From the article, I recommend reading the rest: A judge handed a 53-year-old woman and her 35-year-old son probation for incest Thursday after the pair admitted to a sordid tryst, witnessed by her daughter and his sister at her father's deathbed.
Incest may make you squishy with disgust, and when it comes packaged in child abuse it's abominable and the victim clear, but this is a case of two adults, and both mother and son are punished.
Is dócha nach bhfuil seans ar bith ann?
Incest is a crime
July 07, 2012, 11:20am
I agree with punishing consenting adults who participate in incestuous acts.
At the end of the day, sex isn't solely for reproduction (if that were the case, I'd have more kids than I can count ). However, no contraception is 100% foolproof, and if a child is born (accidentally or not) from a close incestuous relationship, the potential for huge genetic problems is massive.
Very touchy issue for our American readers. The state of Alabama legally allows two cousins to marry. Very touchy subject for our American friends indeed. You have my sympathys. Perhaps that state law has been done with by now, but still....thats some embarassing history for all Americans, state law, not federal law, granted...but an embarassing stain on the reputation of Alabama citizens.
Even being physically attracted to a sibling you were raised with brings up the psyc factor on someone, I personally think theres something very wrong mentally with someone who could misplace sibling love, with the type of love reserved for girlfriend, or wife. Then theres the genetic factors brought in to the equation when mixing family blood, physical defects are one of the side effects of siring a child amongst a relations participation.
Theres some gray matter though, as its not unheard of for people to have afairs with a hubbie`s brother, therefore commiting incest with a brother in law. Its morally wrong, but the pysc factor behind being sexually attracted to a relative by law, is sort of understandable, its not like they were raised together. Still though, thats an embarassing scandal should anyone with a lose tounge be any the wiser, can even split up familys.
The illegality and the squick factor botch any statistics here. People who are in a happy incestuous relationship or have healthy incestuous children aren't going to mark it on a survey.
As long as we're talking about fully consenting adults there really isn't an argument here that can't also be applied to people with inheritable genetic defects like Huntingdons disease, or HIV+ women, homosexuals, interracial couples or any of the rest. It's just squick factor.
"The state of Alabama legally allows two cousins to marry."
So does the UK. We haven't been consumed with fire and brimstone and cast into the ocean yet.
Here's a question. Since there's still large battles to be fought with gay rights etc, and the same arguments apply to incest; is it really worth pushing for legalising incest now when the squick factor is so widespread that associating other causes (that affect far more people) with it could seriously harm them?
cousin marrying is legal in the states. Anyhow yea I wouldn't do it personally unless it was a 4rth cousin not third because I have a 3rd cousin who I look similar to at points in my life... But other people should free to be with anyone including family without penalty love is love. As long as everyone can consent...
ours is more with stipulations so no one reproduces but like when gay marriage legal will those stipulations go away? I mean since two of the sex participating in incest can't create any issues. Honestly I don't believe in the stipulations because people who are cariers of tay sach can be with other cariers all they want. People with the likelihood of having a child with a disability are able to produce with people just like themselves all they want.i think it's a faith thing. And if we go with faith we should probably not have gays having sex without penalty. Some faiths would likely bring back honor killings of such people. So I don't agree with that view of incest unless we go all the way. I don't cherry pick. If faith doesn't apply for one thing it doesn't for anything imo....
That map is wrong. It has never been legal at any point in time in New Zealand`s history, post white settlers coming to colonise, where it was ever legal to marry a cousin. You would simply never get that to work legally over here.
Same with Australia, if memory serves me well, could be wrong, but I stongly doubt it.
"It's legal for first cousins to marry here in Ireland, also."
Dayuum, better hope that public knowledge never becomes a popular topic up for debate. Incest is a bad national stereotype to have.
"But other people should free to be with anyone including family without penalty love is love. "
So...a father`s love can mean something different all together in your idea of family love and bonds ? So you`re happy with the idea, or at least comfortable with the idea of a mother, or father engaing in sexual pracices with their children ? We`ll say for example....an 18 year old biological daughter, or son...engaging in sexual practices with mother, or father...are you sure you udnerstand this concept you think is perfectly natural and socially acceptable ?
Interesting, I can`t find anything on New Zealand same family marriages anywhere. I`ll look in more detail later, you could be right. I`ve never heard, or read of anyone in New Zealand being legally married as first(or for that matter 3rd, or 4th) cousins. Nothing should suprise me as to what laws get drafted at times, truth be told.
"If no-one's being hurt and everyone's happy why should it be? Because it sickens you?"
It does hurt people, it gives a shocking, tarnished blow to one`s reputation and the reputation of the family name. Its a taboo and people will treat incestuous and inbreeding people with predjudice and at times intollerance. further more, you`d have to come from an extremely dysfuctional family for all family members to view such copulation and possibly furthing relationships with a same family memebr in a positive light. Extremely abnormal and dysfuctional.
Hillbilly is a nod to the stereotype of people closely regarded to engage in relations...well...with a relation.
The fact that you see nothing harmfull, or morally wrong with the factor of two relatives copulating makes me wonder about your upbringing. In is considered a taboo and a dreadfully moral low point in today`s society. In my opinion for good reason.
At the very least, expect great ammounts of ridicule for copulating with a relative. Expect woefull ammounts of predjudice for continuing a relationship with a relative, marriage to a cousin is unlikely to be an experience where you`l benefit from a good reputation in the eyes of peers and strangers alike. Incest has been long standing line of okes made by people in regards to "hillbillyersque" stereotypes.
And to awnser your question, yes, I think its utterly disgustingly sick, the act of people with bizarre concepts of maralistic fiber and a woefull lack of common sense. But this is the point of the thread, to engage in civil discussion and share differing points of view on a very touchy subject.
Of course I have not given reasons as to why I think incest is the product of some of the sickest people on earth today, I shan`t bore you with such, unless you want me to elaborate. Many animal species engage in incest, but we are not animals.
"I`ve never heard, or read of anyone in New Zealand being legally married as first(or for that matter 3rd, or 4th) cousins."
And I've never heard of a Welshman being shot with a bow in Chester.
"it gives a shocking, tarnished blow to one`s reputation and the reputation of the family name."
Your argument boils down to "it's wildly unpopular and people will be very nasty about it, so we should keep it illegal." Why should the legal system punish a victimless crime just to pander to cunts?
"you`d have to come from an extremely dysfuctional family for all family members to view such copulation and possibly furthing relationships with a same family memebr in a positive light."
"Your argument boils down to "it's wildly unpopular and people will be very nasty about it, so we should keep it illegal."
-Its a bit more then nasty, when your reputation is that badly damaged, doors close for you and you can even be victimised, for good reason.
"Why should the legal system punish a victimless crime just to pander to cunts?"
Victimless is a stretch, many things can be used on a younger sibling, or child, where manipulation is concerned. An older brother, a father, or mother, can manipulate a younger sibling, or child into thinking its perfectly normal and not perverted to engage in copulation with them. They pervert the natural idea of sibling love, it beceoms wildly perverted and abnormal. In the family home, parents can raise children to think anything is perfectly normal and manipulate them. A less vigilant parent may not see the danger signs of two siblings, or cousins for that matter having too close and abnormal a relationship.
"Fuck you too."
"Like you said, the point of this thread is discussion."
Well...I am of the popular opinion that those who adhere to the idea of advocating incestous copulation come either from a highly abnormal, dysfuctional family, or have become so removed from normal, moral standing and reasonable thought, that they cannot fathom as to why acts like incest are both completely abnormal, unnatural and are extremely morally unjust. I think there has to be something defective with someone`s psycho conditioning and overal psyc. profile to even start to look at a relative with sexual thoughts, the sexual thoughts predate the act of incest after all, there has to be something defective in the psyc, profile. It is extremely abnormal and dysfuctional behaviour to have a sexual attraction to a blood relative.
The father, mother, sires a child, they change the nappies, later on in life, they drive them to kindergarten, day care, later on subsequently, they drive them to high school etc etc, where does the parent start to leer at the child and get sexual ideas ? Why does the parent start to become sexually attracted to a child they sired and raised ? what mind set, what function pre dates the act of engaging in sexual behaviour with one of their children ? Can you not possibly see the beginning threads that behold the tapestry of why this is just so wrong morally and on a psyc. point of view ?
Your wiki link does not help your case at all. I fail to see what you were using it for as far as an argument is concerned.
Why don`t you explain to me why incest, the act of two relatives, blood relatives even, engaging in sexual behaviour is perfectly normal, from a moral point of view and a psyc. point of view.
"An older brother, a father, or mother, can manipulate a younger sibling, or child into thinking its perfectly normal and not perverted to engage in copulation with them."
Harder to do when they're adults.
"In the family home, parents can raise children to think anything is perfectly normal and manipulate them."
We have different laws for that.
"advocating incestous copulation come either from a highly abnormal, dysfuctional family, or have become so removed from normal, moral standing and reasonable thought, that they cannot fathom as to why acts like incest are both completely abnormal, unnatural and are extremely morally unjust."
I am not, I do not, and I have not.
"Your wiki link does not help your case at all. I fail to see what you were using it for as far as an argument is concerned.
The bits you should have read were right at the front.
The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction.
When proximity during this critical period does not occur â€” for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another â€” they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults, according to the hypothesis of genetic sexual attraction. This supports the theory that the populations exhibiting the Westermarck effect became predominant because of the deleterious effects of inbreeding.
If there's no family bonding, there's no intrinsic taboo, though the social one is still there.
"Why don`t you explain to me why incest, the act of two relatives, blood relatives even, engaging in sexual behaviour is perfectly normal, from a moral point of view and a psyc. point of view."
No, because it isn't and that's not what's being discussed. We are discussing the issue of legality, not normality or morality. We are not talking about rape, or molestation or manipulation. We are talking about consenting adults.
You explain to me why what two fully consenting adults do in private is anyone's business but theirs. Explain to me why a victimless crime (and it is a victimless crime) should be illegal and punishable because it's a social taboo.
"The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction."
Hypothetical being the key word here. Does not a good argument make. Regardless, should two siblings be raised apart from one another, one goes to military school, the other regular school for instance, before sexual attraction even takes place, common sense and a fuctional, healthy, rational mind should stonewall any hint of viewing a sibling as a potential partner for sex. You`d have to be of very loose moral fibre to condone and then seek to engage in incest yourself.
"I am not, I do not, and I have not."
-So....what are you saying ? That you engaged in an act, or multiple acts of incest, but do not follow suite with the picture I have of incestuous person`s psyches ? Or are you saying you`ve never commited an act of incest and you also do not fall under the umbrella of the negative opinions I have of incestuous people ? I don`t fully grasp what you`re saying here. I`m guessing here that you have engaged previously, or possibly still do engage in incest and feel you are not dysfunctional, nor is your family and your psyc. profiling is squeaky clean under psyche. anaylasis. Clarify what you mean`t by your statement.
"You explain to me why what two fully consenting adults do in private is anyone's business but theirs. Explain to me why a victimless crime (and it is a victimless crime) should be illegal and punishable because it's a social taboo. "
Its more then a social taboo, its the work of what happens in the absence of morals and common sense, its the work of some of the worst possible outcomes when dealing with highly abnormal, dysfunctional families.
The mother, gave birth to the child, changed his nappies, breast fed him, sheltered for him, cared for him. Took him to day care and then later on in life highschool. she watched him grow, she raised him. Having a sexual attraction for your child, adult, or not....is a highly perverted corruption of the maternal urges. This IS what the vast majority of modern society would consider utterly amoral and foul on so many levels it burns. They SHOULD be punished to the utmost of the law. The harm this sick owman and troubled son have doen to their family name and each other`s reputation is so bad, there is nothing left to salvage, a healthy, normal family would be devastated.
"common sense and a functional, healthy, rational mind should stonewall any hint of viewing a sibling as a potential partner for sex."
Like I said, the social factor is still there. So what?
Clarify what you mean't by your statement."
I do not "advocate incestuous coupling." I am not "from a highly abnormal, dysfuctional family" I have not "become so removed from normal, moral standing and reasonable thought, that they cannot fathom as to why acts like incest are both completely abnormal, unnatural and are extremely morally unjust."
All clear now champ?
Your reading comprehension is truly terrible so I'll make this as clear as possible for you:
I believe consenting adults should be able to do what they wish with each other in private and it's no-one else's business, least of all the State's. This does NOT mean I personally find the idea of incest anything less than repulsive. Stop using it to attack me and focus on the argument.
"The mother, gave birth to the child, changed his nappies, breast fed him, sheltered for him, cared for him. Took him to day care and then later on in life highschool. she watched him grow, she raised him."
You're assuming a lot there.
"This IS what the vast majority of modern society would consider utterly amoral and foul on so many levels it burns."
"They SHOULD be punished to the utmost of the law."
Solely because you, and I, and all of society finds it abhorrent. That's not a good reason for a law.
"each other`s reputation"
That's their choice to make isn't it?
"It's the work of what happens in the absence of morals and common sense,"
Neither of which anyone is legally required to possess.
My fiance' (to be married on the 6th of next month) and I had an experience with this when we first decided to get together. From an early age we had been in love, the interesting bit is that we met at a family reunion. That's right, we're second cousins(or so we thought).
My mother, now deceased, had a DNA test on my father when they got divorced because she had been "less-than-loyal" to him whilst married. Turns out; I was not his child. But, since she was passed away, and I was the tender young age of 16 I couldn't rightly tell him this because I would be without a home.
Now for the good news ! I'm 23, she is 22. She is starting her Masters Program in Sociology, while I'm finishing mine in Anthropology. After showing the family the DNA paperwork, they still don't believe us, but we don't give a fuck :P. We're extremely happy, and have been in love for over 10 years.
TL;DR : Marrying my almost-2nd-cousin, totally happy relationship, two very intellectual people, good things can happen from it.
Which means to you all psychology as an umbrella term for specific psychiatric care, to the study of the mind, proven, or otherwise is hypothetical right ? Tsk tsk.
"All clear now champ?"
Then why did you not say that in the first place without being vague ? Reading comprehension is taxed by the best of us with out clear responses issued.
Deeming something to be amoral is a certain stance, a luxury for some, but our right none the less. Society has rules and laws for a reason, to benefit the majority, to keep order amongst chaos, to protect its citizens. There are many varieties of dangers to the citizenry, those of such highly amoral and offensive grounds are dangerous for the damage it can do to the public perception, what it says about society, what we deem legal when still faced with the sheer level of brazen amoral grounds it is upon can harm us and fitire generations in both subtle and blatant forms.
Incest is illegal for many reasons, more so in this case, for what it actually reperesents and the harm it does to men and women of moral standing, with values, common sense and healthy, functioning minds that can reason. It human nature in a civilised society to know the diference between wrong and right. Thos that make our laws, in this particular case the laws that outlaw incestuous coupling and relationships deem it such a serious crime on moral grounds, that they do infact make it clear that it is both illegal and will be punished by the law. It is to protect its citizens from harmfull acts that can damage our public perception of what is decent and normal in our civilised society.
Many of our laws are written on moral grounds for good reason. We are NOT meant to be a AMORAL people in civilised society.
We do not couple with animals, because it is genetic attraction to a loyal beast, or some perverse, sickening fetish. Bestiality is illegal, not for the reasons that it necessarily harms the animal and person, not for the reasons that they should care, for it is the human`s choice should his/her reputation be damaged beyond repair. Bestiality is ilegal because of how abnormal and amoral it happens to be.
The same can be said for those of same relatives coupling.
This is why it is illegal, we are human beings, not mice, not cats etc. Society has no place for people who couple for animals and those of high enough authority in likeminded sense do not find it prudent, nay, they find it highly amoral and abnormal to couple with a relative. It is their place to deem it necessary to outlaw certain sexual practices, such as UNNATURAL coupling.
This is why incest should be illegal and perpetrators should be punished to the utmost of the law with not one ounce of lenientcy, nor restraint. It attacks what we in today`s society deem to be fit under moral grounds, that is what it means to be a part of a civilised society. We are not animals with lack of human decency, some people fail to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, these laws are here to punish perpetrators that forget and to dissuade people in the future from breaking laws, founded on moral grounds, to protect human decency, such as unnatural coupling, in this case with a relative.
"That's not a good reason for a law. "
Thats not YOUR, nor my RIGHT. We are not the authorities apointed to make the laws. Get the degrees, get the masters, do the hard yards, work your way, make the right friends, make the right connections, gain influence through good decisions and hard work...then you can be the authority apointed that makes the laws. Moral grounds are as important as deeming the contrabanding of narcotics. For societies good.
"Neither of which anyone is legally required to possess. "
It is a pre-requisite of functioning in today`s, modern, civlised, society, as a healthy, productive human being.
We are NOT animals devoid of reason and values and common sense, we are possessed of rational minds(except for the mentally ill). This is expected of a tax paying citizen, you have the chooling, your parents are expected to raise you with common sense, a healthy mind and moral values. To forsake the better parts of the society we live in, the finer grounding in what diferentiates us from unstable, chaotic countries in the world, is to forget who we are and the luxuries afforded us in our repsective countries, the ability to reason and deferentiate between right and wrong.