Should Incest be banned?

[danieldemol]

'so-called' utilitarian approach.

Okay.
It's hardly an edgy philosophy, and there are thousands of books and websites that can expose it to all sorts of ridiculous levels. But regardless, all I'm suggesting here is that action should be measured on benefit.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I think it should be measured in terms of harm, not benefit.

 

[Link]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I think it should be measured in terms of harm, not benefit.

Do you believe only in negative type human rights or positive as well?

 

[danieldemol]

Do you believe only in negative type human rights or positive as well?

I'm afraid I don't have a clue of what you mean when you describe human rights as negative or positive.

 

[Link]

I'm afraid I don't have a clue of what you mean when you describe human rights as negative or positive.

Negative refers to the right to be protected due to the right you have for a person for example, not to steal from you. So stealing and protection against it, is a negative right.

Positive right, refers to a beneficial thing for society where as the inconvenience of it is small compared to it's benefit. Usually the small inconvenience is taxes, but the benefits to society are overwhelming and even benefit the person giving the taxes.

 

[danieldemol]

Negative refers to the right to be protected due to the right you have for a person for example, not to steal from you. So stealing and protection against it, is a negative right.

Positive right, refers to a beneficial thing for society where as the inconvenience of it is small compared to it's benefit. Usually the small inconvenience is taxes, but the benefits to society are overwhelming and even benefit the person giving the taxes.

I dont grant rights to society, only to individuals. To me taxing those with excess to provide for those without sufficient means for survival is simply a practical necessity of an individual's right to life.

But I doubt you can demonstrate benefit to society of the sexual repression of identical monogamous gay twins for example anyway.

 

[VoidCat]

Some info on GSA(genetic sexual attraction) that might be useful in this convo... It's a long article but it goes into the phenomena of when relatives that didnt grow up with each other meet years later and one or both of them feel sexual attraction. It's a real thing that does occur but not widely studied and something that does happen.

Genetic Sexual Attraction In Adoption Reunion Relationships

Detailed information on genetic sexual attraction in adoption reunion relationships. Includes reasons genetic sexual attraction occurs.

mariedolfi.com

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again, you leave out the important information that would allow us to answer the question.

Has the father been grooming the daughter?

As I've said multiple times, grooming laws are triggered on commitment of a crime. What is the crime being committed here under your scenario?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thank you. Those studies show very clearly that denying people the right to have relationships with the people they want to have relationships causes harm.

No they don't. That's really not how science works.

Right, so then what harm is done when two related consenting adults have sex when there is no grooming?

This point is so divorced from reality it's difficult to respond. I've said before, your scenario is basically a truism. In a contrived scenario where there is no harm, then what harm has been done? Answer : None. Meaning : None.

You seem incapable of actually addressing the point I am making.

Mostly because your conversation is on rails, and demands an answer on rails, else you simply don't engage.

Consenting ADULTS.

You seem to insist on going to the extreme younger end of "adult" in order to try to make some point, despite the fact that I repeatedly and clearly stated that wasn't what I was talking about.

You're not talking about 18 year olds?

Again, you missed the part where I CLEARLY said I wasn't talking about "barely legal" situations.

I didn't miss it. It's your idealism divorced from reality. I'm not engaging based on a purely idealistic discussion, and you don't accept that approach.

And you seem incapable of understanding WHY I am using that example.

I am using that example to eliminate as much as possible the issues of grooming.

Again...you're dealing with an ideal. I get it. It's nothing that's ever going to convince me of anything, since I'm a pragmatist. But I think we both realise our approaches are different by now.

That's not what I meant.

I was referring to the fact that your example of a father having sex with his daughter as soon as she turns legal age and asking whether that constitutes grooming. I said you didn't provide enough information because you gave absolutely no information to determine whether the father had groomed this hypothetical young woman or not.

My point is that based on current laws, it's not grooming. Regardless of what the father did in her youth, unless he specifically broke a law. Grooming kicks in as a result of a breach of legality. In this scenario there is no incest law, and no breach of age of consent laws. So no grooming. The father's actions are beside the point unless he specifically broke a law, which is in fact the point I'm making.

My point is that we don't need ANY laws against incest. In any cases of incest that have caused harm, such as adults sexually abusing children, or people grooming family members, we have non-incest laws that will serve adequately to provide punishments for the perpetrators.

Which I don't think is actually correct, hence my 18 year old example.

So you agree you are asking me to answer a question when you have deliberately not provided me with enough information to answer it?

Not at all what I said. I would suggest the discussion is contextual and context matters. You're suggesting incest laws should be repealed in a holistic sense. Answer my questions with whatever framing you prefer.

At least you can admit to the intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Again, not at all what I said, and your attempt to frame is as intellectual dishonesty is pretty cheap, honestly. My comments in this thread have been in good faith, and in an attempt to engage on the topic. I get that you dislike my approach, but there it is.
Your comments was as follows;

In short, you're forcing a discussion about something that doesn't fit the situation I've been talking about from the start of this thread and you are deliberately asking me to make a judgement without the full information, and then you're claiming I failed when I refuse to play with your strawman.

So yes...I can agree with that to a point, because I'm being honest. How you see that as a sign of 'intellectual dishonesty' is beyond me, and completely arse-about. Regardless my meaning was that I am attempting to inject a degree of reality to this idealistic discussion. Laws are made without the 'complete information' and are to be applied holistically, not to an individual circumstance only. So having to frame them without 'complete information' is the point.

Again, I will point out that your hypothetical situation INTENTIONALLY left out the information I need in order to judge whether grooming has occurred or not.

Again, I will point out that grooming laws are triggered on commitment of an offence, and removing incest laws would remove the offence. With a simple example being of a 'barely legal' teen (otherwise known as 'legal') having sex with her father on her 18th birthday. If you want to suggest that this would be okay where there has been no grooming, my position is pretty simple;
1) That has a high likelihood of being a coercive or otherwise mentally unhealthy sexual relationship
2) Even where grooming HAS occurred, a removal of incest laws would remove the laws teeth to take any action.

It's like if I say that I go into a store and walk out five minutes later with a loaf of bread. Did I commit theft or not? The information you need just isn't there. You are doing the same thing but not giving the information I need to answer your question of whether the young woman was groomed or not.

It's possible, of course, that she grows up without any influence from her father, and isn't even aware the guy having sex with her IS her father. I certainly wouldn't see that as criminal. Otherwise, I have no idea how you think this is anything like trying to work out if someone has paid for a loaf of bread.

And yet manslaughter is a clearly defined thing that is not covered by other laws.

Your point...horribly supported with a 20 year old case that was subsequently used to improve laws as it was...appeared to be that lesser charges are used to avoid heavier sentences. Plea bargaining, in short. Are you suggesting manslaughter is not used as a plea bargain tool??

My point was that there are cases where laws specifically for incest can provide loopholes that let people get away with lesser sentences.
[/quote]

All lesser charges have this risk. It's also avoidable, and actions were taken about 17 years ago in New York in response to the situation you are using as your example.


Then perhaps you'd care to explain how genetic similarity makes it bad?

All of those things happen outside incestuous relationships.

You have misrepresented my position by claiming I am calling for the laws to be removed. I am pointing out there is no justification for those laws. If I was trying to get those laws repealed, I'd take action by writing to the law makers, not posting on an internet forum.

Cool. I took 'should incest be banned' as a commentary on wanting the law removed. Apologies is that was an unfair extrapolation.

But such manipulation and harm also happen in cases of non-incestuous sex. If the claim of manipulation and harm is enough justification to forbid incest, then why isn't it sufficient to forbid ANY sexual relationships where such manipulation and harm could occur?

There are a whole range of sexual relationships which are explicitly controlled. And I think that's fair and valid. And I think incestuous relationships fall within that boundary.

The only other argument I've seen you present is the "But it doesn't cause any social benefit" line. The same logic would have us conclude that same sex partnerships don't produce any social benefit, so we should have left the laws banning those as well.

You can make that argument if you like. I explicitly listed you to scientific studies which disagreed there was no benefit. Which you took and used to try and make a point completely disassociated with what the studies actually investigated, so perhaps this insistence that there is no societal benefit derives from you not having really looked at what I provided.

Of course, the whole idea of "social benefit" is completely vague. How do you determine the social benefit of something?
And it also assumes that something must be of benefit to society, and if it isn't, we can ban it and no harm is done. Why must everything have social benefit?

It's merely a way of measuring the value in something. As I have said...repeatedly...I would see the argument for allowing incest as almost non-existent, so even relatively minor issues with it would be enough for me to not view it as positive. Not that I think a risk of coercive sexual relationships between children and their parents is exactly 'minor' but I'm just stating my view.

And your understanding is required, is it, in order for it to be judged right or wrong?

Sure. When it's my opinion we're talking about. That would seem pretty basic.

Look, we are making progress. You agree that people have a natural and healthy drive to have sex.

Do I need to hold your hand through the rest of it?

Oooh...condescension. Lovely.

Who can people NOT have sex with?

People can NOT have sex with someone who doesn't consent, because that is rape, and rape has clear harmful effects.

People can NOT have sex with children, because children are not emotionally and/or physically mature enough to deal with the physical and emotional consequences of sexual activity.

Legally, or 'morally'?

See how I've done this? I've presented a subset of the population and explained in specific terms why it is harmful to have sexual activity with them.

Now, let's see you do this for incestuous sex between consenting adults.

You didn't bother reading the information I provided on societal benefit of homosexual relationships, and have presented no evidence above and beyond your opinion regarding incestuous relationships, whilst feeling justified to complain that I'm using 'my understanding' as a justification for positions.
So, present the positive case. What is the benefit of this?

The harm is in the blurring of lines of consent and coercion, and limitations in how existing laws such as grooming would be applicable without the added legal definition of incest holding weight.

 

[Tiberius]

As I've said multiple times, grooming laws are triggered on commitment of a crime. What is the crime being committed here under your scenario?

I would say that manipulation of someone so they will have sex with you is a crime.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would say that manipulation of someone so they will have sex with you is a crime.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but not as near as I can tell.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but not as near as I can tell.

Wait until it's your daughter who has been manipulated, then you'll see it as a problem.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wait until it's your daughter who has been manipulated, then you'll see it as a problem.

I see it as a massive problem if and when it happens.
I'm talking about legal ramifications.