Incest (discussion moved from thread on the the Christian Topic)

[Leonard James]

Thank you Sir.

I have a basin of water and a towel ready for the crap that is likely to be the result of both our posts.

Sod 'em! 

I just thank all the powers that be that Mary Whitehouse now sits on the right hand of her God!

And you can interpret the last part of the last sentence how you will!

Oooooh, you ARE awful!

Anyway, why should she get pleasures that she denied others while she was alive? 

[Owlswing]

Sod 'em! 

Oooooh, you ARE awful!

Anyway, why should she get pleasures that she denied others while she was alive? 

Where are the pleasures in watching a documentary on Africa and spending it counting penises and breasts? And she had teams of people doing this so they could cover every television programme.

Oh, and listeners countin swear words - including "bloody" FFS!

[Leonard James]

Where are the pleasures in watching a documentary on Africa and spending it counting penises and breasts? And she had teams of people doing this so they could cover every television programme.

Oh, and listeners countin swear words - including "bloody" FFS!

I was referring, somewhat coarsely, to the pleasures of sitting on the right hand of somebody.

[Nearly Sane]

Being an oldie - and having ignored this thread almost since its inception - a nasty little memory has been nagging away at what is laughingly referred to as my brain.

May 1958 - total uproar!

Jerry Lee lewis was to do a six-week tour of Britain.

He was accompanied by a young girl - Myra, 13 years old - a reporter from the Mirror asked her who she was and she announced that she was Jerry's wife.

The excrement hit the rotary ventilation device in life-threatening clumps. Not only was she only 13 but she was his first cousin.

The tour ended abruptly after three shows, as did any chance of Jerry Lee ever returning to the UK.

From some of the posts here attitudes have not changed much since 1958.

I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these consitions had existed at the start of the relationship.

And since that time, it's been abundantly clear with a number of recent convictions that as well as that uproar, a blind eye was turned to all sorts of abuse and that sexual abuse within families has been more widespread than was conceived of then. The point about the laws against incest is, as already pointed out numerous times on this thread, it is very difficult to avoid situations where due to the complexities of family relationships that there is not a strong potential difficulty in being able to give clear consent, or to take action once one is able to refuse the sexual contact. It's hard enough for people to stand up and prove sexual abuse outside of the family and it is abundantly clear if you have ever read many statements on abuse by those in a position of power, how that power is used to manipulate the abused into giving consent and not talking about the abuse. To hand that sort of tool over to those who might use it in a familial situation seems to me to show ignorance of precisely what we have learned about sexual abuse in the last fifty or so years.

[Owlswing]

I was referring, somewhat coarsely, to the pleasures of sitting on the right hand of somebody.

I guessed - It was what I was thinking when I typed it! - Right hand but which finger?

I thoink that I had better end this train of thought before it hits the buffers of the over-sensitive sensitivities of some of the more pious here.

Good joib BA is not here - he would have a fit!

[Nearly Sane]

It's not just about underage. It's about power and the ability to use it. There are plenty of people past the age of consent who are manipulated and sexuality abused by those who have power over them, and who find it difficult to come forward even when they think they have been abused because they see it that they are doing the betrayal. And again this is clear in many witness testimonies of such abuse.


Ignoring the power relationships that are there by default in a family is hugely dangerous. This isn't about denying people the right to sex because of any type of a religious view, it's about what is patently clear in the cases of abuse after the age of consent that we have seen on the last fifty years.

[Owlswing]

It's not just about underage. It's about power and the ability to use it. There are plenty of people past the age of consent who are manipulated and sexuality abused by those who have power over them, and who find it difficult to come forward even when they think they have been abused because they see it that they are doing the betrayal. And again this is clear in many witness testimonies of such abuse.


Ignoring the power relationships that are there by default in a family is hugely dangerous. This isn't about denying people the right to sex because of any type of a religious view, it's about what is patently clear in the cases of abuse after the age of consent that we have seen on the last fifty years.

Your problem is that you are trying to perfect something that is inherently imperfect, man, humanity, and will prove yet again the aphorism that "what man can invent man can circumvent".

You can make all the laws you like to ban whatever you like and someone somewhere will find a way to get around said laws.

You post ideas which I have no doubt make you feel good for having posted them; unfortunately, these kinds of measures have to be imposed from above, no not by god, and there are two diametrically opposed things which float to the top - cream and scum!

You only have to look at the recent spate of historic sex offenses to see the truth of this statement.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that last post, Owlswing. I'm not trying to perfect anything, I'm looking at the blunt tools we have to try and protect people who are being abused. Your post seems to imply that we shouldn't have laws at all which I dom't think you mean.

I am sure people will get round laws but surely we have a duty to try and make that as difficult as possible rather than throwing up our hands and walking away?

[Owlswing]

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that last post, Owlswing. I'm not trying to perfect anything, I'm looking at the blunt tools we have to try and protect people who are being abused. Your post seems to imply that we shouldn't have laws at all which I dom't think you mean.

I am sure people will get round laws but surely we have a duty to try and make that as difficult as possible rather than throwing up our hands and walking away?

Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.

Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.

You keep trying to protect the abused and I will keep trying to protect the not abused.

[Outrider]

Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.

Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.

The ideal is that there is never any abuse, obviously, but we're not capable of doing that - you yourself pointed out that people are 'imperfect'.

Given that, we have to implement a system that is feasible to manage, yet doesn't unduly impact on people. Prohibiting personal relationships of that nature within family groups where the potential for long-term pernicious influence is high does come with a cost, yes, but how else do you attempt to ensure people's freedom to choose for themselves? We have enough trouble discouraging forced marriages as it is, when the involve two families.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, but not at the price of taking liberty away from those involved in incestuous relationships that are NOT abusive.

Two wrongs do not, even in this situation, make a right.

You keep trying to protect the abused and I will keep trying to protect the not abused.

Who is arguing about two wrongs making a right? This is about the blunt tools we have and what we do with them. I have already covered on the thread that there might be a cost to freedom, and while that is a cost it seems to me something worth paying to protect people from abuse.


I expect a teacher not to have sex with a pupil even if they are above the age of consent, because of the power relationship, same thing in a family. I am not willing to give an extra manipulation tool to those who would abuse and that is what Leonard's position would do.

[wigginhall]

Owlswing wrote:

I personally would like to see the charge of incest only ever applied if one or other party is under the age of consent or, as an adult, considered to be psychologically incapable of making an informed decision in the matter or if either of these consitions had existed at the start of the relationship.

I am curious as to who you think would do this investigation?  I mean, into whether someone in an incestous relationship was 'psychologically incapable of making an informed decision'.   I think that this would be a very complex and sophisticated issue, not just a question of intellectual development, but also the degree of emotional manipulation or abuse wielded by the parent or brother, or whoever.  It could not be done via a quick visit, or filling in forms, but might take months to make an assessment.  Who is going to do this?

The question is: how do we work out which relationships are abusive?   This is not an easy matter at  all, as family members often obfuscate and lie or are silenced.

[Nearly Sane]

And this just in.

http://www.stv.tv/scotland/1340426-msps-reject-bid-to-legalise-incest-between-consenting-adults/

[Owlswing]

Owlswing wrote:

I am curious as to who you think would do this investigation?  I mean, into whether someone in an incestous relationship was 'psychologically incapable of making an informed decision'.   I think that this would be a very complex and sophisticated issue, not just a question of intellectual development, but also the degree of emotional manipulation or abuse wielded by the parent or brother, or whoever.  It could not be done via a quick visit, or filling in forms, but might take months to make an assessment.  Who is going to do this?

The question is: how do we work out which relationships are abusive?   This is not an easy matter at  all, as family members often obfuscate and lie or are silenced.

Nowhere did I say it would be easy!

[Owlswing]

And this just in.

http://www.stv.tv/scotland/1340426-msps-reject-bid-to-legalise-incest-between-consenting-adults/

So now the entire world must follow what Scotland says! So we must follow India's legal stance and punish women who get raped by raping them again!

Welcome to the 21st century!

[Nearly Sane]

So now the entire world must follow what Scotland says! So we must follow India's legal stance and punish women who get raped by raping them again!

Welcome to the 21st century!

No, and I didn't say anything like that.
 I just thought given that it happened today it was worth reporting.

I'm getting a bit bored by you reacting to things people aren't saying.

Perhaps you might want to retract the implication that I think women who are raped should be raped again?

[Owlswing]

No, and I didn't say anything like that.
 I just thought given that it happened today it was worth reporting.

I'm getting a bit bored by you reacting to things people aren't saying.

Perhaps you might want to retract the implication that I think women who are raped should be raped again?

OK - point taken.

However I do wonder if you would have been so keen to post this if the decision had gone the other way!

[Nearly Sane]

OK - point taken.

However I do wonder if you would have been so keen to post this if the decision had gone the other way!

Yes, I would absolutely, can you stop randomly casting aspersions like this. It happened today hence the 'this just in'. I doubt you would find any post on here that I 've ever done that would even hint at me thinking because a legislative body says something then that makes it true.

You really need to stop personalising discussion.

[Owlswing]

Yes, I would absolutely, can you stop randomly casting aspersions like this. It happened today hence the 'this just in'. I doubt you would find any post on here that I 've ever done that would even hint at me thinking because a legislative body says something then that makes it true.

You really need to stop personalising discussion.

Point taken, but are you not doing exactly the same?

PAX!

[Nearly Sane]

Point taken, but are you not doing exactly the same?

PAX!

No, I am dealing with personal attacks you are making, not assuming that because we are disagreeing you are being disingenuous.


I disagree with you here, not because you aren't in the 21st century, I don't think it reasonable to imply you support raping rape victims or any other such. I think it is reasonable to argue that what you propose is bad because of the consequences, not that you support the consequences, just that your estimation of the problems is wrong.

But other than that PAX (or indeed 'keys' which would be the closest equivalent I had when growing up) which also necessitates me raising both thumbs.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truce_term

[Nearly Sane]

Ar, the Free Church


http://www.thenational.scot/news/legal-incest-is-a-logical-result-of-secularism-says-free-church-of-scotland.12873