Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[garbon]

But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex.  If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Where are the laws to prevent adult men and women from being preyed on for sex? What's so special about the coercive power in family dynamics that we "care" about that but not in other unequal relationships*?

*which I know is something Berk wrote about earlier.

[garbon]

Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?

[Berkut]

Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.

As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,

Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.

Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.

Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.

There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...

No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.

This is a useful link:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.

But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply).  The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects.  Merely having one recessive gene is fine.  But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.

If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.

So the genetic risk is real.  And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.

Interesting. The articles conclusion seems pretty simple:

Because of the potential risks, couples that are closely related are often advised to see a genetic counselor. The genetic counselor can figure out if they are both carriers of a disease. And then the couple can weigh the risks.

Easy solution. Isn't technology great? I am glad we were able to put this particular objection to bed.

Of course, the idea that the only purpose for sex is procreation is bogus anyway - people have sex without having kids all the time.

Sure, previously without an ability to control procreation, this would be a serious problem. Lucky for us, it isn't relevant now, or not relevant enough to be certainly problematic.

Note: The risks associated with women having children over the age of 40 are on this order of increased risk as well - should be make sure women over 40 aren't allowed to have sex with anyone, since they might get pregnant and have a child with a birth defect?

Or is that exact same risk acceptable, while THIS risk is not? If so - why?

[derspiess]

Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?

It's the French.  They're wrong on a buttload of stuff.

[grumbler]

No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.

This is a useful link:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.

But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply).  The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects.  Merely having one recessive gene is fine.  But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.

If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.

So the genetic risk is real.  And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.

Sure you want to use a source that claims that the chance of two random people having a child with Cystic Fibrosis is one in 240?  According to the http://www.cff.org/aboutcf/ about 1,000 babies are born with it each year.  There are more than 240,000 births in any given year.

There is no question that there is a greater chance that the offspring of immediate family members increases the rate of expressions of recessive genes, including disease ones. That's still a much smaller chance of birth defects than the article implies/claims.  Probably woman bearing children after forty represents an equivalent risk to sibling marriage (Fate may have a better handle on this than I).

[Berkut]

But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex.  If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Where are the laws to prevent adult men and women from being preyed on for sex? What's so special about the coercive power in family dynamics that we "care" about that but not in other unequal relationships*?

*which I know is something Berk wrote about earlier.

What I really object to isn't that (although it illuminates the hypocrisy of the position - it is clear these arguments are justifications for an a priori wish to ban incest, not the actual reasons for that ban) even.

It is the simple idea that people think that society has the right to decide for individuals what they are allowed to do in regards to their relationships.

I can think of a huge number of examples of where I am nearly 100% convinced that Party A should NOT get involved sexually or emotionally with Party B. Party B is abusive, Party B is an asshole, Party B is domineering while Party A is co-dependnent, whatever. Inter-personal relationships are incredibly complex and very difficult to get right.

But at the end of the day, it is Party A's choice. They might decide that despite all my reasonable, well-founded objections, they want to do it anyway. Who am I to say they not only should they not, I have the right to make it illegal for them, because I am THAT thoroughly convinced I know better than them?

It is the ultimate height of arrogance and lack of basic respect for other human beings to suggest that anyone have that kind of power over someone else.

[The Brain]

As I think I have said in some earlier thread I basically agree with Berkut. I don't think BB values/understands liberty. NB I don't get all ragey about it like Berkut. Relax.

[grumbler]

Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults?

Cheese-eating and surrendering are expressions of recessive genes?

[garbon]

Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults?

Cheese-eating and surrendering are expressions of recessive genes?

Oh no, I love cheese.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

[alfred russel]

Indeed.

While I will argue vehemently that this should NOT be illegal, I will also argue rather vehemently that banging your siblings is fucking revolting, and in the vast majority of cases is probably indicative of something pretty fucked up going on.

So thinking the state should step in to stop some pretty fucked up things from happening means a lack of understanding liberty?

Berkut, your idea that morality should not enter into law in a society with liberty might lead to an interesting experiment to try out some day but it isn't aligned with the western legal tradition or the historical understanding of "liberty." Walking through the city naked won't harm anyone, but will still land me in jail. Same with having sex in public. And the same with many other things. Including that adult playing football for the university of michigan, a state school, that apparently needs to be pulled from the game if he is exhibiting concussion symptoms, whether he wants to or not.

[Berkut]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.

So I would say...no?

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.

So I would say...no?

Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?

[Berkut]

Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?

I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.

So I would say...no?

Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?

I don't.

[Valmy]

Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?

It's the French.  They're wrong on a buttload of stuff.

Such as?