The usual case against incest is that it's abusive with one person having far more knowledge and power than the other, plus that it is bad genetics. 

But, suppose it's a mother and son, for example, both of voting age or older. In other words, full adult citizens under the law.

Is there a good reason for the government camel to be sticking its nose under THEIR tent?

What about grown-up brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters, or gay twins for that matter?

Views: 475

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes...unless one or both are sterile.

People can't be trusted, and who as a fetus wants to be born retarded?  A fetus doesn't get a voice so to prevent that outcome it should be illegal unless there is no possibility of the real chance of a retarded birth.  

it's abusive with one person having far more knowledge and power than the other

I feel this is the most compelling argument against incest. Many relationships have a power imbalance and that power imbalance is usually used to justify disallowing that relationship to develop romantically, i.e. boss and worker, teacher and student, etc. In the case of a parent and an adult child, is there still a significant enough power imbalance to disallow a romantic relationship? I think so.

plus that it is bad genetics.

I find this argument largely irrelevant. There are MANY carriers of genetic illnesses and allowing them to have to children without restrictions is "bad genetics", but we don't disallow their relationship... we provide education about the risks involved with their genetics.

Is there a good reason for the government camel to be sticking its nose under THEIR tent?

Maybe. As I said above, the law provides protection against romantic relationships with power imbalances. In the case of a mother and adult son, I'm not sure if that power imbalance ever really clears up completely. Maybe it clears up enough, maybe it doesn't.

What about grown-up brothers and sisters... ...or gay twins for that matter?

Sure, why not? If that's what they want to do.

What about... ...fathers and daughters?

Same issue with the mother and son, power imbalance.

If incest in this case is not a power issue, pedophilia, etc, the true issue is genetic.

Should a law prevent potential inbreeding?

What about two genetically mentally handicapped people: they will probably have a higher chance of having mentally handicapped offspring too.

Where do we, as a society, draw the line between what is a good or bad idea, and, a law?

There's the same "ick factor" applied to homosexuality/sodomy laws...and, frankly, except for protecting the vulnerable, I think a hands off approach would make more sense overall.

In nature, west virginia, etc, its pretty normal to see sons and mothers, siblings, fathers and daughters, and so forth...interbreeding.

The idea DOES have a cultural ick factor to ME, but, I know at least most of that is probably just the way I was raised,...the same way that made eating bugs appear disgusting to me, and yummy to an amazonian.

So, to me at least, if there's no abuse, its OK.

That goes for non-incestual relationships too of course.  If someone is abused, then, its wrong.

Same issue with the mother and son, power imbalance.

Remember, I stipulated that the participants would be adults.

Remember, I stipulated that the participants would be adults.

You might of misunderstood. Part of my argument was that the power imbalance between parent and child may (or may not, I don't know) never really diminish to the point where a romantic relationship would be allowable.

Oh, romantic relationships require equality? That's a new one. I think all romantic relationships (or almost all) have a more dominant partner and a more servile one.

Both parties are equal upon entry, yes. What the partners settle into after entry is a different matter.

That's nonsense. Many people (more often than not women) are actually ATTRACTED to a dominant personality. There goes your starting point of equality.

A dominant personality is very different to having actual power over someone, like a teacher has power over a student... or a parent over their child. i.e. if a dominant personality meets someone: they are both equals in society, neither one has any real power over the other. You can't say the same about a teacher meeting their student, or a parent meeting their child. It's a subtle difference that needs exploration before we can decide to allow/disallow a given relationship.

I'm feel like you're missing what I'm trying to say and substituting what you think I'm trying to say... but I don't know how to say it to get you to understand.

You got sidetracked into talking about something other than two free adults doing something voluntarily.

Anyway, a dominant person has a real power over the other. It's not like voluntarily letting the other person influence you. You are helpless to be influenced if you are truly submissive to a truly dominant person.

Maybe you should just ask Unseen to define consent (per sex) and go from there. I know it's annoying to go bottom up instead of top down...but it can work well sometimes.

If we're talking about two free adults acting freely, the issue of consent doesn't seem to be central.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service