Siblings could face jail for incest

SLUSK

Two Swedish siblings face the possibility of going to jail for having consentual sex with each other.
http://www.thelocal.se/25362/20100305/

This is horrible, they should not go to jail. Sex between consenting adults should be legal in a free society. What do you think, do you believe in freedom or not?

Sulmac

Incest (regardless of whether or not it was consensual) is also illegal in Ireland and a lot of other countries. Usually, it's only "enforced" in cases where there is abuse, such as the Fritzl case in Austria.

ddef

I saw the words 'Sweedish' and 'Sex'...but then i read the thread and was like...aww <Disappointed Face>

Overheal

Maybe they should work on the Gay thing before jumping into the Incest thing... and by that I mean its not a great time to dive headlong into pro-incest legislation (which is just eww, imo)

SLUSK

Bestiality was decriminalized in Sweden at the same time homosexuality was. I find incest disgusting but I do not think it should be illegal.

AARRRGH

SLUSK wrote: »

I find incest disgusting but I do not think it should be illegal.

How do you police it though...?

Uncle and teenage niece...
Father and teenage daughter...
Etc.

I would think it would make more sense to keep it banned but allow judges to make exceptions on a case by case basis.

Pittens

If they are under the age of consent then the normal laws apply.

Should they be allowed to marry? Ignoring the normal genetic response of disgust most humans have to incest ( and most animals have to it) , why would we ban incest, or sibling marriage.

I know the trite answer. Think before you post it :-)

Jeanious

While in my mind i'd equate bestiality with paedophilia (i.e. both animals and babies don't have the mental capacity to consent), the only inherent thing wrong with incest, in my opinion, is if it results in a pregnancy. For that reason, and pretty much that reason alone, id be in favour of keeping it illegal and, as Overheal said, sorting out the law with respect to homosexuality first.

Pittens

is if it results in a pregnancy. For that reason, and pretty much that reason alone, id be in favour of keeping it illegal and, as Overheal said, sorting out the law with respect to homosexuality first.

The law for homosexuality will be changed to allow civil partnership this year, in Ireland ( although the thread is about Sweden where homosexuals have marriage rights).

You gave the trite answer I was talking about. It doesnt hold. The child may be more likely to be disabled, but so would be the child of say a couple already disabled ( however defined) with an inheritable disease.

hallelujajordan

Pittens wrote: »

You gave the trite answer I was talking about. It doesnt hold. The child may be more likely to be disabled, but so would be the child of say a couple already disabled ( however defined) with an inheritable disease.

I don't think it's trite . . there is more to consider than just the genetic risks. . .

Although having said that the genetic risks are significant . . and I'm not talking about the simple risk of having a malformed child . . The species gets stronger the more diverse our genome gets . . For that reason, women and men are generally attracted to those who are genetically further away from them (studies have shown this) . . As a rule incest would not be a positive thing for the survival of the species . .

However, forget the genetic argument that you think is trite. I would be far more concerned about the sociological impact on a child born into a society where his parents are brother and sister . . . . a society that won't (and will never) be accepting.

ChocolateSauce

SLUSK wrote: »

Two Swedish siblings face the possibility of going to jail for having consentual sex with each other.
http://www.thelocal.se/25362/20100305/

This is horrible, they should not go to jail. Sex between consenting adults should be legal in a free society. What do you think, do you believe in freedom or not?

With the exception of incest reproduction, which is a different matter and a grey area, no one has ever been able to give me a single reason why consensual incest between two adults is wrong.

Owen

I came into this thread, expecting to find hot swedish blonde sisters at it, I'm leaving disappointed.

TheCelticWizard

Generally exceptions to the westermarck effect, which is what stops everybody from wanting to get it on with their siblings are found to be linked to cases where the Male head of the family is is removed from the equation, which would suggest some kind of phsycological reason for the phenomenon. On these grounds I feel that jail is a bit much, although I do think that steps should be taken to adress the dangers of incestual reproduction taking place.

marco_polo

I don't see the point in legislation as 99.99 percent of adults do not need legislation in order not to participate in incestual relationships. And while I thing it ought to be frowned upon in a normal society, like ChocolateSauce I can't see any really good argument as to why it should be why it should be illegal.

In some ways the argument about the danger of damage to a child could just as easily be applied to drinking/smoking during pregnancy, behaviour which i think is reprehensible, but should never be illegal.

Pittens

although I do think that steps should be taken to adress the dangers of incestual reproduction taking place.

because?

TheCelticWizard

Pittens wrote: »

because?

Because Pittens, of the physcological impact on the kids. How you you like it if your parents were brother and sister? I assume that you are hoping I would go into a rant about the vastly increased risk of deformities/mental illness in the kids, so you can correct me and tell me about how the chances of this are greatly exaggerated. Sorry to disappoint, but let me ask you a question, do you actually think on any level that it is ok for a brother and a sister to reproduce together?

johnnyskeleton

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

With the exception of incest reproduction, which is a different matter and a grey area, no one has ever been able to give me a single reason why consensual incest between two adults is wrong.

Isn't that enough?

Pittens wrote:

because?

Because things like that have created, among other things, the British Monarchy. H J Eysenck has suggested that it leads to low IQs and a higher chance of genetic diseases manifesting.

cooker3

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I came into this thread, expecting to find hot swedish blonde sisters at it, I'm leaving disappointed.

I came into this thread expecting Crystal Swing had being busted. I'm leaving disappointed.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

With the exception of incest reproduction, which is a different matter and a grey area, no one has ever been able to give me a single reason why consensual incest between two adults is wrong.

that is the only reason. ans its extremely substantial. cousins having sex should also be illegal

Sid_Justice

It's probably only been the last couple of generations that reliable methods of contraception have been made freely available. Before this, sexual intercourse would very regularly lead to impregnation. Thus, with the exception of the last 100 years (at a stretch) it would be very difficult for an incestuous couple not to produce children.

The dangers, as everyone knows, is that inbreeding leads to the a proliferation of congenital diseases. But in a once off situation, there is certainly no guarantee that a child born from brother and sister or parent and offspring would definitely have a serious disease.

Other than inbreeding what other rational and logical reasons are there against incest? Not many I don't think. Possibly could argue that consensual incestuous relationships can never been be fully considered consensual as you could argue one party groomed or coerced the other at some point.