Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[crazy canuck]

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme.  How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases.  Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.

I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.

Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?

I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.

[mongers]

I had a friend who was unusually close to his sister, we did wonder. 

[The Brain]

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme.  How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases.  Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.

I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.

Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?

I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.

You may want to quit now.

[viper37]

But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.

But that isnt the reason.  In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time).  The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her. 

In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult.  But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".

but we are socialized for a lot of thing.  We are byproducts of our society and our immediate environment.  You'd be a very different individual today had you been raised on a ranch north of Vancouver.

Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong.  Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality.  In Canada at least, there's a social taboo on these things.  Maybe in some other countries there is not.
Does not make any more justifiable for a country to forbid this, imho.

The point I was trying to make is that we can assume a lot of things are derived from the education of an individual, it's exposure to social taboos, the restrictions or the absence of restriction on one's behavior as a child.  And to penalize something between all adults today because of something we assume has happenned in their childhood is not the right way to do things, imho.

A muslim women could be socialized to weir a veil whenever she's out of the house.  Should society forbid all religious symbols because the tchador is a sign of women's oppression and subservience to the men of her family?  Don't answer - I don't even want to go back there

If education is a problem, we should fight it with more education.  Sex education class, morality class, ethics class, stuff like that, that teach the children certain values that will help them make informed consent in their later life.

[garbon]

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme.  How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases.  Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.

I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.

Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?

I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.

You may want to quit now.

I wonder if that's what qualifies as a good argument in Canada.

[garbon]

Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong.  Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality.

I don't think that's the case. I think many of those (when talking about what turns a person on) is probably a brain thing. I doubt most people into beastiality or scat had people teaching them to be interested in it.

For BDSM, people often talk about it with regards to how their brain is wired.

[garbon]

Oh and morality class?

[crazy canuck]

But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.

But that isnt the reason.  In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time).  The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her. 

In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult.  But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".

but we are socialized for a lot of thing.  We are byproducts of our society and our immediate environment.  You'd be a very different individual today had you been raised on a ranch north of Vancouver.

Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong.  Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality.  In Canada at least, there's a social taboo on these things.  Maybe in some other countries there is not.
Does not make any more justifiable for a country to forbid this, imho.

The point I was trying to make is that we can assume a lot of things are derived from the education of an individual, it's exposure to social taboos, the restrictions or the absence of restriction on one's behavior as a child.  And to penalize something between all adults today because of something we assume has happenned in their childhood is not the right way to do things, imho.

A muslim women could be socialized to weir a veil whenever she's out of the house.  Should society forbid all religious symbols because the tchador is a sign of women's oppression and subservience to the men of her family?  Don't answer - I don't even want to go back there

If education is a problem, we should fight it with more education.  Sex education class, morality class, ethics class, stuff like that, that teach the children certain values that will help them make informed consent in their later life.

I think you are heading in the direction of moral relativism?

There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful.  This isnt a question of social or moral relatism.

But I do have to laugh as how extreme the Libertards around here (not you but Berky and the crew) can really get.

[Tonitrus]

This was quite a good debate between CC and Berkut, until both started asserting what the other person's position was. 

[viper37]

I don't think that's the case. I think many of those (when talking about what turns a person on) is probably a brain thing. I doubt most people into beastiality or scat had people teaching them to be interested in it.

I don't mean to "teach", but maybe just not impress the social taboos on it, or go too hard in the opposite direction, like people raised in the deeply religious family that end up totally freaking out and going 180.

For BDSM, people often talk about it with regards to how their brain is wired.

Well, like homosexuality, then.
Maybe it's the same for incest.  And scat.  And bestiality.  Modern research on pedophilia seems to point in that direction too, there's a genetic factor involved.

Now, to refrain from acting on your impulse is another matter.  No matter how yucky it seems to us, how far should the state go in regulating private behavior between adults?

I'm pretty sure incest doesn't happen out of the blue, but once they're adults and choose to live together should we really intervene because it's likely in the past there was some form of coercicion or social conditionning inside the family?  It's tricky to justify, imho.  I can see reasonable grounds to forbid it as well as reasonable grounds to allow it.  Should we treat it as a condition the way we treat pedophilia? (though proper treatment is imho still lacking)

In countries with no laws on incest, are there evidence of more severe prejudices to the children?  Are the cases of child abuses more numerous?

[garbon]

I don't mean to "teach", but maybe just not impress the social taboos on it, or go too hard in the opposite direction, like people raised in the deeply religious family that end up totally freaking out and going 180.

Yeah still not really buying it though. I mean if those sorts of desires come up, I'd think they are likely universally condemned.

Well, like homosexuality, then.
Maybe it's the same for incest.  And scat.  And bestiality.  Modern research on pedophilia seems to point in that direction too, there's a genetic factor involved.

Yeah it is possible. I mean, thinking about society, why would you pick to be into something that other people find disgusting and for most of those, also have made illegal? Not that the last two shouldn't be illegal but just that it seems to me unlikely that someone would actively choose those interests.

[viper37]

I think you are heading in the direction of moral relativism?

maybe.  Social conditionning is an important part of who we become as adults, how we view the world.  Not 100%, but a good part of it is influenced by our childhood, negatively or positively.

There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful. 

Using drugs is harmful.  Many drug users smoke pot (or worst) with their adult children.
Lots and lots of things are harmful and are either legal or tolerated.  As anti drug as I am, I'd feel bad if our resources were use to bust adults smoking pot in their homes.

I just think it's a bad idea to regulate sexual relations between adults.  No matter how harmful it may appear to be, so long as it's not a case of abuse, I do feel it's a bad idea for the State to intervene in these cases.  But I don't really lose sleep at night knowing it's forbidden.  There is no doubt though, that any case involving a minor should be prosecuted.

As such, I find the wording "fundamental right" to be a bit too strong.

[Malthus]

Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.

You are mistaken.   A boss or superior may have a consensual relationship with a subordinate employee.  All such relationships are not presumbed to be improper and indeed many such workplace relationships do exist without incident.  Similarily I know of no policies which prohibit sex between between adult students at university or appropriately ages high school students.  I have no idea where you are getting that from.  I am not clear about the rules regarding lawyers and their clients.  Never had to turn my mind to it.  But I do know that it is not always unethical.  I know a few lawyers who are happily married to people who were their clients.

I've been sick for a few days and missed much of this debate. But to return to a point here ...

... I did not say that a boss sleeping with a subordinate *always* was against company policy, only that it was *a matter for* company policy - that is, it was something that, if it was prohibited at all, would be prohibited by company policy - as opposed to the criminal law.

Similarly with lawyers and clients.

For example, my law societies' rules of professional conduct has no "blanket" prohibition on lawyers having sex with clients - but rather cites such sex as an example of conduct that may be a "conflict of interest", as follows:

(d) A lawyer has a sexual or close personal relationship with a client.

(i) Such a relationship may conflict with the lawyer's duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client. The relationship may obscure whether certain information was acquired in the course of the lawyer and client relationship and may jeopardize the client's right to have all information concerning their affairs held in strict confidence. The relationship may in some circumstances permit exploitation of the client by their lawyer. If the lawyer is a member of a firm and concludes that a conflict exists, the conflict is not imputed to the lawyer's firm, but would be cured if another lawyer in the firm who is not involved in such a relationship with the client handled the client's work.

The BC Code is the same on this point:

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2638&t=Chapter-3-–-Relationship-to-Clients#3.4

In summary, you have misinterpreted what I was saying.

[crazy canuck]

There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful. 

Using drugs is harmful.  Many drug users smoke pot (or worst) with their adult children.
Lots and lots of things are harmful and are either legal or tolerated.  As anti drug as I am, I'd feel bad if our resources were use to bust adults smoking pot in their homes.

I just think it's a bad idea to regulate sexual relations between adults.  No matter how harmful it may appear to be, so long as it's not a case of abuse, I do feel it's a bad idea for the State to intervene in these cases.  But I don't really lose sleep at night knowing it's forbidden.  There is no doubt though, that any case involving a minor should be prosecuted.

As such, I find the wording "fundamental right" to be a bit too strong.

I dont think there is an easy comparison between the harm done by smoking pot to the abusive situation of a parent having sex with their child.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which such a sexual relationship should ever be allowed.  Berkut goes on about liberty and such but I dont think liberty means allowing parents to prey on their children.   What happened to the "liberty" of the child?  The argument that a child can give "consent" to having sex with their parent when they become an adult is nonsensical as the case I referred to about clearly shows.

Berkut's response?  Bad facts make made laws.  Nice maxim.  Doesnt fit here.  He would have to demonstrate that its ok for parents to have sex with their children for those facts to be isolated and not worth addressing.

I am in general agreement that the State has no business regulating sexual relations between adults.  But this isnt really just a a matter of a relationship between adults - this is a relationship which starts in childhood (although may not become sexual until later).  As such I think there is an important distinction between this sort of relationship and others.

[Malthus]

The case you cite is reprehensible, but I recognize that it is generally reprehensible for reasons that have almost nothing do with the person having sex with her being her father. You apparently feel that that kind of brainwashing is a-ok as long as there isn't actual incest involved. I find it revolting regardless - I just don't know what a good way of stopping it via the legal system might be...get CPS involved early? Get rid of home schooling? Those solutions have problems as well.

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

The argument is that such inability - to make informed, adult decisions as to whether of not to screw one's father - is the norm, not the exception: it is (usually) inherent in the nature of a parent-child relationship that the parent has a disproportionate influence over the child, which vitiates the normal process of providing informed consent to sex.

There are indeed other situations in which the notion that all adults are presumptively capable of making free and informed consent to whatever is overturned - and they are not uncommon in family law matters.

For example, the ability to contract one's own seperation agreement, without oversight and review by the courts, is limited in some jurisdictions by law - because, in practice, it was found that (typically, men) from more 'traditional' societies were using such processes to in effect gain all from seperation, leaving their ex-wives with nothing.

Incest is of course a more extreme case. The bond between a parent and child is even more unbalanced and unequal than the bond between spouses on the verge of divorce.