View previous topic | View next topic

Incest

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

samivel
824021.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:38 am Reply with quote

So you think it's OK to have sex with someone who is in your own immediate family, but not someone who is your own sex.

Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.

 
Sadurian Mike
824044.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:38 am Reply with quote

Incest is a crime because successive generations have thought it socially unacceptable enough to make it illegal.

There are always those who disagree, the same as there are those who believe that theft should be legalised, but laws are made by those elected by the majority* and not the relative handful of individuals whose views go against the bulk of society.


* I do know that many democratic systems don't literally have a majority voting in governments, but you know what I mean.

 
CB27
824045.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:40 am Reply with quote

There's plenty of study about incest and incest taboo. Freud suggested that kids growing up will naturally lust after members of their own family, by process of sexual imprinting, much in the same way animals (and humans) are conditioned to seek mates with certain characteristics and/or traits. He looked at how men seemed to unconsciously seek women who were similar to their mothers, and women seemed to unconsciously seek men who were similar to their fathers.

Westermarck argued the opposite, and suggested that close domestic proximity during early years desensitizes us to later sexual attraction. Studies into communities like Kibbutzes, where unrelated children grew up together, yet had low proportions of marriages between the, look like proving the general principal of this argument.

Furthermore, there's something called GSA (Genetic sexual attraction), which occurs when siblings (or other close relatives) are brought up separately, withlittle or no contact, and develop sexual attraction when they meet at later life. This suggests that the Westermarck effect works to combat the effect of sexual imprinting.

These are all the scientific explanations of why incest occurs, and why it's not common, and also explains why so many also consider incest as wrong.

How to legally deal with it when it happens is another matter.

 
CB27
824046.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:41 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
* I do know that many democratic systems don't literally have a majority voting in governments, but you know what I mean.

Hmm, pre-empting bob's reply? :)

 
dr.bob
824094.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:24 am Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
So you think it's OK to have sex with someone who is in your own immediate family, but not someone who is your own sex.

Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.


I don't think that's what maddi906 was trying to say (at least, that's not what I got from it).

It's an interesting point, he/she/it raises. Not so many years ago, you could have classed homosexuality as something that "successive generations have thought socially unacceptable enough to make it illegal", yet now it's widely accepted.

The main argument against incest is the problems associated with procreation yet, as maddi906 points out, there are lots of people who would run an arguably higher risk of producing abnormal children, yet these people are not prevented by law from doing so. It also invites the question why incest should be illegal if people undertake to never have kids.

 
Sadurian Mike
824126.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:51 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
There's plenty of study about incest and incest taboo. Freud suggested that kids growing up will naturally lust after members of their own family, by process of sexual imprinting, much in the same way animals (and humans) are conditioned to seek mates with certain characteristics and/or traits. He looked at how men seemed to unconsciously seek women who were similar to their mothers, and women seemed to unconsciously seek men who were similar to their fathers.

Westermarck argued the opposite, and suggested that close domestic proximity during early years desensitizes us to later sexual attraction. Studies into communities like Kibbutzes, where unrelated children grew up together, yet had low proportions of marriages between the, look like proving the general principal of this argument.

Sadly Freud was wrong, I am just one example of a male whose preferred partner is nothing like his mother. I dare say that there are some men whose partners do resemble their mothers to a degree (although I doubt it is the case in homosexuals), but that is a long way from pronouncing that the men in question deliberately sought out that resemblance.

As for women preferring men like their fathers, I have never been out with a girl whose father resembled me physically.

Now it is probably true that we seek out people who make us feel warm, cosy and safe, and that is a tenuous link to parental similarity, but even then we see people who like partners who are 'dangerous' or somehow 'on the edge'.

Freud had some very funny ideas, but that says more about Freud than about his studies.

 
sjb
824169.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:35 pm Reply with quote

Just throwing in a couple of (probably worthless) cents:

My husband is pretty much the only of his brothers, so far, who has not gone for some version of dear mommy. The eldest really takes the cake because, not only do his wife and mother look so much alike that my father-in-law has mistaken them for one another, but his wife is just as daft and strange in behavior. Well, really, my husband's whale-in-law is a lot meaner and more confrontational than his mother, but I digress.

I'm happy to report that I neither look anything like nor act anything like my mother-in-law. Also, my husband neither looks like nor acts anything like any of my fathers. Although . . . he does share a forename with my stepfather. Considering it's a very common name, I don't read too much into it. :P

 
Ainee
824190.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:20 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I read once in an early issue of "Bizzare" magazine that it had come to the attention of the kind of people who look at such things, that given the socially closed nature of the huge estates such as Byker in Newcastle, the inhabitants were creating their own little gene pool and mutations that were otherwise rare were, while not common, at least happening more often in such communities. Incidentally, I almost got into a fight in a curry house in South Ockenden while expounding this idea to a friend. The couple at the next table took offence at my suggestion that they were part of a gene pool. Kind of backs up my argument really doesn't it!


Dammit, I have that issue too!

 
Ainee
824200.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:34 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
It also invites the question why incest should be illegal if people undertake to never have kids.


Surely, sexual activity - given as being male/female and excluding hysterectomy and menopausal issues (and we won't go into the underage sex aspect) - will ALWAYS present the risk of having kids.

No contraception is fail-safe. I am Godmother to five children who arrived shortly after the relevant condoms split or otherwise failed. Two were by the same parents, and he owned a Pharmacy, so had researched the issue.

That would lay a heavy burden on permitting incestual sexual partners by law. It would not be incest if no sex was involved, anyway. Cuddling is legal in the UK. Surely?

 
Zebra57
824206.  Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:42 pm Reply with quote

This Sociological approach is thought provoking.

http://www.ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/ahead3.html

 
dr.bob
824459.  Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:44 am Reply with quote

Ainee wrote:
Surely, sexual activity - given as being male/female and excluding hysterectomy and menopausal issues (and we won't go into the underage sex aspect) - will ALWAYS present the risk of having kids.


Sure, there will always be a slight risk, though if the man has a vasectomy and the woman has her fallopian tubes blocked or cut, then that risk would be pretty tiny.

And bear in mind that, just because two people are closely related, doesn't guarantee that their kids will have problems. There's a higher risk but that's all it is: a risk. And, as has already been mentioned, there are lots of people in the world that have an even higher risk than that of producing children with genetic abnormalities who are not prevented by law from having kids.

Ainee wrote:
That would lay a heavy burden on permitting incestual sexual partners by law.


I guess oral and anal sex should be perfectly legal, then.

 
CB27
824475.  Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:13 am Reply with quote

I think social taboos often affect laws, and the laws on incest reflect this.

Having said that, if there was no law against incest, you could find yourself with some rather unappetising legal loopholes with regard to sexual abuse and false imprisonment cases (I'm talking about adults, not kids). As I understadn it, there is a far greater ratio of incestual relationships between older males and younger females than the other way round, and while it could be argued that this reflects society as a whole, you wonder how many people can get away with coercion if incest was legal (similar argument for legal age of consent as well).

 
Ainee
824624.  Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:22 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Sure, there will always be a slight risk, though if the man has a vasectomy and the woman has her fallopian tubes blocked or cut, then that risk would be pretty tiny.

Ainee wrote:
That would lay a heavy burden on permitting incestual sexual partners by law.


I guess oral and anal sex should be perfectly legal, then.


I thought those both involved penetration, as being the definition of rape?

I am willing to be wrong.

Oh, and I have three God-children (by the same parents) who married in their 40s, never expecting to have children, as in their previous marriages he had a vasectomy and she had an ectopic pregnancy.

Mind. you, I don't suppose they felt the need for contraception, thinking Fate had already covered those loopholes...

 
Jenny
824800.  Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:22 am Reply with quote

You'd have thought the first pregnancy might have shown them they were in error... though perhaps having had one child they wanted to continue.

 
suze
824808.  Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:56 am Reply with quote

Ainee wrote:
I thought those both involved penetration, as being the definition of rape?


Under both English and Scottish law, yes. Since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as regards England) and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (guess where), A has been guilty of rape if, without consent, he "intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B with his penis". Note that a woman cannot therefore commit rape under English or Scottish law, although the victim can be male or female.

The USA has no federal law which prohibits rape; it did pass one in 1994, but that law fell in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. So it is a state matter, and in most states women as well as men can commit the crime - it can be rape if (for instance), a woman forces a man to receive fellatio from her.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group