Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[Valmy]

That one's a no-brainer, since there's an authority imbalance that may or may not be present in sibling sex.  The consensus is that we send the parent to jail/gaol, and the child to therapy.

What if the parent is 85 and the kid is 60?

Man that's gross.

[Berkut]

Not sure. My cousins (brother and sister) had plenty of sex when they were 13-17 [their parents house only had one room for the kids, which they shared], and she grew to be a top manager at ________, while he is a now a ________.

Granted, her marriage only lasted 4 years and he hasn't married his girlfriend of the last 12 years, but I hardly doubt that is abnormal.

Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.

Malthus - building on your point, not disagreeing with you:

It's quite possible Ms. ________ and Mr. ________ think back on their "youthful indiscretions" with nothing but fondness.  I haven't said that incest is inherently, 100% of the time harmful.

The problem is that issues of consent, of power imbalances, of abuse, are almost impossible to analyze when two children live in the same room. 

Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.

"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.

Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".

Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".

"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."

If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.

[Eddie Teach]

What if the parent is 85 and the kid is 60?

Man that's gross.

[The Brain]

To be honest, I have no problem with banning parenting incest. I just think sibling incest should be legal.

If a parent has sex with a child, which one do you send to gaol? Non-rhetorical.

The parent, most likely.

So not automatically the parent. Good.

[Jacob]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.

[Barrister]

Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.

"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.

Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".

Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".

"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."

If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.

Berkut I like you.  In order that I might continue to keep liking you I am declining to engage in this discussion with you.

[viper37]

But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".

It's a valid concern, the same one that appeared when we changed the age of consent in the country.

However, isn't there any other way this can be avoided?

Rape cases are often argued like that: she (well, most of the time, it's 'she') was consenting, she never said no/stop, she changed her mind the morning after.  Thankfully, no one would try his day in court by saying "she was dressed like a slut" nowadays.  But how are such cases handled by courts?

Without obvious traces of violence and the defendant claiming it was consensual sex with someone maybe a bit drunk but not totally passed out?  The most recent cases I remember were a military officer (military justice, until the appeal) presumably raped by her immediate superior, and a girl who drugged herself willingly with GHB and later "woke up" in a men's bed while they were having sex.

It's true I don't have all the facts in front of me, relying only on the newspaper, but these seem tricky cases to win for the prosecution (the military won resulted in not guilty verdict, the GHB one in guilty verdict).

[Martinus]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.

[Malthus]

Not sure. My cousins (brother and sister) had plenty of sex when they were 13-17 [their parents house only had one room for the kids, which they shared], and she grew to be a top manager at ________, while he is a now a ________.

Granted, her marriage only lasted 4 years and he hasn't married his girlfriend of the last 12 years, but I hardly doubt that is abnormal.

Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.

Malthus - building on your point, not disagreeing with you:

It's quite possible Ms. ________ and Mr. ________ think back on their "youthful indiscretions" with nothing but fondness.  I haven't said that incest is inherently, 100% of the time harmful.

The problem is that issues of consent, of power imbalances, of abuse, are almost impossible to analyze when two children live in the same room. 

Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.

"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.

Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".

Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".

"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."

If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.

The liberty drum can be beaten too much, you know. 

I think everyone here believes that liberty as a concept is good, but that there must be reasonable limits to it. The argument is over what those reasonable limits are.

We also all agree that those limits are drawn by informed consent - that it isn't a true manifestation of liberty to allow someone to have sex with a person who does not have the capacity to consent. So, for example, we all agree that sex with minors is a legitimate state interest - a limit on absolute liberty.

The issue, put narrowly, is whether an incestuous relationship is an example of one in which the capacity of the partners to provide consent is in question.

Various people draw the line various ways. Some would allow adult sibling incest, but not adult parent-child incest. Others would disallow both. I do not for a second believe this is a clear-cut issue, with those favouring "Liberty!!!" lined up on one side, and the freedom-hating troglodytes on the other.

[Barrister]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.

You're both saying the same thing.

TYpically, there are two defences to a sexual assault charge:

1. We didn't have sex; and
2. It was consentual.

So if there's independent evidence that sex took place, the Accused's only possible defence is consent.  And that's because if there is consent, it doesn't meet the definition of sexual assault (aka rape).

[Malthus]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.

What if the victim was 7 years old?

[Eddie Teach]

And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.

And when they're both kids, then what? Blame the eldest? Blame the male?

[Martinus]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.

What if the victim was 7 years old?

Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?

[Valmy]

And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.

And when they're both kids, then what? Blame the eldest? Blame the male?

This already happens and both kids go into therapy.  The parents/guardians might also be in trouble depending on the circumstances.

[Malthus]

I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."

And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".

Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.

What if the victim was 7 years old?

Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?

Because to my mind, the issue is the ability to give consent. Underage is one case where that ability is presumptively in question. Incest is another.