Should Incest be banned?

[dybmh]

Ah, read the second half of that

Sorry... I had a spontaneous, thoughtless reaction. I'll read more carefully in the future.

The risks are too great to allow incest to be legal.

So, if the risks are mitigated, it would be ok?

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, because it's demented. The end.

But a lot of people say the same thing about homosexuality, so that alone isn't enough to base legislation on.

 

[PureX]

In a way, I think the question is moot, as any consenting adults wanting to engage in such behavior will likely do so regardless of any laws. And the vast majority of consenting adults likely will not, also regardless of the law.

 

[Soandso]

Sorry... I had a spontaneous, thoughtless reaction. I'll read more carefully in the future.



So, if the risks are mitigated, it would be ok?

Eh, I'm more interested in the real world than in hypotheticals that will never happen. That said, there's psychological dangers involved with incest as well, like the example I gave from my earlier post. Incest between parents and their children is grooming and child abuse at it's very worst, imo

 

[dybmh]

Eh, I'm more interested in the real world than in hypotheticals that will never happen. That said, there's psychological dangers involved with incest as well, like the example I gave from my earlier post. Incest between parents and their children is grooming and child abuse at it's very worst, imo

that's fair. thank you.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't believe that anything should be banned. If something is forced or coerced, on to anyone then it should be punished. If anyone uses something to hurt another purposely it should be punished. If you willing, with knowledge of the responsibilities act on yourself or another and only hurt yourself or the person who willing with knowledge or responsibility joins you, you are good. Hurt should be defined as physical or mental harm that leaves a scar that requires time or treatment to correct. My opinion as best I can convey it.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's disgusting and disturbing... but still, if they're consenting adults...

 

[Alien826]

Family dynamics and interactions are complex, as anyone with a family probably knows. Within a family there are also hierarchical power dynamics. Nor can one ever completely "divorce" from a family. One can separate from your family, perhaps, but familial ties are immutable andph they psyche knows no physical distance. Sexual relations within a closed system, such as a family is a potent recipe for conflict, contention and pain. There are 8,000,000,000 people in the world. Restricting the number of potential sexual partners to 8,000,000,000 minus the members of your immediate family is not much of a restriction. Any "good" that could come from incest is far outweighed by potential harm including harm to non-participants. Incest is not justifiable.

But you're overlooking the convenience of incest. It might be raining outside or cold. Who wants to go out looking for sexual partners then? On the other hand your family is right there, maybe in the same room. You might not even have to get up from the couch!

Sorry, I'm finding it hard to take this thread seriously.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think that's a valid comparison. No matter how well maintained the car, there is a limit to how fast it can go around a corner before physics sends it flying.

Sure, but the excellent and rational driver would know where that limit is and keep within it.

How about, if we're working on an assumption of fully consenting adults, wouldn't that also be an argument against rape laws too?

As I said, I'm assuming that this is between fully consenting adults.

I get that, but you're asking about changing the law, and the law doesn't only apply to a defined subset of hypothetical situations, it has to apply to any possible situation.

You could make an argument about the moral objections to incest in certain circumstances, and you could even argue for relaxation or mitigation round the existing laws in different jurisdictions, but if you're talking about a simple question of legalising any and all consensual adult incest, you need to consider all of the possibilities.

And since birth control is easy, safe and effective for the most part, the issue of producing offspring isn't something I want to bring into this discussion.

If birth control was easy and effective, there wouldn't be so many unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. Plus, you assume your hypothetical couples want to use birth control. They could want to have children, either not knowing or not caring about the associated risks.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm uber-optimistic, so, I can almost always imagine any situation with puppy-dogs, rainbows, champaigne, and roses. But even if I put that down, temporarily, without any religious doctrine influence, I cannot fathom the problem with this on a universal scope.

As a fellow Pollyanna personality, I cannot fathom how this could not be a problem given the alteration of power dynamics in sibling relationships.

Given that sleeping with close friends rarely ends well, I cannot imagine it working out any better with blood relatives.

 

[Link]

Seeing a the shortest distance between two points is a straight line can be proven complicated ways, but it can be seen in a way that is seen right away without need of further proofs by pure logic that is properly basic and sees it mathematically as correct.

Arham in Arabic is about family relationship by blood. It is derived from the word Rahma which means compassion or mercy or combination of the two depending on context. It's a kind of love too, and can even be translated as that without the like or adore component.

Family relationship whether mother to daughter or to son, or siblings or cousins, etc, is not created randomly but was created from truth.

Just as you can see a straight line between two points is shortest distance, I can see it's ugly, repulsive and evil - incest is an abomination.

Now you can go to complicated reasons and justify it too. Same with straight line thing. There can be many mathematical proofs. But the best proof is to see it purely intuitively in a properly basic way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One day, I may learn to be concise. Well said.

Haha, thanks. I think when it comes to certain subjects, it's just so clear that there's no need to go on and on about it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, but the excellent and rational driver would know where that limit is and keep within it.

How about, if we're working on an assumption of fully consenting adults, wouldn't that also be an argument against rape laws too?

I get that, but you're asking about changing the law, and the law doesn't only apply to a defined subset of hypothetical situations, it has to apply to any possible situation.

You could make an argument about the moral objections to incest in certain circumstances, and you could even argue for relaxation or mitigation round the existing laws in different jurisdictions, but if you're talking about a simple question of legalising any and all consensual adult incest, you need to consider all of the possibilities.

If birth control was easy and effective, there wouldn't be so many unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. Plus, you assume your hypothetical couples want to use birth control. They could want to have children, either not knowing or not caring about the associated risks.

We pretty much don't legislate around fetal health at all here with the major exception of incest. It's discouraged but not illegal to drink, smoke or do any number of things while pregnant that could cause damage. Nor do we stop people with certain inheritable disease or disorders from procreation, as attempts to do so have caused eugenicists to rear their ugly heads in the past.

I think preventing abuse is, while not a foolproof reason, stronger than the health angle. We have a similar rule about polygamy. There are loads of polyamory people who are all informed and consenting, but polygamy is still illegal to prevent (usually religious) abusive harems and to prevent widespread tax fraud.

 

[syo]

Yes, because it's demented. The end.

THIS ^

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, because it's demented. The end.

Care to support that claim?

 

[Tiberius]

I am deeply disturbed by the idea that incest could be OK given that it is a condition that results from maladaptive behaviours. It is simply not possible to put a happy face on incest.

Can you support that claim?

Well thank goodness you rule out diddling kids, at least you are not too far gone down this rabbit hole of degeneracy -- yet.

I would never consider any sexual activity with children to be acceptable.

Heaven forbid we talk about OBVIOUS reasons why incest is not a great idea.

You are aware that Humans have come up with lots of ways to have sex without producing offspring right? The reason for this is very simple: Most people think that sex is fun.

My brain is going wild on this one. The twisted power dynamics that would make this OK are mind-numbing. Your very last words here simply would never happen, as there are always power dynamics at play in interpersonal relationships.

Again, I would ask you to support this claim.

 

[Tiberius]

Family dynamics and interactions are complex, as anyone with a family probably knows. Within a family there are also hierarchical power dynamics. Nor can one ever completely "divorce" from a family. One can separate from your family, perhaps, but familial ties are immutable andph they psyche knows no physical distance. Sexual relations within a closed system, such as a family is a potent recipe for conflict, contention and pain. There are 8,000,000,000 people in the world. Restricting the number of potential sexual partners to 8,000,000,000 minus the members of your immediate family is not much of a restriction. Any "good" that could come from incest is far outweighed by potential harm including harm to non-participants. Incest is not justifiable.

First of all, this assumes that the two people are familiar to each other. There have been cases where genetically related people have lived their entire lives not knowing each other and not encountering each other, and then meeting and beginning a physical relationship. How do family dynamics fit in here? There doesn't seem to be any.

And if two people are in the bedroom having sex, how does it affect anyone else?

 

[Tiberius]

When it comes to consenting adults who are genetically closely related having sex with each other for pleasure or sensual and emotional fulfillment, I don’t think a legal ban on it is necessary. This is because none of the parties is a victim and that the deed does not harm wider society. If the two consenting adults feel, after the deed, that they’ve negatively impacted their familial relationship by having sex, that is their own issue considering that the sex was consensual.

I pretty much agree with this.

My attitude is that when it comes to sex, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I really don't care what they do.

I think that any two adults who are genetically closely related, who are thinking about having consensual sex together ought to consider any possible consequences. Many people who are friends have their friendship negatively impacted by having consensual sex together. The impact would probably be worse for the genetically closely related pair.

I think that's more to do with how we have been trained to think about sex in our society, that it's something which creates a drastic change in the nature of a relationship. I tend to view sex more as a fun activity with people I want to share a close connection with, and I've had sex with many people and stayed as friends with them.

If you accept that sex is something that can be shared between friends without changing the friendship (just like how playing board games is something that friends can do without changing the friendship), then such drastic impacts tend to be much less.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Care to support that claim?

It's self-evident. I'm not explaining what should be elementary, why you shouldn't **** your relatives. Plus, others have already said why. I'm wondering why you need it explained to you. You should be the one telling us why you think it should be acceptable.

 

[Tiberius]

Yah, no. The risks are too great to allow incest to be legal. People absolutely get pregnant when they have sex - even when they are being extra careful. Protection is never 100% without medical intervention or birth defect, and those are extreme circumstances that the vast majority of people won't be in

That doesn't change the fact that there are ways to prevent pregnancy. And despite your claims, there are ways that are 100% effective. Even if we discount things like the guy getting a vasectomy, pregnancy is absolutely impossible if the woman has gone through menopause, of if she has had a hysterectomy.

This doesn't even include the awful situations of incest between parents and their children... I don't think there is a more perfect example of grooming

Yeah, I very specifically stated that I am talking ONLY about incest between consenting adults. I was clear that I'm not talking about a parent fiddling with their five year old child.