She aint heavy, she's his sister

ArtyM

Was watching the movie Say it isnt so last night. Its a comedy based around the idea of 'brother-sister lovin'.
So I thought I would put this Hypothetical to After Hours....

Lets say you are out having a quite few scoops when you meet someone you havent seen in years, an old school friend, old college buddy, or similar. Over a few drinks you catch up, get on well, and have a good laugh.
After a while the conversation turns to relationships and he says he has been in a happy stable relationship for a few years. The thing is, it is with his cousin or worse, his sister.

How would you react?
Would you.....

Express your disgust with a Glasgow Kiss before calling the Gardai and reporting the pervert
Stand up and loudly announce to the entire pub that he f**ks his cousin/sister and let mob justice take over
Blackmail him for all you can get
Avoid the awkward issue, make your excuses, and never see him again
Break out your favourite incest related jokes and keep drinking
High five him while repeatedly saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

---

P.s: This is gonna end up in the Cukoos nest, isnt it?

TheZohanS

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

What would you do?

phill106

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

ArtyM wrote: »

Was watching the movie Say it isnt so last night. Its a comedy based around the idea of 'brother-sister lovin'.
So I thought I would put this Hypothetical to After Hours....

Lets say you are out having a quite few scoops when you meet someone you havent seen in years, an old school friend, old college buddy, or similar. Over a few drinks you catch up, get on well, and have a good laugh.
After a while the conversation turns to relationships and he says he has been in a happy stable relationship for a few years. The thing is, it is with his cousin or worse, his sister.

How would you react?
Would you.....

Express your disgust with a Glasgow Kiss before calling the Gardai and reporting the pervert
Stand up and loudly announce to the entire pub that he f**ks his cousin/sister and let mob justice take over
Blackmail him for all you can get
Avoid the awkward issue, make your excuses, and never see him again
Break out your favourite incest related jokes and keep drinking
High five him while repeatedly saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

---

P.s: This is gonna end up in the Cukoos nest, isnt it?

so you were watching incest movies, and came on AH to tell us?
This will end well!

thebigbiffo

ask him if he wants a gang bang with you and your sister. may as well see what all the fuss is about.

Eric Cartman

reply "i dont know how you do it man, she was ****e in bed"

Interceptor

You're easily shocked OP. You even forgot the option where he asks you to join in...

'cptr

thehairyelbow

What are the chances of it happening for real? Could it? Imagine that conversation. "Sweetheart... we need to talk..."

Latchy

Where's the 'show me the pics or GTFO ' option ?

ibarelycare

I'd reserve judgment until I saw a picture of her. Obviously.

Baldie

Interceptor wrote: »

You're easily shocked OP. You even forgot the option where he asks you to join in...

'cptr

Dam! Beat me to it!!

Kevin Duffy

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

Stick a poll on this. Please include options such as "Happens all the time 'round our way", "This actually happened me", "I've been riding my sister, who is also her own second cousin, for years" and "Er....are you trying to tell me it's wrong somehow?". Make the results public, please.

NothingMan

If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family. Or so Mother use to say...

prinz

Why did you have to associate that kind of rubbish OP with such a classic song, got it in my head now and I'll I can think of is fraternal lovin'.:mad:

ArtyM

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

TheZohan wrote: »

What would you do?

Tbh the situation wouldnt bother me after the initial shock - each to their own (bad choice of phrase).
If I was getting on well with him before I knew, I dont think I would let his sexual choices be an issue afterward.
Would have to test the boundaries of his sense of humour on the matter, of course.

annascott

Sorry, I don't care how you dress it up - it is just WRONG. However, not being one to make a scene, I would just make an excuse and leave early and not return future calls... ugh!! Even in a hypothetical situation it is skin-crawl inducing...

There used to be a guy in Letterkenny who was supposed to have slept with his sister. Never knew if it was true, but still could not look at him or stand next to him in the pub...

Krusader

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

annascott wrote: »

There used to be a guy in Letterkenny who was supposed to have slept with his sister. Never knew if it was true, but still could not look at him or stand next to him in the pub...

Says more about you really

Seachmall

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

As long as they don't reproduce (which I think is illegal) they could be riding their dogs for all I care.

Gross? Yes.
Give a ****? No.

UglyBolloxFace

TheZohan wrote: »

What would you do?

...if you were asked to give up your dreams for fraydum.

Gunsfortoys

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

Does atari jaguar mean nothing to you people?????

minidazzler

I would simply say YKINMKBYKIOKWM.

Seachmall

High5 while saying Gigigidy Gigigidy

minidazzler wrote: »

I would simply say YKINMKBYKIOKWM.

IHNIWTFTMBGI

later12

annascott wrote: »

Sorry, I don't care how you dress it up - it is just WRONG.

Why is it wrong? Says who?

What two adults get up to in the privacy of their own time is their business. The fact that it is illegal is bad enough, but the idea that your poll options, OP, could include such things as humiliating the individual, or punching him, really belongs in the dark ages. It is no more acceptable than slurring homosexuals or those who engage in interracial relationships.

I know this is AH, but it really this really is a tremendously ignorant thread. I do not see how views like yours can be seriously entertained in an educated, developed society.

bluecatmorgana

Announce it & Let Mob Justice handle it

Dude ?! its incest! End of.

later12

Dude?! It's gay sex! End of.
Dude?! It's a black woman. End of.
Dude?! It's a foreigner. End of.
Dude?! It's a Catholic. End of.

The sexual behaviour of consenting adults in their own time, in the privacy of their own bedroom, is their affair. Similar things as the OP has written have been uttered by toothless neanderthals in the past about private relationships that is none of their concern.

It might not be something that you or I ever want to engage in, but it is wrong that we should take it upon ourselves to impose our personal taste and arbitrary values on other adults' relationships.

mconigol

This is exactly the reason why I don't go down my local very much these days. Theres a reason why you haven't seen those people in years op!

bluecatmorgana

Announce it & Let Mob Justice handle it

later10 wrote: »

Dude?! It's gay sex! End of.
Dude?! It's a black woman. End of.
Dude?! It's a foreigner. End of.
Dude?! It's a Catholic. End of.

The sexual behaviour of consenting adults in their own time, in the privacy of their own bedroom, is their affair. Similar things as the OP has written have been uttered by toothless neanderthals in the past about private relationships that is none of their concern.

It might not be something that you or I ever want to engage in, but it is wrong that we should take it upon ourselves to impose our personal taste and arbitrary values on other adults' relationships.

mmmmm....interesting point.

I know of a case were a couple married who are cousins, their parents were also cousins, and they have had seven children with moderate to profound disabilities. Their oldest has recently got married to , you guessed it, her cousin. Now dont get me wrong, I get your point about consenting adults and being in the privacy of their own homes. But I believe as adult in sexual relationships we also have to think of the consequences of sex and unfortunately contraception for those who use it does not work 100% of the time.

I certainly feel torn about it, especially when I work with their children.

later12

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

mmmmm....interesting point.

I know of a case were a couple married who are cousins, their parents were also cousins, and they have had seven children with moderate to profound disabilities. Their oldest has recently got married to , you guessed it, her cousin. Now dont get me wrong, I get your point about consenting adults and being in the privacy of their own homes. But I believe as adult in sexual relationships we also have to think of the consequences of sex and unfortunately contraception for those who use it does not work 100% of the time.

I certainly feel torn about it, especially when I work with their children.

What about children who suffer from autosomal recessive diseases? For example Cystic Fibrosis. Should the parents who do not produce alleles that can produce a functional CFTR protein be condemned to lives of infertility and legal prohibitions of marriage to particular individuals? Or what about gene-linked Down's Syndrome arising from hereditary translocations?

The reality is that we cannot realistically legislate on the basis of possible genetic abnormalities which may or may not be present in any resulting offspring.

Guill

Blackmail him for all you can get

I'm a huge fan of most forms of sex but incest is disgusting, not just morally wrong but genetically wrong.

Where's the 'Call him a dirty bastard and leave is disgust' option on the poll?

Trigger13222

later10 wrote: »

Why is it wrong? Says who?

What two adults get up to in the privacy of their own time is their business. The fact that it is illegal is bad enough, but the idea that your poll options, OP, could include such things as humiliating the individual, or punching him, really belongs in the dark ages. It is no more acceptable than slurring homosexuals or those who engage in interracial relationships.

I know this is AH, but it really this really is a tremendously ignorant thread. I do not see how views like yours can be seriously entertained in an educated, developed society.

Do you fancy your sister or worse have ye done it.

Terry

Joe Dirt option.
He thought they were brother and sister. Found out that they were not related, but got off on pretending she was his sister.

bluecatmorgana

Announce it & Let Mob Justice handle it

later10 wrote: »

What about children who suffer from autosomal recessive diseases? For example Cystic Fibrosis. Should the parents who do not produce alleles that can produce a functional CFTR protein be condemned to lives of infertility and legal prohibitions of marriage to particular individuals? Or what about gene-linked Down's Syndrome arising from hereditary translocations?

The reality is that we cannot realistically legislate on the basis of possible genetic abnormalities which may or may not be present in any resulting offspring.

I wouldnt legislate but I would certainly encourage genetic screening and sexual responsiblity. Parents who knowingly bring children into the world who's lives are going to be considerably poor in quality just because they want children is just selfish and should be discouraged.

later12

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

I wouldnt legislate but I would certainly encourage genetic screening and sexual responsiblity.

And screen whom? Everybody? Where does one draw the line? Lets imagine I have a brother with Cystic Fibrosis, if I go out tomorrow night, and I bring home a girl, and she mentions that her brother has CF, do I tell her we can't sleep together until we are both genetically screened and cleared, and then the one night stand can proceed?

There's a reasonable chance that our offspring, were one to accidentally arise, would be a cystic fibrosis sufferer. Yet the idea that someone would legally enforce a ban on our one night stand is absurd.

This, to my mind, highlights the hypocrisy surrounding incest legislation. It is not about the protection of the unborn child, the law is founded in a centuries old cultural norm who origins derive from a darker time, before we awoke to the rights of consenting adults to partake in sexual intercourse, in the privacy of their own homes, and regardless of any accidents of birth - be they of skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, class or even familial relationship.

This is an arbitrary and illogical custom. Although the vast majority of us have no appreciation for this sexual urge, and we may often fail to understand it, there is no logical basis for criminalising - or, as per the OP, afflicting violence upon - those who do.

Kojak

ArtyM wrote: »

P.s: This is gonna end up in the Cukoos nest, isnt it?

yes

shannon_tek

I actually started writing a story on it after reading a facinating article online. now its burried on my HD somewhere for future to tell . now back to by Noc thread for safety before some riot begins

OMG Its EoinD

Break out the incest jokes and keep drinking

Atari Jaguar....

prinz

later10 wrote: »

before we awoke to the rights of consenting adults to partake in sexual intercourse, in the privacy of their own homes, and regardless of any accidents of birth - be they of skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, class or even familial relationship..

With incest there is a massive problem regarding the ability to truly consent, particularly in the case of parent/child incest and older sibling/younger sibling, there is a massive power imbalance which could negate consent even between adults over the age of consent, there'd also be a far greater risk of conditioning and grooming. Parents owe a fiduciary duty to their children, and that would be very tricky to keep intact if a sexual relationship emerged.

later12

prinz wrote: »

Parents owe a fiduciary duty to their children, and that would be very tricky to keep intact if a sexual relationship emerged.

I'm not quite convinced that parents owe their children anything in adulthood, but anyway... I presume somebody engaging in a relationship of that sort would argue that any such obligations are not diminished in a resultant relationship.

You cannot argue that because an individual has grown up under the guardianship of another, or in close affiliation with another, that they can never engage in a sexual relationship. If that were the case the boy next door might never be able to have sex with the girl next door, or adults who had a considerable role to play in inspiring or guiding other adults in their youth ought too be banned from sexual liasons with one another. Presumably this would extend to former teachers, friends of the family and former sports coaches. Where does one draw the line?

prinz

later10 wrote: »

You cannot argue that because an individual has grown up under the guardianship of another, or in close affiliation with another, that they can never engage in a sexual relationship.

You can argue that their ability to meaningfully consent to a sexual relationship has been greatly diminished. Not only has it been argued, that argument has been successful in court.

later10 wrote: »

If that were the case the boy next door might never be able to have sex with the girl next door..

Is the boy next door the girl next door's guardian? Or in a fiduciary relationship with her? Or in a special relationship of trust and co-dependence?

later10 wrote: »

or adults who had a considerable role to play in inspiring or guiding other adults in their youth ought too be banned from sexual liasons with one another. Presumably this would extend to former teachers, friends of the family and former sports coaches. Where does one draw the line?

Most people draw that line for themselves and instinctively know when something is inappropriate or not.

later12

prinz wrote: »

You can argue that their ability to meaningfully consent to a sexual relationship has been greatly diminished. Not only has it been argued, that argument has been successful in court.

You could argue the same thing with teachers and former students. And furthermore, your suggestion seems to imply a personal relationship. Would the relationship be any more wrong if no prior personal relationship existed beyond the genetic link, known or unknown?

Is the boy next door the door next door's guardian?

No, the suggestion was that he might be as close to her as a brother. Or perhaps he might be a foster brother without a genetic relationship. Or perhaps he might be an adopted brother. The law is inconsistent here, and I would suggest that the principles which condemn familial relationships of a sexual nature are inconsistent here also.

Most people draw that line for themselves and instinctively know when something is inappropriate or not.

Exactly. It is a matter for private individuals.

prinz

later10 wrote: »

You could argue the same thing with teachers and former students..

Of course you could, but that doesn't make what I said any less correct.

later10 wrote: »

And furthermore, your suggestion seems to imply a personal relationship. Would the relationship be any more wrong if no prior personal relationship existed beyond the genetic link, known or unknown?

Well in the case of two adults meeting who just happen to be related but didn't know it when they got into a sexual relationship the the concern of grooming and misuse of power aren't present, and that meaningful consent wasn't affected by the existence of the genetic link.

later10 wrote: »

It is a matter for private individuals.

So you don't see a problem with a father grooming his daughter from the age of 1 until 17 and then sleeping with her. Perfectly fine in your book, as it's just two private individuals?

johnmcdnl

what the **** is a glasgow kiss

prinz

johnmcdnl wrote: »

what the **** is a glasgow kiss

Headbutt.

later12

prinz wrote: »

Of course you could, but that doesn't make what I said any less correct.

It makes it inconsistent. If you can say the same thing for teachers and senior family friends, why not legislate for this?

Well in the case of two adults meeting who just happen to be related but didn't know it when they got into a sexual relationship the the concern of grooming and misuse of power aren't present, and that meaningful consent wasn't affected by the existence of the genetic link.

... nevertheless, the sexual relationship would still be illegal. Do you think ti ought to be illegal?

So you don't see a problem with a father grooming his daughter from the age of 1 until 17 and then sleeping with her. Perfectly fine in your book, as it's just two private individuals?

Loaded question. It's like the situation whereby an 17 year old girl starts dating her ex swimming coach and I say ''so you don't see a problem with a swimming coach grooming his pupil from age 6 to 17 and then sleeping with her?"

Of course I would find that disturbing personally, but no, there is no logical basis for legislating against it whereby both parties insist that the relationship is consensual.

prinz

later10 wrote: »

It makes it inconsistent. If you can say the same thing for teachers and senior family friends, why not legislate for this?

No it isn't inconsistent. Teachers are not the parents or full-time guardians of the children.

later10 wrote: »

Loaded question. It's like the situation whereby an 17 year old girl starts dating her ex swimming coach and I say ''so you don't see a problem with a swimming coach grooming his pupil from age 6 to 17 and then sleeping with her?"

Well, do you not? Again swimming coaches is not quite in the same bracket as parent.

later10 wrote: »

Of course I would find that disturbing personally, but no, there is no logical basis for legislating against it whereby both parties insist that the relationship is consensual.

Is there a logical basis for legislating against a 20 year old having sex with a 10 year old as long as both parties insist it was consensual? The impairment of the ability to consent is likewise taken into account in legislating against it.

later12

prinz wrote: »

No it isn't inconsistent. Teachers are not the parents or full-time guardians of the children.

This is going round in circles. See above posts... you have literally just previously agreed that you can argue that an adult's ability to meaningfully consent to a sexual relationship has been greatly diminished with parents the same as with former teachers.

Equally, parents might not necessarily be the full time guardian of the child.

You have still not answered my question... in light of this situation

Well in the case of two adults meeting who just happen to be related but didn't know it when they got into a sexual relationship the the concern of grooming and misuse of power aren't present, and that meaningful consent wasn't affected by the existence of the genetic link.

... should the relationship be criminalised?

Well, do you not? Again swimming coaches is not quite in the same bracket as parent.

No I do not think that should be criminalised. If two adults both insist that their relationship is genuine and consensual, there is no basis for third party intervention.

Is there a logical basis for legislating against a 20 year old having sex with a 10 year old as long as both parties insist it was consensual?

Yes, because 10 year olds are judged to be too young to make informed decisions by way of their age and intellectual immaturity.

prinz

later10 wrote: »

This is going round in circles..

..because you acknowledge that the impairment of consent can occur and then basically go on to say it doesn't matter in the slightest because for some reason incest it different.

later10 wrote: »

You have still not answered my question... in light of this situation
... should the relationship be criminalised?..

Yes it should. Good cases make bad laws as they say. Decriminalising incest to account for the (makey uppy figures but you get the drift) 1 in 10 chance of close relations not knowing who each other is when getting into relationship is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la about the other 9 in 10 where the parties are very much known to each other and might very well be in a very inequal power relationship.

later10 wrote: »

No I do not think that should be criminalised. If two adults both insist that their relationship is genuine and consensual, there is no basis for third party intervention...

But sure who would they 'insist' to, but a third party?

later10 wrote: »

Yes, because 10 year olds are judged to be too young to make informed decisions by way of their age and intellectual immaturity.

..and children of parents etc are judged too impaired in independence and power in the relationship to make informed decisions also. The very fact that a parent grooming their kid for sex later on disturbs you is testamentt to the fact that deep down you know that is a very likely outcome.

What about the doctor/patient relationship? Should the doctor owe a greater duty of care to the patient than vice versa? Does the law take into account the unequal nature of the relationship? Yes it does.

sensibleken

Is a glasgow kiss like a french kiss but with someone with a terrifyingly low life expectance for a westerner?

later12

prinz wrote: »

..because you acknowledge that the impairment of consent can occur and then basically go on to say it doesn't matter in the slightest because for some reason incest it different.

You don't seem to be getting this. Impairment of consent has to be considered a possibility, but we cannot simply take it for granted between relatives any more than we take it for granted between sports coaches and former pupils, teachers and former pupils, foster parents and former foster children, or parental friends and offspring of those parents. If you wish to legislate for impairment of consent, you must surely do so for all cases where impairment of consent *might occur* but where both parties to the relationship insist it is not a problem. Why single out relatives? Why not apply this widely?

Yes it should.

Why? Here, impairment of consent is not an issue because neither party are aware of the genetic relationship at the beginning of the relationship. So why should the relationship be criminalised?

..and children of parents etc are judged too impaired in independence and power in the relationship to make informed decisions also.

OK, what about extremely close family friends who, in large part, have raised the individual when s/he was a child - should this be made illegal?

What about the doctor/patient relationship? Should the doctor owe a greater duty of care to the patient than vice versa? Does the law take into account the unequal nature of the relationship? Yes it does.

Yes, and it also sees no problem with doctors marrying their patients.

prinz

later10 wrote: »

You don't seem to be getting this. Impairment of consent has to be considered a possibility, but we cannot simply take it for granted between relatives any more than we take it for granted between sports coaches and former pupils, teachers and former pupils, foster parents and former foster children, or parental friends and offspring of those parents.

Yes we can.

later10 wrote: »

If you wish to legislate for impairment of consent, you must surely do so for all cases where impairment of consent *might occur* but where both parties to the relationship insist it is not a problem. Why single out relatives? Why not apply this widely??

No you must do no such thing. Different interpersonal relationships are treated differently. The presumption is that in certain cases it is not that impairment of consent *might occur* but rather that it has occured. Again I'll refer you back to the idea of sex with someunder under the age of consent. We don't legislate based on whether or not we think consent might or might not be impaired. You take a stance across the board because that is the most effective way of protecting the most people.

later10 wrote: »

Why? Here, impairment of consent is not an issue because neither party are aware of the genetic relationship at the beginning of the relationship. So why should the relationship be criminalised?

Should one person killing and eating another be legal as long as both consented?

later12

prinz wrote: »

Yes we can.

That is not an argument.Why should we take impairment of consent for granted between relatives, and not beween genetic non relatives, like long term foster parents, for example? Or long term family friends who are de facto parents? Or family friends who have always been extremely close? Or former schoolteachers and sport coaches? Or third cousins, whereby the third cousin is effectively like a sibling, and yet marriage is legal?

That is inconsistent.

No you must do no such thing. Different interpersonal relationships are treated differently. The presumption is that in certain cases it is not that impairment of consent *might occur* but rather that it has occured.

This is like making an argument of 'incest is illegal'. I'm asking why we should automatically presume that impairment of consent has occured between two adults who are related, any more that we presume it to have occured between two lifelong best friends who have been raised like siblings but are unrelated?

Should one person killing and eating another be legal as long as both consented?

Well that situation actually extinguishes human life, I would say it would be okay under certain circumstances whereby it was clear that it was the consent of both parties to the event, yes.

Now answer the question that I have put to you: Between two individuals whose genetic relationship was unknown prior to instigating their sexual relationship, impairment of consent is not an issue because neither party are aware of the genetic relationship at the beginning of the relationship. So why should the relationship be criminalised?

prinz

later10 wrote: »

That is not an argument.That is inconsistent.

Life is inconsistent. We hold different people to different standards all the time.

later10 wrote: »

Now answer the question that I have put to you: Between two individuals whose genetic relationship was unknown prior to instigating their sexual relationship, impairment of consent is not an issue because neither party are aware of the genetic relationship at the beginning of the relationship. So why should the relationship be criminalised?

I have already answered that. For the greater good just, like statutory rape. What you are trying to argue is akin to saying why should we have a law against an 18 yeard old and their 15 year old partner having sex, even though they could be willing, mature enough and committed enough to do so. Simple, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You can't deal with every single individual case every single time and decide as you go along.