Professor charged with incest

Americans, There is a serious menace in our society today, I am of course referring to Communism deviant sexual relationships, which is now plaguing the entire world. Unless we learn what a curse Communism deviant sex really is and take action against its open threats and its subversive activities or we shall lose our choice of politics, our choice of religion and our freedom of speech. From the time the aims and purposes of the Communists deviant sexual practitioners were more clearly revealed, we began the preparation and mobilization of our nation and of other friendly peoples. Isn't it enough that these Communists sexual deviants exist in the first place, without them subverting our children with their talk of a Communist Workers' sexual deviant paradise? Please, won't somebody think of the children?

/sarcasm
 
Americans, There is a serious menace in our society today, I am of course referring to the outlawing of incest. Unless we learn what a curse incest prohibition is and take action against its open threats and its suppressive activities or we shall lose our choice of sex with our parents, our choice of sex with our children, and our freedom to have sex with our siblings. From the time the aims and purposes of the prudes were more clearly revealed, we began the preparation and mobilization of our nation and of other friendly peoples. Isn't it enough that these prudes exist in the first place, without them subverting our laws with their talk of an incest-free paradise? Please, won't somebody think of the children who want to have sex with their parents?

/sarcasm
 
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.

I'm not trying to make that distinction.

When we create jaywalking laws, we save lives and money by keeping roads running smoothly and stopping pedestrians from getting hit by cars. The cost of this is that sometimes an adult really can jaywalk without causing any issue, and he knows this, but he can't because of the law.

When we create anti-incest laws, we stop a certain amount of minor parent-child sex maybe perhaps. The cost of this is that sometimes two consenting adults really can have a healthy and responsible incestuous relationship, but they can't because of the 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.

I think we all understand that jaywalking laws are very rarely enforced. I've lived in cities across Canada and the United States, and in most places you can jaywalk in front of a marked police car without issue as long as you're not obstructing traffic or something. Every time I've ever heard of a certain area having enforced jaywalking laws there has been good reason for it.

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.

Well, that sounds like a very good policy if you want your country to make bad laws and then keep them forever.

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.

We'd expect them to be authoritative because they're experts. That's what the word "expert" means. If you could show me that criminologists or people who study the psychology of sex offenders and pedophiles agree with your position, I would accept that. And if they could provide an educated guess about what the numbers might be, and if it was then clear that repealing the anti-incest laws would cause much greater harm than it would remove, I would agree with you that the laws should remain.
 
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

Wikipedia sez:
The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding.[33]
(emphasis mine)
So the "frightened little bonobo male running to his mother for a reassuring quickie" would not be ruled out because he is not an adult. And there doesn't seem to universal agreement on this taboo either.
 
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.

So, again, incest is okay for the gay, infertile, and those with reliable birth control? If it's only wrong because of the possibility of having offspring, then clearly those unions which will not result in offsping must be okay.

Sex does not always result in pregnancy. Criminalizing sex because it might is again criminalizing an act out of fear that it might lead to something else.
 
So, again, incest is okay for the gay, infertile, and those with reliable birth control?

What's the test for reliable birth control? How are the standards established, and what's the acceptable failure rate? How do you even determine that the birth control in question was being used properly, or even used at all?

Sex does not always result in pregnancy. Criminalizing sex because it might is again criminalizing an act out of fear that it might lead to something else.

Jaywalking does not always result in pedestrians interfering with traffic or getting hit. And yet, it remains illegal to jaywalk even when there are no cars around.

Sometimes the simplicity of an overly broad law makes it preferable to a complex one which is narrowly tailored.
 
Last edited:
What's the test for reliable birth control? How are the standards established, and what's the acceptable failure rate? How do you even determine that the birth control in question was being used properly, or even used at all?
<snip>

I'm not sure if you're making this specific argument, and I'm certain I'll be corrected if you're not, but I have seen it presented by others, so take this as more of a general statement and not aimed at you specifically.

If the real fear is birth defects, why shouldn't we have laws that prevent those with genetic diseases to procreate? Should the mentally defective be allowed to have sex? Those with deformities? Those with cancer risks?

Where do you stop?
 
What's the test for reliable birth control? How are the standards established, and what's the acceptable failure rate? How do you even determine that the birth control in question was being used properly, or even used at all?

Jaywalking does not always result in pedestrians interfering with traffic or getting hit. And yet, it remains illegal to jaywalk even when there are no cars around.

Sometimes the simplicity of an overly broad law makes it preferable to a complex one which is narrowly tailored.

For heaven's sake, you're missing the point. I'm saying that if people want to screw their relatives you can't stop them. Not unless you know they're going to ahead of time and imprison them. I'm saying that if the only potential harm in consentual adult incest is the possibility of offspring then anything other than male-female vaginal intercourse would therefore be okay, and even that would only be wrong if both parties were fertile and successfully conceived. Do you see what I'm driving at here? The "think of the children!" doesn't work here because producing children out of this is a very narrow subset of the possibilities--in fact, the parties involved would have to deliberately set about having children to achieve it. This is the era of the condom, the pill, the morning-after pill, and abortion--nobody's having kids if they don't want to.

Since laws against incest can only punish the crime after its occurred, why not narrow it and punish the parties who have children from incestuous unions, and leave all the other ones alone?
 
For heaven's sake, you're missing the point. I'm saying that if people want to screw their relatives you can't stop them. Not unless you know they're going to ahead of time and imprison them.

Given that this is true of pretty much all crime, it's a rather banal and irrelevant observation.

This is the era of the condom, the pill, the morning-after pill, and abortion--nobody's having kids if they don't want to.

So if someone is committing incest, we just let them keep doing that as long as no pregnancy occurs. And if it does, only then do we punish them, but the child gets born anyways, because we don't force abortions. In fact, until the child is born, we can't even do that, because we can't establish the identity of the father until after birth.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that as a better approach.

Or are you in the mood to start forcing abortions because of the suspicion of a crime?

Since laws against incest can only punish the crime after its occurred

Well, duh. We don't exactly have a pre-crime unit.

why not narrow it and punish the parties who have children from incestuous unions, and leave all the other ones alone?

Why not only punish jaywalkers who get hit by cars?

Or how about drunk drivers who don't hit anybody. I mean, no harm, right? Why not narrow that law down, and leave all the drunk drivers who make it home without an accident alone?

I didn't miss the point when I talked about the reliability of birth control. The idea of punishing activities that create substantial risk, even if that risk isn't realized in a particular instance, is rather standard and, I believe, quite justified. You have argued that the risk is essentially non-existent in some cases. And I'm saying that you cannot actually establish that in real life in most of those cases. And keeping the law simple is, I believe, sufficient justification to not bother trying to handle the few exceptions where it can be established, given that I don't think doing so provides any real benefit.
 
If the real fear is birth defects, why shouldn't we have laws that prevent those with genetic diseases to procreate?

On a practical level, most people don't know if they are carriers for genetic diseases, and genetic screening costs money so there's no chance that we're going to get comprehensive screening anytime soon. Many genetic diseases are recessive, and won't show up UNLESS you partner with someone else who has it, so there's not much reason to categorically prohibit such people from procreating.

Should the mentally defective be allowed to have sex? Those with deformities? Those with cancer risks?

Where do you stop?

A slippery slope argument is relevant to cases where incremental creep past what we currently consider acceptable is a real risk. But prohibiting incest isn't a slippery slope risk. That's been taboo for thousands of years. It's a very stable social norm, and the dividing line is pretty damn simple. And given how many people here seem to be trying to defend incest, the risk of movement isn't to expand the taboo, but to contract it.
 
So, again, incest is okay for the gay, infertile, and those with reliable birth control? If it's only wrong because of the possibility of having offspring, then clearly those unions which will not result in offsping must be okay.

As an aside, some states which prohibit first cousin marriages make an exception if the couple desiring to be married can present evidence of infertility.
 
It occurs to me that, when asked about what harm anti-incest laws do, I forgot the most obvious way in which people are harmed by those laws.

They go to jail.

"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.

Is it? That's a serious question. I think that, actually, it might be considered a sign that something is wrong, or that harm has occurred in the past, but is it actually considered harmful at the time it occurs? (As always, assume consenting adults) In other words, if I really want to have sex with my sister, it might be because something went wrong with me in the course of my upbringing, and whatever that was caused me and my sister to not develop the normal aversion to sex with siblings.

But, if here we are, 18+ years of age and, for whatever reason, attracted to each other..........what harm is there? Oh, sure, if we were normal, we wouldn't want that, but we aren't, and we do, so, why not?

I think the same is true about a lot of abnormal sexual tendencies. If one examines the wide variety of sexual proclivities that can be observed in casual observation of the internet, people are doing some rather unusual stuff out there. If you ask me, if someone needs those things to enjoy sex, it's a sign of some serious psychological damage. However, who cares? If that's what you like, then if it isn't dangerous.....go for it....weirdo.
 
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?

That's actually two questions.

Should they be allowed to live openly as an incestuous couple? As much as I find it very weird, I can't come up with a reason to say no. If I try to justify any other answer, I keep coming up with "ick".

As for marriage, I think our society hasn't really decided on exactly what "marriage" is or why we would want to have it for anyone. The old understanding isn't really applicable today, and we haven't collectively replaced it with anything. Because of that, I can't really say yes or no to the question about marriage.
 
What about the Ptolomeys?

If your family tree looks like a ladder, you might have problems.

From what I've read, the Ptolomaic brother-sister thing was usually just a political fiction. And opinion's divided on whether the actual ancient Egyptians really did it, or whether it was a just a ceremonial thing, but the pharaohs all seem to have had multiple wives plus concubines so it suggest they weren't really that into their sisters.

Read the Wikipedia article on Charles, it's pretty sad. Thanks to all the cousins and uncle-niece marriages in his family tree, he was actually more inbred than he would have been if he'd been the product of a brother-sister relationship.
 
None, it seems. Traditional marriage seems to be becoming a relic of the past, anyway.

You mean traditional marriage like giving your 13 year old daughter to a horny old man in exchange for some goats? Because marriage as a partnership of peers based in love is a radically new idea historically speaking. Marriage as an economic contract between families and involving what we'd call underage girls who were required to be virgins on pain of death is far more of the tradition.
 
You mean traditional marriage like giving your 13 year old daughter to a horny old man in exchange for some goats? Because marriage as a partnership of peers based in love is a radically new idea historically speaking. Marriage as an economic contract between families and involving what we'd call underage girls who were required to be virgins on pain of death is far more of the tradition.

I like to ask people who say they believe in traditional marriage if they intend to pay a dowry.
 
Dear Puppycow,

The family's primary role is to raise children and, safety and health concerns fulfilled, its primary concern is to teach children the art of living, in terms of Agape (love of Reason) and other forms of Platonic love. Infernos (love of dying, the orgasmic impulse) in this context is a contradiction-of-mission. The incest taboo or proscription thus rationally encompasses all individuals comprises the exampled individual's parent or parent-equivalent teachers of Agape. Outside of this, there is no possible principled objection to any degree of consensual incest between individuals capable of informed consent. Seduction arguments are bunk in light of the potential for seduction anywhere in the mating dance. Either the individual is capable of informed consent or is not. Others may not like it, but, dislike is not a valid reason for criminalising it.

Yours,

"Cpl Ferro"
 
Dear Puppycow,

The family's primary role is to raise children and, safety and health concerns fulfilled, its primary concern is to teach children the art of living, in terms of Agape (love of Reason) and other forms of Platonic love. Infernos (love of dying, the orgasmic impulse) in this context is a contradiction-of-mission. The incest taboo or proscription thus rationally encompasses all individuals comprises the exampled individual's parent or parent-equivalent teachers of Agape. Outside of this, there is no possible principled objection to any degree of consensual incest between individuals capable of informed consent. Seduction arguments are bunk in light of the potential for seduction anywhere in the mating dance. Either the individual is capable of informed consent or is not. Others may not like it, but, dislike is not a valid reason for criminalising it.

Yours,

"Cpl Ferro"

And being a poor parent simply isn't illegal in and of itself.
 

Back
Top Bottom