The 'Incest Laws': What's The Point?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Why do these laws (i.e. the ones that prohibit some sexual relationships within X degrees of cosanguinity or affinity) exist? A medical or moral justification? Any ideas, just been thinking lots lately about the lies perpetuated to make life palatable and reading Richard Yates' exceptional "Revolutionary Road". Just got me thinking. Any thoughts?

powertonevolume, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

well if you had ugly siblings youd know

Queen G, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, to answer my own thread. Scientific evidence shows that the medical argument doesn't hold up as it is based on a hypocrisy. The usual line of argument is that "incest (i.e. sleeping with your sister) leads to deformed or disabled children". However, the evidence shows that there are as much chances of deformity using IVF as there are in an incestuous relationship. And IVF is positively promoted by the law under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 199X (or whatever its called). That seems hypocrisy to me. So, what about the moral argument? "We feel the need to invade your privacy and say you're not allowed to continue this sexual relationshio. Stuff Article 8".

Oh, I don't know. I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts.

powertonevolume, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What about the much maligned Insect laws? Like why certain species of insects are ok to breed with but not others?

Brian MacDonald, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

simple. if you change the law then there is controversy. who wants that?

kevin enas, Saturday, 2 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

is there a large constituency pressing for the changing of the laws?

keith, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

not unless they make me and shanya stop lving with each other in our trailer...we just stole new wall paper for it this weekend

Queen G, Sunday, 3 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

four months pass...
I think the laws prohibiting consenting incest between adults are out-dated and ignored.I know a 43 year old woman who is having regular casual sex with her own 25 year old son.she claims that such sex is highly satisfying,physically and emotionally,after she confided in me about her sexual relationship with her adult son Ive come to the conclusion that such relationships are not as destructive as people claim.I couldnt do something like that myself,but wouldnt object to others participating in consenting adult incest.after hearing my friends story I decided to look up the subject on the web and came across your debate.I think its courageous that you discuss it so openly.

brenda barlow, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This thread = ewwwwww.....

misterjones, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Haha, who started it?

david h, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This is exactly the sunject I debated for my Universaity interview and there really isn't any defensible reason for incest to be banned. The problem is in the idea of consentual incest though - in as much as the relationship between an parent and a child is imbued with power already therefore its quite possible that this power could be used to coerce (cf paedophilia). There are also the perceived problems of confusing fraternal love with sexual love - a problem conpounded by the unusual practice of English using the same word for two rather different things. Morality just doesn't come into though at the level of the sex act, rather at the justifications for the sexual urge in the first place. Which could be completely above board.

I love the ending of John Sayles Lone Star for its mature dealing of this subject.

Pete, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

inbreeding = narrowing the gene pool = in the long run not a good idea, right?

(just look at the royal family &c. &c &c &c.)

are there any BIOLOGISTICIANS on ILE? help.

thom, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(just look at the royal family &c. &c &c &c.)

just look at dalmatians.

ain't they cute?

RJG, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

These arguments from breeding are very feeble indeed: they are arguments only against unprotected heterosexual intercourse. I've had loads of sex without breeding, and so have lots of you. Anyway, you will not generally find that the line "So it's okay if I just suck my brother's dick then?" will garner widespread agreement. And it's too close to eugenics for comfort - if we are banning sex that could lead to sick or damaged children, should we be banning those with congenital illnesses and disabilities from breeding? Hey, I have asthma and epilepsy - no way I should be allowed to breed, right? And what if the brother and sister (for instance) are intelligent and beautiful and athletic and entirely healthy - should we not be positively encouraging them to breed together?

Pete's points about coercion are much better, but of course this isn't always a problem (most obviously between adult siblings) and needs no rules or morality much distinct from what we would apply to a step-parent.

In case anyone is thinking "he fancies his sister" I should add that I know of no living biological relatives, having been adopted. I just can't see the sense in this taboo now, if there ever was any.

Martin Skidmore, Thursday, 1 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I love the way in The Royal Tenenbaums that Gene Hackman replies to Richie's argument that he his beloved adopted sister Margot are not related by blood ("No... but it's still frowned upon")

N., Friday, 2 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pete unsurprisingly OTM re: Sayles flick. How the movie dealt with it: generously, silently, intelligently. Like the best Sayles moments.

Tracer Hand, Friday, 2 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two months pass...
Well, all I can say is that if there is a law that prohibits incest, that law can be used with people related with the same blood. Real family not with an adopted person even if is not blood related and if the person agrees with the type of relationship that it's going to have with that person and not if it's blood related because that's sick!!!

Geisha, Wednesday, 16 October 2002 23:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Most people I know had some form of sexual interaction with their siblings when they were young. I don't know anybody who still does as an adult. I do know one person who is working her way through her nephews (BECAUSE they are her nephews).

I would really like to fancy my sister, because it's an exciting idea for me. But I don't, despite the fact that she's very attractive. I REALLY don't fancy her, which genuinely makes me suspect that there's some kind of genetic block.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Wednesday, 16 October 2002 23:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Jebediah: "People, our search is over. On this site we shall build a new town, where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets."
Shelbyville Manhattan: "yes, and marry our cousins."
Jebediah: "What are you talking about Shelbyville? Why would we want to marry our cousins?"
Shelbyville Manhattan: "Cause they're so attractive. I thought that was the whole point of this journey."
Jebediah: "Absolutely not."
Shelbyville Manhattan: "I tell you I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins."
Jebediah: "Well then, we'll form our own town. Who will come and live a life devoted to chastity, abstinence, and a flavorless mush I call rootmarm?"

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 17 October 2002 00:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, I've killed this thread now.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 17 October 2002 00:52 (twenty-three years ago)

For that alone, you should be thanked.

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 17 October 2002 00:56 (twenty-three years ago)

I do know one person who is working her way through her nephews (BECAUSE they are her nephews)

Am I read this right? I can't believe this has gone without comment.

sundar subramanian, Friday, 18 October 2002 18:18 (twenty-three years ago)

reading

sundar subramanian, Friday, 18 October 2002 18:28 (twenty-three years ago)

I think we're all too stunned to say anything.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 October 2002 18:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Nephews are allowed, surely. They love it.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Saturday, 19 October 2002 00:35 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...
I was writing a paper for a Philosophy of Law class dealing with the issue of incest when I happened on this posting. Although rather put-off by this topic in the beginning I do recognize that de-criminalising something doesn't mean you have to think well of it.
Restricting a person's reproductive freedom requires some legitimate reasoning. Under our current laws, the threat of "undesirable " traits in children does not restrict a person's right to bear children. The arguement that the mixing of similar genes should be outlawed for a child's sake doesn't hold water under our current laws.
I, for one believe that confusing statutory rape or child molestation with incest is dangerous for the young victems. If a social tolerance for rapists within families – seeing incest as a phycological problem, obscures the fact that statutory rape is a crime, it is all the more important that we de-criminalize incest.
I've read that one of the reasons it was handled in the court systems in the middle ages was because it complicated inheritence issues. (See article:
http://ogb.wfu.edu/back_issues/1996_Spring/3-28-96/News/n.incest.html)

M Wood, Monday, 25 November 2002 06:53 (twenty-three years ago)

"So, wait, let me get this straight: you're the father of your mother's son, and your mother is your neice?"

"No, your honour, my father's brother... (etc etc)"

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 25 November 2002 07:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A good point made by M Wood there, incest is seen legally as different to paedophilia (as in many cases it is) but if we accept that a father molesting his son is paedophilia pure and straight then perhaps it would go some way into getting it through peoples thick bonces that the majority of paedophilia takes place within the family.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 25 November 2002 10:26 (twenty-three years ago)

three years pass...
[italian spam]

Sesso, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

I suggest no-one click on any of the above links. I am usually a very curious person, but something about their placement concerns me.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

FUCK YOU ITALY
WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE UP TO

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 13:00 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.discogs.com/image/R-450116-1115745203.jpg

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

This thread is pretty eye-opening. Well, more like eye-twitching.

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

(I'm still stunned four years later.)

Dan (O.o) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

: x

gear (gear), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:54 (nineteen years ago)

Hey, maybe give it 10-20 years for the incestuous agenda to take root and the majority of you could be calling people, who have an ewwwww reaction to incest, incestaphobes.

It'll start by people starting to talk more often and openly about incest, and then the media will try to portray people interested in incest as victims. After that all the great historical figures who have had incestuous relationship will be honored (and even many who haven't, but new studies will come out claiming they have). Then the target will be people morally opposed to incest and any scientific evidence giving it a bad rap. Everything will be done to make them look bad or false. Then the activist groups will try to get lots of funding and celebrity endorsements. Next laws will change. People will be forced to attend divisity training if they even slightly mention what they really think about incest, because it might make people in incestuous relationships feel 'unsafe.'

This is all hypothetical of course.

A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, you really made us all think with that one, totally pwned, kudos.

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

highly pathetic, more like

crosspost

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/9178/orly1rk.jpg

JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

This pro-incest thing has gotten RLY out of hand.

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

It doesn't really matter what it is.

If a law is changed to make something not-illegal, there is a tacit acceptance of the behaviour.

Witness any drug law repealation, incest, and the general fuore against dropping the law of homosexual consent by all the people it affects not.

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

e.g. the sex/race equality law.

Those against it would say "You're saying it's alright then?"

To which we say "Too right it is."

A law allowing cigarette smoking would never pass. Just as well it's not illegal now.

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

mark, are you high right now?

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

lol

Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

article:

Let's return to the libertarian question. If a man happens to walk around town arm and arm with his adult niece, is that going to make me abuse my teenaged niece? In most cases, probably not. Clearly, however, there is a connection. Our collective horror at incest-even adult incest-acts as a protective barrier against the temptation to incest with minors.


http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

clearly, however, there is, a connection

gear (gear), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

if people stop believing in Jesus there's no reason for them to not murder each other all the time and just go raping willy-nilly through the streets constantly drunk and high! Blah blah blah YOU'RE FUCKING BORING OK

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

what about the gays running the world bank?

gear (gear), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

FUCKING A NAIRN IS A BORING DUDE

TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

The libertarian asks, Just because two married gay men live next door, is that going to make me leave my wife? In a way, the answer is "Yes."

In a CRAZY, IRRATIONAL and COMPLETELY IMAGINARY way, that is.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

And then inexplicably, for reasons unfathomable,
But to me wholly admirable,
The DJ played us some Tallis.
He yanked off the Corrs in disgust and announced "Thomas Tallis, Lamentations of Jeremiah."
Across an empty dancefloor I walked to commend him,
And also enquire if he had any Dowland.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 8 October 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

drunkenness and immodesty are almost universally considered moral issues.

-- A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:15 (1 year ago) Link

latebloomer, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

"When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, 'Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.'

"He also said, 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.'"

Forest Pines Mk2, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

"Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.'

"That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

"The next day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.' So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

"So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today."

See, drunkenness leads to incest! Take heed!

Forest Pines Mk2, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

What I want to know is, if he was too drunk to notice or remember any of the incestuous hijinx, how did they POSSIBLY get a good result? That has not been my experience in the slightest.

Laurel, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

I did wonder that myself. The cave-in-remote-mountains equivalent of the turkey baster, possibly.

And did he not wonder, a few months later, just exactly how they became pregnant in a remote cave with nobody at all nearby?

Forest Pines Mk2, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

goats. it's all about goats.

CharlieNo4, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

Heart rate and breathing rate are irregular during REM sleep, again similar to the waking hours. Body temperature is not well regulated during REM. Erections of the penis (Nocturnal Penile Tumescence or NPT) is an established accompaniment of REM sleep and is used diagnostically to determine if male erectile dysfunction is of organic or psychological origin. Clitoral enlargement, with accompanying vaginal blood flow and transudation (i.e. lubrication) is also present during REM.

ken c, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

Fair enough - but when he's asleep cos he's pissed? I'd think not somehow.

Forest Pines Mk2, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:34 (eighteen years ago)

i was well drunk on saturday night and woke up the next morning with a massive boner.

i dunno whether i'd have woken up if some young girl started fucking me (i didn't have a test subject :()

ken c, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

so it probably isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

ken c, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

To be honest though it was more likely that he "didn't know" i.e. "did know but kept his eye shut"

ken c, Monday, 8 October 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

it didn't happen

Heave Ho, Monday, 8 October 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...
two months pass...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/father-and-daughter-have-child/2008/04/07/1207420202007.html

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad.

O_o!

wilter, Sunday, 6 April 2008 22:03 (seventeen years ago)

I haven't checked ilx lately so if that's been discussed elsewhere, I sorry.

wilter, Sunday, 6 April 2008 22:04 (seventeen years ago)

Dear god. ;_;

Abbott, Sunday, 6 April 2008 22:05 (seventeen years ago)

For Mr Deaves the sexual relationship was "absolutely fantastic".

J0rdan S., Sunday, 6 April 2008 22:09 (seventeen years ago)

Wahey! Mount Gambier, the incest capital of the world! Imagine what that'll do for tourism in town.

King Boy Pato, Monday, 7 April 2008 02:43 (seventeen years ago)

THERE'S MORE

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/incest-couple-had-another-child/2008/04/07/1207420263586.html

wilter, Monday, 7 April 2008 03:20 (seventeen years ago)

The pair were banned from sexual contact with each other as part of their bond.

who gets the lucky job of monitoring that?

tehresa, Monday, 7 April 2008 03:43 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5974190,00.jpg

max, Monday, 7 April 2008 03:55 (seventeen years ago)

HOT

Autumn Almanac, Monday, 7 April 2008 06:24 (seventeen years ago)

http://img.waffleimages.com/4b543904827ed2f719dd43629da534a32f8147fe/incest.jpg#via=salr

chaki, Monday, 7 April 2008 06:29 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/incest_080408_wideweb__470x277,4.jpg

wilter, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:41 (seventeen years ago)

and they in fact look a lot alike

omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:43 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah especially in the previous photo.

wilter, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:44 (seventeen years ago)

how could you say no to that face?

chaki, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:45 (seventeen years ago)

oh, he's not too bad

omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:46 (seventeen years ago)

like a wax statue of tom wilkinson left out in the sun for a couple hours

omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:46 (seventeen years ago)

smh @ news reported by smh.com

Alex in Baltimore, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 02:02 (seventeen years ago)

what

wilter, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 02:19 (seventeen years ago)

what

-- wilter, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 12:19 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

energy flash gordon, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 03:35 (seventeen years ago)

two weeks pass...

I can't believe no one is talking about Austrian dude who kept his daughter in the basement for 20 years, fathering a bunch of children with her, while his wife lived upstairs and DIDN'T KNOW

akm, Monday, 28 April 2008 18:27 (seventeen years ago)

there's probably a what's on your ipod thread on ILM

Herman G. Neuname, Monday, 28 April 2008 18:33 (seventeen years ago)

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.

Bodrick III, Monday, 28 April 2008 19:05 (seventeen years ago)

ban france

gff, Monday, 28 April 2008 19:34 (seventeen years ago)

there's probably a what's on your ipod thread on ILM

on ILE actually

DG, Monday, 28 April 2008 19:56 (seventeen years ago)

jesus christ

Curt1s Stephens, Monday, 28 April 2008 20:07 (seventeen years ago)

This thread is so fucked up.

Abbott, Monday, 28 April 2008 20:35 (seventeen years ago)

three years pass...

Yes, he should be run up on charges of doing the absolutely creepiest thing possible to get out of taxes.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:47 (thirteen years ago)

dunno about incest cause its pretty obv. what the real story is here.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:47 (thirteen years ago)

On Feb. 10, 2010, Palm Beach air-conditioning mogul John Goodman allegedly ran a stop sign. His Bentley convertible struck a Hyundai being driven by Scott Wilson, a 23-year-old civil engineer. Wilson’s car landed in a nearby canal where the young man drowned.

this is either a parable about american politics or a law & order episode, right?

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:49 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/multimedia/dynamic/01321/goodman_girlfriend_1321050e.jpg

buzza, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:56 (thirteen years ago)

who's your daddy

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:05 (thirteen years ago)

<I>A Florida Millionaire Adopted His 42-Year-Old Girlfriend</I>

Who (if bankrupt) he was very polite to every day for the rest of his life.

Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:59 (thirteen years ago)

lol usa

Flag post? I hardly knew her! (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 18:03 (thirteen years ago)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/01/article-2094910-118D380B000005DC-316_634x589.jpg

buzza, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 18:05 (thirteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.