Incest: an age-old taboo

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

bump....

isn't that what kinda started this whole topic?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Some (not all) here who are repulsed by religion seem to go along with anything anyone comes up with. You see them on every thread discussing some sick or illegal behavior saying it's ok, don't judge. They expouse virtually no limits on behavior or thought. That is sad. They are so misguided.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Carlawarla 1]

When talking about incest, even brother/sister, let's be really clear to those of whom don't have any real problems with this, to be specific in terms of what family members are being incestuous, and, the age difference.

I have dealt with many men in my career whereby an older brother committed an act of sexual interferrence with his sister. Incest, in Canada, is a rarely used term anymore. Sexual assualt, or interferrence is more accurate with blended families making up a large part of the population now. Therefore, it's no less intrusive for a step sibling to commit an offence against another step sibling. Incest has historically meant "blood".

Many men I have spoken to in my field, have attempted to minimize their offending by professing that they're in "incestuous relationship", however the sibling is more than 10 years younger (a child), and there is NO relationship involved!

Carla

Edited March 15, 2007 by cartoboy123

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

When talking about incest, even brother/sister, let's be really clear to those of whom don't have any real problems with this, to be specific in terms of what family members are being incestuous, and, the age difference.

I have dealt with many men in my career whereby an older brother committed an act of sexual interferrence with his sister. Incest, in Canada, is a rarely used term anymore. Sexual assualt, or interferrence is more accurate with blended families making up a large part of the population now. Therefore, it's no less intrusive for a step sibling to commit an offence against another step sibling. Incest has historically meant "blood".

Many men I have spoken to in my field, have attempted to minimize their offending by professing that they're in "incestuous relationship", however the sibling is more than 10 years younger (a child), and there is NO relationship involved!

Carla

No one is saying it's OK to 'interfere' ...... what the f###?........ rape or sexually assault a sibling. But I don't see a difference between incest between adults and a relationship between people of the same sex. Yet some people believe one is immoral and one is not (me for one). I'm not mentioning religion either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some (not all) here who are repulsed by religion seem to go along with anything anyone comes up with. You see them on every thread discussing some sick or illegal behavior saying it's ok, don't judge. They expouse virtually no limits on behavior or thought. That is sad. They are so misguided.

What's misguided in taking the stand that your freedom should end only where your excercise of it would have an adverse effect on mine and vice versa? I think any stand contrary to it is misguided and oppressive.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Some (not all) here who are repulsed by religion seem to go along with anything anyone comes up with. You see them on every thread discussing some sick or illegal behavior saying it's ok, don't judge. They expouse virtually no limits on behavior or thought. That is sad. They are so misguided.

What's misguided in taking the stand that your freedom should end only where your excercise of it would have an adverse effect on mine and vice versa? I think any stand contrary to it is misguided and oppressive.

Because, like most who feel as you do, you only think about the effects of things in a very limited manner. Your view of freedom is an infringement on others too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some (not all) here who are repulsed by religion seem to go along with anything anyone comes up with. You see them on every thread discussing some sick or illegal behavior saying it's ok, don't judge. They expouse virtually no limits on behavior or thought. That is sad. They are so misguided.

What's misguided in taking the stand that your freedom should end only where your excercise of it would have an adverse effect on mine and vice versa? I think any stand contrary to it is misguided and oppressive.

Because, like most who feel as you do, you only think about the effects of things in a very limited manner. Your view of freedom is an infringement on others too.

How so?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The same way you say mine is.

[Fuzzness 2]

It is a very common spin from die hard religious conservatives to claim that atheists or those with no religion have no morals, when morality itself is not religious at all.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I believe that those with no religion can be moral. They're just not well represented here.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The same way you say mine is.

Nonsense. I believe in the freedom of the person next to me. You clearly do not. You like to regulate what relationship the other person, as an adult, enter into with another adult. You want to limit the freedom of the person next to you by conforming their behaviour to what you feel is proper. I do not engage in any such thing.

[Carlawarla 1]

When talking about incest, even brother/sister, let's be really clear to those of whom don't have any real problems with this, to be specific in terms of what family members are being incestuous, and, the age difference.

I have dealt with many men in my career whereby an older brother committed an act of sexual interferrence with his sister. Incest, in Canada, is a rarely used term anymore. Sexual assualt, or interferrence is more accurate with blended families making up a large part of the population now. Therefore, it's no less intrusive for a step sibling to commit an offence against another step sibling. Incest has historically meant "blood".

Many men I have spoken to in my field, have attempted to minimize their offending by professing that they're in "incestuous relationship", however the sibling is more than 10 years younger (a child), and there is NO relationship involved!

Carla

No one is saying it's OK to 'interfere' ...... what the f###?........ rape or sexually assault a sibling. But I don't see a difference between incest between adults and a relationship between people of the same sex. Yet some people believe one is immoral and one is not (me for one). I'm not mentioning religion either.

I'm not saying that anyone here is saying it's okay....all I wanted to point out is that often siblings involved in incest, have been doing such, for many years and how it started was through coersion, usually by an older sibling. Non consentual sex does not have to mean "force" "rape" or some type of "physical violence".

Carla

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The same way you say mine is.

Nonsense. I believe in the freedom of the person next to me. You clearly do not. You like to regulate what relationship the other person, as an adult, enter into with another adult. You want to limit the freedom of the person next to you by conforming their behaviour to what you feel is proper. I do not engage in any such thing.

I don't consider your view of freedom is in the best interest of a healthy society. It's not freedom, it's a lack of boundaries. While your laisee faire attitude may make you feel superior, history has shown such a turn to be the beginning of societal downfall. I have history on my side.

[Peikko 1,575]

Some (not all) here who are repulsed by religion seem to go along with anything anyone comes up with. You see them on every thread discussing some sick or illegal behavior saying it's ok, don't judge. They expouse virtually no limits on behavior or thought. That is sad. They are so misguided.

I am so glad you brought this up. Maybe if you had adopted the simple policy of seeing the obvious instead of extracting the absurd you might not have driven yourself up this blind alley.

Most people understand that 'judge not lest you be judged' is not a tenat for lawlessless but rather a warning to be mindful that it is not the responsibilty of mortal man to decide who is morally corrupt and destined for damnation. But, not you. Instead you go off half cocked making all kinds of absurd assumptions as to other peoples beliefs and motivations. Trust me, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.

As to the subject in hand, what exactly did I advocate? Well, the only things I did say were, to make a decison as to whether something is right or wrong by the 'eww' factor is rather short sighted and that regarding incest, the most telling argument against it is the difficulty one would have in being able to establish the motivation of family members bearing in mind the dynamics of family life. Simply put, there is a strong danger that sex would be a power play rather than an expression of ultimate love.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The same way you say mine is.

Nonsense. I believe in the freedom of the person next to me. You clearly do not. You like to regulate what relationship the other person, as an adult, enter into with another adult. You want to limit the freedom of the person next to you by conforming their behaviour to what you feel is proper. I do not engage in any such thing.

I don't consider your view of freedom is in the best interest of a healthy society. It's not freedom, it's a lack of boundaries. While your laisee faire attitude may make you feel superior, history has shown such a turn to be the beginning of societal downfall. I have history on my side.

Then I guess you'll have little problem referencing "a history of examples"