Should Incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

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.

The way I see it, I'm simply presenting a situation and asking if it is acceptable. So far, the people who have said it is not have not been able to provide a good reason as to why it is not acceptable. The arguments I've heard so far only speak about some vague concept of immorality, or that it's icky, but have never been able to provide any concrete description of how anything will be harmed by it.

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.

Well, true, but you need to present an actual argument before that can happen.

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

And yet I've never seen a specific example of the sort of harm that would come from incest as I described in my OP.

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.

Yes, but we know for a fact that there is an age when people just are not capable of making an informed decision. No one would ever suggest that a five year old is capable of understanding enough about sexual relationships to grant informed consent to sexual activity. So we made a law to say that sex with a five year old is wrong.

Of course, once that child grows to the age of 40, we can safely assume that they HAVE matured enough, both physically and emotionally to grant informed consent to participate in sexual activity. So the age of consent serves to place a limit on when such consent can be considered valid. As you say, the age is somewhat arbitrary, and I agree. But the fact is there is an age where pretty much no one is capable of making a well informed decision, and an age when nearly everyone can. There needs to be a point in between these two ages where we agree that people are old enough. It's not gonna get it right for everyone, but it works for the majority of cases.

But the issue of "when is a person old enough to give reasoned consent to sex" is a very broad one, since it needs to cover EVERYONE in a society. This situation I am talking about does not. It deals specifically with two adults who are giving consent to have sex with each other. I'm sure we can agree that we can say, "Billy is an adult and Sally is an adult, therefore if both Billy and Sally consent to sexual activity with each other, that sexual activity is perfectly fine." I don't see why adding that Billy and Sally are siblings should change that.

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.

Get over it?

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

And as I said, I am not talking about a situation where there is grooming or emotional manipulation like that.

So this is irrelevant.

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.

Ah, so the pool of available people makes a difference?

You'll forgive me if I find that to be a weak argument.

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.

If you don't think you need to support your argument, that's fine. But don't expect me to take it seriously.

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

Your points are vague and unrelated to the situation I described.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

I've never argued that we should allow incest because we allow gay sex.

I've said that in the case of gay sex, we now see that the argument against it was based on either religious beliefs ("The Bible says it is wrong, so we should pass a law against it) or personal distaste ("I think it's icky to do that!"). We recognize that such arguments can't be said to apply to all people in society - after all, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs, nor do they share the same interpretation of those religious beliefs, and we also understand that just because some people find a thing disgusting doesn't mean that all people do. If that were the case, I think eating oysters would be banned as well.

So it seems to be clear that saying something is against some specific idea of religion or because some people find it icky is not sufficient to justify banning that thing.

And it those are the only arguments that can be levelled against incest between consenting adults, we must conclude that we can not ban incest for those reasons.

 

[Tiberius]

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?

If they are consenting adults, why not?

Is there any argument against it that doesn't boil down to, "But it's icky!" or "But my religious book says it is wrong!"

 

[We Never Know]

If they are consenting adults, why not?

Is there any argument against it that doesn't boil down to, "But it's icky!" or "But my religious book says it is wrong!"

I'm not religious and I think its not only icky, its sickening.

But if a guy wants to get back "in" his mom, to each his own I reckon.

Do you have sex(or want to) with your family members and are seeking approval or something?

 

[Tiberius]

I'm not religious and I think its not only icky, its sickening.

But a subjective opinion shouldn't be used as justification for passing laws, should it?

Do you have sex(or want to) with your family members and are seeking approval or something?

What the hell sort of reasoning is that?

I also support same sex marriage, do you think I'm gay?

I support animal rights. Do you think I'm an alpaca or something?

 

[InChrist]

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?

It’s not okay, from my perspective. I think those involved sexual relationships as you’ve described would be motivated solely by their own selfish lust and physical desires with no regard for real familial love, respect or concern for one another.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The way I see it, I'm simply presenting a situation and asking if it is acceptable. So far, the people who have said it is not have not been able to provide a good reason as to why it is not acceptable. The arguments I've heard so far only speak about some vague concept of immorality, or that it's icky, but have never been able to provide any concrete description of how anything will be harmed by it.

I've said neither.

Well, true, but you need to present an actual argument before that can happen.

I actually don't. You want to change laws, I'm suggesting the status quo (in broad terms) causes no harm.

And yet I've never seen a specific example of the sort of harm that would come from incest as I described in my OP.

Of course. Because it's almost a truism. 'Show me the harm from sex between two siblings who are both consenting adults, where there is no power imbalance or compulsion, and where they use birth control to ensure they don't have kids.'

It ignores how people actually work in favour of an ideological argument.

Yes, but we know for a fact that there is an age when people just are not capable of making an informed decision. No one would ever suggest that a five year old is capable of understanding enough about sexual relationships to grant informed consent to sexual activity. So we made a law to say that sex with a five year old is wrong.

Yes, but talking about 5 year olds really is just an edge case that avoids my point.

Of course, once that child grows to the age of 40, we can safely assume that they HAVE matured enough, both physically and emotionally to grant informed consent to participate in sexual activity.

Again...40 is an edge case that avoids my point. Can a 17 year old give informed consent for sex with a 40 year old?

So the age of consent serves to place a limit on when such consent can be considered valid. As you say, the age is somewhat arbitrary, and I agree. But the fact is there is an age where pretty much no one is capable of making a well informed decision, and an age when nearly everyone can. There needs to be a point in between these two ages where we agree that people are old enough. It's not gonna get it right for everyone, but it works for the majority of cases.

This would be an example of an argument from utility.

But the issue of "when is a person old enough to give reasoned consent to sex" is a very broad one, since it needs to cover EVERYONE in a society. This situation I am talking about does not. It deals specifically with two adults who are giving consent to have sex with each other.

Well...no. You're talking about legal changes that would be applied across the board, just like age of consent laws are. They don't deal with individual circumstance at all. They can't.

I'm sure we can agree that we can say, "Billy is an adult and Sally is an adult, therefore if both Billy and Sally consent to sexual activity with each other, that sexual activity is perfectly fine." I don't see why adding that Billy and Sally are siblings should change that.

I'm thinking it's best you don't be so sure we can say that. I wouldn't say that.

Get over it?

Yup. Is there some person somewhere who needs to have sex with their sibling/mother/father/son/daughter? Really? Who?

Irrelevant.

Indeed not. You already mentioned above that you're sure we can agree that 'Billy is an adult and Sally is an adult, therefore if both Billy and Sally consent to sexual activity with each other, that sexual activity is perfectly fine.' This was an example...given before you suggested you are sure we'd agree, incidentally...that shows I don't think that, and I think there are circumstances where it's not fine. Hence my comments all the way through about engaging with my argument. You don't need to agree with it.

And as I said, I am not talking about a situation where there is grooming or emotional manipulation like that.

So this is irrelevant.

Not if you want this to be more than an idealistic discussion. I don't believe the law can be removed without it running the risk of opening up instances of grooming or emotional manipulation. How would the replacement law be worded? Would there be one, or are all bets off?

Ah, so the pool of available people makes a difference?

Yes, although that's over-simplifying the point I was making.

You'll forgive me if I find that to be a weak argument.

You can find it however you like, and I'm not sure why that would require my forgiveness.
But you're also slightly missing the rationale here. Yes, I think the pool of available people does make a difference, but I'm talking more about people's holistic sexual identity. If I am heterosexual, then I could argue a 'need' at some level for sexual relations with women. Of course, I can abstain, and I'm talking a little loosely, but I am certain you understand what I mean. If I am gay, I could argue a 'need' at some level for sexual relations with a man. Who is arguing a 'need' for sexual relations with their sister/brother/father/mother/son/daughter?

If you don't think you need to support your argument, that's fine. But don't expect me to take it seriously.

No offence, but I'll sleep okay. I'm merely trying to offer you an alternative perspective than the 'religious/icky' ones you seem determined to reduce all opposition to.

Your points are vague and unrelated to the situation I described.

Whereas your situational descriptions are controlled and unrelated to how this would work in reality, in my humble opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Evil? Meh, I'm not calling anyone evil, and I'll judge people based on their actions. Otherwise all of us are 'evil' at some time, and in some way.

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.

It was me that asked about harm, and I made no mention of 'evil'. Nor does it really resonate as a concept with me.

 

[dybmh]

Evil? Meh, I'm not calling anyone evil, and I'll judge people based on their actions. Otherwise all of us are 'evil' at some time, and in some way.

I didn't say your were. I was talking about the harm done as a result of the ban.

It was me that asked about harm, and I made no mention of 'evil'. Nor does it really resonate as a concept with me.

I didn't say you made mention of evil. You asked a question. I tried to answer it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I didn't say your were. I was talking about the harm done as a result of the ban.

I know...but I would suggest people don't think of themselves as 'evil' in having thoughts about breaking laws but not taking actions unless someone is in their ear telling them they are evil. So...as a teen, I distinctly remember at my worst wishing my dad was dead. I didn't act on it, and I didn't think of myself as evil, just angry, and hard done by, really. Were I gay, I'm not sure the legality of my relationship would impact on whether I thought I was 'evil' so much as religious beliefs, or the opinion of the common man around me would.

Ergo, make incest legal, and you'll still think you're evil if your religion is against it, or the majority of people around you constantly tell you it's evil.
Have it illegal, and you won't think you're evil if your religion says it's fine, and the people around you think it's fine.

That's opinionative, of course.

I didn't say you made mention of evil. You asked a question. I tried to answer it.

Fair enough. The question was part of a larger point related to the utility of a law change. I've got no dramas with you jumping in on it, but the other part of the question was around what benefit allowing incest has. I personally don't see it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If the world was starting over again and rewriting it's laws customs and morals.
It would more than likely revisit the question of incest.

There is no certainty that it would ban the physical act entirely, but it would certainly proscribe reproduction..

There is massive evidence that shows such reproduction harmful.
However there is none to show the sex act itself is so.

In the present societies moral framework. there is no doubt that such acts often lead to serious psychological damage and social difficulties..

However I do not believe it should be a crime in it self. But that is not to say other considerations should not lead to one, such as sex with a minor..

The uky factor is entirely socially derived, as can shown by the fact that siblings who are unknown to each other, are often sexualy attracted if the accidentally meet.

 

[danieldemol]

How would the replacement law be worded

Easy in my opinion, how about instead of banning irrelevant things like incest if we simply ban grooming etc. In other words target the real issues rather than using them as a pretext to discriminate against people who do not necessarily engage in any of them.

Disclaimer: I do not engage in incest nor would I if made legal.

 

[Rival]

The people here supporting incest are lacking what most people, according to studies, in the world have - the disgust response where we instinctively shy from things like incest, necrophilia and so on. We don't need to justify why these things are horrible because to most of the world's population they just are. It's because the West specifically is so physically clean many Westerners have lost their sense of purity/disgust/revulsion at certain acts long considered immoral by many cultures simply because they are too disgusting to contemplate.

Investigating the conservatism-disgust paradox in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic: A reexamination of the interrelations among political ideology, disgust sensitivity, and pandemic response

Research has documented robust associations between greater disgust sensitivity and (1) concerns about disease, and (2) political conservatism. However, the COVID-19 disease pandemic raised challenging questions about these associations. In particular, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

 

[danieldemol]

The people here supporting incest are lacking what most people, according to studies, in the world have - the disgust response where we instinctively shy from things like incest, necrophilia and so on.

To the contrary, many people supporting incest here have expressed disgust or disinterest in engaging in the practice in my view.

 

[Rival]

To the contrary, many people supporting incest here have expressed disgust or disinterest in engaging in the practice in my view.

It's not about practicing it oneself, it's about how one views the act regardless and whether one would allow others to engage in certain acts even if seen intellectually (not morally) as disgusting, but not disgusting enough to want to stop the practice. For example, many cultures view gay marriage as disgusting (morally and intellectually) and ban it, whereas some Westerners may view it as disgusting but allow it. This means the Westerners don't see the disgust as a threat, whereas other cultures do to the extent that they ban these acts. The latter is the conservative approach.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Easy in my opinion, how about instead of banning irrelevant things like incest if we simply ban grooming etc. In other words target the real issues rather than using them as a pretext to discriminate against people who do not necessarily engage in any of them.

Disclaimer: I do not engage in incest nor would I if made legal.

I think the disclaimer has to be assumed in good faith for anyone talking freely in this thread.

If I spent 18 years raising a kid, literally from diapers to adulthood, then slept with her...does that meet your definition of grooming?

 

[PureX]

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

I've eplained that, but you aren't listening, because you don;t want to hear it. What we do effects everyone around us. And when we act selfishly, it harms other people. When we promote selfishness, it harms other people.

 

[Rival]

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

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

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.

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

Because sex always has and always will be a community interest. There are tv shows, news columns, magazines and other media that specifically detail who is having sex with who, who is having kids with who, and all manner of such gossip. Knowing who is mating with who is an evolutionary necessity to find out who the parents are, what diseases they may have and so on. It affects us because a couple may break up and the partners start relationships with other people and pass on whatever sexual diseases and other things they may have. We worry about incest specifically because it's too near, it doesn't promote healthy diverse mating strategies and it selfishly keeps community resources in one family. Incest is thus anti-community, being selfish, promoting inbreeding, lack of diversity in the human species and tribalism.

 

[danieldemol]

I think the disclaimer has to be assumed in good faith for anyone talking freely in this thread.

If I spent 18 years raising a kid, literally from diapers to adulthood, then slept with her...does that meet your definition of grooming?

I think it does, by the way I don't have a personal definition of grooming, I am quite content with this definition;

Child sexual exploitation and grooming

Guidance for school staff on how to spot the signs of sexual exploitation and how to respond.

www.schools.vic.gov.au

But can you explain how for example two gay (adult) twin brothers sleeping with each other meets the definition of grooming, or if it doesn't why you would blanket ban incest when it is the grooming that is the problem?

Personally I feel that these things are like a Venn diagram that may contain some overlap and some mutually exclusive territory.

For example it is possible to be both gay and a paedophile, so if it is paedophilia that is the problem why ban homosexuality when there are plenty of gay folk who are not also peadophiles?

 

[danieldemol]

It's not about practicing it oneself, it's about how one views the act regardless and whether one would allow others to engage in certain acts even if seen intellectually (not morally) as disgusting, but not disgusting enough to want to stop the practice. For example, many cultures view gay marriage as disgusting (morally and intellectually) and ban it, whereas some Westerners may view it as disgusting but allow it. This means the Westerners don't see the disgust as a threat, whereas other cultures do to the extent that they ban these acts. The latter is the conservative approach.

There is no demonstrable threat from gay marriage in my view, and I would suggest it is only superstitious folk who legislate on the basis of non-demonstrable threats.