Comments on: Why is incest a crime?

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:37:19 +0000

See below. Cultural grooming occurs with some Asian groups for first cousins but that has not been made illegal. I is a much bigger problem than siblings would ever be. Have you experience of being groomed? It seems that it is somewhat of an obsession.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:34:44 +0000

Cultural grooming occurs with some Asian groups for first cousins but that has not been made illegal. I is a much bigger problem than siblings would ever be.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:33:19 +0000

ICultural grooming occurs with some Asian groups for first cousins but that has not been made illegal. I is a much bigger problem than siblings would ever be.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:05:52 +0000

The laws that come from the bible is a recommendation for rescinding them not keeping them. In most cases western societies have done just that with incest the exception to the rule. But in this case it is irrelevant because most sibling incest is undetected unless the couple have children because the state does not mandate cameras in the bedrooms of siblings who live in the same house. Had the German couple decided to live in a different city and not kept in touch with their family how would anyone have known.

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:50:41 +0000

In recent years we have seen cases of abusive incest and cases of consensual incest. There was no fine line between them, they were very different. Parental incest with a child is very different from sibling incest. I have not heard of cases of abusive sibling incest through grooming (rather than rape) although you could see that it could be possible. One thing is certain, it is never going to be normal because the incidence is so low and the taboo is naturally strong rather than culturally strong. How often is there a discussion in a family about incest? Very young children know that you do not marry your brother or sister although you love them dearly.

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:44:17 +0000

Society’s disapproval of consensual, adult incest is caused by the very great suspicion that it is very likely abusive, or has the potential to be.

Abuser as victim is not good.

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:02:46 +0000

The rationale is, that it makes it generally,more acceptable to have sexual relationships with people you are genetically and mentally similar too, even if you didn’t grow up with them. The family unit has broken down anyway. Loads of people have kids all over the place anyway, that didn’t grow up together,and we have an abuse culture, too. Though, of course, we have laws against it, that work only 20% of the time.Not good.

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:49:46 +0000

Because cultural grooming and family life grooming could occur. It will become ‘normal’ to have relationships with people you are almost totally completely like, and abnormal to have relationships with those who are different. Intolerance will increase, under the name of tolerance. As it has with terrorism. Do you tolerate the intolerant? It is very likely, if someone like that got into a position of power, they would find it ‘strange’ for anyone even to have a different opinion to them. It might not do, but it is likely. All under the name of tolerance.

By: Dr Paul Behrens

Dr Paul Behrens — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:59:21 +0000

Hi Carl,

should ‘civilised man’ not also be able to make finer distinctions than his forebears? Cases of abuse can be addressed by laws against abuse. But what is the rationale for a law against incest in cases in which abuse does not play a role? And it is exactly that problem that arises if siblings are separated at a young age and meet only as adults.
I referred in my article to an increased risk of that happening due to cases of artificial insemination through anonymous sperm donation. I understand there are often rules in place to minimise the use of sperm by one individual donor – but apparently not in all cases: ctv refers to a man in Toronto who may have hundreds of siblings through the same biological father.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20120411/sperm-donor-dad-hundreds-of-children-bertold-weisner-120411/
If in cases of this kind, two siblings meet later in life, fall in love, and decide to have sexual relations, it seems to me that there must be a better rationale for a law that comes in and says ‘you must stop doing that’. It is difficult to base such a law entirely on the need to prevent abuse.

By: Dr Paul Behrens

Dr Paul Behrens — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:58:12 +0000

Hi Graham,

many thanks for your comment! I do think that that the severity of criminal law is an aspect that needs to be considered. Hassemer, incidentally, makes the interesting point that criminal law itself can lead to disturbing effects, which may make therapy necessary (para 120 of his dissent).
That also makes you wonder about the effects that societal disapproval has. Especially in cases of consensual, non-abusive incest – is it the sexual relationship itself or is it the stigma conferred by society, that results in psychological damage?

By: lorraine

lorraine — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:13:33 +0000

The couple in question did not grow up together, they had no knowledge of eachother, neither holds any power or status over the other. They did not enter into the relationship after years of living as siblongs. I fail to see how their union is wrong. Such a law would He useful in an ancient society with a need to protect and increase its numbers. This is not Really why anyone enters into relationships now. So to criminalize two strangers, people who are basically new to eachother for having a relationship makes no sense.

By: Carl

Carl — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:13:27 +0000

Cultural and family life grooming would make consent very difficult to prove. It’s not disgust, it’s worry over some people abusing it

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:17:32 +0000

Consensual incest is still illegal in some places because some people try to control the sex lives of other consenting adults. An adult, or someone of the age of consent, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. There is no rational reason to deny consenting adults who are close relatives the freedom to be together in whatever way they desire that would be consistent in application elsewhere. For example, some people cite an increase in the risk of children being born with birth defects (take a random parent-child or brother-sister couple and the odds are still well over 90% that a child born to them will be healthy and “normal”, but people still cite this). But they don’t deny people who KNOW they have serious inheritable diseases their reproductive rights, nor do they bar women over 35 their reproductive rights even with the increase risks to the child. Also, many couples are unable or not willing to have children in the first place. Most sex does not lead to birth.

One person being disgusted is not a reason another person should be prevented by law from doing something in the privacy of their bedroom.

By: Carl

Carl — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:00:17 +0000

People are instinctionary about it, because it is the one thing that is most open to abuse. The people you grew up with, the people you sired, the people you are most genetically like, are the people you are most likely to abuse. And, least likely to have anything positive or constructive with. It’s not some primitive ape-part of the brain, that stops you, it’s the civilised man.

By: Graham

Graham — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:10:34 +0000

Great article that makes its iconoclastic argument with coherence, reason and sensitivity. The responses so far just show how instinctively reactionary people can be when it comes to matters of taboo. I think the key point–which again the author makes with clarity–is around the brutal inappropriateness of criminal law as a tool for the state in matters of this nature. There may be a case for state intervention in this issue, but surely the blunt instrument of criminalisation is not the way.

By: Muhammad Ilyas Khan

Muhammad Ilyas Khan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:41:21 +0000

An interesting debate and one which is difficult to resolve.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:40:53 +0000

There’s a strong internal taboo for other crimes too. I have read that humans are inherently honest, chimps are.

The Swedes are socially more responsible than most, but they do have government and law. They delegate responsibility for checking part of their behaviour to someone else, and are not afraid too.

The court may eventually argue itself out of existence, as it is implying that it is immoral to check anyone’s behaviour.

By: Dr Paul Behrens

Dr Paul Behrens — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:01:30 +0000

These are interesting points, but I am not sure if you are quite consistent here. If the taboo about incest is not society based, but ‘internal’, then I fail to see how (abusive) incest could become the ‘norm’. In fact – if there is a strong internal taboo, would there be any need for a law as well?
But one of the main problem seems to be that it is very difficult to say with certainty what exactly the law is supposed to address. There are already laws against abuse. There are laws against non-consensual intercourse. Some States have also adopted laws against grooming.
The law against incest, however, goes far beyond that. The worrying feature about the Stübing case is that it does cover situations in which the partners did not grow up in the same family structure. The question that arises then is, whether the sanction of criminal law should stay in place, based merely on the fact that the sexual partners were related.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:37:43 +0000

I don’t think it would be a good idea. I don’t think the taboos about incest are society based, they are internal. Apart from the genetics aspect, which could be got round, if there were no offpsring, there’s the power aspect. You’re taking advantage of the fact that you grew up with someone, there is a power differential, both ways. Even stranger sibling relations would be open to more abuse, because of the similarity between partners.

If it became established, you could ‘groom’ offspring, even other people’s, over a lifetime. It would become the norm and non-abuse would be deviant. Abuse cultures are very difficult to change, because cultural ‘grooming’ occurs over a lifetime. Abuse cultures are not as open, free, liberal or tolerant,as those that are primarily non-abusive.

The argument would be that it would diversify culture. I think it would tribalise. Imagine what it would do to gang culture, if gang members were doing it! There would be less tolerance and the legal establshment would have to do it, to, in order to empathise and communicate.

By: eddy setiohardono

eddy setiohardono — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:36:01 +0000

Its considered crime, because law created based on the most Holly Book of Big religions in the world. When God mentioned its prohibited or a sin, its a benchmarking, way of life which we have to follow.

Best regards,

eddy setiohardono mba(UK)
————————
Leicester Univ. Alumni.