Incest

[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]

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.

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?

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.

[Chris Brady]

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!

[Will]

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.

[Caehlim]

I 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.

[Auron]

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]

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 ) 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.

[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.

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 ). 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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

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.)

[Fenrisulfr]

If 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]

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.

[Fenrisulfr]

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]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Or 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.

[Fenrisulfr]

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.

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]

My "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.

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

Fair enough.