I'm fairly sure most (all) of us feel parent/child incest is wrong, and for fairly obvious reasons.
However, if a brother and sister are very careful about pregnancy prevention or, better, one or both of them is unable to conceive, what would be wrong with it?
BTW, I'm NOT trying to decide whether to do it with my sister (LOL). This is just a question that came to mind while in a discussion with another person.
Yet, rivalry can exist in normal relations as well, most of them having a dominant member in the relationship. I remember a female sociologist friend telling me that a marriage really can't be a 50/50 thing. Someone needs to break ties.
Sibling rivalry is an imbalance of power/power struggle at its core. Therefore we cannot say that it is any different than the imbalance of power between parent/child incestuous relationships. Therefore it is wrong. (based on your own words) Case closed.
I'm not buying that sibling rivalry is always or even mostly as bloodthirsty as you seem to assume. To be sure, in my own case, there was and still is sibling rivalry between me and my brother, but my sister and I aren't rivals in any sense of the word and are quite close (no, not in a sexual way).
Who said anything about blood thirsty? All I said was that sibling rivalry created an imbalance of power by definition. Therefore it is just as wrong as parent/child incest. So are you saying that it would be OK for siblings to have sex as long as they do not have sibling rivalry? Sibling rivalry also changes over time throughout the life span, so if it's not OK this year because me and my brother hate each others guts, when does it then become OK? When do you suddenly decide that sibling rivalry no longer exists therefore let's get it on? Me and my brother do not have any rivalry between us either. but he is also 13 years older than me. So when do you draw the line? I think you draw the line by saying it's wrong for the above stated reasons if you control for everything else under the sun, (procreation etc...)
I just don't think sibling rivalry necessarily introduces so much power that it's substantially different than any other sort of sexual relationship. There is almost always a dominant partner in any relationship, sexual or otherwise. If we're talking about siblings near in age, or both being grown up. I don't get the problem at all.
The parent has a custodial duty to a child that isn't there between siblings, and which a sexual interest would interfere with.
I assume you're grown up (if not, you should be obeying what you assume your parents' views would be). If you're looking for a rule between a grown up and her 13 year older brother, you don't need a rule, you just need to know whether you feel you can trust him.
Marriages are the same way. There is usually someone in a more dominant position. But some people like being dominated and some like dominating so how could one call this unhealthy?
Conversely, how could one call this always healthy for kids? I don't understand why kids keep getting excluded from this topic, by supposing that their situation is somehow equivalent to adult situations.
I missed it. WHO is calling it always healthy for kids? I can't think of anyone, can you?
WHO is calling it always healthy for kids?
THANK you for that honest statement! I could be wrong, but I imagine it felt like a difficult concession. It just seems like you're framing the debate around the assumption that somehow when kids say they "consent", it's just as credible and meaningful as when adults say it, so let's not talk about when it can go wrong.
I ask again WHO is calling it always healthy for kids to be in an incestuous relationship with a sibling. Was it me? When and where?
"Always" is a qualifier I generally shy away from.
OK, no one is calling it "always healthy" for kids. My point was an exaggeration, to counter what I think is another absurd assumption or proposition being made here by more than a couple of people, which is that somehow "consentual incest" between kids is as credible and valid as it is in adults.
For the third time, I would ask you, what is your definition of "consent" among kids? One of your non-answers was to ask me if I'm recommending a kind of department of oversight to determine such things, and that kind of non-answer is just as absurd as me implying that someone here said "it's always healthy for kids".
But I'm not even really asking you to define "consent" among kids. I'm just trying to point out that the determination of what is genuine or valid "consent" among kids is not easy to define, and is therefore a higher risk area than it would be for adults. Can you at least concede that it's more difficult to define "consent" in the context of pre-adults, and therefore incest among kids has its own, separate risk factor from adult incest?
Good question. I can't think of any reason to oppose it, as long as no offspring are produced. Gay and lesbian people who love each other are finally being accepted on the basis of their mutual love. Why not brothers and sisters, most of whom do, in fact, love each other?