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

[jcook922]

Hey! I posted it for people just like you: those who think with gut rather than their brain, hoping the saner replies here would get you thinking with your noggin a bit. Obviously, it wasn't entirely successful. But enjoy your contempt for me. No doubt holding others in contempt is the Christian thing to do.

Sure seems to be, especially when it comes to judging the choices of others that they don't agree with. Not too much live and let live here is there?

 

[Washington]

Sure seems to be, especially when it comes to judging the choices of others that they don't agree with. Not too much live and let live here is there?

"Live and let live" has never been a Christian principle. It's more like "Live like me or don't live at all."


(I know that's bit of an overstatement, but I think it's closer to the truth than "live and let live.")

 

[jcook922]

"Live and let live" has never been a Christian principle. It's more like "Live like me or don't live at all."


(I know that's bit of an overstatement, but I think it's closer to the truth than "live and let live.")

Closer to the truth here, as opposed to out in the real world bumping into Christians. Either the majority of Christians are intolerant freaks who need to be exterminated and just are non-confrontational in the real world and speak their peace on the internet where they have anonymity... Or, what I think, is that this is the vocal minority as opposed to the quiet majority of tolerant Christians who have their own beliefs, but easy to get along with.

 

[wanderingone]

Not true, mute people can consent though bodily language. It is really the lack of saying no with actions which indicate a want to say yes which is the basis of most consent. Either that, or there is a lot more rape going on than what is reported.

I forgot to be entirely specific in my rather tongue in cheek banter with stan

It should be obvious that people without vocal abilities still can communicate.-- of course if the person they are with is not able to understand with certainty then assumptions about "consent" should not be made. "Body language" can be up for debate. The lack of saying no without any significant body language means nothing if someone opts to submit when they are threatened. The fact that I was talking about animals not being able to talk and you thought of a human who is mute as equal to the situation is a bit disturbing.

 

[wanderingone]

"Live and let live" has never been a Christian principle. It's more like "Live like me or don't live at all."


(I know that's bit of an overstatement, but I think it's closer to the truth than "live and let live.")

Nope... that's how some Christians may be, as well as some people of various other beliefs.

 

[cantata]

To be honest, if people are willing to eat meat (or keep pets, even) then I can't imagine why they'd object to having sex with animals on the basis of a lack of consent, especially if the animals seem to be enjoying it.

 

[Washington]

Nope... that's how some Christians may be, as well as some people of various other beliefs.

I was speaking of a principle, not of any particular persons. And whether or not other religions qualify is irrelevant. Christianity has a looong, and sometimes ugly, history of forcing those of other religions to fall in line. And failing this, it has often so dominated a land that it's particular notions of right and wrong have been made into laws. Even its missionary efforts are underwritten by this notion of NOT living and letting live.

Of course there are other good Christians who couldn't care less what their neighbor believes. So, the principle is in no way binding as an article of personal Christian faith, just as a doctrine of corporate operation.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I forgot to be entirely specific in my rather tongue in cheek banter with stan

It should be obvious that people without vocal abilities still can communicate.-- of course if the person they are with is not able to understand with certainty then assumptions about "consent" should not be made. "Body language" can be up for debate. The lack of saying no without any significant body language means nothing if someone opts to submit when they are threatened. The fact that I was talking about animals not being able to talk and you thought of a human who is mute as equal to the situation is a bit disturbing.

I consider both of them unable to communicate concepts or thoughts through vocals. As such, I think that would be a fair comparison.

 

[wanderingone]

I consider both of them unable to communicate concepts or thoughts through vocals. As such, I think that would be a fair comparison.

I don't agree - but if you claim to equate humans with dogs in terms of communication abilities knock yourself out. In the future I will be sure to note when I am referring specificially to a single species so there will be no assumptions.

 

[wanderingone]

Buddy, you and some of the other circus freaks around here, can leave Christianity and religion in general right out of this debate. I am a non religious person, so you can stop with your poor bleeding heart with things such as:

"Well, holding others in contempt is the Christian way".

"Not much live and let live here"

"Christians are intolerant" etc etc.

Nice try though. To gain sympathy for your disease by claiming religious intolerance. But as I said, I'm not religious. Here's a suggestion for you. Instead of anonymously and cowardly putting such a sick topic on an internet forum, why don't you go to the pub on a Friday or Saturday night, (not many Christians there) and start talking about your ideas.

Better still, do it on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm on at call for the local hospital, (radiographer). Because I'll be called in and be paid extra to do x-rays/CT on you!

The fact is sicko, that the vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise, would find your ideas, well, sick. And don't just tell me here on an anonymous forum that it's my opinon only or I'm wrong. Prove I'm wrong! Go into a pub or bar and start sharing your ideas with others and get back to me.

You're so proud and cocky and witty here anonymously, but out in the real world, you're just another quiet, reserved disturbed person that gets off thinking about their mother/father/sister/brother etc.

So go ahead and post another witty reply. And be the reclusive loser in the real world that you are.


In the meantime, go get some help. And leave religion out of this debate. It has nothing to do with it.

Slow your roll and think a minute. While there has certainly been some joking here I don't think anyone here said they wanted to participate in incest. You don't need to call someone a loser or make assumptions about them just because you can't manage a discussion about a topic that you find uncomfortable.

It's not a new topic here in E & M, it has come up before, especially when a story about some incestuous couple or another has come to the attention of the news after legal intervention. Wondering if something should be a matter for legal action doesn't imply being a participant.

 

[cantata]

I am a non religious person

Perhaps he was misled by the cross beside your name.

 

[Washington]

Buddy, you and some of the other circus freaks around here, can leave Christianity and religion in general right out of this debate. I am a non religious person, so you can stop with your poor bleeding heart with things such as:
"Well, holding others in contempt is the Christian way".
"Not much live and let live here"
"Christians are intolerant" etc etc.

Evidently you've forgotten a bit of 4th - 6th grade punctuation. Quotation marks around a quoted statement signify this is exactly what the quoted person said. My condolences. Then there's your mistaken belief that your Christianity is any part of the debate, just as I don't take your characterization of me as perverted ("your sick perversions" post #27) as part of the debate. Both are nothing more than personal observations. Believe me, your Christianity has no bearing on the debate, only on your character.

Nice try though. To gain sympathy for your disease by claiming religious intolerance. But as I said, I'm not religious. Here's a suggestion for you. Instead of anonymously and cowardly putting such a sick topic on an internet forum, why don't you go to the pub on a Friday or Saturday night, (not many Christians there) and start talking about your ideas.

I did, and almost to a man they said, "Why don't you post this on that religious chat forum and see what kind of goofballs object?" So I did.

Better still, do it on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm on at call for the local hospital, (radiographer). Because I'll be called in and be paid extra to do x-rays/CT on you!

Now there's a Christian attitude, "If I don't like what you say I'll hurt you." Of course, if that cross by your name is there in error, and you're not a Christian, then I suggest you request it be removed, otherwise others will think you accept the Christian religion and its principles---just a suggestion.

The fact is sicko, that the vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise, would find your ideas, well, sick.

Interesting that you've taken it upon yourself to speak for the "vast majority of people . . . ." Ever here of the word "chutzpa"? What surprises me though is that if the vast majority find my ideas sick, why are you the only one among the many here who has said so, or even indicated such a feeling?

You're so proud and cocky and witty here anonymously, but out in the real world, you're just another quiet, reserved disturbed person that gets off thinking about their mother/father/sister/brother etc.

whoa! I must have really pricked a sore spot. Any personal correlations here?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Buddy, you and some of the other circus freaks around here, can leave Christianity and religion in general right out of this debate. I am a non religious person, so you can stop with your poor bleeding heart with things such as:

"Well, holding others in contempt is the Christian way".

"Not much live and let live here"

"Christians are intolerant" etc etc.

Nice try though. To gain sympathy for your disease by claiming religious intolerance. But as I said, I'm not religious. Here's a suggestion for you. Instead of anonymously and cowardly putting such a sick topic on an internet forum, why don't you go to the pub on a Friday or Saturday night, (not many Christians there) and start talking about your ideas.

Better still, do it on a Friday or Saturday night when I'm on at call for the local hospital, (radiographer). Because I'll be called in and be paid extra to do x-rays/CT on you!

The fact is sicko, that the vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise, would find your ideas, well, sick. And don't just tell me here on an anonymous forum that it's my opinon only or I'm wrong. Prove I'm wrong! Go into a pub or bar and start sharing your ideas with others and get back to me.

You're so proud and cocky and witty here anonymously, but out in the real world, you're just another quiet, reserved disturbed person that gets off thinking about their mother/father/sister/brother etc.

So go ahead and post another witty reply. And be the reclusive loser in the real world that you are.


In the meantime, go get some help. And leave religion out of this debate. It has nothing to do with it.

Actually, you are right, most people are disgusted by the idea. I think the point of this was to ask if that alone justifies this being against the law, or are there better reasons?

 

[Washington]

Actually, you are right, most people are disgusted by the idea. I think the point of this was to ask if that alone justifies this being against the law, or are there better reasons?

Actually, BlackSabb's real disgust here is not with incest itself---not to say incest doesn't disgust him---but with my audacity to even bring the subject up on CF. Unfortunately this disgust got all mixed up in his head, somehow leading him into one of those fallacies talked about in first-year logic: assuming that anyone who brings up an issue must be in favor of it.

"Go out and get some, instead of trying to convince others of your sick perversions."
​

Pretty sad.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Incest, interesting question.

There are two reasons to consider it "bad"...

1. It is rarely, if ever, genuinely consentual. In family relationships, as we all know, there is always an element of powerplay and struggle. Certainly in the case of parents, but also in the case of siblings, one personality is dominant over the more junior member, or less able to defend himself member. So, if a parent is involved in a sexual relationship with a child, I do not believe that there can EVER be a genuinely consentual element to it, and thats even if both participants THINK there is, it simply isn't the case. One of them is dominating the other, and obviously, usualy its the parent, but occasionally, in some very sad cases, its a child dominating a disabled parent. And without consent, its a really BAD thing.

Of course, in cases where siblings are seperated and don't know they are related,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction it IS possible for a mutually consentual relationship to exist, and then in that sense its OK... except for reason 2...

2. Genetic diversity is a GOOD thing... the real reason why incest is frowned on and a cultural taboo isn't because its imoral, isn't even because its "icky"... its because incestuous relationships have a higher than average number of birth and congenital defects in any offspring. It is from this reason that the percieved imorallity and ickiness springs. It DOES open a can of worms... should anyone who is likely to have a child with a birth defect be prevented from having children? Hard question. Women over 40 are more likely to have a Down's syndrome child than incestuous siblings are likely to have a child with a birth defect, yet few people would argue that stopping 40 year old women from falling pregnant would be acceptible.

Personally, I think incestuous relationships between cousins or seperated siblings are probably OK, and such people should be at least informed about the liklihood of birth defects in any offspring, and strongly encouraged not to have children, or, at the very least take advantage of full pre-natal screening for any defects.

But mums and dads, stay the heck away from your kids, or else!

 

[stan1980]

Last mother's day, I bought my mum a rock salt lamp. No doubt you bought your mum a sexy piece of lingerie which she modelled for you.

What's wrong with that? Not all mothers and sons get along very well, so we should be applauding those that enjoy a 'close' relationship.

 

[BlackSabb]

What's wrong with that? Not all mothers and sons get along very well, so we should be applauding those that enjoy a 'close' relationship.

Hahaha. Yeah, well there's close relationships and there's "close" relationships. The ones that Washington seem to be in favour of and seems bemused at what all the fuss is.

 

[Wednesday]

Hahaha. Yeah, well there's close relationships and there's "close" relationships. The ones that Washington seem to be in favour of and seems bemused at what all the fuss is.

You are over-reacting.

Thus, missing the point.

 

[BlackSabb]

You are over-reacting.

Thus, missing the point.

Well what a load of garbage that comment is. "Over reacting" to some pervert and predator putting up a disgraceful post that suggests there is nothing wrong for a mother and son to have consensual sex! Or any other close family intimate sitaution. What is wrong with you? How can you "over react" to that?

Look again at this perverts post and read the fine print, and then tell me I'm "over reacting". In fact, such a sick post should be shut down completely.

(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?

Now, this is what this poster says. Let me isolate a few lines of the above post to show you how sick this poster is.



"So, this means absolutely NO such acts may be performed by the above people under ANY condition. But why? Just what is wrong with any of these interactions when committed by consensual adults where there is no chance of pregnancy?"


Notice how the poster put "NO" and "AND" in capital letters, indicating his obvious displeasure that all incestual relationships are banned, and questioning its validity. In other words, it's okay for a mother and son to have consensual sex, as long as the mother is past child bearing age. And you say I'm "over reacting". What a joke! This sick perverted poster is not questioning consenting distant family relationships, but ALL consenting sexual family relationships, regardless of how close the family members are. As I said before, this is indicated by the highlighted "NO" and "AND" in the above post, meaning that all consenting family sexual relationships are fair game and the laws regarding such are being questioned.

Notice how the poster did not make any qualifying statements regarding how close or distant the family relationships have to be to qualify for a release of the laws regarding such sexual consenting family relationships. And look at the sick and perverse reasoning for consenting sexual family relationships, regardless of whether it's distant cousins or mother and son:


"To me it seems nothing more than an ick-factor law".


Yeah, all the rest of us in society are denying this pervert the opportunity of having illicit sexual family relationships only because we are all grossed out. Nothing more. In this posters' mind, there is nothing wrong with such relationships, and because of the rest of society and its' bias, he and others like him are being denied natural rights. And his sick logic continues:


"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?"


So, there's nothing wrong with a mother and son having consensual sex, as long as the mother is past child bearing age. Only society says it's wrong because society doesn't like it, for no good reason, and therefore legislates against it. No other reason. Not because it's wrong or immoral or just plain sick and twisted. It's society's fault that this poster can't have sex with his mother because society is prejudiced against that for no real good reason.

And the person has clearly stated, as I've said before, that all incestuos relationships are fair game. This is part of the quote of the Massachusett's law:


"No man shall marry his mother......"


And as I said, the poster makes no qualifying statements on what closeness of family is not considered or not considered incestuos when he says quite clearly:


"So, this means absolutely NO such acts may be preformed by the above people under ANY condition. There are no listed exceptions."


"There are no exceptions" says it all. And then some of you people have the nerve to say I'm "over reacting" and other such vile things when this predator is putting up a post suggesting it's okay to have sex with your mother, father, brother, sister etc.

By this poster's logic, if a father has had a vasectomy and his daughter consents, then there's nothing wrong with that. And he then says of me:

"Pretty sad".


There isn't a mirror big enough for this poster to look into to see how "sad" his ideas are. This post is so outrageous it should be shut down by the moderators. And many of you around here should be ashamed of yourselves for not speaking up against such a degrading thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I note blacksabb has nothing but ridicule and derision as his arguments...

"EVERYBODY KNOWS" is no longer considered sufficient basis for political decisions, although I can understand why he's upset... it must be very upseting to realise that something you feel so strongly about isn't based on any rational foundation, but pure gut reaction and ick factor. I know I was upset for the same reason when I was first confronted with the topic.

some of us are big enough to admit that our visceral first reaction is not always based on sound logic. Some of us aren't. Sad but true.