Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Jan 18, 2005, 03:29 am

Waychel> I maybe a bit slow these couple of days, but I still don't get it. What does it matter whether a parent legally can marry his/her child if, in any event, he/she intends to molest the child? Whether or not incest is legal, the child gets molested. And whether or not incest is legal, molestation's a crime. So what difference does it make?

Starboy · Jan 18, 2005, 03:32 am

Waychel you are engaging in conflation yet again. Your argument is of the form: molestation is bad, incest is molestation therefore incest is bad. Very much in the form of the other stupid arguments I have seen you make. You presume that incest is molestation in all cases. Now I will agree that most cases of incest involve molestation but that doesn't mean that there are not cases of incest that occurred between consenting adults. And of course not all incest occurs between parent and child. There are many cases of brother and sister. I will agree that in general incest and molestation are bad, but not because incest is molestation, but because in both cases people are harmed. If the incest was done in a way where no one was harmed then it would be hard for me to see any harm in it.

Starboy

Korgmeister · Jan 18, 2005, 04:26 am

Whenever I see an argument about incest, I always find the focus is on the potential genetic consequences of such but never the potential psychological consequences of such.

It doesn't take a very advanced knowledge of psychology to know that feelings of love for one's own family (Storge) and feelings of sexual love (Eros) are best kept seperate. It's rarely good for one's mental health to mix them. A bit like the psychological equivalent of mixing beer and whisky, it really messes up your head afterwards.

faith · Jan 18, 2005, 04:34 am

thats what i thought you all meant anyway,brother and sister!!
If you as a parent want to have sex with your child that is sick and your a pervert but if a brother and sister really believe that what they feel for each other is more than just brotherly love then i dont really think anyone could stop them.
but parents and thier children?? lock them up!!

Korgmeister · Jan 18, 2005, 04:42 am

Also, I think the issue is one of definition.

AFAIK to Waychel all sexual relationships with family members are axiomatically Molestation.

Whereas to many of the other Volconvo members I presume they define molestation as a non-consensual sexual relationship between close family members.

Much as I normally believe that people should be free to engage in what I term "victimless crimes" and be free to make their own mistakes, Incest is one of those cases where I simply must draw the line. Yes, call me a slave to an ancient taboo if you will but I think it's one of those things that is simply too dangerous to be messed with, end of story.

And, as previously stated, I don't mean dangerous genetically. Considering how much of an affront modern society is to eugenics a little more sludge in the gene pool won't really matter. But the risk of widespread psychological trauma is too great to ignore.

#1: Risk of abuse, as Rachel has stated, of the legality being abused due to coercion.
#2: Risk of authority in families being undermined by sexual power games, particularly involving adolescents. (Some sort of authority is necessary in a healthy family, I feel.)
#3: Risk of increased insularity as people turn to family members for sexual gratification instead of seeking companions elsewhere in the Big Wide World.

I'm sure there's more, of course, but I can't think of them right now. However, weighing up the possible negatives of legalised incest (listed above) versus the possible positives (a minor hat-tip towards Lockean principles of self-ownership) the utilitarian in me simply cannot endorse such a proposition.

Gorgo · Jan 18, 2005, 05:54 am

Well, I have no knowledge of psychology at all, so maybe you could explain that further?

Quote:

Quote by: Korgmeister

It doesn't take a very advanced knowledge of psychology to know that feelings of love for one's own family (Storge) and feelings of sexual love (Eros) are best kept seperate. It's rarely good for one's mental health to mix them. A bit like the psychological equivalent of mixing beer and whisky, it really messes up your head afterwards.

Gorgo · Jan 18, 2005, 05:56 am

I don't see why there is, between consenting adults, a risk of any of that happening. At least not more than usual. Perhaps you could explain.

Quote:

Quote by: Korgmeister

Much as I normally believe that people should be free to engage in what I term "victimless crimes" and be free to make their own mistakes, Incest is one of those cases where I simply must draw the line. Yes, call me a slave to an ancient taboo if you will but I think it's one of those things that is simply too dangerous to be messed with, end of story.

.

Livemike · Jan 18, 2005, 08:24 am

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

Starboy: Speaking of levels of stupidity, I should inform you that this debate is in regards to incest and not polygamy.

tinybear: If incest were made legal, then a parent would legally be able to marry their own child. If you do not see the connection here between molestation, then you are the one not following.

"Shooting people in the head should be legalized."
"But... that would be murder."
"No, murder remains a crime; we're just talking about shooting people in the head!"

The trouble is that there is nothing illegal about shooting people in the head unless it constitutes murder or some other form of assault, so your analogy doesn't work. You made a claim
"Quote by: Waychel
If we legalize incest then we legalize molestation -- simple as that.
Honestly, this is getting ridiculous, now..."

It's not as simple as that. Legalising incest does not mean the same as legalising molestation. It is entirely possible to have an incestuous realitionship between consenting adults. Therefore legalising one is not legalising the other.

G. Adams · Jan 18, 2005, 10:08 am

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

Starboy: Speaking of levels of stupidity, I should inform you that this debate is in regards to incest and not polygamy.

tinybear: If incest were made legal, then a parent would legally be able to marry their own child. If you do not see the connection here between molestation, then you are the one not following.

"Shooting people in the head should be legalized."
"But... that would be murder."
"No, murder remains a crime; we're just talking about shooting people in the head!"

It's fun to mock dummies.

If heterosexual sex were made legal, then a man would legally be able to marry a woman. If you don't see the connection here between rape, then you are the one not following.

Incest can be legalised whilst maintaining the illegality of sexual improprieties such as molestation, rape and underage sex.

This would mean:

18+ (the age of consent for none-incest may, should, be lower but incest requires even further maturity before considering) year olds who happen to be related choosing to have a sexual relationship.

See, there is no molesting involved. If someone molested their child, they would still be guilty of peadophilia, molestation, assault and battery most likely, rape if sex occurs. Theres probably more too. Perhaps we can add riders to previous bills involving sexual abuse cases, where parent/child molestation rather than none-parent/child carries a heavier sentance, in light of the abuse of trust and responsibility.

castille · Jan 18, 2005, 10:14 am

You see, when I said "Jerry Springer is America's symbol", this is what I meant.

What next? Beastility? Pedofilia? (oh thats becoming legal too, just ask NAMBLA)

**Pooeypants** · Jan 18, 2005, 10:56 am

Waychel and Starboy, keep it civil please.

FIFI · Jan 18, 2005, 11:31 am

NO!

Not only are there immediate genetic risks, which very depending on your and your "spouses" genes, but think of the long term damage to the overall gene pool. I dont want everywhere to look like Tennesse! :p Sorry, my wierd sense of humor again! (no offense everyone from there!)

Anyways, also, many scientists that are studying Egypt believe that continues incest relations is a big part of why that nation eventually faded to extinction.
PLUS, YUCK! Do you really want to marry your Uncle or 1st cousin? I dont know about you, but "keeping it all in the family" is a bad idea!

G. Adams · Jan 18, 2005, 11:39 am

It was only practised in Egypt amongst the royals, to keep their blood royal. Egypt fell apart because it's leaders were too busy killing each other to notice Rome spreading it's wings. Also, Roman emporers often practised incest, and the imperial rule last about 350 years. The royals of Europe have been marrying cousins for 100's of years and they're still in power (well yes they're heads of state now technically).

The point of legalising incest isn't because it is or isn't disgusting, it's because it's no-ones right to interfere in the bedroom as long as everyone is consenting (and mature enough to consent). I think cheese is disgusting, how people can eat milk left to go off for X many weeks is beyond me, but I don't feel that's a good enough reason to ban it.

As for the kids, well that is crap. It'd be selfish for anyone to try and have a kid with a relative, esp a close one, knowing the risk that runs. However, if it's aloving relationship theres nothing to stop them adopting, we do need more willing parents to look after orphans after all.

FIFI · Jan 18, 2005, 11:51 am

Extreamly true. If the relationship is stable, adoption should be the only realistic choice. But thats only if we allow such a relationship to be legalized. The sad thing is, I bet incest would be legally recognized before homosexual relations, and atleast there not copulating with there own children or sister / brother.
Ug, I just grossed myself out.

PS NICE Picture G. Adams, VeRY cute!

tinybear · Jan 18, 2005, 12:39 pm

Quote:

Quote by: castille

You see, when I said "Jerry Springer is America's symbol", this is what I meant.

What next? Beastility? Pedofilia? (oh thats becoming legal too, just ask NAMBLA)

Well, you see, America is all about rights and, as long as no one's hurt, the criminal law should mind its own business. So if a man wants to marry his dog and have sex with a corpse, who's he hurting, right guys?
:rolleyes:

**Pooeypants** · Jan 18, 2005, 01:19 pm

You really love bringing up the taboo subjects don't you?

But err, let's not expand to beastiality and necrophilia yet..

tinybear · Jan 18, 2005, 02:14 pm

Why not? This is Volconvo, not Mother Goose Land.

Starboy · Jan 18, 2005, 02:19 pm

Mother goose can get kinda gory and kinky. Canabalism, drawf sex, mothers poisoning their children, grinding englishmen to make bread.

Starboy

Gorgo · Jan 18, 2005, 02:50 pm

As long as the dead people are consenting adults, who cares who they want to have sex with?

KittyKat · Jan 18, 2005, 04:04 pm

Quote:

So if a man wants to marry his dog and have sex with a corpse, who's he hurting, right guys?

What if the dog doesn't want sex?

Quote:

But err, let's not expand to beastiality and necrophilia yet..

Why not?

Jan 18, 2005, 04:34 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
faith Molten Ash Location: uk Posts: 128	thats what i thought you all meant anyway,brother and sister!! If you as a parent want to have sex with your child that is sick and your a pervert but if a brother and sister really believe that what they feel for each other is more than just brotherly love then i dont really think anyone could stop them. but parents and thier children?? lock them up!! Live and love for today! There may be no tomorrow!

Jan 18, 2005, 10:14 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	You see, when I said "Jerry Springer is America's symbol", this is what I meant. What next? Beastility? Pedofilia? (oh thats becoming legal too, just ask NAMBLA) Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jan 18, 2005, 10:56 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	Waychel and Starboy, keep it civil please. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 18, 2005, 11:31 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
FIFI THROBBIN ROBIN Location: USA Posts: 311	NO! Not only are there immediate genetic risks, which very depending on your and your "spouses" genes, but think of the long term damage to the overall gene pool. I dont want everywhere to look like Tennesse! :p Sorry, my wierd sense of humor again! (no offense everyone from there!) Anyways, also, many scientists that are studying Egypt believe that continues incest relations is a big part of why that nation eventually faded to extinction. PLUS, YUCK! Do you really want to marry your Uncle or 1st cousin? I dont know about you, but "keeping it all in the family" is a bad idea! DON'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXERCISE YOURS. Better to be thought a fool with ones mouth shut, than to speak and remove all doubt

Jan 18, 2005, 11:51 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
FIFI THROBBIN ROBIN Location: USA Posts: 311	Extreamly true. If the relationship is stable, adoption should be the only realistic choice. But thats only if we allow such a relationship to be legalized. The sad thing is, I bet incest would be legally recognized before homosexual relations, and atleast there not copulating with there own children or sister / brother. Ug, I just grossed myself out. PS NICE Picture G. Adams, VeRY cute! DON'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXERCISE YOURS. Better to be thought a fool with ones mouth shut, than to speak and remove all doubt

Jan 18, 2005, 03:29 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,085	Waychel> I maybe a bit slow these couple of days, but I still don't get it. What does it matter whether a parent legally can marry his/her child if, in any event, he/she intends to molest the child? Whether or not incest is legal, the child gets molested. And whether or not incest is legal, molestation's a crime. So what difference does it make?

Jan 18, 2005, 03:32 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Waychel you are engaging in conflation yet again. Your argument is of the form: molestation is bad, incest is molestation therefore incest is bad. Very much in the form of the other stupid arguments I have seen you make. You presume that incest is molestation in all cases. Now I will agree that most cases of incest involve molestation but that doesn't mean that there are not cases of incest that occurred between consenting adults. And of course not all incest occurs between parent and child. There are many cases of brother and sister. I will agree that in general incest and molestation are bad, but not because incest is molestation, but because in both cases people are harmed. If the incest was done in a way where no one was harmed then it would be hard for me to see any harm in it. Starboy

Jan 18, 2005, 04:26 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Korgmeister Libertarian Fascist Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 27	Whenever I see an argument about incest, I always find the focus is on the potential genetic consequences of such but never the potential psychological consequences of such. It doesn't take a very advanced knowledge of psychology to know that feelings of love for one's own family (Storge) and feelings of sexual love (Eros) are best kept seperate. It's rarely good for one's mental health to mix them. A bit like the psychological equivalent of mixing beer and whisky, it really messes up your head afterwards.

Jan 18, 2005, 04:42 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Korgmeister Libertarian Fascist Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 27	Also, I think the issue is one of definition. AFAIK to Waychel all sexual relationships with family members are axiomatically Molestation. Whereas to many of the other Volconvo members I presume they define molestation as a non-consensual sexual relationship between close family members. Much as I normally believe that people should be free to engage in what I term "victimless crimes" and be free to make their own mistakes, Incest is one of those cases where I simply must draw the line. Yes, call me a slave to an ancient taboo if you will but I think it's one of those things that is simply too dangerous to be messed with, end of story. And, as previously stated, I don't mean dangerous genetically. Considering how much of an affront modern society is to eugenics a little more sludge in the gene pool won't really matter. But the risk of widespread psychological trauma is too great to ignore. #1: Risk of abuse, as Rachel has stated, of the legality being abused due to coercion. #2: Risk of authority in families being undermined by sexual power games, particularly involving adolescents. (Some sort of authority is necessary in a healthy family, I feel.) #3: Risk of increased insularity as people turn to family members for sexual gratification instead of seeking companions elsewhere in the Big Wide World. I'm sure there's more, of course, but I can't think of them right now. However, weighing up the possible negatives of legalised incest (listed above) versus the possible positives (a minor hat-tip towards Lockean principles of self-ownership) the utilitarian in me simply cannot endorse such a proposition.

Jan 18, 2005, 11:39 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,161	It was only practised in Egypt amongst the royals, to keep their blood royal. Egypt fell apart because it's leaders were too busy killing each other to notice Rome spreading it's wings. Also, Roman emporers often practised incest, and the imperial rule last about 350 years. The royals of Europe have been marrying cousins for 100's of years and they're still in power (well yes they're heads of state now technically). The point of legalising incest isn't because it is or isn't disgusting, it's because it's no-ones right to interfere in the bedroom as long as everyone is consenting (and mature enough to consent). I think cheese is disgusting, how people can eat milk left to go off for X many weeks is beyond me, but I don't feel that's a good enough reason to ban it. As for the kids, well that is crap. It'd be selfish for anyone to try and have a kid with a relative, esp a close one, knowing the risk that runs. However, if it's aloving relationship theres nothing to stop them adopting, we do need more willing parents to look after orphans after all.

Jan 18, 2005, 01:19 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	You really love bringing up the taboo subjects don't you? But err, let's not expand to beastiality and necrophilia yet.. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 18, 2005, 02:14 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,085	Why not? This is Volconvo, not Mother Goose Land.

Jan 18, 2005, 02:19 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Mother goose can get kinda gory and kinky. Canabalism, drawf sex, mothers poisoning their children, grinding englishmen to make bread. Starboy

Jan 18, 2005, 02:50 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	As long as the dead people are consenting adults, who cares who they want to have sex with?