On the ethics and legality of incest

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There was a study of dogs a few decades ago. The researchers took some pups from a litter at birth and raised them with a different bitch, no further contact with the original litter. Then they reintroduced the pups to the other dogs in that litter. The animals that had been raised together would not mate, but the separated ones would mate with the ones that remained with the bitch without hesitation. This, the researchers concluded, implied that there was some sort of pheromone process going on, with "litter mates" off limits to breeding.

My anthropology prof, who assigned the study for reading, said somewhat disgustedly, "It has been deemed unethical to try this experiment on humans."

Beside the fact that humans don't do litters and that waiting for the kids to reach breeding age puts such a thing outside practicality?

The point was that siblings may avoid mating simply because of pheromones. That was Prof. Anderson's take on it, anyway. She was a hippie, so...

[Svartalf]

C'mon, a real hippie could NEVER find a reason for two individuals not to mate.
Hippies made as a way of saying hello, that's why they don't have time to get real work done.

[Audley Strange]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

But we're not talking about children. It must be between "Consenting human adults"

And my point is that a parent could manipulate a child at an early age and thus when they are "consenting" adults such consent could be counterfeit. I could see and in fact there probably is many cases where cults practice such things. Humans, remember, are cunts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

C'mon, a real hippie could NEVER find a reason for two individuals not to mate.
Hippies made as a way of saying hello, that's why they don't have time to get real work done.

That's it, she wasn't against it. She was dissing the concept that it was some moral thing built into us.

[Svartalf]

Moral schmoral... there's genetic and there's imaginary/arbitrary.

[Coito ergo sum]

lol --

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

But we're not talking about children. It must be between "Consenting human adults"

And my point is that a parent could manipulate a child at an early age and thus when they are "consenting" adults such consent could be counterfeit. I could see and in fact there probably is many cases where cults practice such things. Humans, remember, are cunts.

But then that's a form of child abuse.

[Audley Strange]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

But we're not talking about children. It must be between "Consenting human adults"

And my point is that a parent could manipulate a child at an early age and thus when they are "consenting" adults such consent could be counterfeit. I could see and in fact there probably is many cases where cults practice such things. Humans, remember, are cunts.

But then that's a form of child abuse.

Yes, it is. Now bearing that in mind, is it then ethical for a parent to fuck their own adult child given that such consent may have be caused by psychological issues which could be deliberate or accidental?

[Audley Strange]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

But we're not talking about children. It must be between "Consenting human adults"

And my point is that a parent could manipulate a child at an early age and thus when they are "consenting" adults such consent could be counterfeit. I could see and in fact there probably is many cases where cults practice such things. Humans, remember, are cunts.

But then that's a form of child abuse.

Yes, it is. Now bearing that in mind, is it then ethical for a parent to fuck their own adult child given that such consent may have be caused by psychological issues which could be deliberate or accidental?

[Coito ergo sum]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

But we're not talking about children. It must be between "Consenting human adults"

And my point is that a parent could manipulate a child at an early age and thus when they are "consenting" adults such consent could be counterfeit. I could see and in fact there probably is many cases where cults practice such things. Humans, remember, are cunts.

But then that's a form of child abuse.

Yes, it is. Now bearing that in mind, is it then ethical for a parent to fuck their own adult child given that such consent may have be caused by psychological issues which could be deliberate or accidental?

Query: is it ever ethical for Person A to fuck Person B, if consent may have been caused by psychological issues which could be deliberately or accidentally imposed by Person A?

[Audley Strange]

Query: is it ever ethical for Person A to fuck Person B, if consent may have been caused by psychological issues which could be deliberately or accidentally imposed by Person A?

Good point. I'll shut up.

[Beatsong]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

Between a parent and a literal "child," of course, but between a parent and an adult child? Not so much.

Parents manipulate their children routinely, at whatever age.

People manipulate people routinely, at whatever age. Nobody is protected from manipulation. Seduction is 1/2 manipulation. An 18 year old man ought to be able to withstand his mother's manipulation and keep her off his dick. If he can't, then what the hell are we giving people like that drivers licenses and enlisting them in the armed forces for?

There's a very large factor that you're missing though.

In ordinary circumstances, society imposes rules, both legal and cultural, that restrict intimacy between adults and children to protect the children from exploitation (including "grooming" for exploitation later when they reach the age of consent). For example an adult can't ordinarily show themselves naked to a child, or see the child naked (apart from babies and very small toddlers). There are strict limits on how adults are allowed to touch children, etc. etc.

By contrast, within my family we all get around stark naked whenever we feel like it. We see each other bathe and shit. I bathe my children or bathe with them. They feel secure enough to ask me things about sex which they probably wouldn't ask other adults, and I answer them. Every day there are probably multiple interactions between us which, if they took place between an adult and a child who were strangers, would bring a hefty knock on the door from the vice squad.

This is one of the deepest and most widespread social institutions - the idea that limitations on intimacy are completely different within a family - and it is inseperable from the assumption that sex doesn't take place within families. They are two sides of a coin: you can't have one without the other. The fact of a child turning 18 doesn't change it because the different assumptions about intimacy have already played out by then, from the first moment his mum stuck her tit in his mouth or his dad played with him naked in the garden.

But even that is nothing compared to the assumptions of authority in family life. Children are taught from before they have any critical faculties at all to obey their parents, and they learn that everything in their life depends upon pleasing their parents. Their parents have rights to decide the terms of their morality and punish them for failing those terms, far beyond those of other adults. How can you seriously turn around after 18 years of that and pretend that a person is in an equal position to judge having a sexual or marital relationship with their parent, as they would be with someone else?

You can't describe manipulation between a parent and child the same way as manipulation between two unrelated people because the laws and social conventions that limit the potential for that manipulation are completely different. Those of the first case (parent and child) are completely inadequate, judged in terms of the second.

If you wanted to legalise marriage between parents and their children, you'd need to completely eradicate the institution of the family as we know it, and all the laws about interpersonal relationships that are specific to it. That would mean changing everything I've written above and a good deal else besides. Now maybe there's a case for doing that, I don't know. It seems to be a pretty universal cultural phenomenon though, and I doubt you'd find much popular support for such a change, even if you could properly formulate everything involved.

But thinking you can change one side of the equation without it having anything to do with the other, is just wrong.

[redunderthebed]

Is there not a power/expliotation differential though w/r to a parent and child that could be construed as questionable when it comes to consent?

Between a parent and a literal "child," of course, but between a parent and an adult child? Not so much.

Parents manipulate their children routinely, at whatever age.

Yup this is absolutely 100% correct.

I can understand completely where beatsong is coming from i'm starting to come to the conclusion that some laws aren't perfect but what they do do is to protect society from a giant nasty can of worms from opening, of which the laws regarding incest do protect society from. Sure in a perfect world incest would be legal in so far as what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business but i don't think its that simple.Emotions feelings and relationships are irrational so that perfectly rational conclusion may not work accross the board a degree of legal intrusion into the boudouir is necessary incest is case in point.

On a personal level if two legal consenting adults want to have sex regardless gender sexuality genetics et al they should be able to. However i think we have enough trouble enforcing consent laws around rape child abuse etc generally now imagine how much harder it would be to determine consent and whether its abusive when you legalise incest i just don't think it is worth it and would be a gross waste of courts time on something that in my opinion the current laws have dealt with.