Incest

Started by Sabby, July 05, 2012, 02:24:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sabby

Considering where we are, I think this topic deserves serious discussion. Just like with the gay marriage topics, I'm really not expecting to see much of a two sided argument, and more of a splitting/refining of the pro-side.

So what is your opinion on incest?

My personal stance is that the amount of resistance to it is like the silent cousin to the gay marriage debates. Seeing a news article and reading the words "Sentenced to 4 years for incest" honestly makes me angry enough to have to grit my teeth to stay silent. And I'm always afraid of peoples reactions to this. My brother and a few friends are aware of my position (this doesn't lead to any awkward yaoi, before you ask :P) but some times I get the typical kneejerk reaction of disgust.

But what gets me is how often incest is treated like paedophilia. WHAT?! You're okay with a grown woman and her adult son decided to have intercourse and taking the necessary precautions? Well clearly you'd fuck your pre-school daughter then!

^Sense. Not. Make. -.-

I honestly believe it should be treated as any sexual relationship with added health concerns. Two consenting adults, who are not harming anyone, and taking the necessary precautions, shouldn't have to fear for their freedom and social lives. But if someone snatches a kid or forces themselves on someone, it absolutely should be stopped, what does it matter who knows who and how?

Oniya

One of the issues that commonly comes up when it's intergenerational (parent/child, aunt or uncle/niece or nephew) is that the older relative has a sort of 'default authority rating' - even as adults.  As a result, there's a little more question about what kind of influence they have over the younger one of the pair.  This makes it similar to teacher/student, doctor/patient, lawyer/client, therapist/client as far as the 'maybe not so good an idea', 'dubious consent' aspect.  I don't know if it merits a jail term if there is neither physical or mental/emotional abuse going on (which carry their own charges).  Possibly out-patient therapy, but truly consenting adults - it's not really my business.

As for single generational (siblings or cousins) - All I can say is, I've met my siblings and cousins: I don't see the attraction.  :P  I'll explore it fictionally, but that's about it.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sabby

Haha, yeah, I've had that one from a friend once. "I don't find my cousin attractive!" "...so don't fuck him?"

Oniya

It's possible that the majority are 'wired' not to find close relatives attractive - diversity of the genome and all that.  When you take away procreation (and of course the 'if you're having sex with someone you can't make babies with, then you're not having sex with someone you can make babies with!  MOAR BAYBEEZ!' argument), then it all comes down to the psychological question of 'why your relative and not someone else?'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sabby

Which has always sounded exactly the same as "Why can't you just be with a white girl?" Any objection that begins with "Why can't you just" tends to be kind of hollow.

Silverfyre

My own views on it are mostly tied to the interbreeding that incest can result in as well as the health concerns.  It just doesn't appeal to me one bit.  Should people be ostracized or sent to prison for it?  No.  But, it shouldn't be considered something that is not without its social and health risks.


Oniya

Quote from: Sabby on July 05, 2012, 04:23:44 PM
Which has always sounded exactly the same as "Why can't you just be with a white girl?" Any objection that begins with "Why can't you just" tends to be kind of hollow.

Not really what I was getting at.  More the serious question of what exactly it is about the relative that makes them a candidate, not what it 'isn't' about a socially-acceptable mate, if that makes any sense.  Familiarity?  Availability?  Some je ne sais quois?  (Hope I didn't mangle my French too badly.)  Again, I'm assuming that the couple doesn't want kids and is taking all necessary precautions to avoid kids, due to the problems Silverfyre alluded to.  (Not entirely sure what additional health concerns there would be physically - mental health is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sabby

Actually, interbreeding IS the health concern I mentioned ^^' I don't see it as any different to one or both partners having a transmittable disease or an injury that makes sex dangerous, it's just an extra condition that this particular couple needs to account for. It bothers me when people think that screaming 'INTERBREEDING nuff said' is the nail in the topics coffin.

At least those against gay marriage have a half dozen or more bullet points to cycle through. They hold up like wet tissue paper, but still it takes time to tear through them and when one is worn out they can just fall back on the others and wait for us to forget. Those against incest tend to just have the one point, and it's no better.

Beguile's Mistress

Inbreeding in animals has proved to be a problem because while it fixes certain qualities or types for show purposes it also increases the danger of propagating unwanted conditions.  European royal families who intermarried through the last few centuries were prone to conditions such as hemophilia and mental disease.  I would say that unrestricted inbreeding of humans in incestuous families would be something to avoid.

Incest isn't a new concept.  It's occurred for at least as long as history has been written.  Ancient Egyptian rulers married brothers and sisters.  I think that our own abhorrence toward it stems from the unfortunate births that result from inbreeding and laws were made to avoid that. 

I see it as an abuse of power that one person has over the other regardless of the pairing since every case I've read about appears to involve one partner that felt obligated to accept the situation.  Admittedly, I don't know about EVERY situation so I can only offer an opinion that some situations are abusive without knowing if there are any that are mutually consensual.

Serephino

It's one of those things I enjoy in role play, but wouldn't actually do, I don't think...  That being said, if both parties are consenting adults, I really don't care what they do behind closed doors.  Yes, inbreeding can have risks.  If it's just one generation, it's not usually too bad, but once you start doing it with every generation like the Egyptians, yeah, you're going to have issues.  If they're not hurting anybody then why get up in arms about it?

Slaked

I always thought of incest as simply a subject I have yet to delve into. The original poster has some intriguing points and there is always that "genetic mutation" worry. But, the more I think of it, the less I am inclined to dislike it. Here is why.

Engaging in intercourse with a relation inherently carries the chance of mutations during gestation. We have also been taught at a young age to "never do that thing" with siblings or anyone of any blood relation to yourself. So, there are both physical and mental issues here. But, here are my thoughts. Is it not more of a crime to drink/smoke and otherwise ingest toxins while one is pregnant than to have sex with a blood relation? As far as I know, the risk of permanent damage due to toxins is far greater than incest.

That, and if the two consenting partners are both taking the necessary safety precautions (e.g. condoms, birth control etc..) I think they can have all the fun that they want.
In the persuit of power, the body count is negligible.

TaintedAndDelish

My understanding is that inbreeding does not cause biological defects, rather it makes them more likely to arise if the people breeding are prone. I would think that over time, this might result in a cleansing or purification of the gene pool in cases where those defects make a candidate less likely to procreate ( ie, if it makes them less attractive, unhealthy, or infertile)?

I don't know much about biology, but would be interested in learning about this.

Will

I would have to agree that if consenting adults take steps to avoid pregnancy, then I don't see the harm.  It's not much different than a non-related couple where one person is at risk of passing on a specific genetic condition.

The issue of consent does make it a little more sticky.  But if it's not a crime for college professors to fuck students, or for bosses to fuck employees, or for police officers to fuck anyone, then it's kind of a flimsy argument.  Situations of dubious consent or coercion are a very real problem, but I don't believe in sweeping laws that curtail everyone's freedom simply because a given situation can be abused.  There are too many situations exactly like that.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Silverfyre

An intriguing and informative article on why having kids with your siblings can be a health risk:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243


OldSchoolGamer

Incest is something that carries a definite squick factor...for me at least.  But just because I find something to be squicky and would never do it myself doesn't mean I believe someone should be forcibly confined and sodomized for it.  Now if one of the partners is a minor I think that's wrong, but that's already covered under statutory rape (and usually other laws independent of incest as well).

Liayra


RadiantMind

I know a pair of twins who were separated at birth, their parents divorced and took a twin each. They met, having found each other 19 years later they are currently in a relationship, and have no intention of ever stopping being together as a couple. I know they were both lesbian before meeting each other and they just fell in love when they met

Caitlin

#17
If it's consensual then I don't really care either way, in my opinion people should be allowed to make up their own mind with what they think is right or not. Just like a gay relationship, it's not my thing, but I'm not against it either.

There is, however, a difference when it comes to gay marriage and incest. I support gay marriage, but I wouldn't actively support incest, for the simple reason that it has a negative effect on the human genepool, just like any other form of inbreeding. I do think we have the responsibility to ensure the survival of the human race as well, but considering the (expected) small percentage of relationships, I consider it a minor issue in this case. I don't think that I'd marry a woman who is a product of a direct blood relative relationship though. I simply don't want to run any increased risk for my children to suffer from genetic defuncts.

To clarify, for me incest is the direct bloodline relationship of a brother - sister, father - daughter, or son - mother and between those the brother - sister are seen as the worst by me, since they don't exchange any new genes whatsover. With parent - child the new child would at least still be made up out of 25% 'new' genes on average. (25% indirectly from the parent and 50% directly from that parent).

I don't view niece - nephew relationships as (direct) incest, though I still wouldn't want to marry a partner if I knew their parents had a family history together.


One big reason to be against incest for me is because it's often based on a nonconsensual relationship. I don't support rape or coercion and those guilty of such should be prosecuted.

Caitlin

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on July 05, 2012, 10:54:53 PM
My understanding is that inbreeding does not cause biological defects, rather it makes them more likely to arise if the people breeding are prone. I would think that over time, this might result in a cleansing or purification of the gene pool in cases where those defects make a candidate less likely to procreate ( ie, if it makes them less attractive, unhealthy, or infertile)?

I don't know much about biology, but would be interested in learning about this.
I think you'll find this link most interesting then. Six generation of inbreeding were enough to produce an infertile, unhealthy and unattractice king of Spain (Charles II of Spain) that he wasn't able to produce offspring with 2 different, healthy women.

This also the main example of why I'm against prolonged generations of inbreeding. If the entire human race were to do this then we'd be extinct within 200 years.

Caitlin

You people might also be amused to hear that I'm actually looking for a woman far abroard, one of the minor reasons for that include the fact that it's healthier for the genepool. :P

It's by far not the main reason though, but I did put active thought into it. I suppose I'm a bit more extreme than most people when it comes to these things, but I do want healthy children and raise them to be responsible adults when they grow up. If there are factors that can add to their well-being then I'll do so. That's also one of the minor reasons that I don't smoke and rarely drink alcohol (though the main reasons for that is because it's healthier and cheaper.) :-)

Quote from: Silverfyre on July 05, 2012, 11:10:50 PM
An intriguing and informative article on why having kids with your siblings can be a health risk:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243
I found that a pretty interesting link.

Oniya

Um - just to point out...

The premise on the OP is that the couple is not interested in producing children at all, and is taking every precaution not to.  I'm not sure if this could include voluntary sterilization, but properly used birth control at a bare minimum.  This takes the whole genetics factor out of the equation, making them 'non-contributory' towards the human population.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Chris Brady

As long as you're both responsible adults, I don't care what you do with your goat.

Just leave me and my goat out of it.

Of course the premise here is being 'responsible', most of humanity it's starting to seem like they're not very...
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

TaintedAndDelish

Quote from: Caitlin on July 06, 2012, 06:56:46 AM
I think you'll find this link most interesting then. Six generation of inbreeding were enough to produce an infertile, unhealthy and unattractice king of Spain (Charles II of Spain) that he wasn't able to produce offspring with 2 different, healthy women.

This also the main example of why I'm against prolonged generations of inbreeding. If the entire human race were to do this then we'd be extinct within 200 years.

Well, that's just my point.. people with faulty genes gradually die off or fail to reproduce and those with "cleaner" genes survive. The result is you purify the gene pool in the long run. In this case there was a faulty gene in the pool and though inbreeding it came to a head and that bloodline became extinct.

The one issue that I have with incest, as you mentioned in different words, is the potential for abuse. When one party is dependent on the other - either emotionally or financially, its hard to say that they are making a fully consensual choice or that they are at least on a level playing field. I think it would be different if the two parties were living separately first - ensuring that there is no dependency.

Lastly, is it more important to pass a law that protects a the subset of those who are involved with incest AND who are being taken advantage of at the expense of those who would engage in incest in a was that is free of abuse? Or is it more important to ensure that anyone can legally engage in incest at the expense of that subset who are engaged in incest AND are being abuse/taken advantage of. I hate legal issues, so I won't voice an opinion on that last question.


Oniya

Quote from: Liayra on July 06, 2012, 04:42:13 AM
Two interesting and related hypothesis from the psychological angle of incest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

Now, that is interesting.  (Love the line about out-Freuding Freud.)  I can see this as a reason for people to not be attracted to their sibs - after all, when you live with someone that long, you get to see all their bad habits before you reach the hormonal attraction stage.  Twins might be an exception where the similarity between the two plays a part.

I wonder if this is a contributing reason for the Amish 'wild time', where they send the older teens out for a year into 'modern society'.  In earlier times, this might have been an opportunity to meet with other Amish groups doing the same thing, and hopefully find a spouse from a farther-removed gene pool.

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on July 06, 2012, 10:40:15 AM
The one issue that I have with incest, as you mentioned in different words, is the potential for abuse. When one party is dependent on the other - either emotionally or financially, its hard to say that they are making a fully consensual choice or that they are at least on a level playing field. I think it would be different if the two parties were living separately first - ensuring that there is no dependency.

Lastly, is it more important to pass a law that protects a the subset of those who are involved with incest AND who are being taken advantage of at the expense of those who would engage in incest in a was that is free of abuse? Or is it more important to ensure that anyone can legally engage in incest at the expense of that subset who are engaged in incest AND are being abuse/taken advantage of. I hate legal issues, so I won't voice an opinion on that last question.

I would think that a law that addressed the 'abused/being taken advantage of' aspect would benefit that subset, not impact the relationships free of abuse, and also benefit the 'non-incestuous but still abusive' relationships.   That might just be the Venn diagram talking, though.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

RubySlippers

What if the incest is between the same gender, your talking about genetics well there would be little risk of that if it was two men or two women getting it on?

And age would matter most if a mother 40 was lovers with a daughter 18 or two sisters of the same age range over 18 it could be choice and underage it would be criminal in any case.

Iniquitous

I have the same view for this that I do for homosexuality. I do not care what someone does behind their closed doors so long as it does not negatively affect me. My preference is that I do not hear all the details - just as I ask not to hear all the details from my friends or coworkers (straight or gay).

I will admit that there is a certain squick factor there for me - I mean, I KNOW my family and I certainly have no sexual interest in any of my family members - but to each his/her own so long as it is consensual and not abusive.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Caitlin

Quote from: Oniya on July 06, 2012, 09:06:03 AM
Um - just to point out...

The premise on the OP is that the couple is not interested in producing children at all, and is taking every precaution not to.  I'm not sure if this could include voluntary sterilization, but properly used birth control at a bare minimum.  This takes the whole genetics factor out of the equation, making them 'non-contributory' towards the human population.
In that case I have nothing against it, as long as it's consensual, though if it involves a parent - child relationship then the child should be at least at the age of consent.

Unfortunately though, I hear more negative stories of abuse when it comes to incest than positive ones where it's consensual.

Will

Quote from: Caitlin on July 06, 2012, 11:35:46 AM
In that case I have nothing against it, as long as it's consensual, though if it involves a parent - child relationship then the child should be at least at the age of consent.

Unfortunately though, I hear more negative stories of abuse when it comes to incest than positive ones where it's consensual.

You have to wonder how many people in consensual, incestuous relationships have any motivation to "go public," though.  Obviously, if it's abusive, one would hope that it would come to light and be dealt with at some point.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Oniya

Kind of like non-acrimonious divorces that way.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

AndyZ

One thing that I notice about these kinds of discussions is how easily the slippery slope kicks in.

It's simple enough to say that you're only talking about homosexual relationships where pregnancy wouldn't be an issue, but what about heterosexual relationships?  What about if they want to have a child?

It's exceptionally easy to look at an individual issue, say that it's not a problem, and then open the floodgates.  Attempting to only allow the issue to squeak through on those grounds, without getting into the issue of where the problems lie, isn't much better.  Far too often, people just say, "Well, we've already done all this," and keep on going.

People have been pretty cool about giving their reasonings on here so far, though, but I haven't really seen much in the way of blanket statements as to what should be okay and what isn't, other than words like "consensual" and "abuse."

I would much rather see a full and detailed list than simply whittling (for lack of a better word coming to me at the moment; other suggestions would be welcome) to come up with individual things, with reasonings for any barriers.
It's all good, and it's all in fun.  Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

Ons/Offs   -  My schedule and A/As   -    My Avatars

If I've owed you a post for at least a week, poke me.

Beguile's Mistress

Discussion on a purely theoretical basis is all well and good. 

So, a family rents a beach house for the summer and as everyone arrives Uncle Nate and cousin Julie take one room and Aunt Betty and cousin Mark take another.  Julie and Mark are over eighteen. 

A theoretical discussion on whether or not incest should be prosecuted needs to include applying that opinion in a family setting in my opinion.

I'm not looking for a response; just asking that you think about it.

Pumpkin Seeds

Well, regardless of taking measures to prevent pregnancy or not wishing to have a child there is simply no way to take the health risk completely off the table in regard to a heterosexual couple having sex.  The health risks are significant for a child if there are genetic factors involved.  A simple punnet square will show the problems with this arrangement.  Perhaps some people will still cry that this is not fair in this particular instance, but how often is this particular instance going to occur entirely. 

The second issue is in regard to the power dynamics.  A family situation always has power dynamics.  Parents are supposed to have power and dominance over their children, the children growing up to eventually find their independence and go to establish their own family units.  Older siblings typically have some power over younger.  People do not exist that long with each other, grow up with one another without there being power dynamics.  Attempting to setup another instance of their not being dominance of one over the other, of eliminating any coercion in the relationship is near impossible.

There is also the situation, in the same vein of power dynamics, of role shift.  For instance of a mother and son having sex.  The problem then comes that the relationship of mother and son has become different as the son now assumes the position of lower, potential husband.  He might become more dominant toward his mother and other family members as he is now the lover to the woman who was once filling the role of mother.  What happens to that relationship?  Perhaps some do not see this shift in role as important, but keep in mind that one of the signs of rape between father and daughter is the daughter assuming many roles and tasks of the wife.

Third there is the problem of introducing sexual tension to relationships that are supposed to be innocent of those factors.  People depend on their family for a myriad of reasons.  Emotional, financial, spiritual and so on types of support are expected from family members.  Sex can make those waters quite murky and complex, adding a dynamic that would make most people uncomfortable.  The strain is not simply between the lovers, but also to other family members as they deal with the relationship.  Anyone ever had sex with a friend and the relationship gone sour?  Apply that to a family member, someone who cannot be “dumped” and for whom there is a great deal of history. 

Lilias

A lot of the laws defining incest come from times when procreation was a given in any sexual relationship, and families were indissoluble, hence the restrictions concerning relatives by marriage. Several legislatures drop step-siblings and siblings-in-law into the incest barrier; I personally see nothing reprehensible about a relationship between two people who share no genes at all, just because their parents or siblings chose to marry.

I'm going to leave the blood relation thing alone because I have no clear opinion on the issue. Although it's interesting that first cousins are considered forbidden as often as not.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Serephino

Actually, if you use a punnet square (if it's the thing I'm thinking of), there is only a 25% chance of passing on the recessive trait, assuming both parties are carriers.  That may be too high of a risk for some people, and obviously genetics is a lot more complicated than a square, but still, it's not as bad as people like to make it out to be if it's just a one-generation thing.  Now, if you have several generations worth of incest, then, yes, there is more of a risk for genetic defects. 

The Egyptians and European Nobility went a little nuts because it was nothing but incest.  The Egyptians believed the pharaohs were living gods, and therefore, it was blasphemy to dilute their blood.  Each pharaoh married his sisters, female cousins, and even mother and aunts if they were still alive and could bear children.  His queen had to be a sister, and she was supposed to be the mother of his heir.  It was pretty much the same with European Nobility.  They were too good to dirty their blue blood with common blood, so all they had was each other.  Over time the gene pool got smaller and smaller.

But we're not talking about several generations here.  Other than admittedly finding one of my first cousins kinda hot, I don't really understand the attraction.  However, I don't understand the attraction to furries either.  That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone being turned on by furries, it just isn't for me.  I support the right of consenting adults to have any kind of relationship they wish, be it homosexual, incest, or polygamy.  There is the possibility of abuse and coercion, but you have that in any dynamic.  Police officers, teachers, and bosses have already been mentioned, and there are probably other examples I just can't think of right now.  Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that all such relationships involve abuse and/or coercion. 

Okay, so here is food for thought.  An older sibling has some influence over a younger sibling.  That is usually true.  Now, think back to high school.  You, a lowly Freshmen/ Sophomore see this really cool Senior.  You want that cool person to like you.  For some reason, said cool person notices your existence.  Again, you want them to like you, and you want to please them.  This happens, more often with older boys and younger girls.  The girl is so psyched that the hot older guy wants them that they end up doing things they wouldn't normally do; like sex.  For argument's sake, let's say the guy didn't do anything like say he'd break up with her if she didn't sleep with him.  He just made it clear that's what he wanted, but would've taken no for answer.  Is that coercion?  Should that be criminalized, even if he did threaten to break up with her?     

Chris Brady

Quote from: Serephino on July 06, 2012, 06:39:29 PM
Okay, so here is food for thought.  An older sibling has some influence over a younger sibling.  That is usually true.  Now, think back to high school.  You, a lowly Freshmen/ Sophomore see this really cool Senior.  You want that cool person to like you.  For some reason, said cool person notices your existence.  Again, you want them to like you, and you want to please them.  This happens, more often with older boys and younger girls.  The girl is so psyched that the hot older guy wants them that they end up doing things they wouldn't normally do; like sex.  For argument's sake, let's say the guy didn't do anything like say he'd break up with her if she didn't sleep with him.  He just made it clear that's what he wanted, but would've taken no for answer.  Is that coercion?  Should that be criminalized, even if he did threaten to break up with her?     


Only if she reports him.  Like any other law in creation.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Valerian

Quote from: Serephino on July 06, 2012, 06:39:29 PM
The Egyptians and European Nobility went a little nuts because it was nothing but incest.  The Egyptians believed the pharaohs were living gods, and therefore, it was blasphemy to dilute their blood.  Each pharaoh married his sisters, female cousins, and even mother and aunts if they were still alive and could bear children.  His queen had to be a sister, and she was supposed to be the mother of his heir.  It was pretty much the same with European Nobility.  They were too good to dirty their blue blood with common blood, so all they had was each other.  Over time the gene pool got smaller and smaller. 

This is something of a side point, obviously, but pharaohs were allowed to marry any woman they liked, noble or commoner. and frequently took advantage of that.  For instance, the mother of Ramses II, aka Ramses the Great, was a commoner and therefore not related to her husband at all.  And the chief wife didn't have to be a sibling, though she often was -- most of the time, the chief queen was expected to govern in her husband's absence, so she was usually chosen for her abilities in that area.

Royal women had it much worse in Egypt, though they weren't really a very sexist society in other areas -- a princess was not allowed to marry beneath her as the men could, and marrying princes or kings from other countries was forbidden lest that lead to foreign claimants to the throne.  So if an Egyptian princess didn't marry a relative, she didn't marry at all.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Pumpkin Seeds

The senior in this case is using coercion, yes.  Because of his popularity and fame alongside her reluctance to do the act until he threatens to leave her.  He is using the threat of withdrawing his presence to make her do something she does not wish to do.  The act is not illegal because the girl in this case has the option to end the relationship, thereby severing any real danger from the interaction.

How does one break up with their brother?

Were this a case of the older brother and the younger sister, then there is a more dangerous edge here.  The brother cannot simply go away in this instance as they occupy the same house.  He will be there while she sleeps, while she bathes, while she enjoys time to herself.  Who is she to go to if he begins to threaten her?  Interjected into her household, a place of safety and security especially at such a vulnerable age, is the tension that sex brings.  No longer is the older sibling just her brother but also a jilted lover and ex-love interest.  There is a confusion of roles there.

Will

So if they don't live together, it's okay?
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Caitlin

Quote from: Will on July 06, 2012, 01:31:54 PM
You have to wonder how many people in consensual, incestuous relationships have any motivation to "go public," though.  Obviously, if it's abusive, one would hope that it would come to light and be dealt with at some point.
Yeah, I considered that as well. Most are aware of the taboo on it and will keep it to themselves.
Quote from: AndyZ on July 06, 2012, 03:01:53 PM
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
One thing that I notice about these kinds of discussions is how easily the slippery slope kicks in.

It's simple enough to say that you're only talking about homosexual relationships where pregnancy wouldn't be an issue, but what about heterosexual relationships?  What about if they want to have a child?

It's exceptionally easy to look at an individual issue, say that it's not a problem, and then open the floodgates.  Attempting to only allow the issue to squeak through on those grounds, without getting into the issue of where the problems lie, isn't much better.  Far too often, people just say, "Well, we've already done all this," and keep on going.

People have been pretty cool about giving their reasonings on here so far, though, but I haven't really seen much in the way of blanket statements as to what should be okay and what isn't, other than words like "consensual" and "abuse."

I would much rather see a full and detailed list than simply whittling (for lack of a better word coming to me at the moment; other suggestions would be welcome) to come up with individual things, with reasonings for any barriers.
Though I can understand such a wish, I simply couldn't give you one since I believe every case would have be judged on itself. In some cases there are circumstances in which I would find it more acceptable than in others.

There was a news article last year where a brother who was separated from his sister for a long time met her, fell in love and got 4 children with her, after which they found out that they were brother and sister. His sister was also in the lower regions with her IQ and in this case I would have said, well let them stay together, the harm is already done anyway.

However, the german judge ruled differently. The man went to jail for several years and he even the European Court ruled against him. As a result he's now divorced and has a broken family. I don't see how anybody gained anything from that.

On the other hand, if he had known that she was his sister and married her despite knowing, then I'd have been against it. It's only a single circumstance that is different and it can already swing my favour of being for or against it.

Making a certain set of rules is nearly impossible. I live by certain principles, which would let me decide that one case is okay and another isn't, but who is to say that it's not my principles that are flawed?
Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on July 06, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Discussion on a purely theoretical basis is all well and good. 

So, a family rents a beach house for the summer and as everyone arrives Uncle Nate and cousin Julie take one room and Aunt Betty and cousin Mark take another.  Julie and Mark are over eighteen. 

A theoretical discussion on whether or not incest should be prosecuted needs to include applying that opinion in a family setting in my opinion.

I'm not looking for a response; just asking that you think about it.
This is probably the most acceptable situation, especially if Betty and Nate are brother/sister and Mark/Julie are sister. To me aunt/nephew and uncle/niece relationships don't fall under 'true' incest anyway, so I'd be okay with that. For me 'true' incest is between direct blood relatives, so parents/children or siblings.

Quote from: Serephino on July 06, 2012, 06:39:29 PM
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Actually, if you use a punnet square (if it's the thing I'm thinking of), there is only a 25% chance of passing on the recessive trait, assuming both parties are carriers.  That may be too high of a risk for some people, and obviously genetics is a lot more complicated than a square, but still, it's not as bad as people like to make it out to be if it's just a one-generation thing.  Now, if you have several generations worth of incest, then, yes, there is more of a risk for genetic defects. 

The Egyptians and European Nobility went a little nuts because it was nothing but incest.  The Egyptians believed the pharaohs were living gods, and therefore, it was blasphemy to dilute their blood.  Each pharaoh married his sisters, female cousins, and even mother and aunts if they were still alive and could bear children.  His queen had to be a sister, and she was supposed to be the mother of his heir.  It was pretty much the same with European Nobility.  They were too good to dirty their blue blood with common blood, so all they had was each other.  Over time the gene pool got smaller and smaller.

But we're not talking about several generations here.  Other than admittedly finding one of my first cousins kinda hot, I don't really understand the attraction.  However, I don't understand the attraction to furries either.  That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with someone being turned on by furries, it just isn't for me.  I support the right of consenting adults to have any kind of relationship they wish, be it homosexual, incest, or polygamy.  There is the possibility of abuse and coercion, but you have that in any dynamic.  Police officers, teachers, and bosses have already been mentioned, and there are probably other examples I just can't think of right now.  Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean that all such relationships involve abuse and/or coercion. 

Okay, so here is food for thought.  An older sibling has some influence over a younger sibling.  That is usually true.  Now, think back to high school.  You, a lowly Freshmen/ Sophomore see this really cool Senior.  You want that cool person to like you.  For some reason, said cool person notices your existence.  Again, you want them to like you, and you want to please them.  This happens, more often with older boys and younger girls.  The girl is so psyched that the hot older guy wants them that they end up doing things they wouldn't normally do; like sex.  For argument's sake, let's say the guy didn't do anything like say he'd break up with her if she didn't sleep with him.  He just made it clear that's what he wanted, but would've taken no for answer.  Is that coercion?  Should that be criminalized, even if he did threaten to break up with her?     
Actually, I have to set you straight here on the European nobility Serephino. They didn't feel too good to mingle with commoners, or at the very best that was only a small reason. The bigger reason was a financial one. Marriage outside their group meant breaking up their wealth and lands, which wasn't acceptable. It was okay to marry strategically in such a way that you gained more lands and wealth, but if your heir carried a different last name then it would mean that your family lost their possessions to another family. It was much more a way to protect their lands from falling apart than to prevent commoners to become nobleman. The latter did play a role too, but a much smaller one.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on July 06, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
Discussion on a purely theoretical basis is all well and good. 

So, a family rents a beach house for the summer and as everyone arrives Uncle Nate and cousin Julie take one room and Aunt Betty and cousin Mark take another.  Julie and Mark are over eighteen. 

A theoretical discussion on whether or not incest should be prosecuted needs to include applying that opinion in a family setting in my opinion.

I'm not looking for a response; just asking that you think about it.
Quote from: Caitlin on July 07, 2012, 09:26:33 AM
This is probably the most acceptable situation, especially if Betty and Nate are brother/sister and Mark/Julie are sister. To me aunt/nephew and uncle/niece relationships don't fall under 'true' incest anyway, so I'd be okay with that. For me 'true' incest is between direct blood relatives, so parents/children or siblings.
Allow me to describe the scenario in more detail.

Your parents/in-laws rent a house at the beach for a family vacation.  They have three children who along with their spouses and their children will be joining them.  Betty is their daughter and married to Nate.  Julie and Mark are Betty's and Nate's daughter and son.  Betty and Mark share a bedroom and Nate and Julie share another.  This is they way they live at home but it comes as a surprise to the rest of the family.  Think about your reaction if you were the parent/grandparent or sibling/in-law/niece or nephew/cousin of the incestuous foursome. 

Again, think about it but you don't have to respond.

Pumpkin Seeds

No Will, the problem is there is no way to "break up" from the brother.  Once more, sexual tension has invaded a family dynamic.

Will

The point you were making seemed dependent on the participants being at a "tender age," and living together.  It is absolutely possible for grown adults to "break up" with family; people do it all the time.  Would a messy end be something to consider before diving into sex with someone you already have a familial relationship with?  Of course, but that's the same sort of thing people have to consider when they think about hooking up with close friends.  I don't see a difference.  I actually have friends I'm closer to than family.  It wouldn't be illegal for me to start a relationship with them, regardless of the sexual tension it caused among the rest of our very close friends.

And I don't believe a possibility of coercion is enough to make something illegal.  What about D/s relationships?  That's about as ripe for coercion and abuse as it gets.  And yet it's legal.  Because the opportunity for abuse is not a crime; actual abuse, on the other hand, is.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Serephino

Exactly.  We're mostly talking about adults here.  I know several people who have very little if it all to do with their biological family, so one is not forced to be around them once one is 18 and living on their own.  Hell, I'm not entirely sure my family remembers my existence now that I'm not living with my mother. 

Let's say you have a father/daughter relationship.  The parents are divorced.  The daughter grew up living with her mother, and possibly didn't even see her father all that much growing up.  As an adult she decides she wants a relationship with her father, and for some reason it turns sexual.  Then it doesn't work.  If she is an adult, even if she still lives with her mother, she can very easily go back to not having a relationship with her father, just as she did growing up.  If the girl's mother never even knew about the sexual aspect to begin with, nothing even has to be explained. 

Even if you have that 'tender age' scenario' things might be unpleasant for a while, but living together would not be a permanent situation.  Even if the older brother doesn't go off to college, the girl will turn 18 eventually.  And if it's really that bad, there is always emancipation.  My boyfriend's sister was looking into it when I met him, she just never got off her ass and did it.  It isn't exactly if they'll be stuck together the rest of their lives.  Also, what if it works out and they don't want to break up?

Pumpkin Seeds

Well, for one I was working off the scenario set forth by Serephino.  My argument does not rely on “tender” ages but was instead to simply show how the example put forth by someone else is not so innocent.  That Serephino suggested the sister in the scenario proposed emancipate herself if the situation with her brother gets that bad is a prime example of why incest should not be allowed.  The coercion aspect is not what makes the situation illegal.  Though coercion is enough to make society frown on boss-coworker relationships and in some situations make them illegal.  I have listed multiple reasons why incest is to be frowned upon from health reasons to disruption of family dynamic.  The government does pass laws to protect what it sees as an essential part of society, which is the family. 

Children stay at home for many years after reaching adulthood.  That is one of the hallmark portions of the healthcare law passed by Obama was to keep children on their parent’s insurance for an extended period.  Children and other family members rely on each other long after reaching adulthood.  Potential disruption of that family dynamic would be catastrophic to the child and to the family as a whole.  A son or daughter relies on their parents.  Muddying those waters with sex would be a bad idea.

Yes, close friends have sex and can lead to regret.  Once again, you can break up with your friend but not really your relatives.  Certainly children stop talking to their parents, relatives don’t contact each other but the state is not going to purposefully allow a situation to occur with such potential for family disruption.

Torch

#44
Quote from: Will on July 07, 2012, 03:20:02 PM
And I don't believe a possibility of coercion is enough to make something illegal.  What about D/s relationships?  That's about as ripe for coercion and abuse as it gets.  And yet it's legal.  Because the opportunity for abuse is not a crime; actual abuse, on the other hand, is.

Not exactly. People are arrested and convicted of assault all the time for engaging in consensual BDSM. In many jurisdictions, assault even with consent, is a crime.

And no state or appellate court in the US has allowed consent as a defense for assault in BDSM cases.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Will

#45
Quote from: Torch on July 07, 2012, 09:08:36 PM
Not exactly. People are arrested and convicted of assault all the time for engaging in consensual BDSM. In many jurisdictions, assault even with consent, is a crime.

And no state or appellate court in the US has allowed consent as a defense for assault in BDSM cases.

D/s may or may not have anything to do with the BD and SM portions of the BDSM acronym.  I'm not talking about whips and chains here; I'm talking about lifestyle power exchange.

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on July 07, 2012, 05:57:22 PM
Yes, close friends have sex and can lead to regret.  Once again, you can break up with your friend but not really your relatives.  Certainly children stop talking to their parents, relatives don’t contact each other but the state is not going to purposefully allow a situation to occur with such potential for family disruption.

Grown adults are no more forced to interact with their family than any other people.  If I want to disrupt my family, that's my right.  And I don't have to sleep with any of them to do it.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Torch

Quote from: Will on July 07, 2012, 10:01:40 PM
D/s may or may not have anything to do with the BD and SM portions of the BDSM acronym.  I'm not talking about whips and chains here; I'm talking about lifestyle power exchange.


I'm more than fully aware of that. However, the fact remains there are physical aspects of BDSM which are considered against the law.  Many lifestylers are unaware of this and falsely rely on consent to protect themselves.

Even in a power exchange relationship, if any activities can be classified as assault (and assault can have a very broad definition within the law), consent is irrelevant when it comes to being prosecuted.

In that respect, a D/s relationship can be considered illegal.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Will

#47
Quote from: Torch on July 07, 2012, 11:16:35 PM
I'm more than fully aware of that. However, the fact remains there are physical aspects of BDSM which are considered against the law.  Many lifestylers are unaware of this and falsely rely on consent to protect themselves.

Even in a power exchange relationship, if any activities can be classified as assault (and assault can have a very broad definition within the law), consent is irrelevant when it comes to being prosecuted.

In that respect, a D/s relationship can be considered illegal.

Again, you're talking about specific activities that may or may not be involved.  It is perfectly possible to have a D/s relationship without participating in any activities for which you could be prosecuted.

You are right that many people have too much trust in themselves, in their partners, and in the law, and believe that consent will keep them safe.  That's bullshit.  I personally can't believe people have casual BDSM relationships and encounters.  It's seriously nuts.  That's a little off-topic, though, I think?

Specific instances of abuse should be prosecuted.  Situations - between adults, that is - which might lead to abuse really shouldn't.  That's my opinion.  I mean we're talking about adults here.  We have to take responsibility for our own choices at some point, and let others do the same.  We all have countless situations like that in our lives, with people who have some perceived authority over us.  You can't make one illegal and just leave the rest.  It's nonsensical.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

TheyDontKnowIBurn

My big thing? It's too easy for the elder in a situation, (ie- parent, aunt, uncle, etc) to assert an unhealthy level of authority, or to even sway the younger in childhood. Yes, I am saying brainwashing, but less horror movie and more emotional dependency or mental manipulation.

I don't personally have a problem with cousins, or hell, even siblings, but is it okay to set a law saying that one form of incest is alright and one is wrong? It just seems to me that would cause more problems than help.
All art used in my sig and avatar are drawn by me.

"I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah"

Caitlin

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on July 07, 2012, 10:57:41 AM
Allow me to describe the scenario in more detail.

Your parents/in-laws rent a house at the beach for a family vacation.  They have three children who along with their spouses and their children will be joining them.  Betty is their daughter and married to Nate.  Julie and Mark are Betty's and Nate's daughter and son.  Betty and Mark share a bedroom and Nate and Julie share another.  This is they way they live at home but it comes as a surprise to the rest of the family.  Think about your reaction if you were the parent/grandparent or sibling/in-law/niece or nephew/cousin of the incestuous foursome. 

Again, think about it but you don't have to respond.
I think I'm confused... You meant that they'd be my uncle/aunt/newphew/niece, but there is a direct blood relation between them? I thought you meant they were uncle/aunt/nephew/niece towards each other.

As I said earlier in the topic, I'm against direct blood relationships that result in children, though there are some exceptions where I find it understandable. Either way I don't think it's up to me to judge others, but I wouldn't marry a woman who is the result of such a relationship. I want healthy offspring and to me the chances for genetic defuncts increase too much in that case. I'd have far less issues marrying a woman who is the result of a niece/ nephew relationship, especially if that relationship was an exception, rather than a common occurance.

As far as the specific situation you described, I think I'd be shocked that something like it occurs in my family, but I wouldn't comment on it any further or discuss it with anybody. I also wouldn't start treating them any differently, though it'll take me a few moments to get used to the new situation. It's their life and their choice.

TaintedAndDelish

Likewise, I wasn't sure why you would prosecute in this case. If nobody complains, however they are somehow caught and prosecuted because its illegal in itself, then I would think you would just prosecute everyone?




Torch

Quote from: Will on July 08, 2012, 12:09:17 AM
Again, you're talking about specific activities that may or may not be involved.  It is perfectly possible to have a D/s relationship without participating in any activities for which you could be prosecuted.

Again, I'm fully aware of that fact.

QuoteYou are right that many people have too much trust in themselves, in their partners, and in the law, and believe that consent will keep them safe.  That's bullshit.  I personally can't believe people have casual BDSM relationships and encounters.  It's seriously nuts.  That's a little off-topic, though, I think?

If we're speaking of legalities, not really. Just like most folks are unaware of the laws concerning prosecution of BDSM related activities, most folks are unaware of the laws concerning incest. Most folks don't realize that in many states, incest isn't just defined as "sex with a blood relative", but it can include step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws, none of whom are blood related.

They could be committing a crime without realizing it, and as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up, you'd better be running."  Sir Roger Bannister


Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole chicken.

On's and Off's

Chris Brady

Quote from: Torch on July 08, 2012, 10:49:41 AM
Again, I'm fully aware of that fact.

If we're speaking of legalities, not really. Just like most folks are unaware of the laws concerning prosecution of BDSM related activities, most folks are unaware of the laws concerning incest. Most folks don't realize that in many states, incest isn't just defined as "sex with a blood relative", but it can include step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws, none of whom are blood related.

They could be committing a crime without realizing it, and as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Especially since the person reporting said 'crime' doesn't have to be related to you.  It could be some random woman and her kid cutting through YOUR backyard (Trespassing!) who spot you doing either incest, BDSM play or just being nude in YOUR OWN HOME, who reports you to the cops.

And welcome to the sex offender list.  Hope you're rich!  Cuz you ain't a member of society any more!
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Will

Quote from: Torch on July 08, 2012, 10:49:41 AM
Again, I'm fully aware of that fact.

If we're speaking of legalities, not really. Just like most folks are unaware of the laws concerning prosecution of BDSM related activities, most folks are unaware of the laws concerning incest. Most folks don't realize that in many states, incest isn't just defined as "sex with a blood relative", but it can include step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws, none of whom are blood related.

They could be committing a crime without realizing it, and as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I was discussing the inherent quality of those incest laws, and whether or not they should exist.  I know that they already do, and that they cover a rather wide base.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Caehlim

Quote from: Sabby on July 05, 2012, 02:24:54 PMI honestly believe it should be treated as any sexual relationship with added health concerns.

Yep, I'm with you there. The activities of consenting adults are none of my business.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Auron

Quote from: Caehlim on July 09, 2012, 07:40:47 AM
Yep, I'm with you there. The activities of consenting adults are none of my business.

Unfortunately, most of the world (or at least the vocal populace) does not think that way. They seem to think that any and all information about anybody should be out in the open.
I don't see why people can't accept others views on things like this. If they love each other enough and in the proper way, let them have at it (so long as they use the proper protection. The chance of causing a life of suffering  in a child should be taken into account).

Other than that, I don't think its a problem. If one party thinks its a problem, or isn't actually consenting, the truth will come out. Unfortunately, that kind of relationship will happen whether or not society generally accepts or rejects incest in the first place.

Florence

Quote from: Sabby on July 05, 2012, 02:24:54 PM
Considering where we are, I think this topic deserves serious discussion. Just like with the gay marriage topics, I'm really not expecting to see much of a two sided argument, and more of a splitting/refining of the pro-side.

So what is your opinion on incest?

My personal stance is that the amount of resistance to it is like the silent cousin to the gay marriage debates. Seeing a news article and reading the words "Sentenced to 4 years for incest" honestly makes me angry enough to have to grit my teeth to stay silent. And I'm always afraid of peoples reactions to this. My brother and a few friends are aware of my position (this doesn't lead to any awkward yaoi, before you ask :P) but some times I get the typical kneejerk reaction of disgust.

But what gets me is how often incest is treated like paedophilia. WHAT?! You're okay with a grown woman and her adult son decided to have intercourse and taking the necessary precautions? Well clearly you'd fuck your pre-school daughter then!

^Sense. Not. Make. -.-

I honestly believe it should be treated as any sexual relationship with added health concerns. Two consenting adults, who are not harming anyone, and taking the necessary precautions, shouldn't have to fear for their freedom and social lives. But if someone snatches a kid or forces themselves on someone, it absolutely should be stopped, what does it matter who knows who and how?

Honestly, just... that. I agree completely. There are definite considerations as to the health of a potential child, and certain consent issues if one partner has a role of authority over the other... but, all in all... there's nothing wrong with it.

I understand that there are complications when such intimate relationships as family and romance/sex are mixed, but in my opinion it all comes down to "People can do what they want in their free time as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves." Frankly, I wouldn't mind to most drugs being legal (I definitely want pot to be legalized :U) because it all comes down to people being able to chose what to do with their own lives. If you wanna screw up your life by getting addicted to crack, go ahead, its your choice. If you want to run the risks of an incestuous relationship, if the person means that much to you, go for it.

Obviously, if one person is abusing a position of authority (aka. a father and their daughter), then that's different. The father is choosing to harm their daughter. Similarly, my stance on drugs ends with the sort of heavy-duty drugs that turns someone into a danger to everyone around them. I mean, like that drugged up guy who ate a homeless man's face... whatever made him do that should DEFINITELY be illegal.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Fenrisulfr

I'm quite deep entrenched in the "consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other."

When it comes to things like the case on Germany with the consensual cannibal victim, I'm a bit on the fence. But Incest between consenting adults doesn't even register on my scale of things that should be forbidden.

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on July 07, 2012, 10:57:41 AM
Your parents/in-laws rent a house at the beach for a family vacation.  They have three children who along with their spouses and their children will be joining them.  Betty is their daughter and married to Nate.  Julie and Mark are Betty's and Nate's daughter and son.  Betty and Mark share a bedroom and Nate and Julie share another.  This is they way they live at home but it comes as a surprise to the rest of the family.  Think about your reaction if you were the parent/grandparent or sibling/in-law/niece or nephew/cousin of the incestuous foursome. 
I would probably be a bit taken aback at first; just as I was the first time I saw a man in high heels and stockings at a BDSM club or when I saw an autopsy for the first time (the pathologist had not mention the change in the schedule, so I walked right into one while thinking the room would be empty :o ). But as with those two situations, a few minutes later I probably wouldn't have any more problem with it (assuming we are talking about adult offsprings and not that they are still minors). 

Doomsday

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on July 05, 2012, 10:54:53 PM
My understanding is that inbreeding does not cause biological defects, rather it makes them more likely to arise if the people breeding are prone. I would think that over time, this might result in a cleansing or purification of the gene pool in cases where those defects make a candidate less likely to procreate ( ie, if it makes them less attractive, unhealthy, or infertile)?

I don't know much about biology, but would be interested in learning about this.

Interbreeding is only really bad if both the mother and father have a passive gene carrying some type of disorder or defect, because it means they are both more likely to give their child that defect. It is not automatic, though.

Really is it any worse than having a child with someone who is not in your close family but still has that passive allele?

Also if we keep going back through the generations, everyone's related, really. Would you be mortified to find out your significant other is your 5th or 6th cousin?

Serephino

Well, my understanding of genetics is limited, but how I understand it is this...  Humans have 23 chromosomal pairs.  Each pair is made up of genes for a whole bunch of different stuff.  Like, interesting fact, the gene for male pattern baldness is carried in a gene that is associated with the X chromosome, so really, men get it from their mothers.

So say we have Judy and Frank.  In pair number 16 Judy has genes H and G.  Gene G has a defect in it.  Frank has genes U and B.  All of Judy's eggs have either H or G, same for Frank's sperm because we get half of our pairs from our mother, and half from our father.

Frank and Judy have two kids; Hank and Mary.  Let's say Hank has HU, and Mary has GB.  They have completely different genes for that chromosomal pair, so it would be no different than two unrelated people.  G has the defect in it, and Mary has G, but Hank doesn't.  Even if any child they have gets gene G, the only possible pairs with G are GH, or GU.  The child will be a carrier like Mary.   

However, let's say for pair number 2 Judy has ES and Frank has MR.  Hank has EM and Mary has ER.  Then, there would be a 25% for any child they have to get EE, and any resulting genetic defect that comes along with E.

I'm not good with statistics, but siblings generally share 25% of their genes.  Pair 16 for Hank and Mary may be completely different, but pair 2 they shared one common gene.  Maybe in pair 9 they're both YV, which would mean their child could only be YV too, or get YY or VV.         

TaintedAndDelish

What I meant by cleaning is that after hundreds, maybe thousands of generations, those with defective genes would eventually disappear from the gene pool as statistically, their chances of survival and reproduction are lower. ( That is, *assuming* that these bad genes negatively affect their chances of reproduction in some way or form ) In the short term, yes, it wold be a bloody mess.




kylie

     I think it's rather interesting how once something is in a marked category, so much of the discussion revolves around "is it or isn't it really unsafe on the same old grounds.  So how about a little comparison and contrast. 

Are you okay with so many bdsm activities which might have long-term health risks (often but not always fairly well controlled)?

    ---- Flogging, local burning, piercing, suspension...

Are you okay with living/sleeping around partners who may present health risks?

    --- Second hand smoke, sharing bad dietary choices, reckless driving....

If you say it's about unequal levels of power, how much equality is required to be safe?  Just how different is this?

    --- If your partner is slightly older, sleeps beside you every single night, makes more money and you use that money for your quality of living, knows neighbors you rely on, is friendly with your boss or bank account manager?

     

Oniya

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on July 31, 2012, 04:25:36 AM
What I meant by cleaning is that after hundreds, maybe thousands of generations, those with defective genes would eventually disappear from the gene pool as statistically, their chances of survival and reproduction are lower. ( That is, *assuming* that these bad genes negatively affect their chances of reproduction in some way or form ) In the short term, yes, it wold be a bloody mess.

Not necessarily.  Some genes have a neutral, or even positive function when there is only one copy, but devastating effects when there are two copies.  Sickle cell trait, for example, evolved as a positive factor in malaria-ridden areas.  Got one copy?  You're not going to die as readily from malaria, and you get to pass it on.  Got two copies?  Certain environmental factors or illnesses can cause your blood cells to deform, and you suffer excruciating pain and difficulty transporting oxygen as the RBCs get stuck in the spleen or capillaries. 

With the standard square, (assuming non-siblings with no greater chance than the population norm of carrying the gene) you have three squares where the gene gets passed on - two of which have the 'dangerous' gene - and one square that doesn't pass it on.  With siblings, the odds just change: If the gene is in the family, each sib has a 50% chance of carrying it, and therefore there's a 1 in 4 chance that the offspring would get it from both sides.  The trait would still be passed on in 50% of the cases, keeping the genes in the gene pool. 

Now, if you're selecting against a dominant gene (Huntington's disease is a notable one), all of the 'dangerous' genes would be expressed instead of being covered up.  Three out of the four squares would be 'bad', and only one (which only had the recessive genes in it) would be 'good'.  Now, the problem with getting rid of Huntington's disease in this manner is that symptoms generally manifest later in life, when there's already been a chance to have kids and pass it on, even before you know you have it.  (That whole 'negatively affecting reproduction' thing doesn't come into play, generally.)

Of course, since the original premise is that the couple doesn't have kids, and does everything in their power (possibly including getting snipped for either partner), this is all academic.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Mikem

Glad I found an already existing thread for this so I don't accidentally create a copy.

God where do I start? Incest Relations I would guess, started out as just another attractively forbidden kink, but as I got older, and the more exposed to it I've gotten, it'd developed into this entire political and moral standing for me, and not just something that flicks my switch. I've gone through my own experiences in life to realize that it is incredibly short and fragile, and there's no room for what if's and missed opportunities that lead to regrets. Well as I say this I'm realizing all that is double edged, especially regrets. Would missing out on loving your sibling/relative be regrettable? Or would going through with it be? As was stated by the original poster, a related couple would no doubt need to exercise precaution in a relationship, in order to get the maximum amount of safety while still experiencing companionship together. But my rant isn't about Incest itself. It's about Society's part in it.

I know that Incest is "unnatural", and that it has genuine mental and health risks. And yet I get so, incredibly infuriated when I witness the views, beliefs, and comments made by Society at large about the topic. God forbid if a brother and sister close in age discover a spark like any other usual couple would. I've read comments claiming such a union to be toxic, to be tragic, to be abusive, especially from more religiously oriented opinions. In this day and age of liberal progressiveness and all inclusive activists, Incest is still firmly buried under the crosshairs of everyone's gun. I've grown to be so afflicted by society's conditional nature, dotingly expressing the all encompassing splendor of Love and it's many forms...except Incest, cause that's disgusting and you're going to Hell and we'll hate you if you do it.

I don't actively support Incest relations, but I'm not going to lynch the next couple of people for falling into it. The act of two people will not directly affect the lives of seven billion, but what we should do is expand our mission of instilling the mindset of safe sex, and also work toward decriminalization. Even legally mature adults will still be thrown in jail if they're caught together as siblings. In Germany a Man and Woman met as adults after being separated as children. They fell in love and even started a family. The man was jailed over and over because he wouldn't stop being in love with his sister. The news article was a depressing read.

I want to also note that yes, I'm speaking as an outsider. I don't have a sister and I only have one cousin that's close in age and even though she's cute, there's no desire there. I also understand that many people with siblings have claimed they love them but the thought of sexual intimacy still disgusts them. I realize this is most likely representative of the majority, I'm not claiming otherwise. I just don't want the exceptions to be demonized like they are by people.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. So why not take the scenic route?"

My Ons & Offs

HannibalBarca

Years ago I read one of Isaac Asimov's robots novels, set in a future on a human colony world.  Life there was so progressive it made Sweden look like the Hebrews under Moses.  Life expectancy was over 200 years, with youth and health proportionate to length.  Marriage was a thing of the past, with couples coming together to have children, otherwise staying together only as long as they enjoyed the relationship.  And incest was legal.

Actually, one of the main characters was a woman whose father was a scientist that had invented humanlike robots.  At one point she'd shown a romantic interest in him when they were well into adulthood.  He turned down her interest, more due to his antisocial/antiemotional behavior, not because of any dislike of incest.  Really, it was a plot point in her dislike of him, but the incest angle was, I believe, merely a facet of the story as set in a far-flung future.

Likewise, I don't see incest as any problem among mature adults.  Like many things, it has been firmly set in general society as an ill, based on sets of mores created in earlier eras where they served a purpose, but now, for consenting adults of that mind, they oppress, not protect.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

AmberStarfire

I'm of the view that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and that's one of them.

I think it's a perfectly fine fantasy, but I don't think it makes for a fine reality.

Maybe if a couple came together without knowing they were blood relations, but if they knew I believe that to be wrong.

I realise other people have different opinions, though, and these are just mine.


Cyrano Johnson

#66
People who talk about "consensual incest" are kidding themselves; incest warps familial dynamics of immense psychological power in ways that make determining "consent" incredibly problematic, so that even apparent "consent" often hides deep psychological trauma. Beyond that, most real-life incestuous relationships don't even manage the surface appearance of consensuality. If incest were this totally healthy thing that had been unfairly stigmatized by society, "consent" for incest wouldn't routinely have to be acquired through intimidating, isolating, deceiving and/or brainwashing the younger party. The frequency with which this proves to be true in real-life cases of incest indicates pretty strongly that the facts side with those opposed to incest. That's well before you even get to health-related effects or social effects.

The fact that there exists an "incest movement" determined to legitimize incest as some normal, vanilla sexual inclination -- a movement that appears to be quite up itself as the next wave of sexual civil rights and routinely presumes to compare itself to the gay rights crusade, no less -- is creepy as hell. Fantasizing about it is one thing, but that's essentially like being a non-con fantasist who wants rape recognized as just a form of innocent horseplay. Delusion at that level is dangerous.

Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Fenrisulfr

Different countries have different laws. In Sweden there are mainly three laws that might be involved.
1. Sex have to be consensual. If not, it is breaking the law. The problem is for the court to prove it was without consent.
2. The age of consent is 15; unless there is some form of dependence between the persons involved, then it is 18. So boss/employee, teacher/student, stepparent/stepchild would fall within this.
3. The law regarding incest. This one makes it illegal for siblings, parent/child or grandparent/child. Now, child means the age 18+, otherwise point 2 is already in effect, and as that one has a more severe penalty, this one will only be used if neither of 1 or 2 can be used. Now, half-siblings, nephews, nieces,  aunts, uncles, cousins and what have you is legally fair games. This includes that a stepparent/above 18+ stepchild would be legal.

In my opinion, point 3 is a pure "we find this icky and immoral and therefor should be banned". Point 2 is already there to protect young people, if they are in a place where they can be manipulated, regardless of blood-ties. Perhaps the age limit should be higher than 18.

What most real life cases actually includes is not something we have a clue about. This is a highly stigmatized topic, which means that we will not hear about the consensual ones. Talking about the gay-right crusade, one of the main reasons most countries had homosexuality as a mental illness was because the only reason psychiatrists came in contact with homosexuals were if there was a mental illness involved (well, unless the psychiatrists was an active homosexual, but then they probably kept their mouth shut to not endanger their own career). So, no, I don't give much weight to the "all involved in incest is either a victim or a perpetrator."

Cyrano Johnson

#68
Quote from: Fenrisulfr on December 08, 2015, 09:34:54 AMWhat most real life cases actually includes is not something we have a clue about. This is a highly stigmatized topic, which means that we will not hear about the consensual ones.

Utter nonsense, this is a ridiculous excuse. Homosexuality was stigmatized for a long time, but that consensual homosexual relationships existed was an open secret anyway. Interracial relationships were stigmatized for a long time, but likewise consensual and healthy interracial relationships were known to exist as an open secret. The clash between the claims of the prejudice and the plain reality was precisely why these stigmas eroded.

No such thing is true of incest. If there were healthy incestuous relationships happening all the time, stigmatized or not, word of them would bubble to the surface. Homosexuality gained recognition as a perfectly healthy orientation because there was plenty of case evidence of its being so. If the same were true of incest, 100% of reported cases would not be cases of abuse -- usually revealed only in extremis because of the extent of the trauma involved -- and there would therefore be reason for the stigma to erode. Everyone who knew someone who'd been subjected to incest would know at least some of them as healthy, well-adjusted people to whom this was just one of those things, not as victims or survivors of incest whose lives were permanently marked by it. This has not happened on any great scale -- the apocryphal claims of people like Warren Farrell notwithstanding -- and it isn't going to happen, because incest simply isn't on the same footing as those other examples in any way at all, any more than rape is ever going to be.

So no, Sweden's law against incest isn't some irrational medieval stigma and it's folly to try to portray it that way. It's a recognition of exactly what I just said: incest sexualizes familial relations whose psychological power make "consent" at the very best hard to demonstrate or count on. The question of age is irrelevant. (I'm guessing this is likely why, or at least part of why, so many incest laws also include step-relations.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Fenrisulfr

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 08, 2015, 11:53:12 AMIf there were healthy incestuous relationships happening all the time, stigmatized or not, word of them would bubble to the surface.
As this one ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9200876/German-loses-Human-Rights-appeal-over-incestuous-relationship-with-sister.html

In Sweden during the 80's, there was a guy turning himself in to the police because he had sex once with his daughter, and it had gnawed at him. According to the newspaper, the daughter and said it had not only been consensual from her side, but she had been the one taking initiative for it. Breaking both point 2 and 3, he got convicted for it. Now, I actually agree to him being convicted because of the second point in my list. But if she had been 18, the only objection to it is the icky factor.

For all I know, non-consensual incest may be far more common than consensual. Non-consenual are still covered by the first point. The second point will make sure they are old enough to legally leave.

Racial and homosexual coupling tend to be, by their nature, visible as they by mere look stands out from the norm around them. Going back to when they were illegal, they were a lot less visible. Also, you can't really go the equivalent of a gay bar or a Molly House to find an incestuous partner.

Personally, I believe consensual incestual couplings are rare; as the chance of both being interested in the other is only part of the equation. At least one of them have to be willing to take a risk to somehow let the other person know.

And, I have made no claims of incestual coupling being only consensual. So why would there be a 100% report case of non abusive incestual relations? Do you claim all homosexual sex is 100% consensual? I mean, we can be certain today a overwhelming majority of them are?

Considering there are examples out there, I am under the current assumption you have not bothered to look into it at all and only looked at information supporting your preconception.

Oniya

Quote from: Fenrisulfr on December 08, 2015, 01:29:40 PM
And, I have made no claims of incestual coupling being only consensual. So why would there be a 100% report case of non abusive incestual relations? Do you claim all homosexual sex is 100% consensual? I mean, we can be certain today a overwhelming majority of them are?

Considering there are examples out there, I am under the current assumption you have not bothered to look into it at all and only looked at information supporting your preconception.

I think what that sentence was supposed to mean that if there were consensual incestuous relationships, then the percentage of abusive incestuous relationships out of all reported incestuous relationships would not be 100%, but something lower.  As it is, there is still a significant comorbidity of abuse in cases of incest, even with the few consensual examples cited.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Fenrisulfr

Quote from: Oniya on December 08, 2015, 02:08:43 PM
I think what that sentence was supposed to mean that if there were consensual incestuous relationships, then the percentage of abusive incestuous relationships out of all reported incestuous relationships would not be 100%, but something lower.  As it is, there is still a significant comorbidity of abuse in cases of incest, even with the few consensual examples cited.
Ah, possible. Still, there isn't a 100% of the cases to be non-consensual. Beside examples of that Swedish case in the 80's, there are people slipping up and being discovered by someone else.

Another more recent case. A brother and his sister got caught fucking each other by the guys pregnant girlfriend. Here is the an article from a Swedish newspaper. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article12223743.ab

So, when do we learn about these cases. Either because someone was abused (which is covered by other laws), and it is most likely the victim pressing charges. Or they slip up and gets discovered. Even if the consensual ones would be as common as they non-consensual ones, the reported amount of non-con cases would still vastly outnumber the consensual ones.

Cyrano Johnson

#72
Quote from: Oniya
I think what that sentence was supposed to mean that if there were consensual incestuous relationships, then the percentage of abusive incestuous relationships out of all reported incestuous relationships would not be 100%, but something lower.  As it is, there is still a significant comorbidity of abuse in cases of incest, even with the few consensual examples cited.

Exactly so.

Quote from: Fenrisulfr on December 08, 2015, 01:29:40 PMConsidering there are examples out there, I am under the current assumption you have not bothered to look into it at all and only looked at information supporting your preconception.

I dunno, the "information supporting my preconception" is the bulk of research from the past three decades. So no, I am not likely to be dazzled by your apparent belief that if you can fish some stray anecdote out of the guts of the net that initially seems not to fit the pattern you can invalidate all of that.

And one thing I happen to know from that research is that it's commonplace for victims of incest to be convinced that they "seduced" the elder partner. That's actually a fairly standard part of the grooming process and/or a side-effect of traumatic bonding. All of that has nothing to do with whether actual "consensual incest" has taken place. The German courts in your link clearly did not accept such claims at face value, nor should they have, and that you imagine that story to be a counter-example to what I've stated indicates to me that you're just scrambling for excuses instead of facing facts.

QuoteSo, when do we learn about these cases. Either because someone was abused (which is covered by other laws), and it is most likely the victim pressing charges.

It is incredibly rare for the victims of incest to press charges. On account of it is incredibly common for them to be convinced by their abuser that they were at fault, that they egged on and "seduced" the abuser and that everyone would assume they were a liar (or that they "really wanted it") anyway.

QuoteOr they slip up and gets discovered.

Which most often means that the abuser slips up and gets discovered, and the cops charge him or her. This being the pattern because there usually is an abuser in the pair who knows perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong (or frowned upon at the least, even if they've convinced themselves that "society just doesn't get them"), and therefore fears discovery and builds layers of secrecy around the activity. (What the specifics in your Swedish newspaper link are I have no way of knowing, since I don't read Swedish. But I'm willing to bet the authorities weren't impressed by claims that everything going on was consensual and above board... right?)

You see, what's so squicky about the "incest movement" and all this desperate casting about for some example of incest being this totally awesome and vanilla practice that everyone should be okay with is that it's a perspective that favours and makes excuses for abusers. It's literally no different from a quest to prove that there are unreported cases of people who really dig being raped (and I mean not as a fantasy but as an actual act). Of course it's in an abuser's interest to portray incest as this Positive and Loving and Wonderful Thing that society just doesn't understand... it's just that their victims tend almost never to share this perspective, and that's a pattern societies can't help but notice. So it all rings not only false, but incredibly creepy.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Fenrisulfr

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 08, 2015, 03:01:39 PMAnd one thing I happen to know from that research is that it's commonplace for victims of incest to be convinced that they "seduced" the elder partner.
My examples are of two sibling cases, and one where the older one was the one going to the police. My "irrelevant anecdotal data" is directly counter to your quite categorical statements. These may be rare exceptions, and while anecdotes can not be used to prove some sort of norm (which I am not doing), it can show some things are more nuanced and complicated than otherwise claimed.

I have said my piece, so I'm backing away from our little discussion (I feel we would otherwise derail this thread). But feel free to PM me if you want.

Cyrano Johnson

#74
Quote from: Fenrisulfr on December 08, 2015, 03:30:47 PMMy "irrelevant anecdotal data" is directly counter to your quite categorical statements.

In at least the first of the two cases that's false (or at best highly questionable), as I just finished explaining. With the second I have no way of knowing, but somehow I'm not brimming with confidence in your analytical abilities, sorry.

QuoteI have said my piece, so I'm backing away from our little discussion

Fair enough.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Kythia

A friend of mine once motorboated her sister by accident. True story.

What you were expecting a well thought out and insightful post. Psh, balls to that. All I got is inadvertent lesbian incest.  Honestly it's just a fluke that it's even relevant to this thread.
242037

Cyrano Johnson

Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

HannibalBarca

I think most cases of incest fall more appropriately on abuse of minors by older family members.  The fact that it is incest is secondary to the fact that it is rape.  Whether family or stranger, rape is bad.  I think we can all agree with this.

Furthermore, consenting adults who are related (such as siblings) also carry with them (in the majority) histories of familial relationships.  Included in that is power dynamics.  Sometimes people are of age in chronological time, but not mature or responsible for themselves psychologically.  Sometimes family members, even when adults, have power over others in their family.  This, once again, goes beyond incest, to the simple description of abuse.  People, whether adults or not, should not abuse any power they have over others, whether in their family or not.

Now, a brother and sister who are of age and act as such, living their own independent lives with their own means of support and their own separate abodes...I just don't see why the government should interfere with their private lives.  Such individuals, I'm sure, are exceptionally rare when it comes to reports of incest...but why lump them in with abusers?  Just because a specific situation between two adults is rare or unique doesn't mean those individuals should be penalized. 

I wouldn't know.  I have no sister. I can't wrap my head around being sexually attracted to my mother.  My son was born female, and I've never had a moment of time in his life when I looked at him and found myself physically attracted, or contemplating incest.  I can easily agree with Cyrano that the vast majority of cases of incest are likely borne out of abusive relationships and include psychologically damaged individuals.

And yet, if there are well-adjusted, adult, mature individuals who also happen to be related in some way, and desire a sexual relationship, and it harms no one involved...what is the problem?
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

Cyrano Johnson

#78
Oddly enough, the theoretical situation of well-adjusted people just randomly deciding in their adult years to have sex with family members seems to almost never happen. It's usually rooted in some form of childhood trauma or manipulation. So I think that's why the debate around incest tends not to entertain that possibility very much; it's extremely remote. (The normalizing-incest guys are chock full of absurd what-ifs like this. "But supposing an eighty-year old woman decided to fellate her centenarian father on his deathbed just to comfort him, would that be so bad?" I'm not kidding, I've had someone ask me that. The answer is that such remote and unlikely scenarios have little to do with the millions of cases of actual incest that are estimated to happen every year, so they're a red herring, basically an attempt at distraction.)

Same-sex "twincest" is the other outlier situation that's supposed to be the gold standard of totally-okay incest (cf. the infamous Peters Twins from five or six years ago). Can't say I'm really buying that either, as it doesn't really address the basic psychological reasons for holding incest suspect. (How healthy or unhealthy the Peters Twins' real relationship was I have no idea, but let's just say I wouldn't be hugely surprised if there were less than edifying revelations about the dynamics underlying that whole episode down the road.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

HannibalBarca

I can't say I expect 99.999% of incest situations to be anything but abusive, either.  At least in most civilizations, the dynamics of a healthy family relationship aren't going to lead to incest in any case.  Perhaps what is considered incest needs to be adjusted, as non-blood adult relatives who are related only by marriage (step-siblings, for example) shouldn't be considered candidates for incest.  Shoot...if I'd had a stepsister who was a good fit with me and near the same age, and we were adults, I don't see why we wouldn't pursue a relationship.  But all of that is conjecture.
“Those who lack drama in their
lives strive to invent it.”   ― Terry Masters
"It is only when we place hurdles too high to jump
before our characters, that they learn how to fly."  --  Me
Owed/current posts
Sigs by Ritsu

Cyrano Johnson

And I mean just to clarify, I'm not lashing anyone for fantasizing about incest. I can appreciate the kink and why people find it hot, there are some forms of incest porn I'm a fan of myself. I'm just disturbed by people who, with porn generally and any of the darker kinks specifically, seem to loudly and deliberately refuse to separate fantasy and reality. That's gross. (This is mercifully a rare problem on E but certain other places on the Net are filthy with it, and it has a way of... infecting things.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Kythia

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 08, 2015, 07:49:10 PM
Oddly enough, the theoretical situation of well-adjusted people just randomly deciding in their adult years to have sex with family members seems to almost never happen.

This is a bit "per some guy I met in the pub who read it somewhere once" but I'm vaguely of the belief that siblings separated at birth and later reunited have a pretty good.chance of being attracted to one another. That would seem to be the absolute gold standard for acceptable incest if it is a real situation.

Which I suspect it is, that guy in the pub is generally a pretty reliable source.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on December 08, 2015, 11:59:42 PM
This is a bit "per some guy I met in the pub who read it somewhere once" but I'm vaguely of the belief that siblings separated at birth and later reunited have a pretty good.chance of being attracted to one another. That would seem to be the absolute gold standard for acceptable incest if it is a real situation.

Which I suspect it is, that guy in the pub is generally a pretty reliable source.

It's hard to find statistics for it as 1) it's rare to begin with, 2) if siblings who are seperated and reunited are attracted to each other they may never admit or act upon it (either due to a general reluctance or a specific objection), 3) if siblings are seperated and reunited without being aware that they are siblings they may never end up becoming aware and 4) it's not something people are likely to willingly admit to, but there is some theory to support this.

The theory basically goes like this; it's largely accepted that assortative mating has some (and quite possibly a large) role in human relations; in essence we're generally the most attracted to people who share similar traits (in regards to genetics, personality and circumstances) as us. The reason this doesn't lead to more brother/sister type relationships has been theorized as being a result of the Westermarck effect, a sort of reverse sexual-imprinting, that means people become desensitized to sexual attraction with those they have been raised with from a young age. Either in addition or as an alternative the fact that as a culture we tend to look at those who find their close family members sexually attractive also contributes.

But if siblings have been separated at birth then there is no Westermarck effect and if they do not become aware of their status of siblings until after they have become attracted to each other (and possibly acted on it) then there is no cultural pressure not to do so.

Caehlim

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 08, 2015, 03:01:39 PMOf course it's in an abuser's interest to portray incest as this Positive and Loving and Wonderful Thing that society just doesn't understand.

The danger is that it's an abusive strategy which is assisted and amplified by incest being perceived as such a viscerally disgusting taboo. It means that victims of an abusive incestuous relationship are unable to seek support or guidance from others. Our current practices are isolating to these people and the lack of an ability to publicly discuss it prevents people receiving any education or resources on the topic that may protect them.

It shouldn't be portrayed as a "positive or loving thing" nor as a "negative or abusive thing", we need to start accepting it as just a "thing". Something that we can look at, understand and identify the parts of it that are problems.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Cyrano Johnson

#84
Quote from: Caehlim on December 09, 2015, 09:48:08 AMThe danger is that it's an abusive strategy which is assisted and amplified by incest being perceived as such a viscerally disgusting taboo. It means that victims of an abusive incestuous relationship are unable to seek support or guidance from others.

I would say that what more commonly would prevent victims of abuse from seeking support is a norm that would dismiss their word against that of their abuser's, and at any rate does not see their abuse as particularly "negative" because it's all a perfectly natural thing and they probably really wanted it. We've seen parallel norms play out for, say, child sexual abuse -- in Rotherham for example -- and environments where people aren't willing to "stigmatize" abuse turn out, surprise surprise, not to be pretty in any way at all.

Ergo, trying to claim that "stigmatizing" the act of abuse is hurting the victims doesn't make sense to me; stigmatizing the act of abuse is precisely how you recognize that what's happening is wrong, that victims deserve support and a fair hearing, and that abusers can't be allowed to pass off their relationships with their victims as normal and consensual. I've certainly never known anyone who was victimized by incest -- and I've known more than a few, sadly -- who thought it was a bad thing that society doesn't generally think incest is cool. If anything it was more of a problem for them that we don't really seem to take it seriously enough. (I mean, I get that you want to avoid stereotyping incest victims as Human Damage personified, and that's a worthy impulse, but that has to do with treating survivors as individuals and genuinely hearing their stories, it has nothing to do with avoiding "stigma" of the crime committed against them.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Caehlim

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 09, 2015, 09:55:31 AMI would say that what more commonly would prevent victims of abuse from seeking support is a norm that would dismiss their word against that of their abuser's, and at any rate does not see their abuse as particularly "negative" because it's all a perfectly natural thing and they probably really wanted it.

I don't follow your logic. You seem to be implying that the world and society we currently live in accepts incest as a perfectly natural thing that they probably really wanted. This contradicts my experience of societal reactions to incest. I'm really not sure what you're even saying here.

QuoteWe've seen parallel norms play out for, say, child sexual abuse -- in Rotherham for example -- and environments where people aren't willing to "stigmatize" abuse turn out, surprise surprise, not to be pretty in any way at all.

I wrote pretty extensively in the other Rotherham thread, so forgive me if I keep my response here a little brief.

If you read through the official reports on Rotherham, the pattern you see emerging isn't one of permissive, liberal and understanding adults who thought that these children were embracing their sexuality and it was a very wonderful and liberating experience. Not one of them thought, "gee, I hope my son or daughter does the same." It's obvious that the adults involved who failed their duty of care thought something more along the lines of "they're dirty little sluts getting exactly what they deserve and no surprise they'll turn out to a bad end."

I believe you are mistaking cause and effect. You're reading, "not willing to stigmatize abuse" (using your slightly loaded phrase) ergo they were people with horrible ugly notions. I would argue that in Rotherham they were people with horrible ugly notions and therefore the way in which they chose not to stigmatize the abuse was done in a horrible ugly way, much as if they had stigmatized abuse it would have been done in a horrible ugly way because that was the kind of people that they were.

Forgive the paraphrase being potentially a little inaccurate but one line that I remember being particularly striking from the report on a slightly different topic was the members of the Rotherham council were "incapable of taking a sensible approach to race." It wasn't that they were too politically correct, it was that they couldn't find politically correct on a map with two hours and a magnifying glass.

QuoteErgo, trying to claim that "stigmatizing" the act of abuse is hurting the victims doesn't make sense to me; stigmatizing the act of abuse is precisely how you recognize that what's happening is wrong, that victims deserve support and a fair hearing, and that abusers can't be allowed to pass off their relationships with their victims as normal and consensual.

The victim was involved in the act and had experiences related to it. In that sort of vulnerable situation, especially when they rationalized themselves as having initiated the behaviour themselves as you were mentioning, do you really think they're not going to blame themselves and kept the abuse secret out of shame. There's a strong chance that some sexual gratification may have occurred during the victim's abuse which they're going to feel guilty about, you can acknowledge that potential occurrence without believing that it in any way justifies abuse (because lack of consent, intimidated consent, coerced consent, intoxicated consent, etc are all wrong regardless of what sensations or emotions the victim experiences).

Which of the following do you think is going to work best. "Incest is bad, it's disgusting and wrong." as the universal response to any occurrence of incest.
"Your father is in a position of authority over you. Any attraction, however genuine, that occurs there is something that he has a responsible to avoid because while you're under his power your ability to consent is always going to be under the influence of his control of your circumstances."
(if not father/child imagine a similar discussion of whichever other incestuous relationship is occurring highlighting the specific problems)

QuoteI've certainly never known anyone who was victimized by incest -- and I've known more than a few, sadly -- who thought it was a bad thing that society doesn't generally think incest is cool.

I've known three people who have had short term sexual encounters with siblings in two cases or a cousin in one, who don't consider themselves victimized. I unfortunately do know two more people who were most certainly victimized by family members and consider it as such. I know one more who has turned down an offer from a cousin that was presented as completely voluntary and had no further outcome in any way after she refused, she also stated that had it been a different cousin of hers she might have accepted the offer.

(Just for the record, none of these people are me, nor was I involved in any way with those incidents beyond later being informed about them)

Quote(I mean, I get that you want to avoid stereotyping incest victims as Human Damage personified, and that's a worthy impulse, but that has to do with treating survivors as individuals and genuinely hearing their stories, it has nothing to do with avoiding "stigma" of the crime committed against them.)

To use an analogy, what I am suggesting is that we don't stigmatize sex so that we can discuss rape and certainly stigmatize the hell out of a lack of consent. If we still lived in a society where you couldn't even talk about BDSM sex, how could someone like Stoya have come out accusing James Deen of rape through not respecting her safe words. Our current level of stigma on sex and BDSM already has her at risk of being completely disregarded for working in the sex industry.

Likewise we shouldn't say that incest itself is dirty or wrong. We should say that adults in a position of power using that influence for sexual benefit or children exploiting each other in an unhealthy relationship for sexual benefit or any of the other abuses that can occur are completely in the wrong.

I'm not even saying that we should legalize it because honestly, I don't even know. There are definitely dangers that way. What I'm saying is that any two members of our society should be able to discuss incest the way we are now, without necessarily feeling that it's a topic too dark to cover and address rational concerns openly.

May be slow to respond again, it's almost 4am here so I should get some sleep.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Cyrano Johnson

#86
Quote from: Caehlim on December 09, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
I don't follow your logic. You seem to be implying that the world and society we currently live in accepts incest as a perfectly natural thing that they probably really wanted.

Not at all. I'm saying the world you claim to want, where we're all being carefully non-"negative" about incest, would likely look that way and that world would suck even more than this one does, because the ready assumption that victims of abuse "wanted" to be abused would quite certainly come to the fore as it all too often does with things like rape or child sexual abuse already. (I mean, I can see that you have kind of a utopian vision in mind of how we'd all avoid "stigmatizing" incest without these negative consequences arising, I just am not buying that that's how it would play out at all.)

I do think our present world and society is still entirely too willing to minimize incest and treat it as some abstract academic question, though. You finish your own post by saying you "don't even know" if we should legalize incest.

QuoteIt's obvious that the adults involved who failed their duty of care thought something more along the lines of "they're dirty little sluts getting exactly what they deserve and no surprise they'll turn out to a bad end."

That's how victim-blaming in rape generally tends to work. But a fundamental belief that the "dirty little slut" in question probably wanted it is a basic component of that. No it's not wrapped in uplifting aren't-we-all-joyfully-exploring sex-positive rhetoric, but the rhetorical wrapper is incidental -- I mean, would it have been better, worse, or exactly the same if the adults in Rotherham who failed their duty of care really believed these youngsters were just having a fine time? What remains the case is that the basic assumption that victims are at fault for and encourage their abuse is a commonplace pattern.

QuoteIn that sort of vulnerable situation, especially when they rationalized themselves as having initiated the behaviour themselves as you were mentioning, do you really think they're not going to blame themselves and kept the abuse secret out of shame.

Out of the shame of believing that people will believe their abuser and not them and will blame them for their abuse, yes. Not out of shame that society thinks the crime was wrong, that's just completely twisted reasoning. The situation here is no different than with rape generally; calling the crime out as wrong as a basic part of ending victim-shaming and victim-blaming and defense of the abusers. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of shaming the victim. Trying to twist that around seems perverse to me.

QuoteWhich of the following do you think is going to work best. "Incest is bad, it's disgusting and wrong." as the universal response to any occurrence of incest. "Your father is in a position of authority over you. Any attraction, however genuine, that occurs there is something that he has a responsible to avoid because while you're under his power your ability to consent is always going to be under the influence of his control of your circumstances."
How about "incest is bad" because of the abuse of family roles and power dynamics that it usually involves, which is the actual real-life answer to that question? Look at any incest survivors' site or document. How many of them carry the message "incest is bad and grodie, ewww, and you're like super-gross if your uncle touched you"? None is how many. This is a strawman argument.

I mean, just taking at random a fairly commonplace statement about the effects of incest and child sexual abuse like this one. How many words are spent there on the supposedly awful problem that society regards incest negatively? I can't find a one, for what would seem to be the fairly obvious reason that people in this situation have far bigger fish to fry and in fact have zero interest in taking issue with calling the crime what it is. Indeed the biggest obstacle they have to overcome is denial, especially denial that what happened to them was wrong and was the fault of the perpetrator.

QuoteI've known three people who have had short term sexual encounters with siblings in two cases or a cousin in one, who don't consider themselves victimized.

I would say there are lots of people who have had encounters with siblings who don't consider themselves victimized. Usually because, if they were being abused by the sibling, they were convinced that they invited it; or because they were the abuser and thought it was all just a good bit of fun. (Most of what I'm saying here applies most directly to close-family incest... not that I'd be automatically sanguine about cousin incest either, just that the issues are at their worst in an immediate-family environment.)

QuoteTo use an analogy, what I am suggesting is that we don't stigmatize sex so that we can discuss rape and certainly stigmatize the hell out of a lack of consent.

Stigmatizing incest has not a jot more to do with "stigmatizing sex" than stigmatizing the hell out of lack of consent in any other kind of relationship. That's another red herring. Obviously the reasons for stigmatizing incest proceed directly from circumstances that twist and deform "consent" or destroy it entirely. And we don't have to spend a bunch of time dancing around whether that's wrong or whether we should be stigmatizing it.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Caehlim

#87


EDIT: Just to add in that I am sorry if I am in any way trivializing this matter. I know it's not something I understand myself from personal experience and I don't want to diminish anyone's experience here. I certainly don't want anyone who is the victim of abuse to feel blamed or not believed in any way. I am simply concerned about the best way of handling this for the well-being of those affected and the message that our society sends out on this topic. I'm also worried about cases where it may have not been abuse and treating it that way could make things more difficult for both people involved.



Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 09, 2015, 11:48:49 AMNot at all. I'm saying the world you claim to want, where we're all being carefully non-"negative" about incest, would likely look that way and that world would suck even more than this one does, because the ready assumption that victims of abuse "wanted" to be abused would quite certainly come to the fore as it all too often does with things like rape or child sexual abuse already.

These are issues that we (as a society) likewise have taken emotionally extreme reactions to with large levels of stigmatizing any discussion of them. However they've gotten better recently, was it because we increased the stigma and taboo or because we started talking about them. Do you think it was easy to get information about child sexual abuse in the 1950s? For some child to have any idea of what normal levels of sexual contact between himself and his father was meant to be like when no media addressed sexual contact at all. Do you think anyone wanted to hear about it or wouldn't rather do some victim blaming to keep from getting into a messy social situation for which they haven't been provided the right prompts and methods of discussing them? How many of these cases (like famously in the church but plenty of other ones as well) have so recently come to light now that the environment is allowing people to talk about them.

For all the talk of the 90s "very special episodes" of TV shows and how ham-handed they were, they at least provided a script people could follow about the way to talk about these sorts of things. Now in 2015 I have feminist literature, civil rights articles at the touch of a button. Buzzfeed is doing vlogs on the risk of cultural appropriation. These are the things that we have become open to discussing as a society and removed some of the taboos as to what was alright to talk about. I'm not saying it's fixed (far from it unfortunately) but the improvement that we've seen has come from actually discussing these things.

Quote(I mean, I can see that you have kind of a utopian vision in mind of how we'd all avoid "stigmatizing" incest without these negative consequences arising, I just am not buying that that's how it would play out at all.)

You can call my vision utopian and I can call you a cynic all day but that won't really get us anywhere. Safe to say we disagree on this point.

QuoteI do think our present world and society is still entirely too willing to minimize incest and treat it as some abstract academic question, though.

How would you suggest things be done differently?

QuoteYou finish your own post by saying you "don't even know" if we should legalize incest.

Clearly you're not a fan of Socrates. I have insufficient data to reach a conclusion and your arguments have yet to be persuasive to that outcome. Why shouldn't I be honest and admit that I don't have all the answers?

QuoteThat's how victim-blaming in rape generally tends to work. But a fundamental belief that the "dirty little slut" in question probably wanted it is a basic component of that. No it's not wrapped in uplifting aren't-we-all-joyfully-exploring sex-positive rhetoric, but the rhetorical wrapper is incidental -- I mean, would it have been better, worse, or exactly the same if the adults in Rotherham who failed their duty of care really believed these youngsters were just having a fine time? What remains the case is that the basic assumption that victims are at fault for and encourage their abuse is a commonplace pattern.

While it wouldn't have solved or prevented the abuse (Obviously since that's directly part of your hypothetical). It would have most certainly been better. Had the adults been sex-positive and yet remained completely incompetent, then while they would have still failed to protect the children they may have suggested condoms, contraceptives, advised on pregnancies or abortions, provided the morning after pill and almost certainly been less judgemental and induced less shame in the various rides they gave the children in their car returning them to their sites of their abuse.

So despite the design of your hypothetical, yes. Also I contend that with experiencing less shame and judgement they might be more open to speak up and say "Excuse me, I'm not consenting. Please help." but that might just be my utopian fantasy. Rather than looking at someone judging them as being a slut and thinking "what's the point, they'll never believe me".

QuoteOut of the shame of believing that people will believe their abuser and not them and will blame them for their abuse, yes. Not out of shame that society thinks the crime was wrong, that's just completely twisted reasoning.

So you don't think victims of same sex child abuse weren't discouraged from coming forward in earlier generations due to a cultural condemnation of homosexuality? I'm concerned you'll leap to the wrong idea here, so let me explicitly point out that I am not equating the two morally. I'm simply providing a real world, actual example of a case where condemnation of an act, prevented the reporting of people using that act to perpetrate abuse.

QuoteLook at any incest survivors' site or document. How many of them carry the message "incest is bad and grodie, ewww, and you're like super-gross if your uncle touched you"? None is how many.

Yes, exactly. They speak in the way that I'm encouraging. Now how are we going to get the victim to read that site or document when the rest of the world is talking about it in a very different way.

QuoteI mean, just taking at random a fairly commonplace statement about the effects of incest and child sexual abuse like this one. How many words are spent there on the supposedly awful problem that society regards incest negatively? I can't find a one, for what would seem to be the fairly obvious reason that people in this situation have at minimum far bigger fish to fry.

Yes, because faith based survivor groups focused on privacy and anonymity are well known for advocacy and attempting to achieve societal change to increase sex positivity in documents intended to reassure and assist survivors? What? I don't understand your point.

QuoteI would say there are lots of people who have had encounters with siblings who don't consider themselves victimized. Usually because, if they were being abused by the sibling, they were convinced that they invited it; or because they were the abuser and thought it was all just a good bit of fun.

You haven't even met these people, but apparently you know their life story and can diagnose them from a third hand anonymous description of a single event. They self report as okay, they have no characteristic markers that there are clinical level problems in their lives but someone half-way around the world knows that they're lying to themselves?

Also you use this word "usually" an awful lot and yet when I'm suggesting openness tinged with caution to consider exceptions your reaction is that this is some sort of victim blaming.

QuoteStigmatizing incest has not a jot more to do with "stigmatizing sex" than stigmatizing the hell out of lack of consent in any other kind of relationship. That's another red herring. Obviously the reasons for stigmatizing incest proceed directly from circumstances that twist and deform "consent" or destroy it entirely. And we don't have to spend a bunch of time dancing around whether that's wrong or whether we should be stigmatizing it.

Stigmatizing a lack of consent, (including manipulated consent or any other perversion or deformation thereof), is of course necessary. Stigmatizing something that frequently correlates and then treating it as a taboo that brooks no discussion? I consider that less obvious.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Caehlim on December 09, 2015, 01:18:16 PMYou haven't even met these people, but apparently you know their life story and can diagnose them from a third hand anonymous description of a single event.

Say someone describes being raped to you and then reassures you that it was probably their fault and they're not really affected by it in any way. Or they describe "having sex" with someone who fought them initially but then seemed okay with it, or at least stopped struggling, and probably really liked it. Do you need to know this person and their life story to take a fairly educated guess at what they're describing? (Forget about "diagnosed" them, which is your strawman.) Do you have to rely exclusively on their "self-reporting" to be able to guess fairly reliably at what it is that they're describing and to have some idea of common ways in which people might distort or lie to themselves about such an event? Would blame themselves as a victim or absolves themselves of blame as an attacker? Probably not, right? On account of we have fairly detailed knowledge and large bodies of research about how victim-blaming, self-blaming and self-justification of rape work. We're not guessing in a vaccuum.

Let's not go pretending it's any different for incest. That's false skepticism that amounts to avoidance. Yes, when someone describes something like that to you, there's a better than even chance that what they're describing is sexual abuse. (Of course there are other possibilities -- like that the person who boasts about having banged their sister is just fantasizing. Which would be unwise but better than the alternative. You of course can't skip the step of actually investigating what happened, and you'll notice I didn't make specific claims about your friends -- I just pointed out two very likely and very commonplace possibilities regarding sibling incest.)

I'll leave the rest for now. Thanks for the discussion.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Tairis

#89
Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on December 09, 2015, 02:29:49 PM
Say someone describes being raped to you and then reassures you that it was probably their fault and they're not really affected by it in any way.

This one kind of stuck out to me as its a discussion I've had before. I had a friend that had some sexual abuse in their past, but when discussing it they effective said 'yea, it happened but it doesn't bother me'. Now, this doesn't let the abuser off the hook but said friend basically stopped revealing this information to anyone because every single time the response was almost always the same.

"Thats so awful"/"You must be so messed up"/"Thats the most terrible thing ever" and when they explained 'yea, but I'm fine its no big deal its in the past' it always became other people that insisted that they must be suppressing. That they must be holding in their trauma. Etc etc. In essence the part that made them feel bad was that they were effectively judged by everyone else for not feeling bad enough about their own abuse.

We have turned everything in society into some form of abuse. Have you ever wondered if maybe the reason some people are so fucked up when terrible things happen to them it might be because, as a society, all we do is tell them over and over again him utterly destroyed they're supposed to feel because something happened to them? Its the same general line 'Sexual abuse is the worst thing that can happen to a human being and your life will be ruined by it'.

I don't think we should trivialize any crime especially sexual assault. But I also think we've stoked our society in a state of perpetual fear and horror about anything bad ever happening to the point we make traumatic events even more traumatic by drilling it into kids heads from an early age.

And I think the same thing applies to incest. I think legally it should be irrelevant as long as all the other laws are being followed. Is the person underaged? It's already illegal. Was it rape? Also already illegal. Is it two people that happen to be related but are otherwise of age, willing, and able? Who cares. The same people that will call them disgusting are the ones that will go home and jerking off to the dirty soles of women's feet, dog porn, scat play, or whatever.
"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
- Robert Heinlein

Cyrano Johnson

#90
Quote from: Tairis on December 09, 2015, 05:19:29 PMWe have turned everything in society into some form of abuse. Have you ever wondered if maybe the reason some people are so fucked up when terrible things happen to them it might be because, as a society, all we do is tell them over and over again him utterly destroyed they're supposed to feel because something happened to them?

I don't particularly buy this line of reasoning for reasons I've mostly stated previously. Recognizing that incest can come with severe trauma is not dictating how people are supposed to feel. Every survivor will react to their experiences at their own pace and in their own way. But the notion that society is inflicting harm on them by freaking out too much or being too concerned? It's far more common for people with trauma to suffer the simple ignorance or indifference of society than its excessive concern -- mileage will vary in particular cases of course, maybe your friend really was an example from the other end of the spectrum, I'm just talking about what I've seen reported on balance as the experience of survivors -- and ascribing their trauma to the concern rather than the event strikes me as just a backdoor method of minimizing abuse and consequences.

In general, basically we can keep threading the needle about how much concern should we show and what the best response is all we like. I can't pretend to have all the answers about stuff like that, and sure, I can see how a more measured response in some cases to some people's self-reporting might be preferable. At the end of the day I'm not a therapist, all I was really here to say is that no it is not ever okay to advocate for real-life incest as a cool and above-board practice that people should accept as normal consensual sexuality, because you don't have to be a therapist to see that that's fucked up. Drilling down into more detail about precisely what the appropriate responses are in this or that situation would be an interesting thing to do but I'll have to defer that to another time, perhaps.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Caehlim

My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.