Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
#151 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 3:30 AM
If I missed the part where you answered my question, Faithlove, can you please quote yourself as answering it? I took a look back and still didn't see it.

As for the arguments: I haven't made any of late. I've been asking you the same question in my posts for the past page and a half. And I could say that the arguments here are the...opposite of ideal (sorry, I can't think of the right word here). I've been talking about the specific, you've been talking about the general. In this situation that relies heavily on the details, I don't think you can take your blanket statement and apply it to this case--the half siblings--that you claim lies outside of the norm. HP's situation seemed to turn out rather, normally. As far as I can tell, she's a very nice well-adjusted adult. Is your only "criteria" for valid arguments in this debate having some kind of first hand experience with incest?

I know that you say you're not claiming are arguments aren't valid, but then you go on talking about ways in which you can't argue against them because they're too idealized, or they deal with things that don't happen that often, or we can't argue against a "universal taboo," or any other such ways in which you invalidate our arguments.

Couldn't the father who rapes his daughter be charged with sexual assault, sexual assault of a minor, child abuse, child endangerment/reckless endangerment, and some other stuff? Even with laws and sentences heaped upon him, isn't there still a limit to the number of years he can serve for the crime category (misdemeanor v felony and the like)? And I think Robokitty's point was more that once they're 18, they're LEGALLY able to choose for themselves. The choices may not be right to us, or we may not feel they're morally right, but they're still the choices of an adult.

I'm going to go 1984 here: How much of your rights are you willing to give up? As an adult, I'm greatly enjoying my right to choose what I will and won't do. The right for adults to choose what actions to take is a very important right, and I think in some cases, opening for government intervention in the private lives of adults is a slippery slope. For many people, societal pressure will keep them from having sex with their close relatives. For some...maybe not. But I don't think the government should be allowed to start messing with your personal life. Faithlove, you may say that they're making choices that aren't healthy for them. Star Jones got that gastric bypass and now she looks like a sack of skin. That may not be healthy for her, but she made that choice. I may have a bad day and start eating everything in my refrigerator and not exercise until I become morbidly obese and risk dieing of a heart attack at the age of 22. That's not healthy, but it's my choice to make, and no one else's. Especially not the government.

In any case, all law cases come down to those 12 jurors and their beliefs and values. Sucks for you if you don't agree with what they do.
Advertisement
#152 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 3:54 AM
If that comment was made several pages back and I just missed that first sentence, why couldn't you just have quoted that earlier?

The jury comment was made more in relation with all of the crimes we've been talking about related to incest or the abuse that can occur in such relations. And yes, it does suck for you. It sucks if you wanted them to get the electric chair, but they only got 25 years. It sucks.

I never said most society didn't agree with the incest laws. Never said that the masses would/should march and make incest legal. Never said incest should be legal. In fact, I don't think most of society even thinks about most laws or small laws that don't pertain to them (or they don't think pertain to them).

I'm confused by your statement that "You aren't giving up rights with incest, you never had them." Elaborate, please? And if you said this a few pages back, could you quote yourself? It would save everyone time and trouble.
#153 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 4:02 AM
You're saying that we never had the right to choose what we do as adults? Or was my 1984 reference a little confusing?
Scholar
#154 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 6:50 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DarkestBlu
I'm going to go 1984 here: How much of your rights are you willing to give up? As an adult, I'm greatly enjoying my right to choose what I will and won't do. The right for adults to choose what actions to take is a very important right, and I think in some cases, opening for government intervention in the private lives of adults is a slippery slope. For many people, societal pressure will keep them from having sex with their close relatives. For some...maybe not. But I don't think the government should be allowed to start messing with your personal life. Faithlove, you may say that they're making choices that aren't healthy for them. Star Jones got that gastric bypass and now she looks like a sack of skin. That may not be healthy for her, but she made that choice. I may have a bad day and start eating everything in my refrigerator and not exercise until I become morbidly obese and risk dieing of a heart attack at the age of 22. That's not healthy, but it's my choice to make, and no one else's. Especially not the government.

Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
You aren't giving up rights with incest, you never had them.. first of all... and I said a few pages back that

This retort doesn’t address the point that Blu was making, that people should have a basic right to choose. She was using the instance of 1984 to hypothetically illustrate how it can lead to a harmful slippery slope when governments legally restrict this right to choose. Note: the distinction here is between rights and legality.

On top of that, the same logic can be applied like this:
Homosexuals aren’t giving up their right to marry; they never had them in the first place.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Scholar
#155 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 6:50 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
You aren't giving up rights with incest, you never had them.. first of all... and I said a few pages back that

Actually, you are giving up rights with incest.

As I've already said, it is a fundamental human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

Quote:
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Of course, the UN doesn't have much power to enforce these, and the wording isn't specific enough to prevent loopholes, which is why gay marriage (and even mixed-race marriage) is illegal in many countries, just like incest. But those laws are still denying a fundamental human right.
Scholar
#156 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 9:21 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
I'm saying you never had the right to be involved with incest from a legal standpoint.
...


I'd like to know about which region of the world you're talking about.
Is incest illegal in every states of the US ? Is it illegal in same terms ? What about other parts of the world ?

What I see here is basically two positions : one saying that law is necessary to prevent and punish people having incestuous relation (we're talking about consented one, as there seems to be a consensus about forced one).

Another one saying that law shouldn't regulate these matter as it is freedom restrictive, even if it leads to some generally not accepted behaviour.

Did I understand right ?

Understand Material definition-TXMT and customize the look of your objects ! This way

"The longer something exists in this world, the more wear and tear it will have."
Mad Poster
#157 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 9:44 AM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty

It’s actually more that the crime is victimless that makes it right in my eyes. That’s not really the case in loving, accidental manslaughter where there is a clear victim. (And no offense, but the term “loving, accidental manslaughter” makes me )



Well, if it is the result of a loving act, performed in a loving situaton, why do we call it a victim and not someting else, like a beneficiary? Like I said, love doesn't make everything right, and it should not be used as an argument for law making.
#158 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 2:54 PM
Faithlove, Robokitty hit it right on the head. That's what I was talking about with the 1984 reference (gotta get that book....I love the story).
Scholar
#159 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 5:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Like I've said 1000 billion times, homosexuality is not the same as incest. Pedophilia is not the same as incest.
You are holding up and orange as if it proves anything about an apple.


Bringing up homosexuality was tangential to my main point. I could as easily have said (depending on the time period):
"People aren't giving up the right to marry outside of their race; they never had it in the first place."
"Women aren't giving up their right to vote; they never had it in the first place."

However, referring back to homosexuality is useful because of the many similarities it shares with incest between consenting adults:
  • consensual sexual relations between 2 adults
  • classification as socially deviant OR as mental illnesses
  • right to privacy & choice are used to defend both
  • reasons for criminalizing both include destruction of traditional family roles and the "inherent" immorality (the eww factor)
No, they're not exactly the same, but they have several striking similarities.

Quote:
A good book that might actually relate to this topic is Lolita, though. If you can stomach it.


Lolita was more a story about pedophilia rather than incest. As I remember, Humbert wasn't actually related to Lolita and was a newcomer to her life.


Quote: Originally posted by crocobaura
Well, if it is the result of a loving act, performed in a loving situaton, why do we call it a victim and not someting else, like a beneficiary? Like I said, love doesn't make everything right, and it should not be used as an argument for law making.


I agree. Love doesn't make everything right. An abusive husband who beats his wife because he "loves" her isn't right.

What makes something right is the presence of consent, something which a "victim" does not give to their abuser.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
Scholar
#160 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 5:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Humbert was her stepfather at age 10 and was her only caregiver all her life, until she turned 16 and she ran away with another pedophile.

It's relevant because it shows with even non blood related father daughter situations, there is a power differential that's completely bad. In fact he goes to her when she's an adult, according to you guys it would be fine if they hooked back up.
But the real point is... the first time they had sex she went into his hotel room and it was this really touching moment that made me cry because Humbert realizes she had "no one else to go to".

With many incest cases, it feels like there's no where else to go, especially with parents.


Lolita was a minor who did not have full legal rights or the experience of an adult who is fully entitled to leave their homes and has the means to be independent. Also, Humbert hadn't known Lolita for that long before he began making sexual advances on her, even if it didn't result in sex until later in their relationship.

Quote:
And actually, one benefit of incest laws is that it keeps guys like him from marrying women to get to their daughter. I've known several men who've done that.

It seems like this is dealing with pedophiliac incest, not incest between two consenting adults.

Quote:
And see you guys keep going back and forth between this one case, and incest overall. It's hard for me to understand..... are you saying this one couple should be allowed a loophole because they didn't grow up together and don;'t have an abusive relation...
or are you saying all incest is good?


While I can't speak for others, this is what I feel:

Consenting incest between adults should be decriminalized.

I'm not trying to use the one case as a loophole for decriminalizing consensual adult incest. I think it should be decriminalized regardless of previous emotional relationships. I asked you specifically about why you thought that the mere knowledge of being related made their relationship wrong when it contradicts that argument that deeper emotional family ties (which didn't exist in this instance) are what makes incest reprehensible.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
#161 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 6:15 PM
Faithlove, you're dealing with two different arguments. I was talking about the specific case and I'm not arguing for decriminalization, and Robokitty was talking more on the general level and arguing for decriminalization.
Scholar
#162 Old 15th Apr 2008 at 6:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Secondly, my point is to say.... he came back to her as an adult (when she was an adult). And according to your standards, they could legally have sex and it shouldn't be tampered with.

I disagree.


Yes, he should be able to legally have sex with her when she's an adult. He should also be prosecuted for his previous rape of her.

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
#163 Old 16th Apr 2008 at 1:51 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
I know you guys probably have this notion the law is suppressing people and it's horrible and the government is overstepping it's bounds.


No, you don't know that because I don't believe that. I think the majority of laws are in place to help people. By your own admission, though, this debate isn't about pedophilia, but you keep bringing it up. I think that the debate, from your point of view, is tied with pedophilia. You say that most incestuous abuse starts when the people in question are children. That kind brings in pedophilia. Which is fine. Just don't jump on someone because they start talking about pedophilia.

For my part, I'm tending to focus on brother/sister incest or anything not parent/child incest. For me, the parent/child incest is something different from the original topic cases, and I would agree with you on a lot of things. I will openly admit that my aversion to parent/child incest is largely because of the ewww factor. I think about it and I go ewwww.

All your talk about needing the law makes me question: What would change if the law wasn't there? Any insights?
#164 Old 16th Apr 2008 at 11:22 AM
But what do you -think- would happen? Would it make it harder for abusers to be punished for their crime? I'm not asking you to go out and do a bunch of research on it, I just want your opinion.
Scholar
#165 Old 16th Apr 2008 at 5:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
I'm sure the law does detour people, as most laws do.
...


What law from where are you referring ? What is-are exactly the law(s) about incest in your country ?

Understand Material definition-TXMT and customize the look of your objects ! This way

"The longer something exists in this world, the more wear and tear it will have."
Scholar
#166 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 12:54 AM
Quote:
Psychologically, people don't get all better midnight on their 18th birthday. That's oversimplification.


Of course it is simplification, but given that it’s the age when people obtain the full legal rights of an adult, it seemed the most appropriate age for them to gain the right to consent.

Quote:
I know you guys probably have this notion the law is suppressing people and it's horrible and the government is overstepping it's bounds.
But it's there to Help people. People who are often unable (mentally) to help themselves.

I feel compassion for people in situations like these, and I don't approve of letting them live in abusive environments, just because they're not a minor. We should care for all people of all ages... and not say people are completely on their own at 18.


That’s good to hear. While I have compassion for people in abusive relationships, I also have compassion for people who want to be in a loving relationship but are legally prohibited from having one.

I understand where you’re coming from, with the idea that non-abusive consensual incest between adults is so rare that it’s better to just keep it illegal. However, I question the idea that we cannot legally help *both* at the same time. This could be accomplished by decriminalizing consensual adult incest while, at the same time, increasing outreach efforts for people with histories of sexual abuse (especially in incest).


Quote:
Because, even if some of you don't like to believe it, incest among adults in the family started as children.
It would be amazingly rare for two grown siblings who had a healthy non-sex childhood to grow up and suddenly go "Hey, let's have sex."


Personally, I don’t find prior abuse in a relationship a reason for criminalizing that relationship.

As an example, women who are in relationships with abusive men are not legally restricted from their relationships with them, despite having a long history of physical and emotional abuse. I feel great sympathy for these women. I would strongly urge them to get away, to seek therapy alone, to understand how unhealthy their situation is, but I would not force them against their will to separate from their partner.

As another example, a high number of women who were sexually abused as children grow up to be extremely promiscuous put themselves in emotionally unhealthy relationships. Like children who were exposed to incest, illegal abuse has occurred in the past that leads them to potentially destructive behaviors.

Both of these scenarios are situations that could be better remedied by outreach programs that offer counseling to women with histories of abuse instead of criminalization.


pixelhate, http://www.answers.com/topic/incest Scroll to the middle until you see a map for incest laws in the USA regarding FIRST cousins. According to this, incest between first cousins is legal in 24 states, including NY, CA, TX, FL, VA, MA, etc.



end note: Ultimately, it looks like this debate is winding down to a competition between two moral ideals:
  • the right to choose (as long as you do not infringe on the freedoms/rights of others)
  • the responsibility of the government to stop people from engaging in potentially harmful activity

I obviously side more with the former, and even if I strongly disagree with the latter I still have can understand why someone would choose it. I think that to progress more into this debate we would have to engage in another debate concerning these two ideologies.

So with that, I think we've covered quite a bit in this thread. I'm just about ready to retire from this thread now, unless of course someone brings up a new and compelling point to add into the debate

.:Kitty Klan:.
Visit for Sims 3 Hair, Tattoos, and other free custom content downloads.

.For website updates, subscribe to my RSS feed at.
Dreamwidth Blog
#167 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 3:49 AM
I vaguely remember a study done by someone, somewhere, in some place in the US about how laws and their punishments really aren't deterrents for anything. I found it rather interesting (it was something years ago).

Unfortunately, Faithlove, I have to agree that what Robokitty is promoting is easier said than done. Still, at the same time, I think outreach programs and public awareness need to be raised about such issues as child abuse. I hardly -ever- watch Montel (except for Sylvia Brown Wednesdays when I need a REAL good laugh), but I had it one while I was getting ready for school Tuesday. His topic was child molestation. The interesting (and somewhat catty) part came about when one lady was calling for parents to teach their children that it's no ok to be touched, that they need to tell someone, that they need to speak up. Another lady countered with the studies they'd done: young children, no matter how much you teach them being molested isn't ok, just -won't- tell. All the attacker has to do is threaten them, but even if they don't, the child will likely feel that they are the ones doing something wrong.

Since Faithlove says that most incestuous relationships start in childhood, I think this kinda relates. For me, though, incest between adults is a different issue than when children are involved? Why? Simply because I believe in an adult's right to choose. Sure, if you know this is happening to a friend and there are substantial emotional damages, they've got self-image problems, engage in damaging behavior, please by all means, try to get your friend some help. But like all "rehab" processes, nothing is going to help unless they want that help for themselves. The government's intervention is only going to complicate things and likely have the opposite effect. What if -they- don't see the relationship as damaging?

I say focus governmental efforts on the children. I think nipping child abuse in the bud is a task that the government can handle. They've already launched campaigns again to get people to follow through on their "instinct" that something is wrong with a parent and their child. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome with that, though, and I don't think it's an easy task to get people involved in the lives of others. No one -wants- to believe a parent is purposely hurting their child. As for adults, I think it's better to deal with any resulting psychological damage on a much more personal basis. I don't want the government telling me that I -have- to get psychological help because I have anxiety issues. I wouldn't accept it. It would push me further into denial, I would withdraw from the world, and any concerns they may or may not have had will be manifest. I'd much rather my best friend say to me "I'm worried about the way you handle certain situations. You start with one bad thing and just spiral down until you can't think out of it. I'm scared for you, please get some help." I may still resist it, may start on that downward spiral, but I'd be more willing to accept it than if the government had yearly mandatory tests that prevented you from getting a job otherwise.

And thanks HP for (inadvertently) showing me another quick way to emphasize something other than using caps.
#168 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 4:17 AM
That's what I'm saying. You can't help someone unless they want to be helped.

Having the government thrown in their Big Brother hand as well will only make things even worse. If I'm not listening to family and friends, then what makes you think I'm listening to the guvment?

What do you propose be done?
#169 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 2:06 PM
I understand what you mean. But I'd argue that what you're saying is just as hard as what Robokitty is saying. The problem, I believe lies in the public. Generally, I think we as an American society want to believe in the inherent good of the people we meet. I mention American society because I live in America and I know what American society is like. In other countries, the concerns are likely difference.

When you see a child slightly afraid of their parent or hesitant, I don't think the average person would think the child is being abused. The government has actually started their "be aware" campaign again, at least here in Chicago. I've seen a couple commercials in the last couple days that warn that child abuse is never easy to spot. I think the problem with this campaign is that they want people to rely on "instinct," which I don't always think is the best thing. The ad doesn't list any signs to watch for. Granted it's something like a 30 second commercial, but there are longer commercials for presidential campaigns. I'm sure a lot of improvement needs to be done, but that improvement needs to be focused on the public and making the general public aware.

We're not all 3rd year psychology students
#170 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 6:58 PM
Yes, people may, in hindsight, say they should have said anything. I believe there are a lot of reasons for that.

Why did you never say anything when you believed a child was being abused?
#171 Old 17th Apr 2008 at 11:37 PM
I think the same goes for a lot of people. They have no proof, just a vibe. I'm not sure what kind of information you need to go to the right people with, but maybe a vibe isn't enough? I'm sure right after that "I'm getting a weird vibe" thought is "What if I get them in trouble and I'm wrong?" The child abuser/molester stigma doesn't go away anytime soon, if ever. That and I'm sure, as I stated above, Americans want to believe that all Americans are inherently good. No one wants to believe their next door neighbor is a child molester, so they make up excuses.
#172 Old 18th Apr 2008 at 2:36 AM
Yes, but what I'm saying is many people wouldn't feel right doing that unless they're sure. In this case it turned out you were right. In the next case, maybe not so much. Having personal experience with the issue, you would know more of what to look for than the average person, so the signs may be clearer for you. We live in a society of "mind your own damn business," and people like to maintain a certain distance from each other. At the same time, we like to pretend that we're one big community that'll take care of the sick and wounded. When it comes down to it, though, we go back into that mind your own business mindset.

I still think government involvement at the adult level can be a very slippery slope. I can imagine lawsuits flying around, laws being changed, things being a mess.
 
Page 7 of 7
Back to top