. sex cannot be in two places at once.


It can, though. That's why we're having this discussion. The question is not "can siblings have sex?", because we know that they can. It's called incest. The question is "should we allow siblings to have sex (in a legal sense)?". To say that sex cannot be in two places is not relevant to the argument because it simply is not true: there is no physical barrier that prevents siblings or relatives from engaging in intercourse. 





> normally a couple holding hand suggest they are lovers/companions/partners. the clue is in the word 'couple'. that is what I would think straight away.


Two girls in their twenties are walking down the street hand in hand. Are they friends? Sisters? Lovers?
How do you know? Or are you making an assumption?





> this is slightly complex but yes normally you should. instinct is key. you mentioned it yourself. blood is thicker than water or so they say.


Are you really saying that you should instinctively know when you are related to someone? How related? Siblings? Half-siblings? 4th cousins 3 generations removed? Whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to detract interrelated matings (it exists in some animal species), it is not conscious, and could easily be overruled by behaviour. A person is consciously able to choose to engage in sexual behaviour with whatever partner they want. Your body is not going to stop you. 




> yes should be able to tell the difference. if I were to act a sister role then sex in the act is out of the equation.


Some people cannot or choose not to delineate between those two roles. That is why legality comes into question. 





> relative yes many do intermarry it is not necessarily a good idea. married couple have sex yes.


I'm not talking about relatives intermarrying. I am talking about the fact that, by definition, the term "relative" can be applied to two genetically non-related individuals who marry.




> they are both family and lovers no.
> they are either family or they are lovers. it cannot be both.
> they are family to me means they have children. when they have children they are a family.


You don't believe that a married couple is a family? A married couple is only family by virtue of having children? Do you actually believe that?





> or they are family means they are siblings/ related and so on.
> I can only be in one place at an given time.
> I am a sister to my brother. that is once.


That is a matter of genetics.




> I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.


That is a matter of behaviour.




> to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
> this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
> the same apply to life.


Of course one can act out two roles. My mother is both my mother by virtue of genetics and my friend by virtue of our behaviour. There would be no stopping her from being my lover if we both chose to behave in that way. This is not the matter at hand. The question being asked is whether or not others have the right and/or the authority from legally preventing my mother and I from engaging in whatever relationship (behaviourally) we choose.

----------


## islandclimber

> I can only be in one place at an given time.
> I am a sister to my brother. that is once.
> I am a girlfriend/ lover to my boyfriend/ lover. that is another once.
> to be both in one go is not possible. it is one at a time.
> this in the same way you cannot act out two roles. you can't act a mother and a lover in one single act. it is not possible.
> the same apply to life.


This is the most absurd thing I've read. You are suggesting that because one can only be in one place at any given time, one can only play a single part at any given time? I can read a book and listen to music at the same time, while drinking tea. Therefore, simultaneously, I am a reader, a listener, and a drinker. One can be a brother to his sister (defined by genetics), and at the same time be a lover (behaviour). Becoming a lover to a family member does not mean one's genetic code has transformed into something new and unrelated to one's (former, as you would have it) family. A brother and sister are still a brother and sister regardless of whether they have sexual intercourse or procreate. In your version it seems that this would not be the case?

One can make arguments for or against incest, but your periphrastic meanderings through your own warped version of logic are nonsensical to put it mildly. You really aren't arguing anything, well, not anything coherent. Your theory of "ones" isn't a theory, it's a fiction. I suggest it would fit better in the creative writing section. To suggest siblings only prove they are siblings by refraining from sexual relations, is... well... I'm speechless. I don't even know what to say with regard to this thought process. You undermine your argument with each keystroke.

----------


## islandclimber

> I know that I said I would leave, but islandclimber's points are so strong that I feel compelled to comment on my agreement. 
> 
> Despite what I said earlier, it would indeed be indefensible to support consensual incest without supporting reproduction; therefore I revise my position: I support consensual incest and reproduction by incestuous couples. As for the link between the anti-incest argument and the anti-homosexual one, I make no apologies; my own best friend, who is gay, saw no problem with it. Perhaps Delta would retract his/her statement if they realized that I was not comparing homosexuals and incestuous couples, but merely noting that the argument they used was identic to many that were (and, sadly, are) used against homosexuals.


Agreed on the link between the anti-incest argument and anti-homosexual one. No apologies are necessary. They are linked in that as you say the arguments against both are quite similar and proceed almost entirely form a moralistic standpoint, and this comparison should not be offensive at all to open-minded members of the LGBTQIA community. 

Any biological/genetics argument against incest is completely invalidated unless one is willing to state that we should screen all couples for the possibility of creating children with disabilities/genetic defects. SO please, if you argue from this viewpoint, stand up and state that basically all people with defects in their genes should not be allowed to breed, and then you can stand tall and proud next to some of the most valued anthropological and medical minds of the third reich. Eugenics is your cup of tea.

The moralistic argument is the exact same one that has been used for hundreds of years against those who identify as homosexual as Oedipus has stated. It is made under the assumption that there is some kind of moral absolutism in this world and that is knowable and infallible. Usually absolutism when it comes to a rather nebulous subject like morality, comes out of religion. The irony here, is that it doesn't get any more morally relativistic than religion. They pop up everywhere bringing with them new moralities and ethical codes, relative to the times and slowly grow more and more outdated as history passes them by. Eventually they collapse, or as in the case of Christianity for example, they begin to soften their stance on the infallible nature of their moral absolutism, they start to modify these morals. Ahh. Hypocrisy.

I digress. Incest is only morally wrong if there are certain universal morals that are knowable and exist in each and every creature on this planet. The fact that there are animals of many species who commit incest, alongside humans as well, suggest that this morality is certainly not universal nor absolute.

It is only biologically wrong, if you take the stance that all reproduction by those with propensities for genetic defects in their bloodlines is wrong (and therefore a crime). Have fun with that opinion.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Any biological/genetics argument against incest is completely invalidated unless one is willing to state that we should screen all couples for the possibility of creating children with disabilities/genetic defects. SO please, if you argue from this viewpoint, stand up and state that basically all people with defects in their genes should not be allowed to breed, and then you can stand tall and proud next to some of the most valued anthropological and medical minds of the third reich. Eugenics is your cup of tea.


I don't necessarily agree with you on this point, because you keep bringing up screening. The fact is, genetic screening of every individual is highly impractical if not essentially impossible (time, cost, record-keeping, etc.) at this point. It also cannot predict, in many cases, how genes will affect potential offspring unless the other parent is also being screened. For the majority of sexual partnerships, we do not know the potential for creating disabled offspring (for lack of a more sensitive term) without testing. We do, however, know WITHOUT testing that the likelihood of creating disabled offspring is higher in offspring of related parents. 

"Defects in their genes" is not really a thing, unless that individual has/suffers from a genetic condition. Two apparently healthy people are not aware of their ability to, together, create a genetic condition in their offspring. I'm not making any sort of statement about who should or should not procreate, I'm merely suggesting that throwing our hands up in the air and saying "Well, we'd have to test everyone in order to level the playing field!" is not really prudent. 




> I digress. Incest is only morally wrong if there are certain universal morals that are knowable and exist in each and every creature on this planet. The fact that there are animals of many species who commit incest, alongside humans as well, suggest that this morality is certainly not universal nor absolute.


I don't necessarily think that this argument holds up either. Animals are not the same case as humans. Most species to not retain conscious recognition of relatives, so "incest" is not really the same thing in their case. On a separate note, there is evidence that given the option of mating with a full sibling or a genetically-weaker non-relative, animals will choose the non-relative for no apparent reason. I cannot for the life of me remember what species those studies were conducted on, however. Cheetahs, for example, have been reduced to such a small population both in the wild and in captivity that they are essentially all related. The gene pool is horribly small, and for a reason researchers cannot understand, their ability to reproduce in captivity is very poor despite the amount of knowledge we have on their reproductive system. It has been hypothesized that their is some weird mechanism at work preventing successful breeding because of how highly inbred they are. HUGE digression. My point is that "animals in nature" cannot be used as a model for humans because they neither form the same types of familial relationships nor do they have our ability to consciously assess the rightness or wrongness of ANYTHING in a moral sense.

----------


## islandclimber

> I don't necessarily agree with you on this point, because you keep bringing up screening. The fact is, genetic screening of every individual is highly impractical if not essentially impossible (time, cost, record-keeping, etc.) at this point. It also cannot predict, in many cases, how genes will affect potential offspring unless the other parent is also being screened. For the majority of sexual partnerships, we do not know the potential for creating disabled offspring (for lack of a more sensitive term) without testing. We do, however, know WITHOUT testing that the likelihood of creating disabled offspring is higher in offspring of related parents. 
> 
> "Defects in their genes" is not really a thing, unless that individual has/suffers from a genetic condition. Two apparently healthy people are not aware of their ability to, together, create a genetic condition in their offspring. I'm not making any sort of statement about who should or should not procreate, I'm merely suggesting that throwing our hands up in the air and saying "Well, we'd have to test everyone in order to level the playing field!" is not really prudent. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily think that this argument holds up either. Animals are not the same case as humans. Most species to not retain conscious recognition of relatives, so "incest" is not really the same thing in their case. On a separate note, there is evidence that given the option of mating with a full sibling or a genetically-weaker non-relative, animals will choose the non-relative for no apparent reason. I cannot for the life of me remember what species those studies were conducted on, however. Cheetahs, for example, have been reduced to such a small population both in the wild and in captivity that they are essentially all related. The gene pool is horribly small, and for a reason researchers cannot understand, their ability to reproduce in captivity is very poor despite the amount of knowledge we have on their reproductive system. It has been hypothesized that their is some weird mechanism at work preventing successful breeding because of how highly inbred they are. HUGE digression. My point is that "animals in nature" cannot be used as a model for humans because they neither form the same types of familial relationships nor do they have our ability to consciously assess the rightness or wrongness of ANYTHING in a moral sense.


Besides the fact it seems quite obvious I'm taking this argument to the absurd, in the same way people take it the other end of the spectrum, we do know of people who have disabilities and disorders passed on genetically, and they are still allowed to have children. Basically the argument can lead to many places. Cancer susceptibility for example. Why should we pass on such traits? Also, should we make it illegal for people with disabilities to have children? People with inherited genetic disorders are still allowed to reproduce. Regardless of the expense, you are either all in for eugenics, or not. If the true worry about incest is the higher probability of offspring with congenital birth defects, than it is necessary that this is done for all such high probability relationships, regardless of whether they are incestuous or not. For example, people with Autosomal dominant disorders should not be allowed to reproduce as that 50% chance of passing it on is quite high. Do we have a law against reproduction by such people? 

Animals are not the same. Of course. And I have seen those studies as well. However, those studies are much the same as in humans. The overwhelming majority humans would likely not choose to be in an incestuous relationship even if it was legal and not so taboo. But this has nothing to do with morality. I suppose more what I meant with regards to animals is that the morality argument by humans often lies in the realm of it being unnatural and a perversion and therefore immoral. If their is a minority, however small, that throughout history of humans, and animals has been committing "incestuous acts" and inbreeding, than it is natural to that minority. The unnatural argument goes out the window, as it did with homosexuality (or at least should have). One can argue it is immoral, but only in a morally relativistic sense. Only according to societal constructs and taboos.

----------


## Eman Resu

By this measure, anything which places a burden upon society in general - obesity, as an example, and the cost thereof, spread across the board in health care - should be viewed as immoral. That means that the only difference between incest and chocolate cake is the icing.¹


¹...and if your kinks lean toward certain things, there's no difference at all.²


²Would someone _please_ pass me a fork?

----------

