Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Original Poster
#1 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 10:26 PM
Default Crime or True Love?
There's a documentary on C4 at the moment (in the UK) called "Sleeping with my Sister" and it details the stories of two couples who have fallen in love.. with one problem, they are both half brother and sister.
There is a bit of info about the programme here

Nick and Danielle's story

and

Tom and Stefanie's story

Both couples did not grow up together as children and only met recently as adults.

Nick and Danielle are arguing that they should be allowed to be together, that they are in love and it is not meant to be incest.

What do you think?
Are they right to fight to be together? Should it be allowed?
Or is it completely wrong? Should they stop seeing each other? And even be prosecuted for being incestuous and breaking the law?
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 10:30 PM
I watched a bit of it. Personally I think the incest laws are there for a reason and they should be prosecuted. It might be hard but they are grown-ups and should do the right thing.
Field Researcher
#3 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 10:37 PM
So long as they don't reproduce! It's not worth it to risk so many birth defects just because the sister's biological clock was ticking. It's unfair to any child they might produce.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 10:44 PM
Incestuous relationships can result in consanguinated babies who suffer from severe dissabilities in most cases. Like romyhorse said, incest laws are there for a reason and they should know better than act on their impulses.
Alchemist
#5 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 11:15 PM
I have a half brother and sister I have never met nor seen in any form in my entire life. In fact I only found out about their existance by accident.

Do I love them as family? Not at all. They are complete strangers to me, emotionally as well. If I hadn't found out and met one of them and developped feelings for them, yeah I would be in quite a dilemma, because family is something we're indoctrinated in: relatives are off limits, sexually/romantically. From a natural point of view they're still a man and a woman though.

I don't know what to say about it. :/

If they didn't know they were related when they met, I can understand how the feelings might have emerged and they feel it's unfair. But I don't think they should pursue a relationship; it's just unhealthy for so many reasons.

If they did know however...no. Just no. You still share a parent, ffs.

About this couple: they did know they were related, so acting on such an impulse is just dumb. Regardless of not growing up together.

If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets
Lab Assistant
#6 Old 27th Mar 2008 at 11:38 PM
No. Just no. In the case of both these couples, not only is it wrong, it's incredibly selfish. With both of the couples in question, at least one partner was married already, so not only is it incest, it's infidelity. It seemed from the article that both these couples knew they were related when they began their romantic relationships, so they knew that if their families found out there would be hell to pay for both sides. I agree with everyone else so far who's said that incest laws are there for a reason- knowingly having a sexual relationship with your sibling at the expense of everyone else in your life- and the life that could result from it- is stupid, unnatural and incredibly selfish. I usually don't think that what people do in their bedroom is anyone's business but their own, but I draw the line at incest, infidelity and polygamy (polygamy is unrelated in this case but I just thought I'd make that clear).
#7 Old 28th Mar 2008 at 10:58 PM
If they want to get prosecuted or have everyone chuck insults at them, then no problem. To me, I would never EVER EVERR do that, its rank-But if they love each other then they can do what they want really.
After all, why prosecute them for breaking the law? Do they prosecute teenage parents who are under 16, such as them 3 sisters, I beleive one was 13, the other was 14--Where they prosecuted, noooo!! They should be, its against the law, the legal age is 16, and they were under--If the incest-aters get prosecuted,so should underage teenage parents tbh.
Field Researcher
#8 Old 29th Mar 2008 at 8:41 AM
This is a hard one... I don't think we should be policed on who we love. I firmly believe that.

My first instinct is that this is so wrong. On many, many levels. Thinking about their relationship actually makes me feel a little bit sick. And I know that many people feel that same way about my same-sex relationship (but we're not related in any way BTW). Sooooo.... How can I possibly say that they should stop without being a complete hypocrite? This whole thing makes me feel very uneasy and conflicted.

Please call me Ace
Field Researcher
#9 Old 29th Mar 2008 at 8:55 AM
The disgust about incest comes from same source of the disgust you feel when you think about having sex with a friend, that's all. If they never lived together, there's no reason for them to not fall in love with each other like a couple. If they did live together, it'd be slighly gross IMHO but they are free to love and act on their love. I do think, however, they should not, by their own common sense, have children. They could always adopt. I think it'd be morally wrong to have a child when you know he/she's probably have some terrible birth issue that can keep him/her from having a good life. But anyway, no one is in position to keep them from doing it.

You want to know the Secret... so did I. Low in the dust I sought it, and on high. No agony of any mortal brain shall wrest the secret of the life of man. The Search has taught me that the Search is vain.
Scholar
#10 Old 29th Mar 2008 at 2:06 PM
I don't see what the problem is. Disgust does not make for an argument. If a racist is disgusted at seeing a mixed race couple, it does not follow that such a couple is in the wrong - rather, the disgust is wrong. Why not the same for incest?

Why should we judge what two consenting adults do in their bedroom? If two guys get together, or two girls, or a brother and a sister, I don't think we have any right to refuse them that freedom.

Incest doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps having children from such a relationship would be (I don't think it would, but that's probably debatable).

Nonetheless, incest shouldn't be a crime. It should be legalised, just like mixed-race and homosexual relations have been in most countries. Indeed, incest is legal in Belgium, Israel and France.
#11 Old 29th Mar 2008 at 4:07 PM
I guess the issue is where to draw the line. The definition of incest and what type of relationships are incestuous has changed over time and vary by culture. During the renissance if a woman married her brother-in-law that was considered as incest. While some countries now consider cousin marriages as incest, there are still places where that isn't the case.

I will be honest, personaly I don't like the idea of a brother/sister relationship. I guess the line should be drawn on the connection to birth defects. Considering that there is such a strong connection between parents who are siblings and the child's birth defects, I personally would consider that as crossing the line.
Lab Assistant
#12 Old 29th Mar 2008 at 6:26 PM
Amusingly, there was a very similar case - Patrick and Susan - occupying the German media a few weeks ago. Only none of the participants was married.

Their case was brought to the federal supreme court (?) of Germany, arguing that no object protected by law was violated by the incestuous relationship. The court ruled against them however, mostly on grounds on the danger of genetic defects for their offspring.

That is of course the only sensible reasoning for making incest a criminal offense. The only problem is that by that reasoning you would also have to prosecute people with genetic defects who have children, possibly even heavy smokers. The question is, how much should genetic hygiene be an object for jurisdiction? I am a bit undecided about this.
#13 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 7:06 AM
Incest, the universal human taboo.

I have mixed feelings about this. It personally revolts me, but then again, I don't believe in stopping consenting adults from doing what they want with their bodies. I think they take it too far by having children together. But even that, I have uncertainties about.
Scholar
#14 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 7:13 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
I don't see what the problem is. Disgust does not make for an argument. If a racist is disgusted at seeing a mixed race couple, it does not follow that such a couple is in the wrong - rather, the disgust is wrong. Why not the same for incest?

Why should we judge what two consenting adults do in their bedroom? If two guys get together, or two girls, or a brother and a sister, I don't think we have any right to refuse them that freedom.

Incest doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps having children from such a relationship would be (I don't think it would, but that's probably debatable).

Nonetheless, incest shouldn't be a crime. It should be legalised, just like mixed-race and homosexual relations have been in most countries. Indeed, incest is legal in Belgium, Israel and France.



I agree. I think that it should be legal for two consenting adults to have sex. I would be worried for the children, though. I think it's a fairly slippery slope to say that incestuous partners shouldn't be able to have children. The same logic could extend to people with Down's Syndrome, a history of genetic defects, or women who are over a certain age.


I'll echo Beechwell's sentiments on the issue of genetic screening and regulation to prevent defects in the offspring. That is to say--it's touchy and I'm undecided.

I still think it is GROSS, but I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed. And speaking as someone who is in love, I have to say: if I found out I was related to my fiance then I would still do everything in my power to be with him. Three lightning bolt chemistry is hard to ignore! (In fact, this is something we joke about a lot since many people ask us if we're brother and sister, which is RIDICULOUSLY ignorant since I'm azn, he is mex/white, and we have completely different facial structures & features. The only things about us that look similar are our hairstyles & eyeglasses.)
Instructor
#15 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 7:20 AM
I have two half brothers. I don't associate with them as family, I have known one of them for ages but don't see him that often. I haven't met the other one and as far as I'm concerned if I start going out with him [if I ever meet him] and then find out he's my half brother I wouldn't think it was gross because I don't associate with him as being related to me.

Ok now shoot me down in flames.

Cass, 22, Australia
My Simblr
Scholar
#16 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 9:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty
I'll echo Beechwell's sentiments on the issue of genetic screening and regulation to prevent defects in the offspring. That is to say--it's touchy and I'm undecided.

Indeed. It does sound a lot like eugenics. I'll side with freedom in this respect, and say that everyone should be allowed to have at least two children (any more and it starts to conflict with environmental ethics, but that's another debate) and that those children should be whatever sort of children the parents want (that's right, I support designer babies, but again, that's another debate)

I feel that the gift of life, even with a risk of disease and disability, is such a benefit that it outweighs all but the most serious of genetic conditions (such as those that cause a life of unbearable pain). Plus, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) could allow for parents to have a child free of genetic disorders, even if the parents are brother and sister.
Lab Assistant
#17 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 12:37 PM
I think it should be allowed, but ieuwl, I would never do that.
And I don't think they should be allowed to get children because probably there will be things wrong with them (syndrom of down etc).
But if they love eachother.. well okay I don't care.
Lab Assistant
#18 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:15 PM
Speaking to genetic defects... the Egyptian Pharaohs had a LONG line of incestuous marriages. They were forced to marry their siblings because of the belief that the Pharaoh was God, so naturally he should only marry others in his deified family. This practice went on for centuries, and the line did accumulate serious defects over time, but it was definitely not instantaneous, or else you can see how they wouldn't be able to sustain a line because the Pharaohs and their siblings would all die very young.
Children produced from an incestuous marriage have triple the chance of genetic defects appearing. That still doesn't mean a lot. It means the chances go from about 1% to 3%. So banning incest on those grounds is sort of pointless. But I still do NOT agree with the practice.
Lab Assistant
#19 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 9:55 PM
Many royal families of old were built up on "incestuous" marriages. And by that, I mean some serious inbreeding. Not necessarily brother and sister, but first cousins. What makes incest so repulsive to many of us is the issue of knowledge. Personally, that two people who know that they are related can engage in any sort of sensual/sexual relationship seems particularly...not counter-intuitive, per se, but certainly contrary to how many people around the world are socialized.
I don't want to start a whole new offshoot debate, but I think that the entire issue concerning the legality (or illegality) of incest is terribly ironic considering that many many civilizations look to creation myths/stories/re-tellings/histories that involve one man and one woman who were parents to all of the humans thereafter. Of course, that's alright for the first man and woman, but their children...I gather they weren't forming spouses out of clay, but rather looking to their siblings for procreation, etc.
Which makes me wonder, how many people ARE actually closely related to their spouses/significant others and don't even know it!
Scholar
#20 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Indeed. It does sound a lot like eugenics. I'll side with freedom in this respect, and say that everyone should be allowed to have at least two children (any more and it starts to conflict with environmental ethics, but that's another debate) and that those children should be whatever sort of children the parents want (that's right, I support designer babies, but again, that's another debate)

I feel that the gift of life, even with a risk of disease and disability, is such a benefit that it outweighs all but the most serious of genetic conditions (such as those that cause a life of unbearable pain). Plus, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) could allow for parents to have a child free of genetic (disorders, even if the parents are brother and sister.


That's fair. What I was thinking of in terms of genetic regulations on incestuous couples is whether something like PGD should be mandatory or not. And if it is mandatory, then should it apply to more couples than just incestuous ones (with histories of genetic disease or seeming "normal" couples).


btw, I looked at the "Earth is full" debate thread and read the first reply. :jaw:
Scholar
#21 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 1:54 AM
Correlation does not equal causation, though I doubt that inbreeding even weakly correlates with the incidence of serial killers in the first place.
Scholar
#22 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 2:53 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
No, but it does with a variety mental illnesses and genetic diseases.

As robokitty, you probably know, that by diversity our genes get stronger... the dominant and usually healthier genes work while the recessive genes don't pop up as much...
For instance... in a family with a mental illness genetic predisposition, mating within the family will only encourage that gene.

As well as various medical conditions.
Plus, incest is one of the universal taboos. And it is so, for a multitude of reasons both social, genetic, and psychological.


Yes, inbreeding results in a higher chance of genetic diseases that can result in mental illness. But this also applies to people who express genetic diseases, people who have Down syndrome, people who have babies past a certain age, and these people aren't restricted from reproduction (nor do I believe they should be). And if you want to get into really sticky issues, it also applies to people from lower economic classes whose living conditions expose them to far more pollutants.

In any case, I find the "you could make a serial killer" position similar to the "you could make the next Beethoven" position that pro-lifers sometimes take. It's statistically unsupported and could just as easily swing the other direction.

If you are arguing for genetic strength, then it may actually be better to argue for many generations of inbreeding, which eventually results in more fit offspring. The reason for this is that inbreeding "unmasks" a lot of recessive lethal alleles. The offspring with show the recessive phenotype die, leaving individuals who do not have the recessive lethals. While the initial generations of inbred children may have problems overall, eventually you will have children that have increased fitness.


For incest being a universal taboo... this is correct in some regards. Yes, each culture has norms that prevent very closely related people from interbreeding, but these norms change quite a bit between cultures. In some, it's first cousins, in others it's second cousins, and in some rare cases brother-sister arrangements are allowed.


However, I don't think that just because something is taboo means that it is automatically wrong. Though I know that people will cringe at this analogy, I support incest between two consenting adults for the same reasons I support homosexuality between two consenting adults.
#23 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 3:06 AM
Really, first generation inbreeding doesn't raise the risk of disease or deformity that much. It is multi generational inbreeding that causes the real genetic problems.
Scholar
#24 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 3:39 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
Homosexuality is not a universal taboo though.


A universal taboo is something that the grand majority of civilizations have deemed absolutely wrong.


If you want to get really technical, incest is more of a relative taboo per each society. There is no universal idea of what level of incest is acceptable.

Quote:
For incest, there are three extremely obvious reasons I feel sort of offput having to even explain... because everyone should know them almost innately.

Biologically: Obvious birth defects (not always, but it's higher.... and more often than not negative).
Socially: We need to branch out and form larger communities and our own families.
Psychologically: Family plays a huge role, in that they are the only people for the most part that love us for absolutely no gain or "reason" other than they are family. If you take a family member and have sex with them... that attaches strings. If you look at incest victims, they tend to feel like no one can love them for who they are because even their own family wanted something from them.

I think that's really the worst of them. But the bio and social repercussions of an incest a-ok world is also notable.


The biological reason, as stated before, is no more statistically significant than allowing poor people, old people, and people who already have genetic defects to breed.

For the social reason, I don't see why there is a moral imperative to "branch out" and form communities outside the family or even why these communities must be formed through pair-bonding.

The psychological reason uses the term incest victims. We're not talking about victims here. We're talking about two consenting adults. In the case of the articles, some of them are just meeting each other for the first time and do not even think of one another as "family." Also, I question the universality of the idea that family love us without expecting something in return. In many cultures/subcultures, a hierarchy of power is built into a family, where parents expect and severely punish their children if they do not conform to their standards.


All together, I think that this gut reaction to incest is similar to many conservatives' gut reaction to homosexuality. It's biologically unnatural. It's gross. It's against social norms.

But who does it really hurt?
Scholar
#25 Old 1st Apr 2008 at 3:48 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Faithlove13xxx
You don't see a need to branch out social avenues beyond the family?

Dear God....


logical fallacy: appeal to ridicule


Quote:
And like I said, homosexuality is not really a taboo like incest is.
In America... it may be looked down upon, but it's no a taboo like incest is.

Alsooooooo.....
Most things that make the huge majority of even a modern population go "eww" might be related to evolution. And if so.... that's another sign we shouldn't probably do it for our own benefit.

But anyway.
I'm not spending my night saying why incest is wrong.
Lol.... no offense to the defenders of incest here.
But this is a duh instance.


I would argue that majority of cultures put women in a submissive position to men, and this is also related to evolution. However, such a pattern does not indicate the moral justness of a society that treats women as less than men.

logical fallacies - appeal to ridicule (again) and appeal to common practice
 
Page 1 of 7
Back to top