Professor charged with incest

Ummm, not quite. (Have you ever thought of writing Monkey Porn?) :D

The one pairing that doesn't happen with Bonobos is mother-son. In fact, mother-son pairings are pretty much non-existent among primates.

This makes sense because the father in most cases is not known but the mother always is. Plus, many primate species have another mechanism preventing inbreeding and that is that one sex or the other migrates. The migrating sex meets unrelated mates and the resident one gets new mates coming into the group.

Quit ruining all my ape fantasies! :D (I have stacks & stacks of handwritten monkey & ape porn in my living room, BTW. I am just waiting for the concept to catch on and then I make my move.)

I could swear I have seen a documentary where a frightened little bonobo male ran to his mother for a reassuring quickie. Are you telling me I can't believe everything I se on TV? Next you will be attacking Wikipedia! ;)

But my point still stands, there are incestuous great apes, even if mom is a total prude.

P.S. You said "coming into the group" hur hur hur :o
 
I feel more threatened by the assertion that the government has the authority to criminalize certain kinds of consensual sex between adults than I feel threatened by the idea that somewhere out there there's a creepy guy banging his (adult) daughter (with her consent).

Why does a government that outlaws incest frighten you? What harm do you think that power is really going to do?
 
Why does a government that outlaws incest frighten you? What harm do you think that power is really going to do?

Charge people with crimes for doing something that hurts nobody but themselves, on the basis that the government feels it's icky?
 
... I feel more threatened by the assertion that the government has the authority to criminalize certain kinds of consensual sex between adults than I feel threatened by the idea that somewhere out there there's a creepy guy banging his (adult) daughter (with her consent).
Do you also think that siblings or a parent and his or her child should be allowed to marry each other and live openly as an incestuous couple?
 
Charge people with crimes for doing something that hurts nobody but themselves, on the basis that the government feels it's icky?

I've already argued why I think legalizing it can hurt other people. You may not accept that argument (but then, one could reject an argument of harm regarding anything), but I've made it. So my question remains: what harm comes from keeping it illegal?
 
So my question remains: what harm comes from keeping it illegal?

Shouldn't the burden of justification for any law be proving that having the law is less harmful than not having that law? I can't imagine a society where any law at all can be passed and then the public has to prove each one harmful to get it struck down. We could outlaw Oreos and the wearing of the color orange tomorrow, and then sit and wait for the cookie fans and people who wear orange to organize a lobby to get the law repealed.
 
Shouldn't the burden of justification for any law be proving that having the law is less harmful than not having that law?

Sure. I've outlined what I think the harm is from not having the law. And I think that there's basically no harm in having it. I have yet to see anyone outline what they think is the harm from having it. Oh, there's been some mention of vague philosophical objection. But when I specifically ask for harm (including asking you after your previous post), all I've gotten so far is silence.
 
Sure. I've outlined what I think the harm is from not having the law. And I think that there's basically no harm in having it. I have yet to see anyone outline what they think is the harm from having it. Oh, there's been some mention of vague philosophical objection. But when I specifically ask for harm (including asking you after your previous post), all I've gotten so far is silence.

Is this your argument?:

I'm saying that legalization of adult child-parent sex may increase the risk of minor parent-child sex. Yes, parents can't travel back in time, but they can consider the future.

Because you think one activity might lead to something else which is a crime, it should be outlawed? Well, that's familiar. Video games lead to violent crime, marijuana leads to heroin use, and watching action movies leads to gun violence. The only problem is that they don't. You simply cannot outlaw things because they may inspire people to commit crimes. You'd have to outlaw almost everything, which is utterly impractical at the very least (I won't bother with the arguments about freedom and liberty because you seem to characterize those concepts as "vague philosophy").
 
Oh, there's been some mention of vague philosophical objection. But when I specifically ask for harm (including asking you after your previous post), all I've gotten so far is silence.

Surely the harm would be to the small number of people who desire to have such a relationship and are capable of doing so in a healthy, responsible way, but who are now unable to do so because of the law against it.
 
Surely the harm would be to the small number of people who desire to have such a relationship and are capable of doing so in a healthy, responsible way, but who are now unable to do so because of the law against it.

Quelle horreur.

I think society can tolerate that ill rather well.
 
You simply cannot outlaw things because they may inspire people to commit crimes. You'd have to outlaw almost everything, which is utterly impractical at the very least

And there's your harm. Outlawing everything is obviously very bad, because it's completely unmanageable.

Now, what harm does outlawing incest cause? You have still yet to answer that question.

(I won't bother with the arguments about freedom and liberty because you seem to characterize those concepts as "vague philosophy").

The suggestions of liberty as an objection have been simple vague philosophy, because nobody has actually formulated an actual argument about why the law against incest creates harm through a restriction of liberty. If you want to adopt some absolute libertarian position that any restriction of liberty is a harm, then sure, there's harm by definition. But that argument is essentially irrelevant, both because most people in a democracy don't (and probably never will) buy into it, and also because, well, have you LOOKED at modern societies? We've got restrictions all over the bloody place. This doesn't even rank compared to jaywalking laws. If you want to form an argument about freedom and liberty, you need to actually show what liberties are infringed, and how that leads to harm. Nobody has done that here. And if the best you've got as far as restricted liberties is that adults can't have sex with their children, parents, or siblings, well, duh.
 
Quit ruining all my ape fantasies! :D (I have stacks & stacks of handwritten monkey & ape porn in my living room, BTW. I am just waiting for the concept to catch on and then I make my move.)

P.S. You said "coming into the group" hur hur hur :o

Hey, you can use that in your nearly happening, Monkey Porn genre!
 
So my question remains: what harm comes from keeping it illegal?

Person A and person B wish to have sex. Generally, depriving people of the right to have sexual relations with the partner of their (mutual) choice is considered harmful. Anti-incest laws deprive people of the right to have sex with the partner of their (mutual) choice, therefore those laws cause harm.
 
Person A and person B wish to have sex. Generally, depriving people of the right to have sexual relations with the partner of their (mutual) choice is considered harmful.

"Generally" doesn't cut it, since incest is such a specific case. But more importantly, "generally", having sex with your children, parents, or siblings is "considered" harmful.

I though the whole argument against criminalizing incest depended on the idea that we needed stronger motives than that.

Anti-incest laws deprive people of the right to have sex with the partner of their (mutual) choice, therefore those laws cause harm.

The harm being that they... can't have sex with their parents, children, or siblings.

Sorry, still not seeing that as a real harm.
 
You'd be preventing them from being happy while they aren't harming anyone. That's not to say I really care, but I can see why the argument can be made.
 
I think society can tolerate that ill rather well.

Indeed. Society does and has tolerated any number of restrictions on who one can or cannot marry or have relations with. Doesn't mean that those restrictions are all good, or that the harm they cause isn't harm. Even if the harm they prevent is much worse than the harm they cause, harm is still harm.

If you want to adopt some absolute libertarian position that any restriction of liberty is a harm, then sure, there's harm by definition. But that argument is essentially irrelevant, both because most people in a democracy don't (and probably never will) buy into it, and also because, well, have you LOOKED at modern societies? We've got restrictions all over the bloody place. This doesn't even rank compared to jaywalking laws.

I consider liberty to be merely a good default in most cases. If you want to impose restrictions, you need to have a good reason to do so. Jaywalking laws exist because certain areas need that restriction to keep the roads running smoothly, or to keep pedestrians from being hit by cars. Civil engineers and planners can provide statistics and attest to the need for jaywalking laws to prevent these things in the areas where these restrictions are enforced. Are there experts who can attest to your claims regarding increase in minor parent-child sex as a probable result of repealing anti-incest law? If there are, and if the increase would be significant, then I agree with you that the law should remain.
 
I consider liberty to be merely a good default in most cases. If you want to impose restrictions, you need to have a good reason to do so.

And I already gave my reasons.

Jaywalking laws exist because certain areas need that restriction to keep the roads running smoothly, or to keep pedestrians from being hit by cars. Civil engineers and planners can provide statistics and attest to the need for jaywalking laws to prevent these things in the areas where these restrictions are enforced.

It's illegal to jaywalk even when there are no cars around. So if you want to argue that some adults can responsibly commit incest without harming anyone, you haven't actually distinguished the prohibition on incest from the prohibition on jaywalking, where an adult can tell that if there are no cars around, it's safe to cross the street.

Are there experts who can attest to your claims regarding increase in minor parent-child sex as a probable result of repealing anti-incest law?

I seriously doubt all, or even most, jaywalking laws are justified by any quantitative analysis. If they were, such laws would be quite exceptional in that regard.

But even in cases where it's true, the relevant portion of your statement is not that the laws are advocated by experts, but that they are backed by statistics. But no such statistics exist for incest laws, because at least in the US, incest has always been illegal. We'd have to legalize it in order to test whether or not legalization does harm, but we'd be doing harm in the process. The US public is unlikely to support such an experiment in legislation.

And if you're just asking for testimony of what the "experts" expect to happen under a scenario that we've never experienced, well, why exactly should I or anyone else consider any of them authoritative? In other words, we cannot arrive at the sort of certainty you demand.

Now, if criminalization were doing some real harm, then it's reasonable to ask for a stronger level of certainty about the harm that legalization might cause. But the best anyone has been able to offer is the strict libertarian position that any restriction of freedom is harm by definition. But for reasons I gave previously, that argument is insufficient.
 
You'd be preventing them from being happy while they aren't harming anyone.

If you can't be happy without having sex with your parent, child, or sibling, I think you've got far deeper problems than the law.

Not to mention that if it's really that big a deal for you, the law is easily circumvented. It's really not that hard for two adults to have consensual sex with each other without anyone else in the world knowing about it.
 
Charge people with crimes for doing something that hurts nobody but themselves, on the basis that the government feels it's icky?

I have dyschondrosteosis and madelung wrist deformity. It is an extremely rare genetic disorder that runs in my family. We're actually being studied by a research team in Japan for it!

This is a genetic disorder which results in deformity of the bones. Extreme cases can cause dwarfism. I have a mild case, though it does result in very short stature (4'11"). Aside from height, the main thing it affects are your wrists. Basically, all of the bones in your wrist grow in wrong. There are different levels of severity. I have a more mild case. Even so, I had to wear braces on my wrist throughout high school, and during puberty, the pain in my forearms and wrists was constant and severe. It died down after puberty, and I just sort of learned to live with it. But my wrists are uncomfortable all the time. I just have trained myself not to think about it. Sometimes though, they do quite badly. My wrists move strangely too. I can fold my hand down so that my palm lies flat on my forearm, but I can't bend it backwards at all.

I have this condition, as does my sister, my mother, two aunts, and five cousins. My experience was painful enough, but as I said, I had pretty mild cases. My mother, an aunt, and a cousin all had severe cases. Though they too were not dwarves, only small statured like me, their wrists were severely deformed and they required many corrective surgeries in their childhood and teenage years.

This disease is almost always is a result of incest. I obviously don't know for certain if that was the case with my own family (I know for sure my grandparents aren't related, but that's as far back I can account for. We hardly know anything about our family since we came to the Unites States from Italy), but I do know that in MOST cases, if not my own, that is how the disease manifests.



Yes one could make the argument that a relationship which produces no offspring does no harm. But how would that be enforced, if incest were illegal? Would we force women who got pregnant from such a relationship to have abortions? That's what makes this whole thing tricky for me, is that how could we allow incest while enforcing that immediate family members do not reproduce, ESPECIALLY in multiple generations (so siblings continuously procreating with siblings)?

Of course there is the counter argument, that other things which can cause harm to a fetus/child are legal. It's not illegal to smoke while you're pregnant, after all, or eat nothing but junk food and malt liquor.

But still, incest can and does harm to people outside of those committing the act. It's just that there are other things which are harmful to a fetus which can result in lifelong medical complications, even things that have a HIGH risk of producing such complications, yet are legal.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom