Should Incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

We have good reasons, such as marriage contracts and other social constructs that when disregarded, cause social cohesion to disintegrate.

That's REALLY vague.

Nothing among we humans is "do whatever you want" because we humans are a social, cooperative species. We are required to sacrifice some degree of our selfishness for the good of everyone, together. And because sexuality is such a powerful motive among humans, it needs to be held In check, especially.

Just like how the same reasoning was used to ban inter racial marriages, and gay sex, hmmm?

I know that selfish individualism is all the rage these days in our greedy, selfish, capitalist culture, but we can all see that it's tearing us apart, and turning us all against each other. Because the truth is that we are a social species, and not a bunch of lone individuals, as we unfortunately currently imagine ourselves to be.

Say what you will, but two people having sex doesn't affect anyone else.

Of course, if you would care to explain to me how two people having sex down the street from you can affect your life, you go right ahead.

Your whole position relies on the blind assumption that selfishness equals freedom and that individual freedom is the ultimate social value. When in fact it's not the ultimate social value at all. It's just a common, socially unhealthy, desire.

Since when is two consenting adults having sex selfishness? How specifically does it harm the health of society?

 

[PureX]

That's REALLY vague.

Just like how the same reasoning was used to ban inter racial marriages, and gay sex, hmmm?

Say what you will, but two people having sex doesn't affect anyone else.

Well, this is where you're falling off the rails. Because we are not the lone individuals that you seem to believe we are. And so how we behave in relation to other people effects everyone.

Of course, if you would care to explain to me how two people having sex down the street from you can affect your life, you go right ahead.

Their selfishness feeds everyone else's. Just as their selflessness would. It's not just about sex. It's about every kind of human interaction. And selfishness destroys social cohesion.

Since when is two consenting adults having sex selfishness?

When it involves someone else's spouse, or significant other. When it involves someone's parent, or offspring. When it involves coworkers. Or when it involves employers and employees. Or when it involves religious leaders and congregants. And when it involves family members.

How specifically does it harm the health of society?

It destroys social function and cohesion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have no idea how you got that.

I said the argument "But we have to ban it because it's against morality!" was once used as justification to ban gay sex, as well as inter-racial sex. This shows that if "morality" is the only argument there is for banning something, then it's not sufficient justification.

As such, there needs to be more than simply a moral argument against incest to justify banning it.

As to your questions, if two consenting adults want to have sex, then denying them that is, I would argue, a violation of their rights. No one is being harmed, after all. And I would say that no one is being helped by a ban on incest, since sexual acts don't generally affect other people. When was the last time your life was affected in any way by the couple living three doors down from you having sex? I'm going to guess the answer is "never."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But if you want mine, you might need to engage with it a little.

Incest is currently banned. From a utilitarian point of view I'm unsure on the benefits of 'unbanning', whilst I can foresee at least some situational harm. So why change the laws?

Your answer to that...your justification...spoke of gay sex and interracial sex. But those don't justify unbanning from a utilitarian point of view. And an argument that incest should be legal because gay sex is legal actually could backfire and provide ammunition to the religious right nutjobs who try tying the two together, along with pedophilia and/or bestiality.

So...Who is being harmed by existing restrictions on incest? Who is being helped?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a strange thread where you and I end up on the same 'side' @PureX !!

 

[Link]

@PureX

Well done sir.

 

[VoidCat]

Being married to your first cousin here in NC is legal. As long as you aren't double cousins.

 

[Alien826]

You want incest allowed because of the risk to interracial or gay sex?

*ponders*

That doesn't seem right. If anything, gay sex and interracial sex are much less likely to be targeted for control if they are seen as standalone considerations not linked to incest.

Start tying the three together and the practical impact is a vastly increased likelihood that gay or interracial sex will be either societally or legally controlled.

Perhaps I should frame my question a different way. Who is being harmed by existing restrictions on incest? Who is being helped?

Historically, that doesn't work. In the UK, homosexual acts were forbidden by law until 1967, and even then the age of consent was set at 21 as opposed to 16 for heterosexuals. Look up Lord Montagu, who spent some time in prison for it in the 1950s. There was no incest involved.

 

[dybmh]

If the objection is "let's protect unborn children from birth defects" then individuals with known hereditary genetic conditions would need to be prohibited from procreation.

I actually know a couple who struggled with this. One person in the couple discovered that they had huntington's in their genetics and the liklihood of passing it to a female child was high. Should this couple be banned from having intercourse?

 

[Yerda]

It should stay banned on the grounds that it would make everyone a bit queasy. Feeling a bit queasy is something I will only tolerate inflicting on myself with poor dietary choices.

 

[dybmh]

I think there was question about the harm done by the ban? I suppose the harm done is on the individual who has these sorts of desires and is being convinced they are evil because of it even though they are not choosing to have those sorts of desires.

For all those who cannot escape the "but it is evil, they're grooming" mindset, it is being described as a desire for a consensual adult relationship. Or perhaps it's a child who is having feelings of a concensual encounter. Grooming is not consent, it's coersion.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, this is where you're falling off the rails. Because we are not the lone individuals that you seem to believe we are. And so how we behave in relation to other people effects everyone.

I'm still waiting to hear how two people having sex in private can possibly affect you.

Their selfishness feeds everyone else's. Just as their selflessness would. It's not just about sex. It's about every kind of human interaction. And selfishness destroys social cohesion.

And how does that happen when two people have sex in private?

When it involves someone else's spouse, or significant other. When it involves someone's parent, or offspring. When it involves coworkers. Or when it involves employers and employees. Or when it involves religious leaders and congregants. And when it involves family members.

Ah, but that's not what I'm talking about, is it?

I'm not talking about someone having sex with another married person.

I'm talking about two consenting adults who are having consensual sex who happen to be related.

You can not give me any specific on how that harms society.

It destroys social function and cohesion.

Yeah, so you say, but you've very quiet on the HOW...

 

[Tiberius]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But if you want mine, you might need to engage with it a little.

I don't see why I need to work with you in order for you to present well-reasoned arguments to back up your position.

You have a position. You present the arguments to support that position. None of that requires any action on my part.

Incest is currently banned. From a utilitarian point of view I'm unsure on the benefits of 'unbanning', whilst I can foresee at least some situational harm. So why change the laws?

I hold the position that people should have the right to have sex with anyone they want provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult. Hence, I have no problem with interracial sex, gay sex, group sex, non-monogamy, etc. So if two consenting adults decide to have sex, and they happen to be brother and sister, then I still don't see a problem with it.

But, what situational harm do you see?

Your answer to that...your justification...spoke if gay sex and interracial sex. But those don't justify unbanning from a utilitarian point of view.

What do you mean?

They seem pretty much the same argument to me. "Person A and Person B are consenting adults, but we should make a law to prevent them from ****ing each other because there is this particular aspect that we've decided is icky."

Whether the particular aspect in question is "they are of different races," or "they are both men," or "they are genetically related" seems to me to be just an excuse.

And an argument that incest should be legal because gay sex is legal actually could backfire and provide ammunition to the religious right nutjobs who try tying the two together, along with pedofilia and/or bestiality.

Of course, I would argue that a strong case could be made that pedophilia and bestiality cause harm. So, you would have to make a strong case that incest causes harm as well.

So...Who is being harmed by existing restrictions on incest? Who is being helped?

Did you not pay attention to my previous post to you? I answered those questions.

 

[Tiberius]

It should stay banned on the grounds that it would make everyone a bit queasy. Feeling a bit queasy is something I will only tolerate inflicting on myself with poor dietary choices.

I really hope that's a joke.

 

[Tiberius]

I think there was question about the harm done by the ban? I suppose the harm done is on the individual who has these sorts of desires and is being convinced they are evil because of it even though they are not choosing to have those sorts of desires.

For all those who cannot escape the "but it is evil, they're grooming" mindset, it is being described as a desire for a consensual adult relationship. Or perhaps it's a child who is having feelings of a concensual encounter. Grooming is not consent, it's coersion.

I agree that grooming is coercion and is disgusting, and I am most certainly not talking about that in this thread. Any case of an adult grooming a child, whether related or not, for sexual activity should be punished, as it is an abuse of the adult's authority over the child.

In this thread I am specifically talking about two adults who are engaging in something completely consensual.

 

[dybmh]

I agree that grooming is coercion and is disgusting, and I am most certainly not talking about that in this thread. Any case of an adult grooming a child, whether related or not, for sexual activity should be punished, as it is an abuse of the adult's authority over the child.

In this thread I am specifically talking about two adults who are engaging in something completely consensual.

Yup. I feel like I understand the question you are asking and the conditions you have specified.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't see why I need to work with you in order for you to present well-reasoned arguments to back up your position.

Nor did I ask you to. By 'engage', I mean try to understand that the perspective I'm offering is not from the idealistic or even humanistic perspective you're arguing against. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you, but you're arguing against my position through an idealistic argument.

You have a position. You present the arguments to support that position. None of that requires any action on my part.

Correct. But if you want to be part of a conversation with me, it does. Otherwise we are just monologuing to each other. Not conversing.

I hold the position that people should have the right to have sex with anyone they want provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult. Hence, I have no problem with interracial sex, gay sex, group sex, non-monogamy, etc. So if two consenting adults decide to have sex, and they happen to be brother and sister, then I still don't see a problem with it.

I understand your position.

But, what situational harm do you see?

From incest writ large?
Practical, rather then idealistic ones.

Perhaps I can draw an analogy. Age of consent laws are pretty ridiculous. They vary from place to place because any rule reducing the ability of a party to give informed consent to an arbitrary number is going to at best be 'right' sometimes.

However I wouldn't suggest we get rid of age of consent rules because they hold utility. Stupid as they are, they help prevent abuses, or at least allow simpler prosecution and enforcement where there are abuses. A mature 16 year old might be more capable of determining whether a sexual relationship with a 28 year old is in his/her best interests than an 18 year old, but an arbitrary law strikes me as better than no law.

For me, this is more similar to incest laws than gay sex. If you say to homosexuals that they can't have sex, you are basically making their identity illegal.
If you're suggesting there are people who identify as 'incest-sexuals' and are limited in their attraction to close relations only, I would suggest that is unhealthy and indicative of something. On the other hand if you're suggesting it's NOT a sexual preference, and merely situational attraction, then...get over it, frankly.

I taught at Uni, and there were lots of healthy, attractive young ladies, who were only a few years younger than me. Regardless of attraction, I didn't sleep with any of them.

On the harm side, there are obvious potential issues with grooming, power imbalances, financial incentives or control, and lots more. These might be edge cases, but from a utilitarian point of view I can see harm in blurring social taboos and lines. I see no real benefit to society.

What do you mean?

They seem pretty much the same argument to me. "Person A and Person B are consenting adults, but we should make a law to prevent them from ****ing each other because there is this particular aspect that we've decided is icky."

Sure. Because you're looking purely at an individual level. That's why you see them as the same.

Person A getting banned from having sex with any person of the same gender as themselves is decidedly different than saying Person A can't have sex with Person B.
You're conflating being banned from having sex with a select group of between 1 and 20 people with being banned from having sex with 50%of the entire adult population.

Whether the particular aspect in question is "they are of different races," or "they are both men," or "they are genetically related" seems to me to be just an excuse.

I understand

Of course, I would argue that a strong case could be made that pedophilia and bestiality cause harm. So, you would have to make a strong case that incest causes harm as well.

I don't have to do anything. My argument is from utility. You don't need to engage with it, but if you wish to, I'd need to understand what societal benefit there is. I see none.

Did you not pay attention to my previous post to you? I answered those questions.

You are engaging on idealistic terms. Thats fine. It doesn't address my points though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Historically, that doesn't work. In the UK, homosexual acts were forbidden by law until 1967, and even then the age of consent was set at 21 as opposed to 16 for heterosexuals. Look up Lord Montagu, who spent some time in prison for it in the 1950s. There was no incest involved.

Hmm...I might not have been clear.

1) I don't see incest discussions as related to homosexual discussions at all. Full stop.

2) Some people try to tie them together. The generally religious right folk who want to have gay sex go back to being illegal (a less common position now than previously) often try and tie gay sex with other 'immoral' activities like pedophilia, bestiality and incest.

3) In this thread, the pro-incest argument has done the same. They've argued that allowing one indicates we should allow the other.

I totally disagree with that. And I think it's problematic to tie them together. They're separate issues. It's only anti-gay or pro-incest people that want to treat them as a single item (for opposite purposes).

Hope that clarifies my meaning, but happy to engage further if not.

 

[We Never Know]

Are there any here that think if they are adults that its ok for Bob to have sex with his sister and/or mom?
Or that its ok for Sally to have sex with her brother and/or dad?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe I am behind the times, but isn't incest already banned?

 

[dybmh]

Are there any here that think if they are adults that its ok for Bob to have sex with his sister and/or mom?
Or that its ok for Sally to have sex with her brother and/or dad?

Am I ignoring religion?

Adults as in 21?

Here's my answer: Lacking any coersion; it is just as OK as abusive S&M.