Incest laws: just a matter of the "ick" factor?

[Washington]

(Note: for an example I picked the Massachusetts law below pretty much at random as illustrative of many incest laws in the country (I did look at a few))



Massachusetts incest law:

Incest
M.G.L. C 272 S 17. Incestuous marriage or intercourse

Persons within degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or other penetration of a part of a person's body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person's body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.
source
​

As for who is included within the "degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited," we have Mass. law C 207 S1, which says

"No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather’s wife, grandson’s wife, wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s sister or mother’s sister.
source
​

Section 2 of chapter 207 addresses women, and mirrors that of sec. 1.

So, this means absolutely NO such acts may be preformed by the above people under ANY condition. There are no listed exceptions.
But why? Just what is so wrong about any of these interactions when committed by consensual adults where there is no chance of pregnancy?
To me it appears to be nothing more than an ick-factor law. We made laws against incest because we don't like the idea of people interacting in such ways, not because they result in any harm to anyone or anything. What if we didn't like people of another color, say blacks, and made laws against them? Would that be any less unreasonable? Oh wait, we did!

Most people don't like to climb mountains so should we make mountain climbing against the law? Most people don't like eating tripe (a type of edible offal from the stomachs of various domestic animals) so should we make eating tripe against the law?

Isn't incest, as I've qualified it, just as undeserving of condemnation?

 

[Veyrlian]

If the participants are two consentive adults who have no plans of getting children, there is little to object, in my opinion.

However, families are considered somewhat hierarchical. The parents are the authority figures, there are older brothers and sisters etc. So I think in cases where the family roles of participating individuals are unequal, the consensuality of the participants should be closely examined. Who knows what kind of 'behind the scenes' -manipulation might have taken place, especially with people living in the same household for all their lives. Investigation into this would also be very difficult, since family affairs are considered private, and I can't imagine what methods could be used. It gets tricky.

 

[Henaynei]

G-d said it is forbidded - that is likely YOUR "ick" factor, no??

 

[Washington]

So I think in cases where the family roles of participating individuals are unequal, the consensuality of the participants should be closely examined. Who knows what kind of 'behind the scenes' -manipulation might have taken place, especially with people living in the same household for all their lives. Investigation into this would also be very difficult, since family affairs are considered private, and I can't imagine what methods could be used. It gets tricky.

You're right to consider the "behind the scenes" aspect, but this couldn't involve anything more than hypotheticals. There is probably a power discrepancy within most relationships, no matter what form they take, and in many cases both parties may prefer it that way.

G-d said it is forbidded - that is likely YOUR "ick" factor, no??

I think it could very well be the source of our attitude toward it, but it's hardly enough on which to base a criminal law.

 

[corvus_corax]

G-d said it is forbidded - that is likely YOUR "ick" factor, no??

Was your deity brought up in the OP?
hmmmmm ~rechecks OP~
Nope.

Where does Jesus say it's forbidden? (that's not a mocking question, I just don't know where that is stated by him in the NT)

 

[Henaynei]

Was your deity brought up in the OP?
hmmmmm ~rechecks OP~
Nope.

the question was asked from where came these laws...

Where does Jesus say it's forbidden? (that's not a mocking question, I just don't know where that is stated by him in the NT)

first: Jesus is G-d and G-d gave these laws at Sinai, the G-d about who it is said:

Jas 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Second, where did Yeshua say to follow these laws??

Matthew 23:1-12 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

 

[Veyrlian]

You're right to consider the "behind the scenes" aspect, but this couldn't involve anything more than hypotheticals. There is probably a power discrepancy within most relationships, no matter what form they take, and in many cases both parties may prefer it that way.

Yes I agree with the power discrepancy. (I didn't know how to say it in english, thanks!) Mine was a very fringe argument and mainly to be used in cases where the incest participants have lived in the same household for long and maybe have a great age difference, or strange views on family roles.
It could be that in fact, my real objection to this would be the age difference.
Also, un-normative sexual relations inside families usually indicate abuse.

 

[corvus_corax]

the question was asked from where came these laws...

Fair enough.

first: Jesus is G-d and G-d gave these laws at Sinai, the G-d about who it is said:

Jas 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Second, where did Yeshua say to follow these laws??

Matthew 23:1-12 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

You know what I had for dinner last night? A plate full of shrimp and scallops. Yummmy Many followers of Jesus also eat shrimp and scallops as well. Some of them also wear clothing made of mixed fibers!

But I fear I may threaten to derail the thread with such observations, so I'll back out for now

 

[Henaynei]

You know what I had for dinner last night? A plate full of shrimp and scallops. Yummmy Many followers of Jesus also eat shrimp and scallops as well. Some of them also wear clothing made of mixed fibers!

ah, but your question was not what does this or that believer DO, but what Yeshua SAID to do

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[Beanieboy]

G-d said it is forbidded - that is likely YOUR "ick" factor, no??

Really? So, Adam and Eve have children, and then what?
The only possible continuation is incest.

Abraham married his half sister.
The OT says that if a man's brother dies, he is to marry his wife.
Lot's daughters got their father drunk, and had sex with their father, who impregnated them. And this was the "moral" person sent to look for the "good" people of Sodom. I'm not quite sure how an incestuous father, and sisters who think it is a good idea not only to have premarital sex, but also to have it with their father to have children, would recognize a "moral" person if they sat next to one on the bus.

What I am usually told is, "Oh, people back then were pure, and their genes were perfect." Really? Eve was made from Adam, so even the first generation were inbred.

The explanation reminds me a lot of the Virgin story. Man once thought that men's sperm were actually tiny babies or "seeds", and women possessed nothing that was part of the child; they were the "dirt" or "soil" for the seed, and nothing more.

Then, evil Satanic Science came into the picture, and corrupted man with knowledge that women have the "seed", the egg, and that men simply fertilize the egg, which then makes it grow. The child is half of the man's DNA, and half of the woman's.

So, man is suddenly in crisis! They were once able to explain the Virgin birth in that God placed little baby Jesus inside Mary, but if Jesus is half Mary, then Jesus had natural sin!

Oh, wait! Maybe Mary was born without sin! Yeah, that's it! Emaculate Conception! She was born without sin, and so Jesus was, too! Sure, yeah! Do a mental somersault that makes no sense, but still allows people to maintain their old beliefs!

From a purely scientific POV, incest has social taboos, mostly because of how one is taught, the idea that having a baby will amount to something like "Home" from the XFiles, where a man producing a child with his mother is both Father and Brother to the child, and usually has extreme deformities, or Downs. In "Home", the family was simply mosterous looking, and acting, like something some young teens would stumble upon after their car broke down in the middle of nowhere, only to have the family "have them for dinner."

We think of hillbillies marrying their sister, with Southern drawls and low IQs and lots of missing teeth. We think of fathers molesting their sons or daughters, and the emotional damage caused. We think of our own siblings, whom we may have no sexual attraction to, and think about how uncomfortable, if not repulsive, a romantic relationship would be.

But aside from the issue of children, is there anything really immoral about it? Not that I can gather. I think it is a cultural norm. We feel embarrassed when we burp at the table, while in China, it is a sign of enjoying a meal. We are bothered by sex in general - not ourselves having sex, but thinking about others having sex. In The Myth of Fingerprints, the brothers and sisters, home for Thanksgiving, tease about who had been "so loud" the prior night. After making accusations, the mother says, "How do you not know it was us?", to which the adult children say, "Oh! No! I don't want to hear that!" Why? Is the fact that our parents have sex wrong? Immoral? Disgusting? No, it's that we suddenly make our parents human, make them real. We are shattered from the false idea that we need to have of our parents as being perfect, nonsexual (which most have for Christ, and priests, and nuns), because we foolishly equate innocence with virginity, or lack of sexual knowledge. Even the Garden of Eden story seems to suggest in a metaphoric way that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was carnal knowledge, because they both realize that they are naked.

The trap is when what we feel is "icky" we then believe is natural, and that God most certainly agrees with us. In other words, we create God in our own image.

I used to jokingly refer to Friends as Family, because they were 3 boys, and 3 girls, and despite living in New York with millions of eligible people, Ross ends up dating Rachel, Chandler dates Monica, Joey is attracted to Phoebe, and is in love with Rachel for a while...It was only a matter of time before Ross and Monica would hook up, since their relationships seemed so insular and incestuous.

But when it really comes down to it, aside from reproduction, there isn't any real reason against it. "Because God says so" is shattered when the "One man + One woman" model of "God's plan" is short sighted, only allowing brother/sister or child/parent couplings for the 3rd generation. And again with Noah, we are talking 1st cousins being the most distant of relations, illegal in some states.

So, we simply claim that it isn't our uncomfortableness, but God's. We hear "I kissed a girl, and I like it", and because men think it is hot, have no problem, but if another guy sang the same thing, he is suddenly branded "gay", and everyone is up in arms, or saying that it's flaunting sexuality. Women in Victoria's Secret, in their underwear, can be close to each other, faces close, and no one bats an eye, but if the same were true of men, again, homosexuality freaks everyone out, because it is a threat to God's sexuality as well. But two chicks? God's not as bothered by it, by coincidence. And why stop there? Why not claim that God feels uncomfortable when your parents mention their sex life? Why not simply create a God that is almost identical to you, and in that way, everything that you believe in perfectly in line with God? That, I believe, is the biggest form of sacrelige.

 

[Henaynei]

Really? So, Adam and Eve have children, and then what?
The only possible continuation is incest.

Abraham married his half sister.

both several hundred years before G-d said "No"

the source:

Lev 20:10-17
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

 

[StarCannon]

Leviticus: the great limiting of man's freedom.
Why does it still survive?

 

[Washington]

Never mind.

 

[Beanieboy]

both several hundred years before G-d said "No"

the source:

Lev 20:10-17
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Ahhhhh yes, the "God, who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" changed his mind. A&E are walking around buttnaked, and that's A-OK with God. Then they eat of the tree, and now, nudity is wrong! Their children have incest to create babies that say, "Dad, I mean, Uncle Cain, I mean..uh..", and then suddenly, it's immoral.

David, the apple of God's eye, has 5 or 6 wives. Then, suddenly in the NT, it's immoral.

But God never changes his mind. It's simply "fulfilled."

And the dish ran away with the spoon.

 

[GrayCat]

Incest laws are absurd in my opinion. Same with plural marriage laws. Same with gay marriage laws.


I see only two laws that need to be in place regarding both sex and marriage- first, that all people involved must be of consent, and second, that they all must be of age. In my opinion, nothing else is needed, because then it becomes intrusive upon harmless, individual choices.


Just because someone would not choose it for themself, and likewise just because it may offend someone's personal morality, aren't valid reasons to bring the government into it, or to tell other people what they can and can not do in their own lives.

 

[lawtonfogle]

First off, too all who say it is wrong if your going for children, I will all ask you too promise me signatures on a new bill which I am starting, which says all mentally retarded people who have such a retardation from a genetic problem, along with all those who have major genetic defects (including dwarfism) are no long allowed to have reproductive rights. Most likely, if they are caught trying to have children, I am thinking at least 10 years in prison/mental ward for breaking the purposed law.

For those who fail at satire, what I am saying is this. We allow people with greater genetic defects that just incest would bring out to breed at their leisure, so why the double standard against incestuous couples?

Incest laws are absurd in my opinion. Same with plural marriage laws. Same with gay marriage laws.


I see only two laws that need to be in place regarding both sex and marriage- first, that all people involved must be of consent, and second, that they all must be of age. In my opinion, nothing else is needed, because then it becomes intrusive upon harmless, individual choices.

I must disagree. What ever standard you use, when ever someone is able to consent, then the age isn't needed. You are probably saying this because it is politically correct to mention age as well, since even being considered a pedophile seems to be a death sentence these days.

Just because someone would not choose it for themself, and likewise just because it may offend someone's personal morality, aren't valid reasons to bring the government into it, or to tell other people what they can and can not do in their own lives.

Agreed.

 

[cantata]

Interestingly, in the UK it's legal for a grandmother to have sex with her (16+) grandson, but not for a grandfather to have sex with his granddaughter.

It's a nod at biological reasons for prohibiting incest, I suppose.

 

[kellyc]

well, WHY is there the ick factor? why is incest a cultural taboo, not just in the US? could there be a biological reason that many of us feel it's icky?

 

[cantata]

well, WHY is there the ick factor? why is incest a cultural taboo, not just in the US? could there be a biological reason that many of us feel it's icky?

There certainly is a biological reason.

But like many biological reasons, it has, in many senses, outstayed its usefulness.

 

[kellyc]

maybe, maybe not. what are the chances that a child born to related parents will have issues?