What's wrong with incest?

[Poseidon Soter]

Because of the interpersonal dynamics of family relationships.

Can you explain further how that relates to the question of consent/lack thereof?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Can you explain further how that relates to the question of consent/lack thereof?

I believe that within families, there is a hierarchy, even if a subconscious one, which precludes genuine consent.

 

[idav]

Especially bonobos.

I hope not, I am a fan of penguins.

You're going to have to expand on that. Besides, we are animals.

Animals that should no better. First off its best to start off by not sexualizing everything that moves or you have creeps that might say something crazy like they are willing to date their own daughter. I'm even a fan of keeping our pants on within close friendship circles cause only causes trouble, keep it out of families and outside of work even. That's ideally, of course people do as they do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I hope not, I am a fan of penguins..

Bonobos would probably like them too - I believe this is where the phrase, 'Cor, I fancy that bird', originates.

 

[idav]

Bonobos would probably like them too - I believe this is where the phrase, 'Cor, I fancy that bird', originates.

Where do you think human jealousy stems from, bonobos are not the jealous types. People are very territorial with a lot of things.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Where do you think human jealousy stems from, bonobos are not the jealous types. People are very territorial with a lot of things.

Never spoken to one, so wouldn't know.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I believe that within families, there is a hierarchy, even if a subconscious one, which precludes genuine consent.

Even between siblings of the same/a similar age?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I hope not, I am a fan of penguins.

Animals that should no better. First off its best to start off by not sexualizing everything that moves or you have creeps that might say something crazy like they are willing to date their own daughter. I'm even a fan of keeping our pants on within close friendship circles cause only causes trouble, keep it out of families and outside of work even. That's ideally, of course people do as they do.

We're not talking about sexualising everything that moves, though.
Why do you believe it would be crazy for someone to say that they are willing to date their own daughter?
And what kind of trouble is caused by sexual relations within close friendship circles?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Where do you think human jealousy stems from, bonobos are not the jealous types. People are very territorial with a lot of things.

Chimpanzees are a lot more like people.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Even between siblings of the same/a similar age?

Utterly. Have many siblings, do you?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Chimpanzees are a lot more like people.

Depends on the people. New Zealanders are a lot like sheep.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Utterly.

Fair enough.

Have many siblings, do you?

Beside the point.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, right, I see your point. But then surely it's not too difficult to work out that/when someone is line-managing or in a similar position of power within an organisation relative to someone else?

In some cases yes. In other cases no. Also as employment is temporary there is a time factor involved. We would not be just talking about this moment, but past moments of employment as well. Needless to say, it gets much more complicated and invasive when dealing with employment.

Okay, fair enough. What about sexual relationships where there is no marriage contract (marriage has not 'taken place') but in all other respects look like marriage?

Hmmm are you asking in terms of incest? As in should we be able to criminalize incest not just make marriage unavailable?

Or are you asking something else?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

In some cases yes. In other cases no.

I'm not sure I agree - it would seem pretty straightforward to me.

Also as employment is temporary there is a time factor involved. We would not be just talking about this moment, but past moments of employment as well.

One needn't necessarily go that far, though. One could just focus on current boss-employee-type relations.

Hmmm are you asking in terms of incest? As in should we be able to criminalize incest not just make marriage unavailable?

Or are you asking something else?

Sorry, didn't make myself very clear. We agreed that there is plenty of potential for abuse/coercion in a marital context (as in a family context). I suggested that if we are going to ban incest on grounds of potential for abuse/coercion, we should do the same with marriage. You made the perfectly sensible point that it wouldn't make sense to ban marriage on the grounds that it is just a legal contract. When I suggested marriage, I was giving that as just one example of a sexual relationship within which abuse/coercion can occur. But abuse/coercion can also occur in sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage. So should we ban those kinds of sexual relationships (on the grounds that just as abuse/coercion can occur in a familial context, it can occur in those non-marital kinds of sexual relationships)?

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure I agree - it would seem pretty straightforward to me.

Well asking someone for their job description prior to allowing marriage seems a little weird. I think the degree of influence is a little less in the job category as well, but I certainly do not want to be caught trying to bright line a rule for degree of influence. We have jobs where people have a higher job title but no direct contact. We have people that have preexisting relationships. We have people who are peers at work and one gets promoted. We have people that work in part time roles but are not really influenced by the job at all. Creating laws which prevent people in supervisor/supervisee roles from marriage sounds like a nightmare and needless invasion of privacy, let alone tackling partners who work at the same place. But even considering all of that, I am not certain I could say that it could not be done. I guess it would have to depend on the specifics of the law.

One needn't necessarily go that far, though. One could just focus on current boss-employee-type relations.

This might be true for small businesses or maybe even have once been true. But that is hardly the case now. Business structure is varied and to add to that problem, we have had traditional business style models at family run businesses. It seems strange to say that you can work for your spouse once you are married but not before , and you could have previously worked for your spouse but not currently. This leaves us with the phenomenon that a person may work for their partner up until the point when they get married and then forever after as long as they are not working together at the time of the marriage. This just seems too arbitrary. And on top of all of that categorically this is one potential problem where as incest categorically has two.

Sorry, didn't make myself very clear. We agreed that there is plenty of potential for abuse/coercion in a marital context (as in a family context). I suggested that if we are going to ban incest on grounds of potential for abuse/coercion, we should do the same with marriage. You made the perfectly sensible point that it wouldn't make sense to ban marriage on the grounds that it is just a legal contract. When I suggested marriage, I was giving that as just one example of a sexual relationship within which abuse/coercion can occur. But abuse/coercion can also occur in sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage. So should we ban those kinds of sexual relationships (on the grounds that just as abuse/coercion can occur in a familial context, it can occur in those non-marital kinds of sexual relationships)?

Well privacy laws prevent us from dictating what goes on behind the bedroom doors most of the time, if that is about what you are asking. If you are wondering if we cannot also make marriage illegal for roommates that gets into the same arbitrary decision as jobs. So I guess the question is how are we going to know that a couple is engaged in a sexual relationship and living together as husband and wife?

If you are wondering if we could make sexual relations outside of marriage illegal, I think that would also be no.

I think I am still unsure of what you are proposing.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

[QUOTE="Poseidon Soter, post: 5550586, member: 63930]


Beside the point.[/QUOTE]I was just curious. IMPE, siblings are intensely hierarchical, and thrive on displaying power over one another. I was wondering if your experience was markedly different.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Depends on the people. New Zealanders are a lot like sheep.

Sorry, I meant to say New Zealanders like a lot of sheep.

 

[Baroodi]

Socially abhorring with myriads of social problems and community disarray. It is vehemently prohibited in Islam with sanctity of the honor of the close relatives. Prophet Mohammed was asked: what is the top major sin? He replied to be a polytheist. Then was asked: what is the second next? He said " to kill your son lest he may feed with you" Then asked: and what is next? He said " to commit adultery with the wife of your neighbor"

N.B: Arabs before Islam (era of ignorance)Used to burry their daughter girls a live so as not to practice sex outside marriage and by doing so bring infamy to the family

 

[Mock Turtle]

Chimpanzees are a lot more like people.

True - just as violent or more so - unlike bonobos, who tend to be much less so. Perhaps the matriarchal society is one reason for this. Too busy chatting and spreading gossip.

 

[FearGod]

Agreed. So what do you think to incest which does not (cannot) result in the birth of children?

Why to think of incest while a lot of humans out there?