Should incest (between consenting adults) REALLY be illegal?

Sounds like faith.

How does the scientific method account for the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction? Which is a required presupposition in order to have, and use, the scientific method correctly.

 

Well science is different than say faith; while I believe it is the best why to search for the truth, placing my faith in that fact. That is about as far is the comparisons go. Science is about rigorous testing, observing, and verifying an outcome to find a large piece of the whole truth. Nothing in science can be so dogmatic as to avoid potential scrutiny, yes, even the scientific method itself. There are many times I find out some new piece of information and have rethink everything I thought was true before.

You just answered your own question...?
However, sometimes contradictions do occur, the universe is not a simple thing to understand, Light is both a wave and a particle. Smaller animals get higher rates of cancer than larger ones, even though they have less cells.
And they are paradoxes and that just means we don't know yet.

 

Some excellent points raised in this thread. I'd like to chip in with my understanding of the situation.

If the natural aversion to incest was sufficient to always prevent it there would indeed be no need for laws against it. In practice incest does happen and is almost always the result of the abuse of children by adults. The harmful effects of this abuse don't stop just because the victim reaches 16/18/21. They are still being abused and their ability to consent is compromised due to that on going abuse. It's these predatory relationships the law is intended to target.

Having said there are jurisdictions where sex between adult siblings is perfectly legal and even when it's not the law does make exceptions for family members that weren't raised as such.

 

Well almost all human societies demonize that sort of relationship, mother-son, father-daughter, father-son, and so on... The natural aversion is more applicable in sibling relationships, as a parent is not raised from childhood with their child. (That wouldn't make sense.)

 

True, science requires faith. One has to trust in one's mental abilities, the abilities of others, and that there is such things as laws of logic.

You lost me. I am arguing the scientific method cannot account for the presuppositions required to do science.

I think we might have two different definitions of science. I am referring to an approach of inquire that is based on testable, repeatable, quantifiable observations of empirical evidence. It is wonderful for physics, chemistry and biology leading to such helpful things as engineering and medicine. It is of little aid with regards to things such a morality, beauty, justice, goodness and ultimate truth. Science is tool not a religion or a philosophy. (I am skipping over whether mathematics is a science, or the one true science, but that has little impact on my argument, though it is a fascinating thing to discuss.)

 

(Not going to quote the whole thing to save on space.)

To clarify, while hemophilia did lead to the hiring of Rasputin, that's not the sole point of it. The point isn't what factors contributed to the political geo sphere of the time, which there is many. The point was that insect most definitely can have negative effects. The risk is reduced considerably with cousins, as already stated. And yes, for specifically first cousins, the risk is much lower, but that is not wholly covering all angles of blood relationships, where in other forms is generally much more likely to cause health problems and mental issues.

A few sources:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest
https://www.ranker.com/list/genetic-mutation-from-incest/laura-allan
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Th...er-Royal-Inbreeding-Deformities-and-Disorders

https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/ki...vourite-the-rise-and-fall-of-sarah-churchill/
https://historycollection.co/16-roy...y-mutations-and-defects-caused-by-inbreeding/
https://www.quora.com/How-does-incest-cause-genetic-defects
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080450/

Note, that what it's stating is "The combined effects of founder effect, genetic drift, and inbreeding can increase the frequency of detrimental rare variants in human metapopulations, leading to overall worsening of population health, whereas admixture and outbreeding appear to have the opposite effect." should not be taken as a guarantee of worse problems surfacing, but outbreeding having a more commonly better result on average.

Not to mention, that my whole stance should be taken as...doesn't matter. For one thing, who specifically enforces it as a law? Even if illegal, it doesn't prevent people from doing something. Should you, is a whole other question. There's a whole question of how much consent someone really has when it's a family member they have power over or power over them.
Things like 1. Them controlling financially or by allowing their relative to live with them.
2. Emotional grooming. At what point can you determine when someone is ready or wants that kind of relationship with their family member? The answer is they would be raised to see it as something they should be encouraged to do....which is a whole other mess of problems.
3. How do you determine what relationships and circumstances make it consensual in a ironclad way?

There's nothing wrong with the act of sex itself. I even find abuse to be all fun and games when it comes to stories(Shouldn't even be tried to be justified for real life.)

The fantasy of things isn't really a problem. When it comes to reality, there IS something very wrong with controlling someone physically, emotionally, or financially to get sex from them.

 

I give up, you lost me too; I have no idea what you are talking about. If your talking about what I think your talking about, for my sake i'm going to have to say; don't care. I know it is a cop out but frankly the question should be answered by someone smarter than me.

I agree, that it did have an negative effect on the royal family; and I'm not saying incest cannot have negative effects. Because that would be nuts.

True, outbreeding does tend to have a more positive outcome; with inbreeding increasing the risk. However, my point is that the risk tends to remain low, if inbreeding occurs once; it is only in subsequent generations that the effects become more pronounced. One generation will probably be fine; However if inbreeding continues to occur then the problem genes can become "concentrated" if you will.

Don't know, I'm only trying to play devils advocate for it from a genetic stand point. After that I'm leaving it up to someone else. I don't really care or want to care any more than that.

Agreed.

So thanks for getting back, Auraicide, I appreciate your post. However if you respond back again I don't think I will respond in kind. I'm currently having some issues with a depressive swing and I don't think getting into debates on the internet helps with that (This whole thing has really started to stress me out.) I'm going to do what is best for my mental health now and duck out; thanks.

 

Fair enough. I did take the original conversation off on a tangent. It is just one that greatly interests me and is foundation to the question of this thread. Thank you for the civil, intelligent and friendly conversation.

 

Lets see if we can get some fresh blood into this conversation...

 

Good idea.

There is no fundamental reason to accept an axiom, as that reason would then be the axiom. Instead, axioms are defined when the overwhelming majority of people who understand the axiom accept it to be true without further reasoning. For instance, in mathematics, in any formula using variable x, the statement x=x is axiomatic. There's no particular, deeper reason for x=x, it's just a useful rule to follow. (Although, it technically depends on the definition of the = sign - more here.) It is useless to base your argument on an axiom that the opposition does not agree with.

As it stands, if you live in a democratic society - or at least, one where general cultural views shape the law, which is pretty much all of them - you will find yourself needing to deal with whatever everyone else thinks is true. You could have all the logic and science behind you; the fact is, everyone else still disagrees with you, and the opinion of millions takes precedence over the opinion of one. Seriously, I would imagine the percentage of people in, say, the US who actively wish for incest to be legalised is so small it rounds to zero. It's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

However, and as has been mentioned before, the illegalisation of an act is not necessarily a measure to totally prevent that act. Take piracy, for example - yes, it is objectively illegal to stream licenced anime from an unlicenced website, but you will never face any real repurcussions for doing so. Anti-piracy laws exist so that the state (or a corporation, or individual) may, if they wish, take legal action against someone committing piracy. Nobody is taking little Johnny to court for watching Naruto online, and no jury would convict him. Similarly, in the rare case of a truly victimless instance of incest, there is simply no reasonable series of events that might result in one being punished. If nobody involved has an issue, then it's not in the state's interest to care. The only reason anti-incest laws even matter is because incest almost always involves a victim of some sort, due in no small part to the unlikelihood of being legitimately attracted to a family member.

TL;DR: Truly ethical incest is effectively immune from law enforcement, and the argument for legal incest is irrelevant if virtually nobody will ever agree with it.

 

Can’t believe I’ve missed this thread.

I write primarily incest stories. Love them, but the taboo is the hook for me in a large way. The added element of forbidden love is a huge plus to me, love how it leads to conflict and makes for easy star crossed lovers.

That said, nah I don’t think it should be legal for first order relatives. Power imbalances are inherent in a lot of them I agree and that’s a great reason for the societal resistance to it, and the legal ramifications. But even ignoring that (if you can, but you shouldn't), the underlying social reason for the taboo is genetic. I still think it shouldn’t be allowed if the couple is same sex or infertile. The cultural stigma is too great and societal norms, while potentially not completely aligned with a particular relationship, are largely understandable. Even as I write stories of epic love between fraternal twins who yearn to be together forever and have a family and I’ll make sure it works out for them in this fantasy I would never say it should be a possibility outside fiction.

In my twincest story though Ella really really really wants Evan’s baby and she gets what she wants, even if as the author I’ll have to figure out some bullshit about an incest friendly genetics counselor.

Now, cousins being so scandalous or whatever by all means shouldn’t be and in most cases is NOT illegal even if society lumps it all together.

 

Basically my thoughts, but phrased better.

The issue with incest in real life is that it's thee scenarios that aren't essentially taking advantage of someone or abuse in some way are always going to be outweighed by the many, many, ones that do. Legalizing it just serves as making a law to protect abusive family members from consequences. The amount of situations that could be argued to be truly consensual are just so marginal that it would more or less just be causing more damage than it would save, by making it allowable.

I enjoy incest stuff(Not in real life), but I won't confuse the fact that I like it, as meaning it's something that should be encouraged or supported for society as a whole.

 

The situation between adult family members is basically the same as it is with any other adult persons who are in an abusive relationship. So there are already means to deal with such situations.

If incest is illegal and an adult person had sex with an adult family member, no matter if consensual or not, they both would violate the law.
So the abuser can even use that fact to silence the victim.

This is similar to the situation in some countries where women can be sentenced for extramarital sex after being a rape victim.

 

Again, you encounter the idea of hypothetical law being at odds with its practical application. The state has no interest in convicting a victim of abuse (unless they are corrupt to the degree that the written law is effectively meaningless in court, in which case, it is absolutely irrelevant whether incest is actually illegal).

In fact, you will find the majority of countries specifically have measures to prevent this occuring. If a seventeen-year-old were to kidnap and rape you, you could not be convicted of sex with a minor, and this is just a different flavour of the same concept. If you are coerced into sex, it doesn't matter; an act being performed upon you is not grounds to persecute you of that act.

Anti-incest laws are in no way similar to laws that encourage the conviction of rape victims. The police in any developed nation are far less eager to deliberately prosecute the obviously innocent than you seem to believe.

 

It doesn't matter what the law enforcement agencies actually do.

It is enough if the victim thinks that they did something wrong.
It is enough if the victim thinks that they have to shame for it.

That only gives the perpetrator more control over the victim.

 

Following that, it could be argued underage sex should be seem as acceptable because some people like it. There is, but making it acceptable to avoid consequences for the people who like it? That’s a bad idea.

And they aren’t even different scenarios really. There MIGHT be a portion who are consenting, but still versus a major group that definitely isn’t, but it's encouraging the idea anyway simply because there are people who are sexually attracted by it.

There’s plenty of people who enjoy those stories with those themes, but confusing the idea that just because it's a fetish, and we may or may not like this, means it should be commonly accepted is not a great way to look at things.

 

Are they doing something wrong? If so, why should you make it acceptable?

No.


If two persons who are related to each other have a consensual romantic/sexual relationship... what are they doing wrong?
Why do you need a law to prohibit that?
If the relationship isn't consensual, the perpetrator can already be prosecuted.

Never said that anyone should like that.
This thread is about the question if incest between consenting adults should be illegal or not.

You should only be liable for something that is wrong and not to satisfy common belief.

 

These thoughts are likely to happen regardless of the law, as incest is already considered an extreme taboo. Legalising it will not change that fact. There is actually an excellent example of this in the UK, where cannibalism, despite being morally heinous, is perfectly legal.

And how do you determine the difference between something that is actually wrong and something that is merely considered wrong according to common belief? If your answer comes down to whether you, personally, consider it to be wrong or right, then I am afraid that is not enough. Laws are founded on the beliefs of the majority, not the beliefs of one.

Which is really the heart of this issue. You evidently hold a different set of fundamental values to the vast majority of society - myself included - that will not be swayed by a mere online debate. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but it means you happen to be in disagreement with a rather popular position.

 

One important question is why should we make it legal? How it benefits society? Some people will gain one more potential sex partner because there are simply not enough, right? Sorry, that doesn't seem to outweigh all negative consequences for making incest legal.

 

Gayness was illegal for decades. In that case, the laws (in western countries) got changed at a point in time where the majority of people were still against it. After the legalization, the number of those people decline. (That might be different depending on the country.)
Such a specific law just helps to strengthen the common belief.

And yes, it might happen as well as long as it is considered a societal taboo. But one hurdle is less than two hurdles, so it will still be easier to speak up and harder to use these things to silence a victim.

Btw, consensual incest is legal in about 20 countries all around the world and even in two states of the USA.

If something harms someone or violates someone's rights, it is "wrong".

I can't see any harm due to a consensual incestuous relationship.

If you need something widely accepted, you can use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis.

Laws are not based on common beliefs at all.
They are made by few to make it possible to be able to control people. (That's not necessarily negative.)

Killing someone is homicide.
If the person died naturally, there are also most likely laws that prohibit desecration of corpses and violating someone's death-bed will.
And if the corpse isn't seen as a person anymore but as someone's property, there are still laws a cannibal would violate.

Additionally, the linked article depicts a very special case that can be compared with justifiable homicide.

Why would you restrict the rights of individual persons without having a benefit for society?

What negative consequences?