• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homosexual incest - is there such a thing?

Oystein

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
18,903
Ok, don't ask me how I arrived at this topic. I swear it has nothing to do with anything I have done or contemplate doing, just something that popped up in a discussion I had with someone, and later, out of boredom I guess, I thought about it, and got confused. I guess I am asking this not for its own merit, but to see how ethic standards about sex can be discussed by rational, modern people, using a somewhat complex situation to ponder.

So please, this is not about condoning or condemning a controversial or perhaps illegal behaviour. It's a question about ethics and how ethics ought to be reflected by law.


Many societies and jurisdictions have formal or informal bans on incest - sex between very close relatives (siblings; parent and child). I had alwas figured that the main reason for this would be concern for the genetic health of the potential offspring. Reading Wikipedia though (the English as well as the German) informed me that there is hardly common ground across countries and cultures on what the bannable offence is; often, laws against incest affect people not in close genetic relationships such as involving step-parents or adopted children. So the ban is really a regulation on marriage, not on genetic propagation, and the goal often was to keep family trees from becoming too entangled, perhaps complicating inheritance of material goods. Traditionally, of course, sex was seen as something that happens between married partners, and married partners were invariably conceived as man and woman.


Enter the 21st century, where gay and lesbian sex is becoming more and more accepted. Where do close relatives of the same sex stand when they engage in sexual activity? Is that immoral? Should it be allowed?

I consulted the German penal code (§ 173). It prohibts an act with siblings and genetic descendants that's called by the term "den Beischlaf vollziehen" ("to accomplish intercourse"). I asked one law student what "den Beischlaf vollziehen" includes and excludes, and was told that it means vaginal penetration with the penis only. It follows that other forms of sex between family members such as anal, oral or gay and lesbian practices are not forbidden by our law.

This gives rise to an interesting quirk: It seems that in this arena, homosexual encounters have a better legal standing than heterosexual encounters. Does this feel wrong?


So ... in your mind: What is morally acceptable what is not? What should be forbidden by law, what should not - and WHY? And what's the situation in your country or society?

(Note: I am not going to talk about minors that are legally restricted or barred from being the object of sexual acts, and I am not talking about coercion. Naturally, only sex between consenting, sane people of legal age can be usefully considered here. Also, if you think that homosexual incest is immoral solely based on the principle that homosexual acts in general are immoral, then probably you won't add much insight to this topic).
 
Last edited:
Ok, don't ask me how I arrived at this topic. I swear it has nothing to do with anything I have done or contemplate doing, just something that popped up in a discussion I had with someone, and later, out of boredom I guess, I thought about it, and got confused. I guess I am asking this not for its own merit, but to see how ethic standards about sex can be discussed by rational, modern people, using a somewhat complex situation to ponder.

So please, this is not about condoning or condemning a controversial or perhaps illegal behaviour. It's a question about ethics and how ethics ought to be reflected by law.


Many societies and jurisdictions have formal or informal bans on incest - sex between very close relatives (siblings; parent and child). I had alwas figured that the main reason for this would be concern for the genetic health of the potential offspring. Reading Wikipedia though (the English as well as the German) informed me that there is hardly common ground across countries and cultures on what the bannable offence is; often, laws against incest affect people not in close genetic relationships such as involving step-parents or adopted children. So the ban is really a regulation on marriage, not on genetic propagation, and the goal often was to keep family trees from becoming too entangled, perhaps complicating inheritance of material goods. Traditionally, of course, sex was seen as something that happens between married partners, and married partners were invariably conceived as man and woman.


Enter the 21st century, where gay and lesbian sex is becoming more and more accepted. Where do close relatives of the same sex stand when they engage in sexual activity? Is that immoral? Should it be allowed?

I consulted the German penal code (§ 173 of the ). It prohibts an act with siblings and genetic descendants that's called by the term "den Beischlaf vollziehen" ("to accomplish intercourse"). I asked one law student what "den Beischlaf vollziehen" includes and excludes, and was told that it means vaginal penetration with the penis only. It follows that other forms of sex between family members such as anal, oral or gay and lesbian practices are not forbidden by our law.

This gives rise to an interesting quirk: It seems that in this arena, homosexual encounters have a better legal standing than heterosexual encounters. Does this feel wrong?


So ... in your mind: What is morally acceptable what is not? What should be forbidden by law, what should not - and WHY? And what's the situation in your country or society?

(Note: I am not going to talk about minors that are legally restricted or barred from being the object of sexual acts, and I am not talking about coercion. Naturally, only sex between consenting, sane people of legal age can be usefully considered here. Also, if you think that homosexual incest is immoral solely based on the principle that homosexual acts in general are immoral, then probably you won't add much insight to this topic).

Dude. Eww.
 
Often, laws against incest affect people not in close genetic relationships such as involving step-parents or adopted children.

I am fine with that because adults have the ability to coerce a child and mold their thinking to a point to gain sexual favor.

A stepfather can abuse a daughter's trust and to get into her pants, bluntly speaking.

In the worst case scenario, some parent seeing an unrelated child thinking "I can't wait to hit that when they're legal" and so their parenting reflects this attitude and shapes the child towards their desires.

Now a step brother and sister of equal age, I really have no problem with. Creepy and eww, but I also think homosexual acts are pretty gross and that doesn't stop me from thinking they have every right to be in their relationship.


If biological incest was solely to prevent bad offspring, would we then legalize it under the condition that one of them gets their tubes tied to make it impossible for the woman to get pregnant?

Even a grosser thought, but morally speaking I really can't oppose this. But seriously...............ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :p
 
...snip...

(Note: I am not going to talk about minors that are legally restricted or barred from being the object of sexual acts, and I am not talking about coercion. Naturally, only sex between consenting, sane people of legal age can be usefully considered here. ...snip...

I think part of the reason for anti-incest legislation is because of the issue of consent. We can see this in recent changes to the age of consent legislation in say England; those laws recognise that someone being in a position of authority/responsibility/trust over a young person may be able to use that relationship to in effect coerce a youngster.
 
...snip...


If biological incest was solely to prevent bad offspring, would we then legalize it under the condition that one of them gets their tubes tied to make it impossible for the woman to get pregnant?

...snip...

There is at least one USA state that already does that - it makes marriage illegal between cousins unless one or both of them are infertile.
 
Kahalachan, thanks for overcoming the eww instinct first :p

You are still talking about heterosexual incest - this thread is about homosexual incest.

Still, I guess the points about more subtle and long-term forms of coercion apply also with regards to father-son or mother-daughter relationships.

BUT they could also apply to older sibling-younger sibling, regardless of their sexes, could they not?
 
BUT they could also apply to older sibling-younger sibling, regardless of their sexes, could they not?

Yeah they could. Cause one family member might see one as the older brother or sister who takes care of them and see them as an authority figure.

Now 2 brothers of very similar age, living on their own separately, admit to each other years after leaving the house that they both had romantic and sexual desires, seems like simple adult consent.

But still............Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. :p
 
I am not sure why people see sex between step brother and sister to be creepy. This is about sex between people unrelated by blood. just because some civil contract happened (the marriage between the parents) it suddenly become creepy ? why ?

On a related note oystein, I would not read too much into these laws. They were done at a time where sexism was the norm and more or less all that was considered is the result of heterosexual relationship : a potential incestual baby.

heck in some case the law on consensual intercourse and mariage sometimes *only* mention what was seen as the weaker sex : the women, as to when they are allowed to mary, but do not mention when boy the same age can or cannot. case in point the law on marriage consent in UK in 16th century, mentioning girl at the age of 8 can mary, but never mentioning boy age limit.

To come back on the topic, since all the form of intercourse you mentionned cannot create a baby, that is probably why they aren't even considered.
 
Kahalachan, thanks for overcoming the eww instinct first :p

You are still talking about heterosexual incest - this thread is about homosexual incest.

Still, I guess the points about more subtle and long-term forms of coercion apply also with regards to father-son or mother-daughter relationships.

BUT they could also apply to older sibling-younger sibling, regardless of their sexes, could they not?

So, lesbian identical twins are OK?

Good, in that case I don't need to scrub my hard drive. :boxedin:
 
I think part of the reason for anti-incest legislation is because of the issue of consent. We can see this in recent changes to the age of consent legislation in say England; those laws recognise that someone being in a position of authority/responsibility/trust over a young person may be able to use that relationship to in effect coerce a youngster.

I am vaguely aware that several European countries have changed their laws about age of consent following a directive by the EU. It was debated by only few people in Germany, but hotly, when the first drafts of the Justice department entered the parliament for a first round of deliberation, and frankly, I don't know what became of them. I don't think any real change has come here yet. The German penal code has for a long time taken care, rather smartly I think, of the problem of age differential, avoiding absurd situation that the European directive would have created (such as: two adolescents have sex legally while both are adolescent; then one has a birthday and becomes adult, and that makes intercourse a crime - until the other partner also turns adult).

So what did they change in the UK?

And: Couldn't those laws concerning legal age take care of the same problem within families, if worded and applied intelligently?
 
I am not sure why people see sex between step brother and sister to be creepy. This is about sex between people unrelated by blood. just because some civil contract happened (the marriage between the parents) it suddenly become creepy ? why ?

It is going to heavily depend on the duration and developmental stage at which you were living as a family.

I'm 2 and get a baby sister. We spent our whole lives knowing each other as family. You really can't see that person sexually.

I'm 17 and get a hot 16 year old sister. Yeah not really gross.
 
Oystein said:
Homosexual incest - is there such a thing?
Yes. The Howard Stern show has featured a lesbian sisters on a few shows, you also find it as a niche in some areas of pornography.

I don't know the immediate moral objection without falling back on the moral zeitgeist.
 
I am not sure why people see sex between step brother and sister to be creepy. This is about sex between people unrelated by blood. just because some civil contract happened (the marriage between the parents) it suddenly become creepy ? why ?
Good question. Imagine two young lovers, say 16 or 17 years old. All is moral and legally fine.
Then their parents marry, and they all move into the same house. Why should the relationship between the children be affected?

I think this example pretty much already settles the case for step-family.

Does it apply to adopted children as well?

On a related note oystein, I would not read too much into these laws. They were done at a time where sexism was the norm and more or less all that was considered is the result of heterosexual relationship : a potential incestual baby.
True, but that could be the end resuklt of a debate like this: Such laws are still to some extent on the books and on the minds of many people, and I wonder if we could find objective reasons for newer, better laws and ethics?

I disagree though, after reading around a bit, that the ban on incest is always only about healthy offspring. It is also about protecting family integrity and heritage. Values that are probably eroding fast in our times.

heck in some case the law on consensual intercourse and mariage sometimes *only* mention what was seen as the weaker sex : the women, as to when they are allowed to mary, but do not mention when boy the same age can or cannot. case in point the law on marriage consent in UK in 16th century, mentioning girl at the age of 8 can mary, but never mentioning boy age limit.

To come back on the topic, since all the form of intercourse you mentionned cannot create a baby, that is probably why they aren't even considered.
Good points on the historical perspective.
 
I am fine with that because adults have the ability to coerce a child and mold their thinking to a point to gain sexual favor.

A stepfather can abuse a daughter's trust and to get into her pants, bluntly speaking.

In the worst case scenario, some parent seeing an unrelated child thinking "I can't wait to hit that when they're legal" and so their parenting reflects this attitude and shapes the child towards their desires.

Now a step brother and sister of equal age, I really have no problem with. Creepy and eww, but I also think homosexual acts are pretty gross and that doesn't stop me from thinking they have every right to be in their relationship.


If biological incest was solely to prevent bad offspring, would we then legalize it under the condition that one of them gets their tubes tied to make it impossible for the woman to get pregnant?

And why not outlaw sex that is known to be a much higher risk than the average risk level of incest? Say start by sterilizing all the little people.
 
As far as US laws on incest go, they vary from state to state on where the line is between legal and illegal sexual relations among close relatives.

The issue of homosexual incest being singled out seems to have been bypassed, although some of the statutes say 'his brother', that would seem to be due to archaic wording, rather than a specific intention.
 
I'm going to have to wait for Robert Prey to weigh in on this before I make a determination.
Relying on someone else to be your moral compass is lazy and irresponsible.

If you rely on someone else to be your moral compass' butt end, it is still lazy and irresponsible.
 
Relying on someone else to be your moral compass is lazy and irresponsible.

If you rely on someone else to be your moral compass' butt end, it is still lazy and irresponsible.

I think it was supposed to be a joke, as indicated by the :D.

I've done exactly the same and reacted to a post that looked outragous becasue I had missed the smiley.
 

Back
Top Bottom