Incest is Cancer

[Dr. Cheese]

http://www.slate.com/id/2277787?wpisrc=obinsite

This is an interesting essay I read today.

[Relic]

Wow, food for thought no doubt

[Bocete]

Never thought about it that much. Nice find.

[burk48237]

I posted a thread on a similar case in the lobby. It appears Switzerland is considering leagalizing incest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...cest-laws.html


I do find some delicious irony in the Columbia U case. Here we have the ivy league, the first people to start the dumb hicks-rednecks-inbreeding jokes as a group defending incest when one of their own was caught in it. And it's not the first time, they also defended Woody Allen's tryst. Perhaps, there's more inbreeding occuring at Columbia then in the hollars of West Virginia?

It would certainly account for some of the intellectual fads our elites embrace so readily.

[IconBasser]

I completely agree with Germany's stance on this. As long as procreation isn't involved, then it is no business of society.

[R. Laevinus]

I've never really thought about the subject much either way, and hold no strong feelings on it. However, I would like to add, as food for general thought, that the position outlined by the author is clearly standing in preference of family over fun.

Which is all very well and good, if you like family.

However, I think it should be respectfully pointed out to the author and to those who share his view, that not everybody is particularly concerned with family values, maintaining blood relationships, et al. For whatever reason, some people didn't have close families, or choose to minimize their contact with blood relatives, and therefore, the risk of destroying the ties that bind the family unit is kind of a moot point.

So in essence, I think I'm trying to say that he's preaching to the choir, and while it was interesting to hear his views, I think that if he's planning to bring anybody around to his way of thinking, he's going to need to rethink his arguments.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by IconBasser

I completely agree with Germany's stance on this. As long as procreation isn't involved, then it is no business of society.

I couldn't disagree more. To say this is to discount the impact of the pre legal relationship and psychiatric intimidation and manipulation that can occur in parent-child or sibling relationships. Think about the daughter who is brought up trying to please a father she can never please, and suddenly when she's 18 she can "please daddy"? Or the biological bond between a son and his mother? This is the employee-employer relationship in spades with the opportunity for 24 hour lifestyle preparation-manipulation for the victim.

I was in a church where a youth minister followed this pattern. He selected young attractive females (around 14 years old) and got them involved as ministry "leaders" with extensive mentoring (that appeared innocent at the time). But as soon as these girls reached legal age they suddenly found themselves in a one on one mentoring experience. He violated the trust of them and their families. How much more could a Father/mother or brother/sister take advantage of that trust to manipulate the situation? Talk about destroying families. I can't imagine anything worse for society.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I couldn't disagree more. To say this is to discount the impact of the pre legal relationship and psychiatric intimidation and manipulation that can occur in parent-child or sibling relationships. Think about the daughter who is brought up trying to please a father she can never please, and suddenly when she's 18 she can "please daddy"? Or the biological bond between a son and his mother? This is the employee-employer relationship in spades with the opportunity for 24 hour lifestyle preparation-manipulation for the victim.

I was in a church where a youth minister followed this pattern. He selected young attractive females (around 14 years old) and got them involved as ministry "leaders" with extensive mentoring (that appeared innocent at the time). But as soon as these girls reached legal age they suddenly found themselves in a one on one mentoring experience. He violated the trust of them and their families. How much more could a Father/mother or brother/sister take advantage of that trust to manipulate the situation? Talk about destroying families. I can't imagine anything worse for society.

Well said.

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I couldn't disagree more. To say this is to discount the impact of the pre legal relationship and psychiatric intimidation and manipulation that can occur in parent-child or sibling relationships. Think about the daughter who is brought up trying to please a father she can never please, and suddenly when she's 18 she can "please daddy"? Or the biological bond between a son and his mother? This is the employee-employer relationship in spades with the opportunity for 24 hour lifestyle preparation-manipulation for the victim.

I was in a church where a youth minister followed this pattern. He selected young attractive females (around 14 years old) and got them involved as ministry "leaders" with extensive mentoring (that appeared innocent at the time). But as soon as these girls reached legal age they suddenly found themselves in a one on one mentoring experience. He violated the trust of them and their families. How much more could a Father/mother or brother/sister take advantage of that trust to manipulate the situation? Talk about destroying families. I can't imagine anything worse for society.

I understand your position and your reasoning. I also sympathize with you and your congregation.

However, abuse is abuse is abuse, regardless of who is perpetrating it upon whom. Is there a potential for abuse in a legalized incestuous relationship? Absolutely.

But lots of men - and women - abuse their partners regardless of relation.

I agree that you make good points, and these are things that should be watched for and educated about, should we decide to decriminalize the act; however, I do not feel that your arguments are sufficient to sway my (neutral) views.

[coolrunner989]

burk, you're right about the possibility for manipulation. That possibility should not be the basis for penal law though. The government shouldn't be defining our morals IMO, which is basically what this is.

As Dr. Cheese's article points out, the genetic dangers of incest are not always applicable and when they are it's no different than any other relationship that doesn't want offspring (birth control, vasectomy, etc). Take out the legitimate and tangible element and the basis for this law goes away. Sure it can have negative effects on families and individuals if abused, but so can tons of other things.

[Ben B]

Originally Posted by burk48237

How much more could a Father/mother or brother/sister take advantage of that trust to manipulate the situation?

+1. The manipulation factor is the problem. I highly doubt any parent/child sexual relationship is really consensual on the child's part. And even though I have no proof, I do not believe for an instant that the incestuous relationships cited in the article only began after the children turned 18. Interesting article BTW.

Ben

[IconBasser]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I couldn't disagree more. To say this is to discount the impact of the pre legal relationship and psychiatric intimidation and manipulation that can occur in parent-child or sibling relationships. Think about the daughter who is brought up trying to please a father she can never please, and suddenly when she's 18 she can "please daddy"? Or the biological bond between a son and his mother? This is the employee-employer relationship in spades with the opportunity for 24 hour lifestyle preparation-manipulation for the victim.

behavioral manipulation exists everywhere. It is the basis of human interaction. To persuade one to become romantically involved with you happens in singles bars across the world every day. As long as both individuals are consenting and of age, then there is no transgression. As to the "pre-legal impact", bad parents use psychological intimidation to coerce their children for a variety of desired results, whether that be to instill general submission or to condition them to run the family drug business. Outlawing incest will hardly change this. You'd have to implement stringent laws against psychological child abuse, which would unfortunately be next to impossible to enforce.

In short, acceptance of incest among consenting adults would do nothing change pre-existing coercive parenting.

[R. Laevinus]

^ Agreed.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by coolrunner989

burk, you're right about the possibility for manipulation. That possibility should not be the basis for penal law though. The government shouldn't be defining our morals IMO, which is basically what this is.

As Dr. Cheese's article points out, the genetic dangers of incest are not always applicable and when they are it's no different than any other relationship that doesn't want offspring (birth control, vasectomy, etc). Take out the legitimate and tangible element and the basis for this law goes away. Sure it can have negative effects on families and individuals if abused, but so can tons of other things.

Lots of laws are written because of the possibility of something happening. Drunk driving is the most glaring example of this.

[Balog]

1. It is impossible for a parent/child sexual relationship (where the parent and child have known each other previously, for all the "what about an adopted son banging his unknown birth mom" replies I sense coming) to be consensual, regardless of the age of the child. If you think sexual harassment laws are appropriate, you should be against pro incest laws.

2. The family is the building block of all civilization. Should you choose to opt out of that, fine. But society cannot survive where that is the norm. So yes, conduct that is destructive of the family as a whole must be penalized.

My Libertarian friends won't like this. But in the actual, non-theoretical world that is the reality.

[IconBasser]

Originally Posted by Balog

1. It is impossible for a parent/child sexual relationship (where the parent and child have known each other previously, for all the "what about an adopted son banging his unknown birth mom" replies I sense coming) to be consensual, regardless of the age of the child. If you think sexual harassment laws are appropriate, you should be against pro incest laws.

source?

2. The family is the building block of all civilization. Should you choose to opt out of that, fine. But society cannot survive where that is the norm. So yes, conduct that is destructive of the family as a whole must be penalized.

Family is the building block of clan-based societies. These include such enlightened historical examples as the celts, the shoguns, and the Afghans. Modern democratic societies are built upon the concepts of individual liberty and constitutional sovereignty.

[CapnSev]

It's legal in this state, as long as the parties are both over 60. The idea is that they shouldn't be able to reproduce at that age. I personally think it's pretty gross.

[Balog]

Originally Posted by IconBasser

source?

It's a truth I hold to be self evident.

Family is the building block of clan-based societies. These include such enlightened historical examples as the celts, the shoguns, and the Afghans. Modern democratic societies are built upon the concepts of individual liberty and constitutional sovereignty.

I could not disagree more. "Modern democratic societies" don't raise children, parents do. Look at the studies on child development. It's historical snobbery at it's worst to believe that we're so fancy and advanced that we have transcended the basics of psychological development all those other cultures used to have to worry about.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by IconBasser

behavioral manipulation exists everywhere. It is the basis of human interaction. To persuade one to become romantically involved with you happens in singles bars across the world every day. As long as both individuals are consenting and of age, then there is no transgression. As to the "pre-legal impact", bad parents use psychological intimidation to coerce their children for a variety of desired results, whether that be to instill general submission or to condition them to run the family drug business. Outlawing incest will hardly change this. You'd have to implement stringent laws against psychological child abuse, which would unfortunately be next to impossible to enforce.

In short, acceptance of incest among consenting adults would do nothing change pre-existing coercive parenting.

Lots of laws are written because of the possibility of something happening. Drunk driving is the most glaring example of this.

Not only are lots of laws written to prevent the possibility of something happening. But lots of laws are written to incentivize good behavior and dis-incitivize bad behavior. Legalizing incest puts a massive incentive on that behavior. Imagine the Big Brother and how his behavior will be towards his cute little 13 year old sister when he knows he can "tap that" with impunity when she's 18. The last thing we want to do to encourage the breakdown of the family unit is to encourage manipulative relationships. The fact that they are going to happen anyway doesn't mean we should reward the behavior.

Not to mention the fact of dealing with rape cases and the question of "consent", when the rapist is your father or brother and you're both adults perhaps living in the same house.

If we legalize incest what the result would be similar to the underage polygamy cases in cults. We would have families where deviants were raising young women or men for the purpose of being future sexual partners. And a parent involved in this behavior is violating the basic purpose of parenthood which is to raise up young men and women who are able to think for themselves and have the ingrained morality to make right decisions.

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by Balog

1. It is impossible for a parent/child sexual relationship ... to be consensual, regardless of the age of the child. If you think sexual harassment laws are appropriate, you should be against pro incest laws.

2. The family is the building block of all civilization. Should you choose to opt out of that, fine. But society cannot survive where that is the norm. So yes, conduct that is destructive of the family as a whole must be penalized.

I tend to agree with point 1. I think that parent/child sexual relationships are probably a touch iffy.

I think, however, that sibling sexual/romantic relationships could potentially have a much higher chance of success and fulfillment for both parties than the usual stranger relationships, simply because of the depth of understanding and shared experience that would go along with that. Maybe we should draw a distinction between parent/child and sibling situations?

I disgaree utterly and completely with point 2, however. If I didn't have a lot of work to do in very little time, I would spend the fifteen minutes on Wikipedia and find examples of civilizations not based on the nuclear family unit. I'll let you do that yourself if you choose to, but I assure you that community-based civilizations have existed and will exist again. i would also like to point out that it could be argued that modern western civilization is in decline, and how much of that decline can be traced back to the disintegration and devaluation of 'family values' is likely minimal as compared to the effects of corporate marketing, government misinformation, media propaganda, and rampant rabid nationalism.