Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Options
1…567810

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Burial wrote: »
    If it was only just about power then why aren't men going after older women more often? And how the hell can he judge sexually attractive females as it'll differ for everyone, but the point still stands.
    How many older women do you see alone at night, drinking, walking home and so on? How many young?
    Yes, wikipedia is fine in my books as a source.
    It's crap, try using it as a source in research. ;)


  • Options
    #273
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Burial wrote: »
    From incest to rape... What a thread!
    Indeed. Any change of tying in the two, or leaving the rape issue altogether?
    One controversial topic per thread please! :)


  • Options
    #274
    Burial
    Registered Users Posts: 817 ✭✭✭Burial


    Dades wrote: »
    Indeed. Any change of tying in the two, or leaving the rape issue altogether?
    One controversial topic per thread please! :)

    Right, Sir! I'll leave the rape issue, as I don't think the rape issue fits in with what everyone has been saying about incest.


  • Options
    #275
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Burial wrote: »
    I'm not asking anything. You were complaining to Tigger that we shouldn't take 15 as the age of consent, even though that's what it is in France (Assuming trigger is right).
    Not exactly.

    I was complaining that just because the age of consent is 15 that doesn't automatically mean that it is ok for a 48 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, father or no father. Tiggars post was a bit of a straw man.

    A lot of countries have it built into their consent laws that if the person is under 18 then there can't be too great an age cap between the them and the older person, otherwise the consent is nullified

    This is the case in some US States, and there was an interesting bit of gossip going around that Jamie Lynn Spears, who was over the age of consent, had actually got pregnant from a record producer much older than her but he had paid her boyfriend (who was 19) to say he was the father as he was only a few years older than Spears. The producer could have been charged because in Louiseanna (or where ever), people can only have sex with under 18 year olds if there is a 5 or less year age gap.

    The point of that is to stop older people taking advantage of people who are basically still children.
    Burial wrote: »
    Anyway, your saying consent laws are only there so 16 year olds who sleep with other 16 year olds won't be charged with rape.
    Well I wouldn't say that is the only reason they are there.

    The reason they are there is because societies generally recognise that sexual relations can be harmful to a person younger than a certain age. The reason the age is set younger than 18 though, when a person is still considered a child, is that society also recognises that humans don't wait until 18 or adulthood to develop sexuality.

    So there is an in between period where society tries to both protect children and also allow them to explore their sexuality without fear of prosecution.

    My over all point was that what people who support consent laws under 18 are not saying is once a person has reached say 15 it is perfectly fine that anyone can sleep with them, including 82 year olds. I support having consent laws under 18 but that doesn't mean I think it is fine that a much older individual has sex with someone under 18.

    Hope that explains my post better.


  • Options
    #276
    Burial
    Registered Users Posts: 817 ✭✭✭Burial


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not exactly.

    I was complaining that just because the age of consent is 15 that doesn't automatically mean that it is ok for a 48 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, father or no father. Tiggars post was a bit of a straw man.

    A lot of countries have it built into their consent laws that if the person is under 18 then there can't be too great an age cap between the them and the older person, otherwise the consent is nullified

    This is the case in some US States, and there was an interesting bit of gossip going around that Jamie Lynn Spears, who was over the age of consent, had actually got pregnant from a record producer much older than her but he had paid her boyfriend (who was 19) to say he was the father as he was only a few years older than Spears. The producer could have been charged because in Louiseanna (or where ever), people can only have sex with under 18 year olds if there is a 5 or less year age gap.

    The point of that is to stop older people taking advantage of people who are basically still children.

    Yes I know thats why they are there. I just raised the point that here in Ireland as long as consent is given, it's ok. Lowering the age of consent does have it's negative sides as it does positive sides. Consent laws differs in countries, however in some other countries its ok to sleep with a 15 year old, no matter what age, if consent is given. He was merely stating that would you agree with incest if it was a 15 year old and her/his father/mother? (I think thats what was implied, I can't remember his original post! Yes he was a straw man though)

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well I wouldn't say that is the only reason they are there.

    The reason they are there is because societies generally recognise that sexual relations can be harmful to a person younger than a certain age. The reason the age is set younger than 18 though, when a person is still considered a child, is that society also recognises that humans don't wait until 18 or adulthood to develop sexuality.

    So there is an in between period where society tries to both protect children and also allow them to explore their sexuality without fear of prosecution.

    Yes, but you can't say well 21 is ok to sleep with a 17 but not 22. There will be a grey area. Also, in the eyes of the law, anyone over 18 is an adult in ireland, no matter if that person is 18 or 82.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    My over all point was that what people who support consent laws under 18 are not saying is once a person has reached say 15 it is perfectly fine that anyone can sleep with them, including 82 year olds. I support having consent laws under 18 but that doesn't mean I think it is fine that a much older individual has sex with someone under 18.

    Hope that explains my post better.

    I'm not saying people who support consent laws under 18 are supporting 82 year olds sleeping with 16 or whatever year olds. I'm saying that when you are over 18 you are an adult, and everyone is treated as such, otherwise it is ageism. That guy got off free. He got consent. It's ok in Ireland. I never said you think it's fine that a much older individual has sex with someone under 18.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Burial wrote: »
    So any clinical or child pychologist who disagree's with what you say is incompetent? I fully got your point, (you clearly didn't get mine), but by telling children to not follow strangers is a bad thing is quite shocking. You have no proof that letting a child do as they please will reduce or increase the number of child abductions or even stay the same. I was giving you an example of what happened with me. The guy mighn't have wanted to abduct me, however I'm very certain he didn't want to drive me home and leave me at that. I was tired and if I was thought to say no, I might say yes and who knows what would have happened then? He mightn't have gotten his way with me but he mightve robbed my house or some other act. besides why would I take a risk like that for an 8 euro ride home?

    You clearly didnt get my point.

    1 in 1.5million. Thats the chances of your kid being abducted and killed. Go look up the statistics for penicillin reactions, falling down the stairs, spider bites, or being abused by a teacher or relative and you'll be unplesantly suprised.

    Burial wrote: »
    I also gave the duck and cover methods as an example of the way it wouldn't protect you or help you, but was a method of making people accept that something was likely. By telling kids of stranger danger, you make them aware that this situation can occur and the best response is no, as you don't know the outcome of the result. It'll help quench parents fears on what there child would do, and make the child grow without the watchful eye of the parent all the time. As you get older you can understand differences, (and defend yourself) but as a child if someone said "here is the latest action man/barbie doll that your parents won't get yoou, all you have to do is get it from the back of my car". I'd honestly think alot more would be more willing to get the present, if not for stranger danger. Also, presents to children are used as a means of gaining their trust. So maybe they mighn't do whatever with them straight away, however, just say no.

    Also a crock.

    The duck and cover method was as much about propaganda as it was about getting people to accept a potential catastrophy. Considering the actual number of people killed in a nuclear attack as a section of the over all population of the planet it's negligible in comparssion to road traffic accidents or, say, AIDS. Two things actually WORTH instilling fear about in your children.
    Burial wrote: »
    The problem with experimentation, is it can lead to bad results. It can lead to good results too. Exploration and expermentation is grand for a child but you have to draw a line somewhere.

    Sorry, what the hell does this even mean?

    Marie Curie experimented with radium from which we get x-ray machines, chemotherapy and a multitude of other benefits to humanity. She also died of cancer. Were her experiments too far?

    Magellan explored the Phillipines and discovered new routes for travel. He was also killed by a poison spear. Were his explorations too far?

    The fact is that by curbing the desire to explore and experiment you rob people of the right to indulge their instincts. No one is saying throw kids into pits of snakes and say "See if you can find the poison one" - but the idea that you have to protect them from the 1 in 1.5million chance of being abducted by terrifying them unnecessarily is absurd.
    Burial wrote: »
    The problem with any book you read on rape cases, is that some aren't reported. So reading a book about the criminal psycology and the forensics only apply to reported cases. (Still good info to use) You'll never get the full picture, but these are good places to look for information on why rape is done.

    Um ... whats your point?

    Also, there is such a thing as extrapolation based on statisitical evidence.

    Burial wrote: »
    If it was only just about power then why aren't men going after older women more often? And how the hell can he judge sexually attractive females as it'll differ for everyone, but the point still stands.

    The fact is taht older women are attacked frequently. They are vulnerable, isolated and unable to defend themselves against physically stronger males (particularly young ones). Again, this seems to tick all the boxes for it being a crime of opportunity and power.

    The point about sexual attraction was yours in the first place remember? You said that women in mini-skirts were asking for it (basically).
    Burial wrote: »
    Yes, you won't know if the rapist would've raped the victim if her skirt was cm longer or her hair was what way. Though you'd have to agree by wearing more sexually pleasing clothing more men would be focused on her. She more of a target. I'm not saying wearing short skirts guarantees rape.

    Again. No. you arent getting the point.

    Rape = crime of power and opportunity. It doesnt matter a toss whether a girl is wearing a miniskirt or dressed as a bloody eskimo, the crime is not about the attraction to the individual (whom is irrelevant to the attacker) but the attraction to the senation of power. Of taking something.

    And again. You are saying that the victim is responsible.

    Oops ... I'll stop now. Sorry dades.


  • Options
    #278
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Burial wrote: »
    He was merely stating that would you agree with incest if it was a 15 year old and her/his father/mother? (I think thats what was implied, I can't remember his original post! Yes he was a straw man though)

    And that is the straw man, as you say. I wouldn't agree with a father sleeping with his 15 year old daughter, but not because it is his daughter but because she is 15.

    I would agree with a father sleeping with his 32 year old daughter, or his 64 year old daughter (assuming they both want to, which would be rare)
    Burial wrote: »
    Yes, but you can't say well 21 is ok to sleep with a 17 but not 22. There will be a grey area.

    Well legally you can, as a lot of place do. And you kinda have to, as grey areas don't go down well in law books.

    There is obviously a grey area in all matters of consent. Not every 21 year old is the same in terms of maturity, neither is every 15 year old. And no one suddenly jumps in maturity between their last days as a 14 year old and their first as a 15 year old. But the law has to work around that.
    Burial wrote: »
    Also, in the eyes of the law, anyone over 18 is an adult in ireland, no matter if that person is 18 or 82.
    If both parties are 18 or over then it isn't an issue as 18 year olds are considered to be mature enough to fully understand and judge situations like this. Of course that won't hold for everyone, I'm sure there are plenty of people who are still quite immature in terms of understanding human sexuality. But again the law has to work around the grey areas.
    Burial wrote: »
    I'm not saying people who support consent laws under 18 are supporting 82 year olds sleeping with 16 or whatever year olds.
    I know, my post was a reply to Tiggar's straw man.
    Burial wrote: »
    That guy got off free. He got consent. It's ok in Ireland.
    I don't know the details of the cause but I imagine he got off free because it is necessary to demonstrate in a criminal case that the person knowingly broke the law, rather than because it was determined that he had consent from the under age girl.

    By definition of being under the age of consent a child cannot give consent. Even if they say "Yup, that is fine shag away" that is not consent because the law doesn't recognise that the child is capable of fully understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse, and therefore cannot give consent. That is the point of consent laws in the first place.

    I imagine that the ruling was based on him being unaware that she was incapable of giving legal consent and as such cannot be prosecuted for rape because he was mislead by the victim.

    I know a number of rape groups have called for this to be changed in terms of statutory rape cases because the excuse that the person thought the girl or boy was over the age and they never said otherwise, or even that they did say otherwise, is used as an excuse that often gets off people who prey on children.


  • Options
    #279
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    how come i'm the only one with a straw man
    hive is talking about people being killed with posion spears in the 18th centruary and the first woman to win a nobel prize


  • Options
    #280
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tigger wrote: »
    how come i'm the only one with a straw man
    hive is talking about people being killed with posion spears in the 18th centruary and the first woman to win a nobel prize

    That isn't a straw man, it is sarcastic analogy.


  • Options
    #281
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    well excuse me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tigger wrote: »
    well excuse me
    Do you understand what a straw man actually is?

    By the way, the "all the other boys were doing it, why is everyone giving out to me" whine doesn't go very far here.


  • Options
    #283
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I know I'm a bit late but I love how every heated argument about ethics and morality seems to end up focusing on the length of girls' skirts..


  • Options
    #284
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you understand what a straw man actually is?

    By the way, the "all the other boys were doing it, why is everyone giving out to me" whine doesn't go very far here.


    i'm well aware what a straw man is (Dades told me)

    and i don't whining i was speaking in jest.

    your superieoir attitude screams of low self worth btw try being nice to people its not nessicary to agree on important things like ones right to sleep with ones mother to get along


  • Options
    #285
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I know I'm a bit late but I love how every heated argument about ethics and morality seems to end up focusing on the length of girls' skirts..


    i too like short skirts
    did you see i brought pretend lesbians on the dance floors of nightclubs into it too
    back on thread tho i take it were all aware of the Di caprio getting it opn with twins (from sweet valley high ) in the basket ball diaries

    does a threesome with twins count as incest and if so can i change my vote to "sometimes"


  • Options
    #286
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Tigger wrote: »
    i too like short skirts
    did you see i brought pretend lesbians on the dance floors of nightclubs into it too
    back on thread tho i take it were all aware of the Di caprio getting it opn with twins (from sweet valley high ) in the basket ball diaries

    does a threesome with twins count as incest and if so can i change my vote to "sometimes"
    ehh No I did not see that....BUT I F*CKING WILL NOW!!!


  • Options
    #287
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Tigger wrote: »
    does a threesome with twins count as incest and if so can i change my vote to "sometimes"

    I always wondered this... maybe as long as they arent doing each other its not incest, y'know just sticking it to DiCaprio...

    As far as the TV show Shameless is concerned incest is "only for straight people"


  • Options
    #288
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Tigger wrote: »
    does a threesome with twins count as incest and if so can i change my vote to "sometimes"
    That just got you out of trouble for possible trollage... :p

    Hive/Burial/wick, I'll move the posts I can weed out if someone want to start a different thread. Though what the heck it's got to do with A&A I do not know.

    Next thread not related to the OP gets the thread closed.


  • Options
    #289
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dades wrote: »

    Next thread not related to the OP gets the thread closed.

    Creationism :pac:


  • Options
    #290
    MissHoneyBun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭MissHoneyBun


    Interesting how the original post clearly states the words 'Yay or Nay' yet any naysayers are evidently unwelcome. Bit misleading really!


  • Options
    #291
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    MissHoneyBun wrote: »
    Interesting how the original post clearly states the words 'Yay or Nay' yet any naysayers are evidently unwelcome.
    Any discussion welcomes an alternative pov.

    Or do you have to agree with someone to make them welcome?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    MissHoneyBun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭MissHoneyBun


    Dades wrote: »
    Any discussion welcomes an alternative pov.

    Yeah thats what I thought too. Though in my case I received an infraction and was branded a troll for doing so. So from where I'm standing it seems that the popular opinion is the only thing welcome on this thread.


  • Options
    #293
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Ahh the victim complex acting up again...
    MissHoneyBun wrote: »
    So from where I'm standing it seems that the popular opinion is the only thing welcome on this thread.

    Might wanna check those poll results again luv

    Once you stop making trollish posts like this...
    MissHoneyBun wrote: »
    Perhaps when all those championing the notion of incest here go home and make love to their parents then their ramblings might actually gain credibility.
    ...your opinion will be taken seriously. So far you have shown yourself to have no debating skills whatsoever.


  • Options
    #294
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MissHoneyBun wrote: »
    Though in my case I received an infraction and was branded a troll for doing so.

    Does telling people to piss off home and shag their parents counts as a difference of opinion?


  • Options
    #295
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    MissHoneyBun wrote: »
    So from where I'm standing it seems that the popular opinion is the only thing welcome on this thread.
    Other opinions are welcome, but not when they are expressed in the puerile manner as referred to in the above posts.


  • Options
    #296
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I don't find the direct act of incest repugnant and I don't see and moral issues with the act itself. That's not to say that I'm attracted to any family members, I think that instinctively we are not due to evolution. But abnormalities in instinct will occur just as in biological evolution and it is not a moral issue unless it negatively impacts on someone else.

    However incest can be damaging psychologically in cases were one of the partners is the dominant and there is a power imbalance even if it's consensual. The difficulty is defining what is damaging incest and what is not.

    If you look at it from another point of view, heterosexual/homosexual relationships between non-related persons can also be psychologically damaging if this power imbalance exists.

    So after going around in a circle I don't see any ethical issues with incest that do not also exist in non-incestuous couples and therefore they should be afforded the same treatment in the eyes of the law.


  • Options
    #297
    Cactus Col
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,457 ✭✭✭Cactus Col


    I do have a problem with a brother and sister having sexual relationships, even as consenual adults.



    It has nothing to do with thier children being more likely to have problems. For the most part I think that's an argument (valid or not) people use to hide the fact that they just plain don't agree with incest.


    On a gut level, I guess it does disgust me. It kind of disgusts me in the same way as a teacher / student relationship does. Where one person, in the carer role, takes advantage of the other's innocence, eagerness to please, emotional instability.

    The "okay as long as it's between two consenual adults" argument doesn't really wash with me. It's the possible reasons for consent that are are at the core.

    I know this isn't very well written, and might not get my point (if I even have one) across. But that's it. I just find incest wrong. Put it to a vote, and I'll still vote no.


  • Options
    #298
    anti-venom
    Registered Users Posts: 588 ✭✭✭anti-venom


    Cactus Col wrote: »
    I do have a problem with a brother and sister having sexual relationships, even as consenual adults.






    On a gut level, I guess it does disgust me. It kind of disgusts me in the same way as a teacher / student relationship does. Where one person, in the carer role, takes advantage of the other's innocence, eagerness to please, emotional instability.

    On a gut level, yes. And here is what the gut reaction is called -Westermarck effect - http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1470341


  • Options
    #299
    Cactus Col
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,457 ✭✭✭Cactus Col


    anti-venom wrote: »

    On a gut level, yes. And here is what the gut reaction is called -Westermarck effect - http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1470341

    So basically, it's built-in morality.


  • Options
    #300
    anti-venom
    Registered Users Posts: 588 ✭✭✭anti-venom


    Cactus Col wrote: »
    So basically, it's built-in morality.


    If you regard these evolutionary mechanisms as the fundamentals of morality, then yes, it is a sort of in-built morality. It seems to be natures way of preventing us from producing weaker offspring.

    However, as I've already pointed out, various factors can over-ride these innate responses to incest. We simply have the capability to ignore our instincts.

    Whether or not the state sholud stick it's oar in between consenting incestuous adults is an entirely different question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Cactus Col
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,457 ✭✭✭Cactus Col


    anti-venom wrote: »
    Whether or not the state should stick it's oar in between consenting incestuous adults is an entirely different question.

    If nature doesn't agree with incest, who are the state to argue?


Advertisement