On the ethics and legality of incest

[Svartalf]

Buncha bullshitting wankers who legislate trash without knowing what it's about (or consciously legislate trash, which is worth), when there definitely are worse problems for their overpaid asses to shit about.

[lordpasternack]

You sure? that particular bit of legislation sure never made the news I listen to

Here's where I read it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... crime.html

Again, it's not incest per se - but familial sexual abuse. No, even there, it appears to be only familial sexual abuse of minors. I don't see why they had to make a separate law for that, rather than make it an special case in laws pertaining to (child) sexual abuse. I don't understand why that road was deemed inadequate.

I wish people would stop using the word incest to refer very specifically to familial (even non-genetic family) sexual abuse of minors. The word does not mean that. It never has. It means any sexual relations between relatives close enough to be deemed taboo and forbidden to marry - irrespective of age, willingness, or consent.

I also wish people would look objectively at the issue of sex generally, and come up with some far better and rational evidence-based ethical standards and frameworks. Much like the issue of psychoactive drugs, though, it's like trying to tease blood out of a stone. People just don't want to think rationally about some things. They just want to feel viscerally disgusted, and reassure each other in their visceral disgust.

[normal]

Anyway. Eew.

[lordpasternack]

Anyway. Eew.

You could say that about coprophilia, too...

[Pappa]

You sure? that particular bit of legislation sure never made the news I listen to

Here's where I read it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... crime.html

Again, it's not incest per se - but familial sexual abuse. No, even there, it appears to be only familial sexual abuse of minors. I don't see why they had to make a separate law for that, rather than make it an special case in laws pertaining to (child) sexual abuse. I don't understand why that road was deemed inadequate.

I wish people would stop using the word incest to refer very specifically to familial (even non-genetic family) sexual abuse of minors. The word does not mean that. It never has. It means any sexual relations between relatives close enough to be deemed taboo and forbidden to marry - irrespective of age, willingness, or consent.

I also wish people would look objectively at the issue of sex generally, and come up with some far better and rational evidence-based ethical standards and frameworks. Much like the issue of psychoactive drugs, though, it's like trying to tease blood out of a stone. People just don't want to think rationally about some things. They just want to feel viscerally disgusted, and reassure each other in their visceral disgust.

I think the waters will always be really muddy though LP, because of the almost impossible task of separating abusive/coercive incest from non-abusive/non-coercive incest. Imagine leaving a jury to decide on each and every case, whether the sexual paring was an abusive one or not. The scope for manipulation and domination is just too wide within a family situation, and I can't see how that could ever change.

[normal]

Anyway. Eew.

You could say that about coprophilia, too...

That's just a knee-jerk reaction and you know it. Think rational about it for a second

[Svartalf]

I rationally can say that I'd rather have had sex with my mother or inexisstent sisters than ever engage in coprophilic acts.

[lordpasternack]

I think the waters will always be really muddy though LP, because of the almost impossible task of separating abusive/coercive incest from non-abusive/non-coercive incest. Imagine leaving a jury to decide on each and every case, whether the sexual paring was an abusive one or not. The scope for manipulation and domination is just too wide within a family situation, and I can't see how that could ever change.

Pappa - you're still missing the point. The French law was just a new law that specifically, separately addressed something that was already illegal: sexual abuse of minors. I don't think it even addresses incest between adults. You're right that there's putatively far more potential for abusiveness to take root between family members, sexual or otherwise. The laws on child sexual abuse could take that into account perfectly adequately, as a special case, more extreme circumstances, more grave, etc. I just don't see why it needs a separate law.

As for adults, well, again - there is still potential for abuse - but that then has to be mitigated by just how much that potential is being seen to be realised at large in in test cases, and how much the adult has the faculties to avoid that, and the basic autonomy one deems right to dignify adults in their behaviour. I think there comes a point where if someone says the equivalent of: "Neither of us are abusing each other. Please just fuck off and mind your own business." - You at least try to gauge if that is at least observably the case, and maybe just live and let live, either way…

It would also be good if people actually said what they were really trying to say more often. Too often when people say that "X can't consent to sex (with Y)" - what they really seem to be wanting to say is "X would likely not be able to avoid sexual abuse (with Y, if Y were to attempt abuse)". It's almost a kind of unwitting doublespeak, that genuinely affects people's reasoning. The more you think and say what you're really trying to mean, the clearer you actually see things.

[Pappa]

Pappa - you're still missing the point. The French law was just a new law that specifically, separately addressed something that was already illegal: sexual abuse of minors. I don't think it even addresses incest between adults. You're right that there's putatively far more potential for abusiveness to take root between family members, sexual or otherwise. The laws on child sexual abuse could take that into account perfectly adequately, as a special case, more extreme circumstances, more grave, etc. I just don't see why it needs a separate law.

That's just normal though. Lots of laws are made for no particularly valid reason... or just to make sure nobody finds a loophole in one already existing... or to make a public message. I suppose the French didn't want to rely on a broader system and wanted a bit more certainty that incestuous abuse of children couldn't slip through the net. We did the same here with banning driving with a mobile phone, it is a redundant law as that kind of behaviour was already covered with catch-alls like "driving without due care and attention" for example.

[Santa_Claus]

Most of us draw the line at "consent" - but, that itself is just another cultural more. Why? While we like to think there are certain concepts that are just "right" irrespective of what a person believes - the reality is, that's not true. "Nothing is either good or bad, except that thinking makes it so." - Hamlet.

Yeah. it's great innit

Me is shagging me Granny. and she's been dead 20 years. But she gave consent for her Organs to be used after death

Grandad not so happy though :sighsm: makes it hard for him to get in and out of the bath, depending on which position me and Granny are in.

[HomerJay]

I agree the Hari story sounds made up.

Any situation where there has been such an imbalance of power a father daughter is a bit of a concern, even if years have passed.

Siblings seem harmless, there was a couple of brother/sisters I knew as a teenager where it was strongly suspected but no-one felt an inherent outrage about it, and the idea of medical considerations raises the ugly prospect of couples who have similar problems but are not related being criminalised.

But it is abit like rules about walking on the grass, if one couple does it little harm is done, it is when everyone does it that the harm is done.

[fordo]

[Beatsong]

I wish people would stop using the word incest to refer very specifically to familial (even non-genetic family) sexual abuse of minors. The word does not mean that. It never has. It means any sexual relations between relatives close enough to be deemed taboo and forbidden to marry - irrespective of age, willingness, or consent.

I don't see how it's possible to be so cut and dried about it.

I agree with the comments and suggestions made by several here, that there is a very real problem concerning the nature of family relationships - particularly (but not exclusively) parent-child relationships.

Both law and widely accepted social custom make many exceptions for these relationships, without which society couldn't even function the way it does. Parents are permitted to see their children naked all the time, to get to know their bodies in the most private ways that nobody else except a doctor would. They are entrusted with their children's emotional well-being, and spend year after deciding how best to comfort them when they're anxious, what bedtime stories to read them and so on. There is simply no meaningful comprison between the levels of physical and emotional intimacy required, tolerated and expected of a parent to their child, and those between most other pairs of people, and certainly any other pair one of whom is a child.

It's perfectly reasonable that the acceptance of this level of intimacy, which would ordinarily break every rule we have about child protection, comes with certain caveats, one of which is THAT YOU DON'T FUCK THEM.

Now, are you seriously trying to suggest that the day someone turns 18, all of that goes out the window, and their relationship with their parents is a clean slate involving no prejudice by intimacy of other kinds whatsoever? Suddenly they are just "an adult" able to make "their own decisions". And any suggestion that their mum or dad coming onto them might just be taking advantage of a power-relationship built up on another basis is therefore irrelevant?

Society ENTRUSTS parents with power over their children. It expects them to wield authority and discipline, and expects the children to conform to it. Indeed, if you read the right wing press it expects both parties to do so far more than most currently seem to. To then turn around and say, just because a certain birthday has been reached, that "all bets are off" and the child is now a "free" party to make completely untarnished decisions about whether to sleep with the person they've been literally brainwashed to obey for 18 years, is ridiculous.

Similar considerations probably apply for many other family relationships - uncle/niece or even older and younger siblings. Maybe not for others, such as cousins who have hardly met each other. So I couldn't say about every case. But in obviously unequal power-relationships like parents and children I'm sorry, but it's wrong.

It's normal for society to judge that abusive use of a power-relationship to obtain sex is wrong, whether that is enforced informally or legally. In the UK, for example, the age for consent is 16 but there has been a law for a while now regarding "abuse of trust", making it illegal for someone such as a teacher, sports coach etc. to have sex with a student of theirs under the age of 18. This formalised an objection that I think most people always had anyway.

So there's no departure from precedent in judging that the existence of an unequal relationship that invests power in one person, entails that the age of consent should be higher to protect the other person from abuse. The only question is what that age should be, in this case.

I'd say about 100.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I'm just debating homosexuality, and of course, I'm defending human rights. Obviously the non-issue has been raised about the "libruls" accepting paedophilia and bestiality. My answer to this is always "Consenting Human Adults". Children and animals fall outside of this category, but someone has now asked about incest. Well, that can fall into that category, and I've never really thought about it.
I'm a bit stumped now. By my own words I should accept it.

[Thinking Aloud]

There have been a couple of threads on this: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5&p=734066 and http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29991 Might be worth a look in the first instance.