"consenting adults" taken one step further or just too far?

[Mytical]

I will give another case in point. Cults. Some of cult leaders have sex with their followers children. Has nothing to do with incest..so..it is not wrong? Again..take the incest out of the equation..if it is wrong without it, it is wrong with it. Yes, cults can last years. Please don't jump straight into the 'argabrgle that is because religion is wrong' bit either. A cult has about as much to do with religion as My little ponies has to do with the social and economical realities of mid eastern cultures.

[Peppergirl]

I will give another case in point. Cults. Some of cult leaders have sex with their followers children. Has nothing to do with incest..so..it is not wrong? Again..take the incest out of the equation..if it is wrong without it, it is wrong with it. Yes, cults can last years. Please don't jump straight into the 'argabrgle that is because religion is wrong' bit either. A cult has about as much to do with religion as My little ponies has to do with the social and economical realities of mid eastern cultures.

But doesn't the whole 'consenting adults' thing take this out of the equation? Or does brainwashing factor in?

[Andara Bledin]

But doesn't the whole 'consenting adults' thing take this out of the equation? Or does brainwashing factor in?

Brainwashing, if it's actually happening, is a whole new set of problems. If it can be proven that a person has conditioned another to respond as they dictate, then the question of whether the other is capable of giving informed consent becomes murky. But brainwashing is not only found in cults. It's very, very common in other dynamics, including parent/child, abusive partnerships, and the like. In that case, it's not about the sex (although if sex is occurring, it should be considered), but the sex isn't the point of that situation; it's about power and control, with sex being a very powerful way to remind the victim of their place in the hierarchy.

But without proof of brainwashing, then consenting adults are consenting adults.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

It would take it out of the equation as much as the incest version would, which was the point. When an adult with authority/power abuses that authority/power over somebody who does not have the information needed to give consent..it is wrong. If it goes on long enough that the person should be able to consent, the world view is normally twisted so much that they still are not able to be consenting. IE brainwashing. The incest factor is a non factor. It should be illegal regardless of if incest is a factor or not.

Which is my whole stance on the issue. Incest is a non-issue. The reasons brought up against incest have not been about the incest, but about issues that would be wrong regardless if incest is part of it or not. I've not seen a single argument, besides the 'squick' factor that hasn't been a 'should be illegal regardless of incest or not' issue.

[PepperElf]

There are a few states that allow it only in cases where children aren't a possibility, IIRC.

Personally, I think that what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors is no one's business but theirs.

those are in addition to the 17 or 18 states.



been away from this page for a while but... i do find it interesting when i see people trying to justify incest. and by incest i don't mean cousins. i mean sibling-sibling or parent-sibling where both parties are of age.

and no i haven't read all the pages yet. i may get to it but... i might not. got lots of things to work on today.



i know some look down on the norms against it and say "that's RELIGION based!" as if that's a justification for deciding it must not be wrong. But sometimes religious quotes aren't really wrong...

IIRC the "religion" aspect wasn't about birth defects but about the notion that you shouldn't compete for mates within your own family because it can set up strife amongst those you need to trust.

and even more so in this day and age there IS a choice of mates from outside groups.

[Fire_on_High]

*Considers thread topic.*
*Looks at his Location tag.*
*Again considers thread topic.*

...I should probably just walk away from this one.

Kabe...your cousin is a sheep??

[Andara Bledin]

i do find it interesting when i see people trying to justify incest.

The reasons for it being taboo are outdated. Most of the cultures of the world have matured since that was first made a taboo.

IIRC the "religion" aspect wasn't about birth defects but about the notion that you shouldn't compete for mates within your own family because it can set up strife amongst those you need to trust.

and even more so in this day and age there IS a choice of mates from outside groups.

Just as there is a larger choice of partners out there, there is also a larger pool for support. And families are much smaller and less likely to actually act like families these days.

The dynamics have changed a lot and there are a lot of things that were taboo that caused strife within families that have gone from being "issues" to being "rights."

This is a rule from another place and time that we continue to cling to because we find comfort in things that don't change and a lot of people were raised to think of the idea as too icky to even contemplate.

Plus, anyone who spends any appreciable effort on making sure siblings never get freaky together needs to take a look at the world around them and maybe focus their efforts on issues that really matter to the world at large. Making new legislation against it is like making texting illegal while driving - pandering to the people while doing nothing of substance.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

To me it just usually sounds like attempts to justify bad behavior.

and yes i do think once you cross that barrier more will fall... until we have people trying to justify adults having sex with preteens, using excuses like "they're mature for their age, so it's ok"




but in a way i'm not surprised either. society cares about "rights" more than "responsibility" these says. so as we go down the slope, people come up with more reasons to justify actions. or suggest that no one is really ever "hurt" by stuff like this... it's just the naysayers making stuff up, right?

*rolls eyes*

[Rageaholic]

To me it just usually sounds like attempts to justify bad behavior.

and yes i do think once you cross that barrier more will fall... until we have people trying to justify adults having sex with preteens, using excuses like "they're mature for their age, so it's ok"




but in a way i'm not surprised either. society cares about "rights" more than "responsibility" these says. so as we go down the slope, people come up with more reasons to justify actions. or suggest that no one is really ever "hurt" by stuff like this... it's just the naysayers making stuff up, right?

*rolls eyes*

ah the slippery slope fallacy.

The difference in these instances are that it's consenting adults, preteens are not adults. I don't particularly like incest and find it disgusting, but since it's not hurting anyone, and adults are involved, WHO GIVES A SHIT? It's not my business nor is it anyone elses.

[Duelist925]

To me it just usually sounds like attempts to justify bad behavior.

and yes i do think once you cross that barrier more will fall... until we have people trying to justify adults having sex with preteens, using excuses like "they're mature for their age, so it's ok"




but in a way i'm not surprised either. society cares about "rights" more than "responsibility" these says. so as we go down the slope, people come up with more reasons to justify actions. or suggest that no one is really ever "hurt" by stuff like this... it's just the naysayers making stuff up, right?

*rolls eyes*

I would agree with you, since I normally do think slippery slopes are dangerous, but I really hate this arguement. Regardless of my feeling on incest (ew), this arguement annoys me.

Look, there are pros and cons to incest. Admittedly more cons, but other than that I find it to be gross, I see little wrong with consenting adults doing what they will, as long as no one else is hurt in the process.

But saying it'll lead to legalized pedophilia....thats the same arguement a lot of people use against friggin gay marriage.

There is NO defense of pedophilia. None. There is no way it will ever be passed into law. Because at its root, its one of the most inherently harmful things possible--it can screw people up for life.

Incest, as long as certain precautions and age requirements are met, hurts no one. Whereas pedophilia hurts everyone.

[Andara Bledin]

and yes i do think once you cross that barrier more will fall... until we have people trying to justify adults having sex with preteens, using excuses like "they're mature for their age, so it's ok"

Oh, please. Do not bring up the "think of the children" argument in a discussion that is specifically not about children.

It's even in the title of the thread. "Consenting adults"

Yet again, every argument against letting incest be legal has amounted to either, "ew, gross!" or "but what about this other thing that's bad on it's own and has nothing to do with incest?"

^-.-^

[KabeRinnaul]

Kabe...your cousin is a sheep??

No, no, you're confusing your yokel stereotypes.

You're thinking of the Welsh.

[HYHYBT]

Everything on its own merits (or lack thereof.) There are things I believe are very much immoral, but also believe ought to be legal. Either on the grounds that it's not my decision to make for someone else so long as they're not hurting anyone, or because outlawing it causes (or would cause) more harm than allowing it to go on. Incest and prostitution both go in that category, as do some aspects of the whole drug thing.

[PepperElf]

"it doesn't hurt anyone".


The problem is... you may be assuming that the "adult" sexual relationship started at or after the age of consent. that's not always the case in incest. Sure you can always find stories about couples that met after years or decades of separation ... but you can also find cases where an incest relationship started when one member was underage or molested.

The reason incest will probably always be on the books is that... If incest became legal, you could molest a younger relative, convince them that you're the only one for them ever... and as long as you don't get caught (up to 3 years after the child turns 18*) you can have a husband or wife you've molded into the sex toy you want.

This can especially be true if you're the parent. But even an older sibling can really do it if he or she has a mind for manipulation.



And yes, it may turn to other taboo things. i'm not playing the "it's for the children" card - although you may try claiming i am... I'm just thinking back to earlier times when no one would ever imagine someone trying to justify or legalize incest.

and if we've come that far, what else will society try to defend?

[Duelist925]

"it doesn't hurt anyone".


The problem is... you may be assuming that the "adult" sexual relationship started at or after the age of consent. that's not always the case in incest. Sure you can always find stories about couples that met after years or decades of separation ... but you can also find cases where an incest relationship started when one member was underage or molested.

The reason incest will probably always be on the books is that... If incest became legal, you could molest a younger relative, convince them that you're the only one for them ever... and as long as you don't get caught (up to 3 years after the child turns 18*) you can have a husband or wife you've molded into the sex toy you want.

This can especially be true if you're the parent. But even an older sibling can really do it if he or she has a mind for manipulation.

The thing as, what your describing already falls under pedophilia. De-illegalizing incest won't suddenly make this start happening more or less. It won't effect this possibility in the slightest. If someone is twisted enough to do that, their going to do it regardless of incest laws or not.

And yes, it may turn to other taboo things. i'm not playing the "it's for the children" card - although you may try claiming i am... I'm just thinking back to earlier times when no one would ever imagine someone trying to justify or legalize incest.

and if we've come that far, what else will society try to defend?

Nobody is trying to justify incest in and of itself. Their saying current laws don't make sense, when it comes to consenting adults. As much as incest squicks me out, there is no reason for the law to interfere with what two consenting, legal adults do.

and incidentally, back in earlier times no one would ever imagine an interracial couple, an openly gay couple, or the friggan internet. I'm not comparing any of these to incest, mind you, simply trying to show how profoundly worthless "back in the day" argument is.