Should Incest be banned?

[PureX]

And that's very vague, as I've said. I want SPECIFICS.

If two people a mile away from you have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, tell me SPECIFICALLY how your life is different than if that couple did not have sex.

Sex with someone else's significant other, sex with co-workers, sex with congregants, sex with someone that has children by someone else, all of these situation effect those other people. So when these instances of sex are engaged in selfishly (disregarding the effect on others) it damages those other people. It causes suspicion and resentment at work, at church, in the home, and between family members.

You seem to think you live in this world as an isolated being, but you don't. None of us do. And every time we behave selfishly because we ignore how we effect other people, we cause them to fear and doubt and to become selfish in turn just to protect themselves from people like us. So this selfish disregard for others becomes contagious.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

'Disgust plays an important role in conservatives' moral and political judgments, helping to explain why conservatives and liberals differ in their attitudes on issues related to purity. We examined the extent to which the emotion-regulation strategy reappraisal drives the disgust-conservatism relationship. We hypothesized that disgust has less influence on the political and moral judgments of liberals because they tend to regulate disgust reactions through emotional reappraisal more than conservatives. Study 1a found that a greater tendency to reappraise disgust was negatively associated with conservatism, independent of disgust sensitivity. Study 1b replicated this finding, demonstrating that the effect of reappraisal is unique to disgust. In Study 2, liberals condemned a disgusting act less than conservatives, and did so to the extent that they reappraised their initial disgust response. Study 3 manipulated participants' use of reappraisal when exposed to a video of men kissing. Conservatives instructed to reappraise their emotional reactions subsequently expressed more support for same-sex marriage than conservatives in the control condition, demonstrating attitudes statistically equivalent to liberal participants.'

Gut Check: Reappraisal of Disgust Helps Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences on Issues of Purity | Sociology

Disgust plays an important role in conservatives' moral and political judgments, helping to explain why conservatives and liberals differ in their attitudes on issues related to purity. We examined the extent to which the emotion-regulation strategy reappraisal drives the disgust-conservatism...

sociology.stanford.edu

What they are calling the 'conservative' view here aligns more broadly with non-Western cultures which have tended to retain purity culture, disgust culture etc. with strict sexual and food norms, differing thinking processes,

Liberals are WEIRDer than Conservatives

Guest post by Thomas Talhelm (on a recent publication with Haidt, mentioned by Tom Edsall in NYT) A few years ago, psychologists looked at all of the psychological studies of people in different cu…

righteousmind.com

Liberals and conservatives think as though they are from different cultures and see each other essentially as foreign due to these differences. But the 'conservatives' are more mainstream outside of Western countries, hence the higher proportion of what we would see as 'regressive' values outside the West. It's because of the disgust response you aptly noted. It's something most people have as innate that it has to be 'got rid of' rather than inculcated into a person to be disgusted.

So the liberal response (non-disgust, 'consent' sexual model) is WEIRD here.

Interesting stuff! Thanks for the summaries.

Forgive me for making it partisan, but the "liberal" tendency to "reappraise" their emotional response seems the more appropriate method in a culture that values freedom.

Speaking as an American, I feel it imperative that legislation be based less on "disgust" and more on teasing out whether legislation for an issue is based on practical reasons.

This isn't to say that I think you agree or disagree, just musing over the resources in the context of the thread.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sex with someone else's significant other, sex with co-workers, sex with congregants, sex with someone that has children by someone else, all of these situation effect those other people. So when these instances of sex are engaged in selfishly (disregarding the effect on others) it damages those other people. It causes suspicion and resentment at work, at church, in the home, and between family members.

You seem to think you live in this world as an isolated being, but you don't. None of us do. And every time we behave selfishly because we ignore how we effect other people, we cause them to fear and doubt and to become selfish in turn just to protect themselves from people like us. So this selfish disregard for others becomes contagious

Suspicion and resentment are normal features of human relationships. Selfishness is almost built into how we define monogamy, since the concept requires a person to dedicate themselves to one person. Jealousy is inherently selfish. That I should expect someone to only be sexually active with myself for reasons other than preventing STDs is restricting another person's bodily agency for the sake of how I feel.

To focus on the thread I just don't think selfishness is a good indicator for harm that should be mitigated through legislation. Human relationships are almost invariably selfish or have some degree of risk for suspicion and resentment.

 

[PureX]

Suspicion and resentment are normal features of human relationships. Selfishness is almost built into how we define monogamy, since the concept requires a person to dedicate themselves to one person. Jealousy is inherently selfish. That I should expect someone to only be sexually active with myself for reasons other than preventing STDs is restricting another person's bodily agency for the sake of how I feel.

To focus on the thread I just don't think selfishness is a good indicator for harm that should be mitigated through legislation. Human relationships are almost invariably selfish or have some degree of risk for suspicion and resentment.

Nevertheless, the cost is social cohesion and unnecessary suffering. And the solution is reasonable restraint.

There is no good reason to hold the selfishness of "freedom" above the security and cohesion of social restraint. And yet this seems to be the sole reason for rejecting the mechanisms of social restraint.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Nevertheless, the cost is social cohesion and unnecessary suffering. And the solution is reasonable restraint.

Reasonable restraint makes sense. I think even in strict societies where sex is highly regulated, unnecessary suffering occurs, including from the regulations. Consider how at one point sexual assault was considered to be legally acceptable in marriage. Or some of the Old Testament laws regarding women being put to death over being raped.

Reasonable becomes very subjective. Not too long ago marriage laws regarding same sex or couples with different skin tones were considered reasonable, but clearly led to unnecessary suffering.

I think focusing on consent in its various forms makes the most sense for "reasonable" because it puts the responsibility on individuals capable of making choices while understanding consequences.

There is no good reason to hold the selfishness of "freedom" above the security and cohesion of social restraint. And yet this seems to be the sole reason for rejecting the mechanisms of social restraint.

Aside from the above example, I would argue that rejecting social restraint in some cases for freedom can result in stronger innovation and progress. For instance, disallowing scientific experimentation due to dogmatic tradition leads to stagnation. Simultaneously, I do think certain restraints are necessary at times, especially when it comes to human and animal scientific experimentation. I just don't think I can agree that social restraint has any more precedence over individual liberty than the other way around. It seems to me that both have their place.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

See this is your problem, you're labelling people as 'superstitious' when I've just shown you that the 'superstition' is based in a very real disgust response. You don't understand it because you're a Westerner and you don't have that response - which is abnormal in most of the world, where folks do have the disgust response. I mean, it's not hard. Anal sex produces disease. Disease is bad. This is basic biology not superstition. If these people then go on to have sex with others they pass these infections along.

But I guess AIDs and other STIs are just a superstition.

The idea that being gay is an STI risk *is* a superstition. It's how you engage with sex, which if course not all gay people do the same. Anal isn't unique to gay men and lesbians have anal the least.
Lesbians have lower rates of most STI including HIV than even straight people, if all protection methods are equal.

But all protection methods aren't equal because culture, finances and attitudes aren't. Pretty much all minority demographics, by race, sexuality, disability etc have higher rates of STI. This doesn't mean they are disgusting, but that their accessibility to making sex healthy isn't all the same.

If the disgust reaction where anyone begins and end their engagement with a social issue then I'd call it extremely superficial and way more harm producing than looking past that to the actual, tangible helps and harms. 'I find this icky' is not a rational approach to anything but things like what's on your dinner plate.

The policy fueled by reactionary non-arguments comes up with annoying frequency in my line of volunteer work with reptiles. Disgust driving unproductive or damaging behavior that hurts environmental or rescue work.

That said I agree with you that there *is* tangible harms to incest that make it more complicated than homosexuality, and have said as much in the thread.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would say that it can cause harm if two adults who both consent to have sex with each other are banned from doing so.

Okay. I'll bite. Can you provide any evidence for this? What type of harm are we talking about?

Similarly, a law banning people from wearing green hats with feather's stuck in the top harms no one. Laws are not passed because they harm no one, they are passed because they protect people from harm. I do not see where the harm is in two consenting adults having sex, even if they are closely related.

You're not talking about passing laws, you're talking about rolling them back. In other words you're arguing for an action, not against one. Why should we take this action?

And if you'd read my OP, I was very clear that I was not talking about children, I was talking about consenting adults.

The 5 year old and the 40 year old weren't my examples. And they are simply cases where this is a more idealised conversation. I get it. Idealistically you think people can screw whomever they like assuming consent. So noted.

That's getting into a grey area, and that is why some places have ages of consent that are lower (in the majority of Australia, the AoC is 16), and other places have an age of consent that is higher.

It is, but that's part of my argument. Laws deal poorly with grey areas. AoC laws in Australia are 16 generally, but include a lot of limitations designed to make illegal sexual encounters where there is a power imbalance.

But it is beside the point in terms of my OP. I was very clearly using the example of consenting ADULTS. Not "barely legal" teens, but actual adults.

So the AoC for incestuous relationships is 18 in your hypothetical?
A father could sleep with his daughter on her 18th birthday if she consents?

Actually, that would be the law we already have, the one that says ANY act of incest is banned. That's the one that puts the "two consenting adults" in the same category as "40 year old dad who molests his five year old daughter." I agree that the latter should be banned, but not the former.

I understand your position. It's not mine, and whilst both your situations would be considered 'incest' one would....in addition...fall foul of all sorts of child endangerment laws. They are not treated the same.

And if you've been paying attention, you'll see that I've already pointed out that we don't need laws against incest to deal with the latter. Laws against sexual contact with children already exist and would serve to provide due punishment to an adult who does such things.

As mentioned, bringing up 5 year olds is an edge case. But according to you we are not talking about little kids. So why are we talking about little kids?

Indeed, the presence of incest laws could actually be detrimental. I read a case where a parent was convicted of sexual activity with a minor, and they were looking at a very heavy punishment after being charged with sexual contact with a minor. But the defense attorney got the charge changed to an incest charge which carried a much more lenient sentence.

You might need to source that. Legally they can be charged with every law they break. All of them. But plea bargains happen, particularly where it might be hard to prove higher charges. That has nothing to do with incest laws subverting child endangerment laws.

Why would you not say that Billy and Sally could have sex if they both consent to it?

I gave a simple specific example, which you of course disregarded as irrelevant because it wasn't specifically about 2 adults who are definitely not children, and are definitely not in a coercive or controlling relationship needing to screw.

Following this line of reasonming, we should ban any sex that is not done for the purposes of procreation.

Yeah, nah. Not even vaguely close to any claim I've ever made.

People like to shag. They are going to shag for fun.

Get over it.

Ha! Nice try. Either you entirely missed the point of that earlier comment, or you're conflating different things like crazy.

Yeah, and funnily enough, you didn't give any reason as to WHY they shouldn't be allowed to. So I'll just wait for that reasoning, okay?

*shrugs*

You do you. Your assessment of what is a valid argument is a wee bit self serving. If you're trying to convince anyone of your position, I'm somewhat at a loss as to your method. If you're trying to convince YOURSELF, you don't need me.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think we need incest laws at all. Any crime that could be committed would be covered under other laws. Is it not consensual? We have laws against rape that would apply. Is it with a child? We have laws against that too. Was a person emotionally manipulated into it? We have laws against grooming.

Grooming laws don't adequately cover situations like the direct question I asked earlier about a father having sex with his daughter on her 18th birthday. You can think that's fine if you like, but I think it's worth you addressing your position on that case at least.

I outlined a bunch of information about grooming laws in an earlier post in this thread (albeit not addressed to you)
I'm on my phone so it's a little hard to link, but it's in the last 2 pages.

[Edit : Post #148]

And funnily enough, all of these laws were designed to protect people regardless of their relationship to their abuser. Rape victims are not always raped by family members. Kids who get molested are not always molested by family members. Kids who are groomed are not always groomed by family members. And so the laws against these things were not made so that they only apply to family members. The law against grooming applies to any adult who grooms any child, regardless of whether that child is a family member or not. And if a parent is grooming their child, this law would apply in just the same way as it would if the adult who was doing the grooming as a teacher or a priest.

Yup.

I would argue that a person has the right to have sex with whoever they want, provided that the other person consents to it.

I understand what you are arguing.

If I am dating a black woman, I could, by your argument, claim that I have a need to have sex with my partner, but not that long ago this would have been banned. The idea of what needs are acceptable and not is subjective.

Yup.

So if you want me to accept your position, you're going to have to do a lot better than your subjective opinion. So your argument about "needs" is really unconvincing.

Wait a minute...
The idea of what is acceptable is subjective, but I need more than my subjective opinion to convince you of what's acceptable? Yeeesh.

I need scientific evidence for you? Hmm...you first. What is the scientific or otherwise objective case that there is societal benefit to allowing incest?

Your argument is even worse. It seems to me to boil down to, "It's wrong because it's wrong, and therefore it is wrong."

Yup...that's exactly what I said. And having reduced my comments to a nonsense, you can sleep easier knowing you won...or something.

Yeah, because two closely related adults have never felt sexual attraction towards each other... *rolls eyes*

I'm married. I feel sexual attraction towards people outside my marriage. I don't screw them. It's really not hard to understand that attraction and action are different. Unless you're a rabbit, I guess.

 

[YmirGF]

This thread is quite disturbing.

The idea that 'consent' is the be all and end all is disturbing.

And a five-year-old often cannot see the potential harm of wanting to touch a pretty red-hot element on a stove.

 

[VoidCat]

Here is something to consider....this is something I feel is worth mentioning...its not the situation in the OP as abuse was involved that caused this situation to happen but it is a case regarding incest and gives understanding to laws regarding incest...So I actually know two people who were brothers who had intercourse with each other. It started out when the younger one was like 6 and lasted a few years to my understanding. The older brother was only 2 years older. Anyway when it was found out the older sibling was 13. And because this is NC there was worry he would be charged as an adult because incest is a felony. The police implied that the whole relationship was consensual because there was no evidence of force. However the reason the situation happened was because the the two children were acting out abuse that was done to them by an older adult. Personally i view both people involved in this as victims and I do not think the older child should've been arrested and have gone to juvie(he was tried as a kid despite the possiblity he could've been tried as an adult and did in up in juvie.).


Anyway im including this info to give an idea on incest and how the law could be applied to it.

 

[Rival]

Here is something to consider....this is something I feel is worth mentioning...its not the situation in the OP as abuse was involved that caused this situation to happen but it is a case regarding incest and gives understanding to laws regarding incest...So I actually know two people who were brothers who had intercourse with each other. It started out when the younger one was like 6 and lasted a few years to my understanding. The older brother was only 2 years older. Anyway when it was found out the older sibling was 13. And because this is NC there was worry he would be charged as an adult because incest is a felony. The police implied that the whole relationship was consensual because there was no evidence of force. However the reason the situation happened was because the the two children were acting out abuse that was done to them by an older adult. Personally i view both people involved in this as victims and I do not think the older child should've been arrested and have gone to juvie(he was tried as a kid despite the possiblity he could've been tried as an adult and did in up in juvie.).


Anyway im including this info to give an idea on incest and how the law could be applied to it.

Yes. Incest is often if not always due to psychological disturbance.

 

[VoidCat]

Yes. Incest is often if not always due to psychological disturbance.

In my opinion it's impossible to say if there's consent in cases regarding incest. I think first cousin relations are ok but sibling and parent child ones are muddy at the least regarding consent. Could there be consenting adults in such a situation? Possibly. But like @lewisnotmiller if im understanding his views correctly im still reading through the thread I think most wouldnt have it and laws apply to most cases not isolated incidents. Itd likely be rare for there to be consent so rare i think the only way there could be is if the folks did not know they were siblings/ parent child or if they met later in life and never grew up with each other.

 

[YmirGF]

I guess my understanding of humanity is governing how I approach this topic. I know that people, if given the chance, will take things too far. It's what we do, as a species. Those of us watching the latest winner of the Darwin Awards, tend to look at such cases and think, "Ah, perhaps that is not a good idea. Ice cream?" We take away that mental note of a foolhardy endeavour and reinforce our understanding, so we are better prepared in the future when we meet the next potential Darwin Award winner.

After repeated exposure to such phenomena, we develop a "nose" for sniffing out unpleasant outcomes in advance. This is not a perfect quality, by any stretch, and goes back to our more visceral, primitive instincts. To my thinking, "ick" is part of the "fight or flight" duo and could well provoke either response.

I find the idea of incest sex to be funny on one level, due to living in a society that is hyper-fixated on any and all forms of sex already. Hell, we just finished a month-long celebration of gay sex... err, pride... or whatever, and now we are asked what the heck is wrong with wanting to bonk your dad if both of you agree, as adults, of course. What could possibly go wrong? Will your dad stop being your dad before, during and after? The interpersonal dynamics required to make this work are grotesque. I don't know of any two people who are "adult" enough to pull this off. No pun intended.

Ditto, mom. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics involved that would even put such an option on my plate. Let alone asking. Let alone doing the deed. Let alone living with the unforeseen consequences afterwards.

Ditto brothers and sisters. Does anyone really think they are "adult" enough to present this idea to a sibling? Seriously?
I would say, as an untrained psychologist, if anyone can imagine having that conversation, they need to get into personal counselling right ****ing now.

 

[VoidCat]

In my opinion it's impossible to say if there's consent in cases regarding incest. I think first cousin relations are ok but sibling and parent child ones are muddy at the least regarding consent. Could there be consenting adults in such a situation? Possibly. But like @lewisnotmiller if im understanding his views correctly im still reading through the thread I think most wouldnt have it and laws apply to most cases not isolated incidents. Itd likely be rare for there to be consent so rare i think the only way there could be is if the folks did not know they were siblings/ parent child or if they met later in life and never grew up with each other.

I'd like to point to folk who say that all those opposed to incest being banned are because of disgust...

I may be genetically flawed here but im not disgusted by the thought of it. I'd never sleep with a relative not my thing but the idea of two relatives ****ing is very mildly disgusting to me. As in the idea of me doing it is gross but the idea of others is not...im opposed to parent sleeping with their children and siblings sleeping with each other because of consent reasons and the harm it can cause. Not cuz of disgust. I do think incest laws need to be adjusted like in cases here:

Here is something to consider....this is something I feel is worth mentioning...its not the situation in the OP as abuse was involved that caused this situation to happen but it is a case regarding incest and gives understanding to laws regarding incest...So I actually know two people who were brothers who had intercourse with each other. It started out when the younger one was like 6 and lasted a few years to my understanding. The older brother was only 2 years older. Anyway when it was found out the older sibling was 13. And because this is NC there was worry he would be charged as an adult because incest is a felony. The police implied that the whole relationship was consensual because there was no evidence of force. However the reason the situation happened was because the the two children were acting out abuse that was done to them by an older adult. Personally i view both people involved in this as victims and I do not think the older child should've been arrested and have gone to juvie(he was tried as a kid despite the possiblity he could've been tried as an adult and did in up in juvie.).


Anyway im including this info to give an idea on incest and how the law could be applied to it.

But im opposed to making it a blanket legally allowable thing except in the cases of cousins.

 

[Rival]

I guess my understanding of humanity is governing how I approach this topic. I know that people, if given the chance, will take things too far. It's what we do, as a species. Those of us watching the latest winner of the Darwin Awards, tend to look at such cases and think, "Ah, perhaps that is not a good idea. Ice cream?" We take away that mental note of a foolhardy endeavour and reinforce our understanding, so we are better prepared in the future when we meet the next potential Darwin Award winner.

After repeated exposure to such phenomena, we develop a "nose" for sniffing out unpleasant outcomes in advance. This is not a perfect quality, by any stretch, and goes back to our more visceral, primitive instincts. To my thinking, "ick" is part of the "fight or flight" duo and could well provoke either response.

I find the idea of incest sex to be funny on one level, due to living in a society that is hyper-fixated on any and all forms of sex already. Hell, we just finished a month-long celebration of gay sex... err, pride... or whatever, and now we are asked what the heck is wrong with wanting to bonk your dad if both of you agree, as adults, of course. What could possibly go wrong? Will your dad stop being your dad before, during and after? The interpersonal dynamics required to make this work are grotesque. I don't know of any two people who are "adult" enough to pull this off. No pun intended.

Ditto, mom. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics involved that would even put such an option on my plate. Let alone asking. Let alone doing the deed. Let alone living with the unforeseen consequences afterwards.

Ditto brothers and sisters. Does anyone really think they are "adult" enough to present this idea to a sibling? Seriously?
I would say, as an untrained psychologist, if anyone can imagine having that conversation, they need to get into personal counselling right ****ing now.

This thread is so much easier after 3 glasses.

Honestly.

Looks like a lot of folks don't like hearing 'no'.

 

[YmirGF]

This thread is so much easier after 3 glasses.

How do you get three pairs of glasses to stay on?

 

[Rival]

How do you get three pairs of glasses to stay on?

Like 3 masks.

 

[YmirGF]

Like 3 masks.

I find the cavalier attitude towards incest to be a teensy bit off-putting.
When one is playing in those kinds of weeds, where else do their travels take them?

 

[Rival]

I find the cavalier attitude towards incest to be a teensy bit off-putting.
When one is playing in those kinds of weeds, where else do their travels take them?

I'm not sure but it sure is scary.

I dislike the notion of 'consent' is all that's needed, because that ends up justifying a whole lot of things. Some animals believe humans are their mates and approach them for intercourse, should we allow bestiality? It seems ludicrous. Some older teenagers give consent to sex with those of age, but we know this is statutory rape. Consent as a model is very flawed, but the fact some people are now using it for acts that have always been considered and should always be considered perverted is the reason we had such draconian sexual norms itfp. The slippery slope is real. In the mid 20th c. Britain had a legal paedophile exchange network. We need to be very careful with sex.

 

[The Hammer]

How are we defining "incest"? What level of closeness qualifies? Brothers, parents, cousins?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I find the cavalier attitude towards incest to be a teensy bit off-putting.

Hm...not sure if anyone is being specifically cavalier, but this is one of those threads I've had to jump around in. I would agree that incest, regardless of consent, is capable of great harm in multiple ways, even if it's just social. I am just personally not sure if legislating it is the appropriate response.

A little self disclosure, I was sexually molested by an adult relative. I am particularly disturbed by the idea of incest. I am just trying to set aside that disgust in order to think objectively about the idea of legislating the issue.