On the ethics and legality of incest

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:19 pm

lordpasternack wrote:I'll also reprise an article by Johann Hari, from back in 2002 on this subject:
Forbidden love

Can sex between close relatives ever be acceptable? Johann Hari on the queasy issue of 'consensual' incest
Well, of course it can. If a person thinks it's acceptable, it's acceptable to that person. I have read articles about people engaged in consensual incestuous relationships. Clearly they think it's acceptable. To others, it's not acceptable. Whether it is legal or illegal is a function of the political process. In my view, under the US system, incest would be covered under the same rule as homosexual sex. The majority should have no say whether consenting adults lick each other's naughty bits in private.
It was a Friday night a few months ago. Rob was standing on my doorstep, ashen and trembling. He still couldn't speak even as he sipped at a mug of tea after my flatmate and I had ushered him into our front room. We could not guess what had happened, but a feeling of dread was fast forming in our minds; we could only assume that something terrible must have happened to Rob's fiancee, Karen. Gradually, his powers of speech returned and the story emerged. Something had happened, but that something was terrible to Rob himself, not Karen.

Now, you have to understand that Rob and Karen were the most balanced, wholesome couple I knew. They had recently moved out of their flat while it was being redecorated, each returning to their respective family homes for a couple of weeks. That Friday, she had left her keys at his place by accident. He was passing by her parents' place later that night, so he stopped off and rang the doorbell.

No answer. So he let himself in to leave the keys, with a note, on the kitchen table for her mum and dad to return to her. Only, the house wasn't empty - he heard some movement in the front room. In an instant, he blundered in on Karen - the woman he was due to marry - having sex. With her dad.
Holy crap. Well, to each his/her own - but, if I were Rob, I'd not marry Karen. I would be grossed out, and I would likely not be able to speak to her again. But, then again, if I walked in on Karen fucking any other guy, I would not marry her.

Not her stepfather. Not her adopted father. Her actual, biological dad. She was 22 years old. There was clearly no coercion taking place.

Three weeks passed. Rob had called off the wedding - obviously - and was trying to put his life back together. One morning, he got a call from Karen, asking if they could meet up to divide their mutual belongings, the accumulation of over three years' cohabitation. He agreed.

Predictably, when they met, an argument began. "I don't know why you think it's so odd!" she screamed. "I know lots of people who do this." That stopped Rob in his tracks. "Who?"
I think my response would have been: "it's odd that you'd be fucking anyone when we were about to get married. If I was fucking my secretary on the desk every night, and then coming home and fucking you 8 hours later, and you found out, I wouldn't be wondering why you called off the wedding."
And it began to spill out: that she had made contact with lots of people over the internet (and consequently in person): boys, girls, fathers, mothers, who are sleeping with their kin. The internet is value-free: it doesn't care or know whether you are selling a secondhand car or buying arms. If you want to get in touch with someone, it makes no moral distinction between anti-globalisation protesters and convicted paedophiles. So now there are chatrooms and websites that are de facto support groups for people engaged in incest. And what they want is to normalise what we have long considered to be profoundly abnormal.

It was on this basis that Karen said Rob was "overreacting" - she had insinuated herself into an online "community" of people who reassured themselves that they were not freaks. Rob and I spent a few nights gawping at the disguised but fairly developed pro-incest (or, to be more accurate, pro-tolerating incest) areas of the net in an attempt to understand Karen. The exponents of incest that we talked to in cyberspace were very keen to draw a distinction between "consensual incest" on the one hand and abuse, rape and paedophilia on the other. Consensual incest, we were told by "JimJim2" from Ontario, is "when two adults who just happen to be related get it on. You can't help who you fall in love with, it just happens. I fell in love with my sister and I'm not ashamed ... I only feel sorry for my mom and dad, I wish they could be happy for us. We love each other. It's nothing like some old man who tries to fuck his three-year-old, that's evil and disgusting ... Of course we're consenting, that's the most important thing. We're not fucking perverts. What we have is the most beautiful thing in the world."

Voices in Action, a US support group for victims of incest, vehemently rejects these arguments: "These teens have been brainwashed into believing this behaviour is natural; it is not ... Sexual abuse is learned behaviour." But some political thinkers are prepared to support the distinction between abuse and consenting relationships. Dr Sean Gabb, a leading member of the Libertarian Alliance, a radical British thinktank, argues that "consenting incestuous behaviour is no business of the state. It is up to individuals to make their own decisions." He has drawn attention to the "unjust" 1909 case of R v Ball, where a seemingly happy brother-sister couple who had been living as man and wife were "outed" and thrown into prison. He describes them as "harmless and respectable".

Few other public figures are prepared to tread into this ethical minefield. One of the few who was brave enough to talk on the record is Brett Kahr, senior lecturer in psychotherapy at Regent's College, London. He stresses that there is no proper research into this phenomenon, and wonders, "Who are we to say that Joe Bloggs and his sister Jane Bloggs aren't having a perfectly good relationship and we're all missing out?"

But he is also quick to qualify this. "In over 100 years' worth of case studies I've looked at, I have never seen a single case of incest that has ended happily. I don't know a single experience where an incestuous relationship has been positive." He admits, however, that - by their very nature - psychiatrists don't attract happy, functional people. For example, the couple in the case cited by Dr Gabb, whose court transcripts suggest they had a perfectly happy life, would never have come to the attention of a mental health professional.

Kahr, drawing on his experience as a practising psychotherapist, raises some pertinent questions about any incidences of seemingly "consensual" incest. "Even if, as in your friend Karen's case, she did, as she claims, initiate sexual contact with her father, what was lacking in her relationship with him so that sexual behaviour seemed the only way to bridge it? She may have been behaving sexually because she had failed to attract attention in any other way."

There is a surprisingly wide range of literature concerning incest for us to draw on when we try to understand the mindset of the participants. Consensual incest has been portrayed sympathetically in popular fiction for centuries, from John Ford's masterful 17th-century play 'Tis Pity She's a Whore to Ian McEwan's novel The Cement Garden and Steven Poliakoff's film Close My Eyes. The writer Kathryn Harrison caused a sensation in 1997 when she published The Kiss, a memoir of an affair with her father, and even in the popular medium of TV, from Jerry Springer (who has featured incestuous sisters on his show) to Brookside (which featured a love affair between siblings Nat and Georgia), incest has been depicted in a not unsympathetic, if somewhat salacious, manner.

So why is your stomach still churning as you read this? What is it about incest that makes it universally abhorred? The most obvious answer is the risk of producing severely deformed children. King Hatchepsut, an Egyptian pharaoh who was the product of an incestuous union between brother and sister, is considered by many Egyptologists to have suffered from birth defects. In Michigan in the mid-1990s, the state laws had to be reformulated to forbid "consensual incest" after two high-profile scandals. In both cases, the offspring of father-daughter relations had severe birth defects and several of the resulting babies died. All existing studies of inbred populations show that incest increases the rate of appearance of negative recessive genes.

We should, however, be wary of damning incest on these grounds alone. To prohibit two people from having sex because their offspring may be "defective" or "inferior" is to adopt the standpoint of a eugenicist. Indeed, Dr Sean Gabb has clearly shown that the impetus behind the 1908 Punishment of Incest Act was just that: the proponents of the act were exactly the same figures who advocated the "sterilisation" of the "feeble-minded". If we prohibit incest on the grounds that it risks producing "defective" children, we must also prohibit reproduction by haemophiliacs and the carriers of a host of other "defects".

In any case, we must acknowledge that, with the rise of contraception, we have succeeded in separating sex from reproduction. Another unashamed participant in incest discovered in a chatroom, "daddysgirl", insisted: "We would never have a baby, it would be all screwed up and wrong. I use the coil." So has a window opened for "safe" incest? And if so, is our visceral disgust just a remnant from a vanishing age?
[/quote]

I think some of the visceral disgust is based on the reproduction thing. But, it is also based on boundaries and roles. I mean - to me - even without reference to procreation - the idea that I would raise a daughter from birth, change her diapers, comfort her during painful times, teach her right from wrong, educate her, and be a "father figure" for her for 17 years, and then change roles to a sexual partner -- and bang her silly...creates a visceral negative feeling - she can't be other than my little girl, and to inject a sexual component to the relationship feels completely wrong. It's not my business, though what other people do.

Something doesn't sound right about the story here though. I mean - how could Karen not understand why Rob would be mad? Did she think she'd just keep on engaging in wild fucks with dad in the living room after the wedding?

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:23 pm

Something doesn't sound right about the story here though. I mean - how could Karen not understand why Rob would be mad? Did she think she'd just keep on engaging in wild fucks with dad in the living room after the wedding?
Well, some people don't hold taboos against shagging around, or hold sexual exclusivity to be the paragon of virtue, either... but that's another other topic, for another time. :)

It's a very common temptation that I see for people to presume that their culturally ingrained mores and taboos are somehow universal truths, and the "natural order" of things, left unquestioned - not even thought to be questioned... Many people wouldn't understand how you don't get mad at the thought of ANYONE being incestuous, homosexual, having sex underage, having sex for anything other than procreation, engaging in particular sexual positions, enjoying BDSM, whatever...
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:33 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Something doesn't sound right about the story here though. I mean - how could Karen not understand why Rob would be mad? Did she think she'd just keep on engaging in wild fucks with dad in the living room after the wedding?
Well, some people don't hold taboos against shagging around, or hold sexual exclusivity to be the paragon of virtue, either... but that's another other topic, for another time. :)
It just seems like a fact that might be important to the story. If Rob and Karen had agreed on an open relationship, I think it would have come up in the summary of the story. The fact that we are left to guess whether exclusivity was an issue seems odd.

In any case, I would think it surprisingly odd for a person to have no issue with the fact that his wife would quite possibly be sneaking upstairs with dad for a shag before Christmas dinner. Mum walking in accidentally while looking for a sweater, "Oh, sorry husband and daughter - didn't mean to interrupt you - my it really looks like you're pounding that ass good, hubby - perhaps Karen wouldn't mind a taste of mom-pussy while you're both at it, ay? We have time before the turkey is done." And, then Rob is downstairs watching the ball game. The mother-father-daughter threesome come down flushed - Karen kisses Rob on the mouth, and they sit down to dinner....

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:43 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:
Something doesn't sound right about the story here though. I mean - how could Karen not understand why Rob would be mad? Did she think she'd just keep on engaging in wild fucks with dad in the living room after the wedding?
Well, some people don't hold taboos against shagging around, or hold sexual exclusivity to be the paragon of virtue, either... but that's another other topic, for another time. :)
It just seems like a fact that might be important to the story. If Rob and Karen had agreed on an open relationship, I think it would have come up in the summary of the story. The fact that we are left to guess whether exclusivity was an issue seems odd.

In any case, I would think it surprisingly odd for a person to have no issue with the fact that his wife would quite possibly be sneaking upstairs with dad for a shag before Christmas dinner. Mum walking in accidentally while looking for a sweater, "Oh, sorry husband and daughter - didn't mean to interrupt you - my it really looks like you're pounding that ass good, hubby - perhaps Karen wouldn't mind a taste of mom-pussy while you're both at it, ay? We have time before the turkey is done." And, then Rob is downstairs watching the ball game. The mother-father-daughter threesome come down flushed - Karen kisses Rob on the mouth, and they sit down to dinner....
Good plot-line for an incest porno. You should post that on 4chan! :hehe:

Seriously, though, let's do some quick tweaking of your plot:

I would think it surprisingly odd for a person to have no issue with the fact that their daughter would quite possibly be sneaking upstairs with someone prior to marriage for a shag before Christmas dinner. Mum walking in accidentally while looking for a sweater, "Oh, sorry you two - didn't mean to interrupt you - my it really looks like you're pounding that ass good, boy - perhaps you wouldn't mind a taste of her pussy while you're at it, ay? You have time before the turkey is done." The boy and the daughter later come down flushed- the boy kisses the daughter on the mouth, and they sit down to dinner...

It's quite amazing just how relative morality, and culturally ingrained mores and taboos actually are... :tea:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:14 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:
Something doesn't sound right about the story here though. I mean - how could Karen not understand why Rob would be mad? Did she think she'd just keep on engaging in wild fucks with dad in the living room after the wedding?
Well, some people don't hold taboos against shagging around, or hold sexual exclusivity to be the paragon of virtue, either... but that's another other topic, for another time. :)
It just seems like a fact that might be important to the story. If Rob and Karen had agreed on an open relationship, I think it would have come up in the summary of the story. The fact that we are left to guess whether exclusivity was an issue seems odd.

In any case, I would think it surprisingly odd for a person to have no issue with the fact that his wife would quite possibly be sneaking upstairs with dad for a shag before Christmas dinner. Mum walking in accidentally while looking for a sweater, "Oh, sorry husband and daughter - didn't mean to interrupt you - my it really looks like you're pounding that ass good, hubby - perhaps Karen wouldn't mind a taste of mom-pussy while you're both at it, ay? We have time before the turkey is done." And, then Rob is downstairs watching the ball game. The mother-father-daughter threesome come down flushed - Karen kisses Rob on the mouth, and they sit down to dinner....
Good plot-line for an incest porno. You should post that on 4chan! :hehe:

Seriously, though, let's do some quick tweaking of your plot:

I would think it surprisingly odd for a person to have no issue with the fact that their daughter would quite possibly be sneaking upstairs with someone prior to marriage for a shag before Christmas dinner. Mum walking in accidentally while looking for a sweater, "Oh, sorry you two - didn't mean to interrupt you - my it really looks like you're pounding that ass good, boy - perhaps you wouldn't mind a taste of her pussy while you're at it, ay? You have time before the turkey is done." The boy and the daughter later come down flushed- the boy kisses the daughter on the mouth, and they sit down to dinner...

It's quite amazing just how relative morality, and culturally ingrained mores and taboos actually are... :tea:
Well, absolutely. Morality is purely, and unequivocally relative, and culturally based. First cousins in some cultures are viewed as marriageable. In royalty, we know of brother-sister marriages with offspring, and close relation marriages being quite common. Obviously, they thought it would be acceptable. I imagine in prehistoric times, when people lived in small groups, intermarriage among family members was not only common but necessary for survival. I'm sure they wanted to go out and capture mates from other family groups, or trade for them, but I am sure that when all else failed, family procreation occurred. I bet tribal leaders had their pick of women - engaged in polygamous relations commonly and included family members if he wanted. And, it all probably seemed quite normal, to them.

However, Rob and Karen's story was set in British culture, though. So, that's why I am puzzled by the storyteller's suggestion that Karen was surprised that her betrothed would be shocked by her sucking dad's dick. "Don't worry, love - I'll have a go with you next..."

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:23 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:However, Rob and Karen's story was set in British culture, though. So, that's why I am puzzled by the storyteller's suggestion that Karen was surprised that her betrothed would be shocked by her sucking dad's dick. "Don't worry, love - I'll have a go with you next..."
Fair point. :tup:

But maybe her surprise was more, I dunno, rhetorical - almost to make the point that though she knew he would be shocked, but that she thought that he just shouldn't be - or she had become so wrapped in her own little cultural bubble that it had become her kinda morality... I get like that, sometimes... I'm so wrapped up in rationalist/godless subculture sometimes that I feel palpable surprise over some mainstream British journalism - not even particularly to do with sexuality either - just things, certain mores, taboos, assumptions...
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:33 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:However, Rob and Karen's story was set in British culture, though. So, that's why I am puzzled by the storyteller's suggestion that Karen was surprised that her betrothed would be shocked by her sucking dad's dick. "Don't worry, love - I'll have a go with you next..."
Fair point. :tup:

But maybe her surprise was more, I dunno, rhetorical - almost to make the point that though she knew he would be shocked, but that she thought that he just shouldn't be - or she had become so wrapped in her own little cultural bubble that it had become her kinda morality... I get like that, sometimes... I'm so wrapped up in rationalist/godless subculture sometimes that I feel palpable surprise over some mainstream British journalism - not even particularly to do with sexuality either - just things, certain mores, taboos, assumptions...
My theory is that there really isn't a Rob and Karen, and that the author wanted to do an article on incest and thought to use a "real life" example to illustrate his point.

We can certainly become insular with our views and mores, I agree. I have to check myself constantly with my atheism. Here in Florida, I am more likely to run into someone who believes they have never met or spoken to an "actual atheist," than another atheist. So, I always have to remember that mine is not only a minority view, but a miniscule minority view.

I agree that all these things are cultural and relative. When Solomon had hundreds of wives, nobody thought it was wrong. Moses had a few, supposedly. All these things are culturally relative. Christians are correct, in a way, when they say "if there is no lawgiver, then there can be no law -- who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Someone can say "rape is right"..." - and, in reality, that's true. Someone can say rape is right, and someone can truly believe it. There's just nothing anybody can do about the ability of humans to think and believe what they want.

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.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:04 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: My theory is that there really isn't a Rob and Karen, and that the author wanted to do an article on incest and thought to use a "real life" example to illustrate his point.
It's not consistent with Johann Hari's general frankness and straightforward integrity - nor is it, I don't think - that much more likely and parsimonious for it to be false than for it to be true. If Hari had just stumbled upon the pro-tolerance-of-incest forum by sheer chance, or through another context, it would have sufficed for his story just to use that as his source to make a point. If he'd wanted to be rhetorical, he could have been, openly, and still held his point. He could have made his story "realistic" by making the daughter self-conscious of her breaking taboo... I just don't see why Hari would fabricate and be on some level dishonest about the fabrication...

I also know a guy who told me quite matter-of-factly (long before I subsequently read that article) that he knew a couple of siblings (not everyone knew they were siblings)that he discovered kissing quite amorously one day. They reportedly figuratively shat themselves when this guy told them that he'd caught them in flagrante, and begged him not to tell their family - but the guy says he was himself pretty nonplussed by it - just as he was in relating this story to me... He basically said, as you guys are, that he thought that it was fine between consenting adults. Is it believable that a guy could stumble upon two siblings making out and be nonplussed? Rare, maybe - but believable - and plausible that a woman might be nonplussed (either completely sincerely, or more rhetorically) by her fiancé's reaction to her doing her dad...
I agree that all these things are cultural and relative. When Solomon had hundreds of wives, nobody thought it was wrong. Moses had a few, supposedly. All these things are culturally relative. Christians are correct, in a way, when they say "if there is no lawgiver, then there can be no law -- who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Someone can say "rape is right"..." - and, in reality, that's true. Someone can say rape is right, and someone can truly believe it. There's just nothing anybody can do about the ability of humans to think and believe what they want.
Except argue with them... :biggrin:
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.

That Shakespeare guy definitely was bright... :tea: I like to draw a really thick line at harm - but even the concept of "harm" can be quite subjective, and tortuous, and stuff - but that's why ethics is just so damn interesting, and challenging. :)
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:34 pm

Yep - regarding whether the story was made up - it's sort of just an aside, anyway. The point remains the same whether it is true or not, or embellished or whatever. It was just something that struck me funny.

Yes - touche' - except argue with them - we are always free to make rational arguments, and because two people are equally free to hold whatever view they would like to hold, it does not mean that there isn't a way to be persuasive and make a better point. Unfortunately, though, there is simply no way to be 100% sure that we are 100% right about anything - after all - for all we know, reality isn't as it appears to be. We generally assume that reality is as it appears to be, but mainly because it is impracticable to proceed under the opposite assumption.

I like to draw the line at "harm" too - but, often what constitutes "harm" is vigorously disputed. And, when it comes down to it, most people - when pressed - end up being in favor of limitations on human behavior that go beyond things that are directly harmful to another person. Look at all the folks who advocate limiting a person's freedom of choice to 7use certain drugs, eat certain foods, or masturbate publicly.

One way to look at it is to ask yourself - would there be a right and wrong if no human beings were around to think thoughts? What if the universe was just empty planets and maybe non-sentient life forms here and there, eating each other, fucking each other without asking, and walking around without any clothes on? Would anything be "right" or "wrong?" I would suggest that "absolutely not" - nothing would be right or wrong - things would just "be." So, put ONE sentient being on a planet called Earth - what is "right" and "wrong" if not what that being thinks it is? Is it wrong for that sentient being to fuck a tree? A llama? Does consent matter? I think it's pretty clear that whether any action he takes is right or wrong depends only on his own thoughts. Right?

So, now put 100 different sentient beings on the same planet - what's "right and wrong" now? Isn't there 100 different right and wrongs, except that where 2 or more people agree we have agreement among those people? And, where more than 50% of the 100 agree on the same thing, we have a majority view? And, where a rule is set down and enforced by some kind of force, we have a "law?"

That's it, really. People seem to really hope for some sort of "inherent" goodness or badness - something that they don't have to figure out. Unfortunately - there are no such things, and everything just has to be figured out. That's why we fuck up all the time.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by lordpasternack » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:44 pm

People aren't the only apparently sentient beings, nor arguably the only beings with a subjective sense of morality - but apart from that, I agree broadly with you. :tup:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:35 pm

lordpasternack wrote:People aren't the only apparently sentient beings, nor arguably the only beings with a subjective sense of morality - but apart from that, I agree broadly with you. :tup:
Whatever the sentient beings are, the logic works.

A lion probably doesn't think a lot about whether it's "right" to bite into the neck of its prey. But, if she does, she appears to think it's just fine. Then she goes on to eat the beast raw, and she does so while completely naked. Then she fucks in public for anything else to see. No shame at all....lions are murderous sluts... :biggrin:

And fish...they just piss right in the water. They don't care if we want to go swimming....rude bastards...

User avatar
jaydot
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:16 pm
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by jaydot » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:27 am

i've often wondered how many relatives marry incestuously without realising and have children perfectly lawfully. there must be hundreds of thousands of people who grow up, not knowing from whom they came, in orphanages, with foster parents. where a woman has several children by different men, those men can also have children with other women. how would one know to whom one might not be related?
open source the world.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Pappa » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:25 pm

Until last year, France had had no law against incest for 200 years. The law was removed during the French revolution as a religious taboo, and in recent years incest cases have been dealt with using rape and abuse laws. But they explicitly outlawed it last year.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Svartalf » Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:39 pm

You sure? that particular bit of legislation sure never made the news I listen to
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: On the ethics and legality of incest

Post by Pappa » Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:40 pm

Svartalf wrote: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
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests