Lately I’ve been involved in some curious discussions with various people over incest laws. I feel such laws are not necessary if we’re talking about sex between consenting adults. What happens in a private bedroom has nothing to do with the government. In fact, it’s one of those examples of the law getting in over its head – simply out of their jurisdiction. Like making suicide illegal. Adults who want to have sex with each other will damn well have it regardless of the law. These are instances where the famous saying from Oliver Twist “The law is an ass” are applicable.
One line of argument goes that without such laws against incest, everyone will start having sex with their parents and siblings. Such reasoning is also used for homosexuality where people believe that legalizing gay marriage will be the end of traditional marriage and that we’re all secretly longing to boink someone of our own gender. And of course that will be the end of the human race as we know it!
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of us dislike the idea of sexual relations with our close family members. And it’s not because of the law. We’re not even aware of laws against incest till much later. Either due to the Westermarck effect or social taboos or whatever, we generally don’t feel like making out with our brothers or sisters with or without the law. Proponents of incest laws claim that children born out of incest have a higher risk of genetic defects. This is true. But there are two objections to this line of reasoning.
First, incest by itself merely refers to the sexual act. Most acts of sex don’t lead to kids. It’s more reasonable to have a law saying that all sexual relations between siblings etc need to utilize a contraceptive. Sure, it won’t be 100% effective but given the low rate of incest in the first place, this probability becomes vanishingly small. Not worth having a broad law for.
Second, the problem of prohibiting sex just because there’s a chance of genetically problematic kids is dangerous. There are any number of genetic abnormalities like Down’s syndrome for example that are passed down from parent to child. Do we ban all people with Down’s syndrome from having sex? Or having kids? Hell, there’s evidence that having kids when you’re over 40 significantly increases the chances of genetic abnormalities in children. So we ban sex for everyone aged over 40? Or outlaw having children? How about we issue breeding licenses?
Bottom line – Incest laws need to go. By itself which adult has sex with whom is none of the government’s business. Sex harms no one. There’s a stronger case to be made for having children, but these are problematic also. Most people simply dislike incest because of tradition or whatever and this is perfectly fine. No one is forcing them to have sex with anyone they don’t want. The problem comes when they try and dictate to other people what they should do.
1: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US. It is 268/100,00 versus the traffics 20/100,000. With that in mind, this is why the government actually bans certain foods such as Trans Fats. It is in the best interest of the state for its people to be in relatively good health.
2: The family unit in the US is protected and family’s (particularly children) have great rights in the US. Abuse is low etc. due to such protections. This includes abuse of adults over 18. Otehr than that, no.
3: Sure you can. Love is something we made up 200 years ago. Mind over body. The human brain is capable of great things. You chose your spouse for other good reasons: piety, stature, financial stability and of course good character. The love develops in stages. The first 2 yeras are entirely different from the last 2 yeras. Love can be chosen.
4: That one example was enough to be utilized in court and, therefore, is used as a MAJOR precedent in incest cases.
5: No, but I am right about “if it is legal, it can come true” in the case of city development. Human beings do whatever they chose if the environment allows for it, right? That is how we are.
In reply to Western Point of View
1. We’ll talk once you show me how one person can cause another to have a heart attack. Again. False analogy and actually proves my point since people are allowed to eat whatever they can get their hands on.
2. Please stick to the points. This has nothing to do with point 2 or what I said before.
3. Choosing your life partner is a fundamental right. This is not up for debate. Please stick to point 3 in my original comment
4. That example involved invalid consent and not incest. Bring up a similar case where it’s genuine consent and we can talk.
5. False analogy. Also false slippery slope. Showing an example of housing development doesn’t mean the same holds true for incest. Like I said, it’s not illegal to smear feces on your face. Yet people don’t do it. Why?
For reference, here are the original five points I talked about if you’re having difficulty remembering them: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2013/rights-and-freedoms/are-incest-laws-absurd.html/comment-page-2/#comment-18499
1: You can scare someone to death, can’t you? If that person is already unhealthy, you give them a nice surprise, that could be their demise. BTW, a vehicle that hits the side of the road and falls into a cliff or something while driving at fast speeds is on him. Nobody else “killed” this person. The government HAS banned certain foods in teh US. Trans fats come to mind.
2: incest from parental figures itself is a form of abuse. Abuse CAN occur to adults, why not? Assault is technically physical abuse from a stranger, right? Like I said, when LA county makes certain zoning issues legal, OF COURSE people will begin doing stupid things to their houses. Countries without strict zoning such as India is proof of that. If it is legal, there is a major possibility that people WILL do such a thing. If Slavery were legal, people might buy slaves or they might not. Remember, environmental factors are also an issue.
3: It isn’t a fundamental right. The government can bar you from marrying, o say a North Korean or Iranian supporter. Love in the Western sense isn’t real. That “love” feeling is nothing but dopamines and endorphins running through your thyroids between your brain and genitals. These endorphins can be running through as a result of hormonal imbalance, making a person believe he “might” be in love with his sister, brother, parent etc. Same with the same sex. At the same time, our brains, once we realize this, can easily overcome hormonal issues.
4: The consent was never proved or disproved. It was simply a “possibility.” The court actually never went into whether or not there was consent. As soon as the court discovered it was incest, they stopped their and passed judgement. Those are the only cases of incest in the court system.
5: Again, you can discuss the feces thing, so why can’t I discuss the housing development? In India, people can have big houses next to small ones.
In reply to Western Point of View
1. Unless you’re suggesting a ban on scaring normal people I don’t see how it’s relevant. You’re not sticking on topic. Again
2. Again false analogy. I’ve repeated this for the last time.
3. We’re not talking about marriage. This is about sex. You can’t have laws banning consenting adults from having sex. And you’ve ignored the original point 3. Again.
4. Exactly. The court simply took the easy way out since it could put the father away in prison without the hassle of proving consent with the same results. Bad fact. Bad law. No justification. Really nothing to do with incest at all.
5. I can discuss the feces thing because it’s something people generally find distasteful. Like incest. You can’t talk about housing development because people naturally tend to want to do anything with their property. And once more you’ve deviated from point 5.
Since you’re not prepared to stick to the original points of discussion, I’m ending this conversation right now effective immediately.
Wow! You make a pretty strong case!
In reply to Dancing Fingers Singing Keypad
Why thank you :)
After reading the article and the following discussions, it is evident that you, Mr. author have no relation with the fields of sociology or medicine. On multiple occassions you have mentioned about people with Down’s syndrome having sex and producing kids with Down’s syndrome. If only you had any knowledge about the genetic or medical aspects of Down’s syndrome, you wouldn’t have made such statements.
Your analogy of drinking urine is as false as could be in the context of the discussion. Having sex is a pleasurable experience and you should have compared it with another pleasurable act. Like for example, drinking wine is not illegal. But people find it pleasurable and drink it. If drinking wine becomes illegal, people would still drink it secretly to obtain the pleasure. The same goes for any sexual act. Drinking urine is not pleasurable and hence, it is a false analogy. People will indulge in pleasurable acts irrespective of whether they are illegal or not. Drinking urine or sitting in feces are rather disgusting acts and people will not do them even if they are either legal or illegal.
Furthermore, the general dislike for incest is due to a person’s social development. It is not something innate. If a person grows within the surroundings where incest is common practice, there would be lesser chances for him to dislike the idea of incest. There are two basic issues here: the pleasure from the sexual act (innate); and the dislike to the idea of incest (conditioned). It is further complicated by the feeling of thrill associated with something taboo. It is not as simple as you make it look. Psychology, sociology and medical science play important roles in such cases but are aspects you are not even remotely related to. That is why your analogies are so weird.
In reply to Ayush
While sex is pleasurable, most people find the idea of sex with their siblings or parents repellent. It’s an innate biologically implanted impulse in us. Most people would rather drink urine than have sex with their parents. I know I would.
In reply to bhagwad
Of course you would you ignorant douche. you’d eat your own shit if they let you out of your restraints.
In reply to bhagwad
Are you actually reading what you are writing ? The idea of incest is repellent only to those who grow up through a social conditioning effect of this by the relationships they see around them. It is NOT innate !
You haven’t even bothered to read the link you provided of the Westermarck effect in your article where it specifically says;
“the Westermarck effect operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[1]
When proximity during this critical period does not occur — for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another — they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults, according to the hypothesis of genetic sexual attraction.”
If it was something innate, even those siblings who never knew each other would be repulsed by the idea of having sex with one another. If you have any proof to back your hypothesis of it being innate, let us all have a look at it.
And you are still forcing the urine example as an analogy which it isn’t. We aren’t talking about having to choose between committing incest OR drinking urine. People do not indulge in incest as a better choice over something more derogatory or disgusting. Considering if we are not even bringing incest into the picture, will you still prefer to drink urine ? We are discussing the issue of incest without any pressures or choices. It is absurd how you compare drinking urine with it. People indulge in pleasurable activities irrespective of anything else. Drinking urine is certainly not a pleasurable activity. I hope you understand the difference now.
And at least please go through your own references when you provide them.
In reply to Ayush
Every civilization in the history of the world regardless of race, antiquity, and geographical location has had a social taboo against incest. I think it’s a fair bet to say that some form of incest prevention is fundamental to our nature as humans. If it weren’t, we’d have at least one example of a society where it happens regularly. We don’t, so it’s up to you to show otherwise.
Most siblings grow up with each other, so your point is moot. The small percentage of siblings who grow up away from each other is hardly a sound basis for instituting a huge law against personal freedoms.
Given that it’s almost certain that a disgust for incest for all practical purposes is built into us, I think it’s extremely reasonable to compare it with drinking urine.
Besides, a social taboo against incest already works great. India has no laws against it and we don’t see brothers and sisters sleeping with each other willy nilly. So what are you worried about? Why do we need laws against it?
In reply to bhagwad
India has no law against incest,taboo already works great…where it doesn’t work,they have law…why are you worried about anyways??
Laws are not made for the convenience and illegitimate freedom of handful of people,who are indulged into something that is already wrong in the eyes of law.
In reply to Anjali
But no one has shown that incest is wrong. Your entire premise is faulty. Who are you to decide that it’s “illegitimate”? Till you have proof that it’s not right, by default everything is allowed.
In reply to bhagwad
“Every civilization in the history of the world regardless of race, antiquity, and geographical location has had a social taboo against incest.”
You have yourself accepted now that the problem with incest is a social one. Which goes to prove that you yourself believe that it is the social conditioning that forms the repulsion towards incest. In other words, it is NOT innate. You still couldn’t provide anything to back your hypothesis of it being innate. And still you ask me to prove otherwise. Read your own comment again. You already proved what you ask me to prove.
Nowhere am I discussing about the validity of any laws. Show me if I did so in any of my previous comments. I was simply pointing out the basic flaw in your assumptions of the repulsion towards incest being biologically innate. And your own reference of the Westermarck effect proves my point. So accept it !
“India has no laws against it and we don’t see brothers and sisters sleeping with each other willy nilly.”
Maybe the next thing you will say is that we don’t see marital rapes happenning willy nilly. Are you expecting the incidence of incest cases to be out as some public data ? If it is something taboo, it has obviously to be kept secret. Incest is not as common as non-incest sex, but it is also not as rare as a solar eclipse.
And I’m not worried about anything. All I’m pointing out here are the flaws in your arguments.
In reply to Ayush
You’r’e missing the point. If incest was “just social”, then we would find at least one society where the social laws are different regarding incest. Since we haven’t found even one despite the considerable variations is social makeups around the world, it has to be more than that.
For example, marriage is a common social feature around the world. It reflects pair bonding which is a biological feature of the human species. Social taboos against incest indicates the same thing.
In fact, you agree with the validity of the Westermark effect, so what’s the problem here? Just because the Westermark effect doesn’t cover siblings who didn’t grow up together hardly makes a difference. The repulsion is innate.
So I’m sorry, but the onus is on you here.
Comparing incest to marital rape is absurd because no one is harmed by what two people to privately and consensually in a bedroom. It’s called a false analogy. Also, this post is about the validity of incest laws. If you don’t have an opinion on that, why bother commenting?
I’ll try to stay on topic this time
Didn’t Ancient Egyptian royalty practice incest? It wasn’t taboo for them, right?
Marriage is also different around the world. A one husband/one wife couple is relatively new. Polygamy was pretty standard until maybe 200 years ago.
The repulsion isn’t necessarily innate. Also, the Westernmark effect is flawed according to that Paper I pointed out about certain jewish groups.
Laws exist simply for the interest of the state. The interest of the state, as the Scott case, is to maintain a family unit. Also as the Tennessee case showed, as Americans, whether you like it or not, we have Angl0-Saxon values that we wish to preserve. You don’t see polygamy coming about simply because they are not Anglo values. The fact that we have maternity leave for women is the same thing–we value certain traditions which even legal systems recognize.
In reply to Western Point of View
It was done in Ancient Egypt only to ensure succession lines – it wasn’t by choice. It was a forced practice and we have no indication that the population wanted to do it. In fact, it’s proof that even if the leading families do it, the rest of the population doesn’t.
It’s my prediction that one day we will get rid of the entire concept of marriage. It’s an artificial construct anyway. Probably not in my lifetime though.
“If incest was “just social”, then we would find at least one society where the social laws are different regarding incest.”
Why exactly ? By which definition do you belive that for a behavior/practice to be social, there has to be at least one aberration if not more between societies ?
“For example, marriage is a common social feature around the world. It reflects pair bonding which is a biological feature of the human species.”
So now, you mean to say that marriage or pair bonding is an innate characteristic of the human species ? I thought that you believed marriage is just a legal contract between two people and nothing more ? But even if you changed your belief all of a sudden, let me introduce you to two words. Pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex. I wonder what happened to the biological feature of pair bonding with these two concepts around.
You won’t let go of the innate hypothesis only because you do not understand the meaning of innate. Innate is something that is found in a human by birth since birth. It cannot be induced or aquired. The Westermarck effect clearly states that the repulsion to incest is socially aquired (during the period from birth to the age of six). But alas, you need to have some relation to the field of biology at least if not to the field of medicine to understand the difference.
“Comparing incest to marital rape is absurd because no one is harmed by what two people to privately and consensually in a bedroom.”
Obviously, you didn’t even understand the context in which I compared marital rape to incest. I wasn’t comparing the definitions but was comparing the lack of available records about reported cases of the two. As you had stated incest to be something rare, I was referring to the lack of reported cases of marital rape in spite of it being something quite common. I never knew I would have to explain this comparison to you.
The comparison was NOT about how one is harmed/affected by either marital rape or incest. It was about the lack of reported cases in both. Thereby countering your false belief that incest is something rare. I hope you got it now.
And I commented here to point out the very flaws of your arguments on which you based your post about the validity of incest laws.
In reply to Ayush
Random chance. Some countries eat with chopsticks. Others use their hands. Some use spoon and forks. Customs vary. But if there’s a custom that is universally acknowledged across all culture no matter the origin, race and antiquity, it’s more likely to be something innate.
Since incest is one such custom, I’m justified in saying that aversion to incest is pretty much inbuilt into us.
Of course pair bonding is innate. Marriage however is certainly an artificial legal concept. What’s the problem? And there are far more reported cases of marital rape than incest contrary to what you may think.
And if you really have no opinion on the actual subject matter of the post title itself, I think this discussion is just clutter. I would appreciate it if you actually contributed something to the idea of this article.
In reply to bhagwad
There is simply no point in discussing this with you since you continuously fail to understand what I’m saying. Or are you just faking it ?
“But if there’s a custom that is universally acknowledged across all culture no matter the origin, race and antiquity, it’s more likely to be something innate.”
Even if we agree that all societies throughout the world do not practice incest AND that the repulsion towards incest is innate, then there shouldn’t be people indulging in incest. Just like you said that repulsion to drinking urine or eating feces is innate, so do we really see anyone doing those things ? We don’t. But incest DOES happen.
And how can a custom be innate ? People start following customs only after being exposed to them after birth. You probably missed my comment about what is the meaning of innate.
Like, all the societies in the world practice the proper disposal of human dead bodies instead of letting them lying around and rot. Will you say that this practice is innate ? It is universally acknowledged across all cultures irrespective of origin, race and antiquity.
And what do you have to say about the repulsion to having sex in front of strangers ? Is that innate too ? Which society can you think of which accepts public sex as a custom ? If you still refuse to understand the meaning of innate, even if just to cling on to your stand, that’s your choice.
“And there are far more reported cases of marital rape than incest contrary to what you may think.”
If only banging my head against a wall could get something into your head. I was NOT, repeat NOT comparing the incidence rates of marital rape and incest. I was comparing the similarity of a huge number of cases in each being unreported. In fact, the percentage of unreported cases of incest is much more than those of marital rape.
So, just because something is not reported, doesn’t make it rare. I’ll make one last attempt to make you understand through an example you will hopefully understand going by your beliefs. As you have mentioned elsewhere, the low incidence of rape cases in the middle east countries does not mean rapes occur less there. It is just because most rape cases are not reported.
I’m using the same logic about incest cases since two people indulging in incest won’t go to report it anywhere. So if you think incest is something rare, you are highly mistaken. I hope you got it now. If you still haven’t I don’t think you are ever going to get it. And I do hope you are not faking it just to avoid accepting my point.
I’m commenting because you have based your views about the legality of incest on flimsy grounds. I’m questioning those flimsy grounds.
Like, if you write a post that rape should be a crime, and follow it up with reasons like; rape is a crime because it destroys the honor of the victim OR it turns the victim into a living corpse, I’ll object to the reasons you have used to depict rape as a crime. I’ll not object to your opinion that rape should be a crime. I’m doing the same about the reasons you have used to base your opinions on incest.
Whoa ! I’m amazed at how I have to try and explain everything to you through examples.
In reply to Ayush
Sure it happens. But it’s so rare that it’s not worth noticing unlike murder that actually directly and immediately hurts people.
Check out wikipedia on the variety of ways people dispose of their dead. You’ll be surprised. Also, many cultures including African tribes have the concept of orgies where you have plenty of sex in front of others. Here’s an interesting link showing shocking sexual customs from around the world: http://www.oddee.com/item_98435.aspx
Bad example you chose there.
You need some kind of data to indicate that incest is unreported. Do you have any such indication?
Also if you haven’t noticed, my opposition to incest laws is based on the fact that it harms no one and that consenting adults should be able to do anything they want. Did you read my post?
Finally (and for the last time), please offer an opinion on the actual post topic, or else I’m ending this right here and now.
marriage won’t end until religion ends, since it is a religious institution in the first place.
Lots of ways that the dead are disposed, you are right. I’d say most of them are incorrect. Human nature is arbitrary, so why allow arbitrary law to take place? Again, more reason for a united law like Shariah to throw the arbitrary out.
Sure they have orgies. So what? Does that mean we should legalize orgies on the street because some Africans do it? How can we gurantee that one participant in such an orgy in Africa is not above the age of 10? Remember, its Africa where a person who can speak is considered an adult in many tribes. Too arbitrary. Man made laws are just too arbitrary, which, again, something like Shariah circumvents.
This isn’t just about incest, btw, its about other issues that the state feels best to regulate in order to maintain order.
Just a parallel, think about this: why does the state say it is illegal to eat dogs, but cows/goats/chickens/fish are perfectly legal? Obviously the state has its reasons.
Incest, like many things, falls into that arbitrary hole. You mentioned consenting adults. Today an adult is 18. Tomorrow, what if that adult is 40? Where do we draw the line?
You also mentioned about consenting adults, but since people are always in a vulnerable position viz-a-viz with their parents or older siblings, how can you tell if someone is truly consenting? It gets too difficult to regulate. In fact, from this perspective, regulating incest would be more difficult than simply making incest illegal. Think about the red tape involved. Think about the psychiatry testing necessary. Think about local judges/justices of peace wondering if a marriage between consenting incestuous relationships is legit. Think about law enforcement if they see a 19 year old woman who says in a frail voice “i have no problem having sex with my dad.” What would they do? What could they do.
From a common sense point of view, it would be a nightmare just to deal with all of that.
“Drinking urine?” IT technically isn’t legal. You cannot feed a child urine. YOu also cannot drink your own urine in many states since it is a biohazardous substance. It is of the state’s interest that people don’t smear fecal matter on themselves and drink their own urine since urine and fecal matter are considered by health law biohazardous.
Customs do vary. Germans still think Hebrews are sub-human. There is a point where even custom must also remain in check with the law.
In reply to Western Point of View
Again old ground, so I’m not responding.
Just for interest, the state cannot prosecute anyone for drinking their urine. It’s just another fiction which is completely made up.
Oh and btw, Egyptian families in royalty practiced incest, right? If incest were legal today, how can we make sure that the incest is not forced as you say between fathers/mothers and brothers/sisters? The authority of an older sibling and parent makes that already difficult to decipher if such consent TRULY is consent.
In reply to Western Point of View
Old ground, I’m not covering this again. We already have laws against rape.
lets see ..incest is wrong as per social norms..scientific reasons and also there is a law against, in case first two reasons are not sufficient…what else do you need??
In reply to Anjali
Homosexuality is against “social norms”, yet the courts decriminalized it. There are no scientific reasons against mere sex between siblings. And there is no law against it in India in any case.
You said it yourself, does all sex lead to kids? No. But can you prove to me that there are other methods BESIDES sex in which kids are reproduced scientifically?
No science to sex between siblings (leading to kids)?
Autosomal recessive disorders occur in individuals who have two copies of the gene for a particular recessive genetic mutation.[27] Except in certain rare circumstances, such as new mutations or uniparental disomy, both parents of an individual with such a disorder will be carriers of the gene. These carriers do not display any signs of the mutation and may be unaware that they carry the mutated gene. Since relatives share a higher proportion of their genes than do unrelated people, it is more likely that related parents will both be carriers of the same recessive gene, and therefore their children are at a higher risk of a genetic disorder. The extent to which the risk increases depends on the degree of genetic relationship between the parents: The risk is greatest when the parents are close relatives and lower for relationships between more distant relatives, such as second cousins, though still greater than for the general population.[28]
Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions.[29]
Now you said that “why not ban AIDS patients” from having kids? AIDS patients don’t go out of there way to get AIDS. Again, as the previous poster said, you have to understand the science behind such cases. Siblings, on the other hand, DO go out of there way to have sex with each other.
Major difference.
BTW, which courts are you referring to regarding homosexuality? Remember, the majority of the world still criminalizes it.
In reply to Western Point of View
Discussed this before. Not going into it again.