Hey sis, how about a roll in the hay

[Skwim]

"Should adult sibling incest be against the law?

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY – Last month, the German Ethics Council, a statutory body that reports to the Bundestag, recommended that sexual intercourse between adult siblings should cease to be a crime. The recommendation follows a 2012 decision by the European Court of Human Rights upholding the conviction of a Leipzig man for having a sexual relationship with his sister. The man has served several years in prison, owing to his refusal to abandon the relationship. (His sister was judged to be less responsible and was not jailed.)

Incest between adults is not a crime in all jurisdictions. In France, the offense was abolished when Napoleon introduced his new penal code in 1810. Consensual adult incest is also not a crime in Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Côte d’Ivoire, Brazil, Argentina and several other Latin American countries.

The report does not attempt to provide a definitive assessment of the ethics of consensual sexual relationships between siblings. Instead, it asks whether there is an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships.

It points out that in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited. There is, the report argues, a need for a clear and convincing justification for intruding into this core area of private life.
source


"In the United States the District of Columbia and every state have some form of codified incest prohibition. In all states, incest is sexual acivity between a lineal ancestor and a lineal descendant (parent, grandparent with child or grandchild), siblings (brother-sister) and aunt-nephew, uncle-niece. However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island has repealed its criminal incest statute;[52] Ohio "targets only parental figures", and New Jersey and Michigan do not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 resp. 16 years of age or older. A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state.
Source:Wikipedia
​

In the USA convictions for incest run from 5 years to life in prison. That's one hell of a spread.
Source:Wikipedia

So, what of the argument that

"in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited. There is a need for a clear and convincing justification for intruding into this core area of private life."
​

Can you justify it?

And is there "an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships"?

 

[Alceste]

Nope. We don't need laws against things just because they gross us out.

 

[Sees]

Pretty much agree with Alceste. I think if they are adults, and it's not a continuation or product of some strange domination/sexual abuse/psychological abuse from childhood, then it shouldn't be a legal matter. Fines and imprisonment make good money though.

 

[Valjean]

A law in search of a crime?
Is this really enough of a problem that it needs to be addressed legislatively?
In the rare instances it does occur, has it been demonstrated to be a serious personal or social hazard?

We could save a lot of time and trees removing "ick" laws from the books.

 

[LuisDantas]

This subject is IMO an excellent illustration of how distant and imperfect the relationship between morality and legality is.

The morality of sexual relationships (not only between siblings) is, of course, all over the place. But it is hardly possible to judge except with a lot of proximity to the specific case.

 

[Sunstone]

Mark my words: If adult siblings are allowed to have sex with each other, you can kiss traditional marriage goodbye, after which we will surely witness the dissolution of civilization as we know it.

 

[columbus]

Morally, the bottom line is "What is best for the human family as a whole?".

I have trouble imagining two mentally healthy adults setting aside such a taboo. The story from Germany suggests that the sister was judged incompetent. So while I doubt that legal penalties are a good solution, some intervention and counseling seems to be a requirement at the very least.

Tom

 

[Sunstone]

There appears to be a partly innate incest taboo such that people raised together from a very early age until about age seven tend to develop a strong aversion to having sex with each other. When siblings have been spit up at an early age, the taboo does not seem to develop in them. Sometimes, when they are reunited years later, they find themselves sexually attracted to each other.

 

[Skwim]

Morally, the bottom line is "What is best for the human family as a whole?".

I have trouble imagining two mentally healthy adults setting aside such a taboo. The story from Germany suggests that the sister was judged incompetent. So while I doubt that legal penalties are a good solution, some intervention and counseling seems to be a requirement at the very least.

Tom

I don't think it suggests this at all. The most I can see it suggesting is that the brother may have been too controlling and she, perhaps, too submissive. Then there's the fact that in male/female relationships males are typically judged to be more aggressive than females.

 

[Baladas]

Personally, I don't think this is something that the law should address.
As has been mentioned above by Sunstone, most siblings (actually, most kids who grow up living together) will never have any strong desire for a relationship of this sort. When I hear about the odd times when relationships have formed, I say live and let live. Or even if they are just weird and want to try it, whatever. Just as long as it is a consensual respectful and loving relationship.

 

[Glaurung]

Highly immoral? Absolutely.

Something criminal law needs to get involved with? Absolutely not.

 

[McBell]

Highly immoral? Absolutely.

Based on...?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"Should adult sibling incest be against the law?

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY – Last month, the German Ethics Council, a statutory body that reports to the Bundestag, recommended that sexual intercourse between adult siblings should cease to be a crime. The recommendation follows a 2012 decision by the European Court of Human Rights upholding the conviction of a Leipzig man for having a sexual relationship with his sister. The man has served several years in prison, owing to his refusal to abandon the relationship. (His sister was judged to be less responsible and was not jailed.)

Incest between adults is not a crime in all jurisdictions. In France, the offense was abolished when Napoleon introduced his new penal code in 1810. Consensual adult incest is also not a crime in Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Côte d’Ivoire, Brazil, Argentina and several other Latin American countries.

The report does not attempt to provide a definitive assessment of the ethics of consensual sexual relationships between siblings. Instead, it asks whether there is an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships.

It points out that in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited. There is, the report argues, a need for a clear and convincing justification for intruding into this core area of private life.
source


"In the United States the District of Columbia and every state have some form of codified incest prohibition. In all states, incest is sexual acivity between a lineal ancestor and a lineal descendant (parent, grandparent with child or grandchild), siblings (brother-sister) and aunt-nephew, uncle-niece. However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island has repealed its criminal incest statute;[52] Ohio "targets only parental figures", and New Jersey and Michigan do not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 resp. 16 years of age or older. A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state.
Source:Wikipedia
​

In the USA convictions for incest run from 5 years to life in prison. That's one hell of a spread.
Source:Wikipedia

So, what of the argument that

"in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited. There is a need for a clear and convincing justification for intruding into this core area of private life."
​

Can you justify it?

And is there "an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships"?

Laws of this sort are holdovers from earlier times when governments imposed laws based on the prevailing religious and social taboos, codifying what was widely seen as proper social arrangements, and thus outlawing homosexuality, adultery, premaritial sex, sodomy, bestiality, masturbation, contraception, abortion, sex between people of different races, marriage between people of different races, or the same gender, prostitution, and so on. In the US, it has only been since the 1950s that the courts have voided many such laws, and the state legislatures have eliminated others. But a few still remain. hence the current debate and movement to allow same-sex marriage.

In the US, states have had the right to regulate such behavior because of their possession of what is known as the "police powers," which means the states can regulate personal behavior to protect the public's health, safety and morals. The legal case, again and again, has been developed that for many of these prohibitions, there is no compelling need for government intervention, even though there is still considerable political debate about it.

I find it interesting that among bonobos (our "free-love" genetic relatives who resemble chimpanzees), the only sexual relations that are not observed are between mothers and sons; everyone else seems to be fair game!

 

[Cephus]

I really don't think it's that big a deal, is it? Are there a lot of incest cases out there? If two legal and competent adults want to take part in a consensual, non-coerced relationship, what business is it if mine what they do? How does it affect me at all?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pretty much agree with Alceste. I think if they are adults, and it's not a continuation or product of some strange domination/sexual abuse/psychological abuse from childhood, then it shouldn't be a legal matter. Fines and imprisonment make good money though.

as well as the reality shows.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't think there should be a law prohibiting it between consenting adults, but possibly a discouraged behavior, but only due to the fact that if it leads to an accidental child there is high risk for genetic abnormalities.

 

[Glaurung]

Based on...?

I have a hunch you don't believe in the existence of moral principals beyond purely consequentialist concerns. But even then, incest isn't without potential harm. Slip-ups still happen.

 

[McBell]

I have a hunch you don't believe in the existence of moral principals beyond purely consequentialist concerns. But even then, incest isn't without potential harm. Slip-ups still happen.

I have a hunch all you have is your beliefs and the "ick" factor...
Slip ups still happen with all forms of sex.
Do you apply the same standard to missionary position hetero sex?
How does MPHS pass?

 

[Glaurung]

I have a hunch all you have is your beliefs and the "ick" factor..

Immoral and icky aren't mutually exclusive properties.

Slip ups still happen with all forms of sex

Indeed they do, but the possible genetic consequences for that slip-up are greater.

Do you apply the same standard to missionary position hetero sex?

All sex, even heterosexual sex, outside a valid marriage is immoral.

How does MPHS pass?

MPHS?

Regardless, I don't know what your problem is. I agree that law shouldn't be in the business of enforcing morality. It's not as if we disagree on the bigger question here.

 

[McBell]

Regardless, I don't know what your problem is. I agree that law shouldn't be in the business of enforcing morality. It's not as if we disagree on the bigger question here.

I was curious if your reason for incest being "immoral" was more than religious requirement and or the "ick" factor.

Seems it is nothing but.

Thank you for the discourse.