Incest in Ireland

L1011

Sardonicat wrote: »

If they are both the same sex.

That's already legal; legislative oversight rather than consciously making it legal.

Raconteuse

blueshade wrote: »

What's next? Daddy raping his daughters isn't rape because it's a special relationship? Or maybe marrying that little girl isn't pedophilia because hey, it's a cultural thing?

No it won't be next because that's child abuse.

Back to consenting adults - I have no time for the "let's be as liberal and permissive as possible" mindset but how are consenting adults supposed to be policed in this regard? And does it really deserve a jail term?

Woke Hogan

BeerWolf wrote: »

Find it curious of all the who-ha on birth defects via incest, but people are perfectly fine of people with congenital disease passing it onto their kids because of "human rights!".

Like a pair of midgets, with all their health issues, producing a midget offspring.

Bit hypocritical, no? :rolleyes:

No.

Sleepy

I'm frankly amazed that this is on the legislative agenda tbh. Surely we have more important problems to be worrying about?

Oasis1974

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I reckon if you are the sort of deviant who will fúck your sister, you probably aren't all that concerned with the legalities of it!

Are you reading this Jim Corr?:D

So those stories are true?

Deebles McBeebles

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm frankly amazed that this is on the legislative agenda tbh. Surely we have more important problems to be worrying about?

Plenty. This will take some of the light off of them though.

It isn't particularly on the legislative agenda - this is from the Law Reform Commission - an independent body of five commissioners plus twenty staff who review old law to see if it is still valid and useful. The commissioners are mostly part timers - retired judges or academics.

https://www.lawreform.ie/law-reform/who-we-are.329.html
'the development of law,
its codification (including its simplification and modernisation) and,
the revision and consolidation of statute law. '
They're not otherwise going to be preparing new laws.

Edit: as an example they recommended that the constitutional ban on blasphemy be removed in 1991, it was only removed after a referendum a few years ago.

shockwave

Its ok to ride your cousin though?

jmayo

suicide_circus wrote: »

***i have cleared this with a mod***

The Law Reform Commission is to review the current laws in Ireland regarding incest.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/should-society-criminalise-intimate-relations-between-people-in-their-mid-teens-1.4082150?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR1QdIRiKHouEoe-8sfOJ6FEIqCx2o_cpbpECzijEFOaVDUjB7vhapUAtBM



What do we think?

On the one hand i would be in favour of as few laws as possible, on everything.

On the other, what's the advantage to legalising incest?

Also, the article suggests that its only vaginal intercourse that is criminalised, so at present a father and son can go at it no holes barred.

Is the legalisation of incest just an extension of the freedoms won via the sexual revolution of the last 50 years or is it just another layer of depravity as Rome slowly burns?

I would love to see someone argue against criminalising incest in public.

Actually only politician that I could seeing arguing against this is from Kerry.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm frankly amazed that this is on the legislative agenda tbh. Surely we have more important problems to be worrying about?

My thoughts exactly.
We have feral youths running amuck and no thought given to punishments to cut antisocial behaviour.
We have had our first major child killer case recently.
We have judges handing out ridiculous sentences on sexual assaults and they are worried about the incest laws. :rolleyes:

Raconteuse

shockwave wrote: »

Its ok to ride your cousin though?

I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins! :mad:

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

My thoughts exactly.
We have feral youths running amuck and no thought given to punishments to cut antisocial behaviour.
We have had our first major child killer case recently.
We have judges handing out ridiculous sentences on sexual assaults and they are worried about the incest laws. :rolleyes:

Who is they in this scenario?
The Law Reform Commission are 25 academics and researchers out of 352,400 public sector employees.

Edgware

shockwave wrote: »

Its ok to ride your cousin though?

Only if of the same sex

blueshade

blueshade wrote: »

There's a massive problem in London with children being born into the Pakistani community with such severe birth defects that they die and that's because of massive inbreeding with close relatives.

Systematic and ongoing inbreeding is likely to be a genetic problem. However if two people in isolation want to start a relationship of this sort - and they happen to be siblings - there is little reason I can see to have laws against it. Or at least no biological reasons. The issues with genetic defects as a product of incest are not non-existent but they are much much much lower - and very much exaggerated - than people seem to think.

blueshade wrote: »

Daddy raping his daughters isn't rape because it's a special relationship? Or maybe marrying that little girl isn't pedophilia because hey, it's a cultural thing?

I am not so concerned with the slippery slope fallacy on the subject of incest. In fact I have noticed that imagining a slippery slope tends often to be the _only_ arguments someone can level against such incest between consenting adults. Which tells me they actually have no argument against incest itself - so have to try to bait and switch.

We have very good arguments - mostly under the title of "informed consent" - as to why such relationships between adults and children should be considered both immoral and illegal. And I do not see those arguments being negated by the allowance of/for incest between consenting adults. Just like when pretty much the same argument structure was used against homosexuality in the past.

blueshade wrote: »

Nature tries to kill the offspring of incestual relationships for a reason.

I am not actually sure what you mean here. How and when and where is nature doing this? Can you also give examples?

blueshade wrote: »

That's even before we get to the issue of a change in the laws potentially encouraging someone who is considering abusing a sibling into doing so and pressurising or threatening them into pretending that they consent.

That happens in non-incestuous relationships too. Which like the reliance on the slippery slope argument - is a warning bell for me. Grooming people or pressuring people or threatening people into sexual consent is _always_ wrong. So let us not pretend it is anything at all to do with incest.

It is generally a bad argument if it comes in the form that "A is bad in scenario B C and D but we should ban scenario B because A is bad".

blueshade wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to work out that having sex with a close blood relative is wrong on every level.

Well either it does take a genius - or I am simply not a genius - because I am not seeing the problem yet. To be honest the "It is wrong because it just is and you should just be able to see that" argument is one I have heard too many times before. 10 years ago I heard it most often in conversations on homosexuality. No one could actually - then or now - tell us what was actually wrong with consenting adults of the same gender having sex. So they just came out with lines like the one you wrote above.

I tend to avoid the "You'd see it my way if you were smart enough" structure of argument. Because it is not actually an argument - but rather an attempt to shame rebuttal into silence.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is where diseases that require the same gene to be present in both parents is going to be far more likely to occur with two siblings.

Only on the assumption that they actually carry the defect. I think what many people believe is that incest somehow _causes_ those defects. It can do - but the increase in probability that a new defect will arise in an incestuous relationship is - to my knowledge - only minutely higher than in any other relationship.

The issue really is that if incest is occurring in a community over time - that the ability of natural selection to breed out the defect is hampered. So over time they have a much greater chance to actually survive and thrive. Which we do not want.

Now if a defect already exists in the genes of the family where incest is occurring then sure - the product of incest is much more likely to carry that defect! But then we get into the moral question of whether that should be a problem for us or not.

For example - and I am stealing this argument from another boards poster from an earlier thread on this topic - there are types of blindness and deafness that are genetic. Yet we do not prevent two people with that issue to procreate. Dwarfism too I suspect.

So they are 100% guaranteed to have a deaf or blind child - whereas the incestuous siblings only have an elevated chance of their defect progressing - assuming they even have one.

So that makes me wonder - if we use the genetic probabilities to say such people should not have relationships or procreate - then why are we not applying the same argument to those where the probability is 100%?

This tends to happen when someone chooses a conclusion first - such as I do not like incest - and then fits arguments to it later. Sometimes it is very clear when arguments led to a conclusion - or a conclusion led to the arguments. And I think when this one comes up it is very clearly the latter.

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

No it won't be next because that's child abuse.

Actually, this is one of the reasons I mentioned a slippery slope earlier. Society itself and social values are changing rapidly these days, especially with the impact of liberal thoughts/agendas. The push to make child abusers victims rather than predators is a fairly common message coming from certain areas. As victims, they need support and understanding from other people, rather than being punished as adults responsible for their actions.

It's a very distant comparison and not meant to be insulting to them... but I'd call attention to transgenderism. Less than two decades ago, this was widely considered a psychological problem to be treated and people were very careful about what was allowed in relation to the public sphere. Now, we have a wide variety of organisations and agendas pushing for greater rights even though they make up a tiny percentage of any population, and we're seeing legal changes being implemented to control the majority to appease a very tiny minority. Even the language we use daily is being changed and those changes enforced to ensure the majority complies. All without the consent of the majority.

The point is that we don't know where such a legal change will lead. Does changing this law help people who have been persecuted unjustly? Not really, because there are valid reasons for the law to be in place. However, with the way society is changing and the way people are re-presenting sexual deviancy, making child molesting more acceptable and legal isn't an impossible scenario. It won't be next.. but it could happen within your lifetime. Surely, that's something worth considering?

It makes sense not to give it a toe-hold but changes like this law create precedence for further appeals to be made against other laws in place to manage morality and social controls. I just keep thinking of domino's falling.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

So that makes me wonder - if we use the genetic probabilities to say such people should not have relationships or procreate - then why are we not applying the same argument to those where the probability is 100%?

This tends to happen when someone chooses a conclusion first - such as I do not like incest - and then fits arguments to it later. Sometimes it is very clear when arguments led to a conclusion - or a conclusion led to the arguments. And I think when this one comes up it is very clearly the latter.

Well on the one hand there is that...but then on the other hand, it's your sister ffs!

Ride one of her friends instead you dirty bastard!

Richard Hillman

Very common within certain communities of The UK, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Stark

You can follow the slippery slope in the opposite direction as well, that anything that someone would find icky be made illegal. Which leads us to where we once were: only missionary position sex between two married adults of opposite sex for the purpose of producing children is allowed. That's where Article 8 of the European convention on human rights came in. What happens in the privacy of someone's bedroom is their own business (as long as it's between consenting adults).

I don't buy the slippery slope argument that the next step will be legalising child abuse. Years ago we had strict laws regarding which adults and which of their orifices a consenting adult could stick his mickey into while child abuse was tolerated with abandon. These days, we have more liberal laws for consenting adults but child protection, while still a long way to go, is in a much better state than it used to be.

I find the thought of incest a bit icky myself to be honest, but I wouldn't want to send someone to prison over it. (unless one party is not in a position to consent).

WrenBoy

Stark wrote: »

I don't buy the slippery slope argument that the next step will be legalising child abuse. Years ago we had strict laws regarding which adults and which of their orifices a consenting adult could stick his mickey into while child abuse was tolerated with abandon. These days, we have more liberal laws for consenting adults but child protection, while still a long way to go, is in a much better state than it used to be.

Cut to that kid in the US who is a drag queen performing in gay bars in front of adults.

Raconteuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, this is one of the reasons I mentioned a slippery slope earlier. Society itself and social values are changing rapidly these days, especially with the impact of liberal thoughts/agendas. The push to make child abusers victims rather than predators is a fairly common message coming from certain areas. As victims, they need support and understanding from other people, rather than being punished as adults responsible for their actions.

It's a very distant comparison and not meant to be insulting to them... but I'd call attention to transgenderism. Less than two decades ago, this was widely considered a psychological problem to be treated and people were very careful about what was allowed in relation to the public sphere. Now, we have a wide variety of organisations and agendas pushing for greater rights even though they make up a tiny percentage of any population, and we're seeing legal changes being implemented to control the majority to appease a very tiny minority. Even the language we use daily is being changed and those changes enforced to ensure the majority complies. All without the consent of the majority.

The point is that we don't know where such a legal change will lead. Does changing this law help people who have been persecuted unjustly? Not really, because there are valid reasons for the law to be in place. However, with the way society is changing and the way people are re-presenting sexual deviancy, making child molesting more acceptable and legal isn't an impossible scenario. It won't be next.. but it could happen within your lifetime. Surely, that's something worth considering?

It makes sense not to give it a toe-hold but changes like this law create precedence for further appeals to be made against other laws in place to manage morality and social controls. I just keep thinking of domino's falling.

But transgenderism doesn't involve defilement of children. If anything there was more relaxation around sexual abuse of children in the past than there is now. Now it's at the point where men are afraid to be in the company of other people's children, no matter what the context.

I do know what you mean about the nutters seeking to deflect responsibility from child abusers, but given the above, they'll thankfully have a huge battle on their hands imo.

Related adults being intimate is an unsettling idea - and I don't think they should have children. Also one of the "consenting" adults could be a lot younger and groomed as a child.

But two people who become attracted in adulthood? Far from ideal as it may be, should they really go to prison? How could it be policed?

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well on the one hand there is that...but then on the other hand, it's your sister ffs!

Ride one of her friends instead you dirty bastard!

And did people not say the same to homosexuals? "There is plenty of women out there you sicko - why do you need to shag a man?"

I am not one to second guess why or how people fall in love and want to find happiness by sharing their life path together. The only thing that concerns me is whether or not we have an actual reason to prevent them from doing so. And consenting adults who happen to be related - I just can not think of any such reasons.

When this thread started yesterday I tried to remember some things I read before. I ended up reading this paper yesterday for example. Which among other things tells us:

Incest was not prohibited in eighteenth-century English society, or so the examination of statute law would lead one to think.
----
Nevertheless, historians have either overlooked its significance its significance, or have assumed the universality of its prohibition. In fact, the eighteenth century had no concept of universal taboo, and the law did not specifically prohibit sexual relations within the nuclear family.

So one wonders if the taboo and ickyness around it is as universal a human reaction as we might think. It certainly holds no interest for _me_. But neither do over weight women and many people like them too. So I know my personal preferences or personal turn offs are not to be projected onto a norm or a general morality.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The push to make child abusers victims rather than predators is a fairly common message coming from certain areas. As victims, they need support and understanding from other people, rather than being punished as adults responsible for their actions.

Probably useful to break that down in a few ways though.

The first would be that I think I have heard a number of people - and in fact one TedX talk on the subject sparked a thread on the subject on this forum last year - try to foster that understanding and sympathy for paedophiles specifically. Not abusers. The former are victims of a sort. The latter not. We should separate the two.

So without knowing specifically who you refer to in the paragraph above - I would just urge caution that that is not an error you are making. Not saying you are - just suggesting you not do so.

The second however would be that viewing criminals as victims is itself not a bad thing and is certainly not limited to child abuse. We do it with all kinds of criminals and this is a good thing I feel. Now another cautionary note is that I would never suggest we do that _instead_ of viewing them as criminals. I would be saying the two are not at all mutually exclusive.

"to make child abusers victims rather than predators" sounds awful to me but "to deal with child abusers and predators under a system that in parts treats them as victims themselves too" sounds much better.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just keep thinking of domino's falling.

Which is a very natural human thing to do. The Slippery Slope fallacy which is essentially what this is - is emotionally very powerful to us. It is one of the reasons humans fear change.

However I am not concerned as deeply as yourself. I think the reason some dominos fall is that we come to realise we have no arguments against x1 y1 and z1. Whereas we do have very good arguments against x2 y2 and z2. So when someone says "if we allow x1 we are opening the door possibly to x2" I am just not moved by those arguments because nothing about allowing x1 invalidates the existing - strong - useful - arguments against x2.

Widdershins

Is a relationship between an adult brother and sister against the law?
If so I do find that strange. Not that I don't have any concerns. Afaik there can be a long history of sometimes subtle coercion in incestuous relationships that might not appear to be forced, on the surface.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

And did people not say the same to homosexuals? "There is plenty of women out there you sicko - why do you need to shag a man?"
.

In all honesty as far as i'm concerned anything that goes on between consenting adults is their own business. I see no reason to be jailing people who are harming no one.

But...... i have no interest whatsoever in having anything to do with any person who is sleeping with their brother / sister / father / mother.

I mean jaysus christ is nothing sacred! It's not like there's a shortage of people - just find someone else.

The analogy with homosexuality doesn't really hold as if you are only attracted to men, all the women in the world aren't going to do it for you, so you can't just get a woman instead. If however you are attracted to your mother, you can just get a different woman instead.

It's just not right. Enough is enough with this bolloxology! Should you be jailed? - no probably not, should you be shunned? - absofúckinglutely!

Widdershins

It's the bond though. Knowing that you are blood-tied to someone and wold never give up no matter how much you annoy them:) Could be quite the aphrodisiac, I'm sure.

I blame Game Of Thrones for normalising this.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But...... i have no interest whatsoever in having anything to do with any person who is sleeping with their brother / sister / father / mother.

Sure - but while there is absolutely and utterly nothing at all wrong with that position - the fact remains that is _your_ issue not theirs. The sentence above is 100% entirely and solely a reflection on you. Not at all on them.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not like there's a shortage of people - just find someone else.

You could say that to anyone who falls in love. Not limited to incest. But the fact remains that often the heart wants what the heart wants - and if someone is genuinely in love the sentence "just find someone else" is going to fall on their ears as nothing more than white noise.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The analogy with homosexuality doesn't really hold as if you are only attracted to men, all the women in the world aren't going to do it for you, so you can't just get a woman instead.

I think the analogy holds but I can certainly think of a better one. What of M.Loving who was hauled before the courts for the "crime" of falling in love with someone of a different skin color?

Sure we could have told her "There is plenty of men of your own race - why not find one of those?" in much the same way you are - or we could realise that it does not matter if she is attracted to men of her own race too - the fact is she has fallen in love with who she has fallen in love with - and there is/was no actual reason to prevent them from having a relationship. No matter how many people screamed "it just aint right" or "They should be shunned". And many people did.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's just not right.

To you. But my point would be that unless you can actual form an argument as to why it is "not right" then merely saying it is "not right" is just you projecting opinion. Many people said of homosexuals "it is just not right". Many people said of interracial couples "it is just not right".

Everyone can certainly have an opinion on what is right or not _for them_ - and you can shun who you want to shun on your own biases sure - but if we are going to say it is _actually_ not right in and of itself or we in general should be "shunning" them - it takes more than merely shouting that it is so - don'cha think?

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

It's the bond though. Knowing that you are blood-tied to someone and wold never give up no matter how much you annoy them:) Could be quite the aphrodisiac, I'm sure.

Well that’s exactly why the practice of incest, which was once widely practiced throughout history in many cultures was eventually prohibited - it was demonstrated that abuse and exploitation were an all too common feature of such relationships. That’s why marriage between close relations was prohibited. Some forms of incest are still permitted in some European countries, but generally prohibition is based upon the likelihood of exploitation and abuse as opposed to any ick factor or potential implications on laws regarding inheritance and succession and so on.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the analogy holds but I can certainly think of a better one. What of M.Loving who was hauled before the courts for the "crime" of falling in love with someone of a different skin color? Sure we could have told her "There is plenty of men of your own race - why not find one of those?" in much the same way you are - or we could realise that it does not matter if she is attracted to men of her own race too - the fact is she has fallen in love with who she has fallen in love with - and there is/was no actual reason to prevent them from having a relationship. No matter how many people screamed "it just aint right" or "They should be shunned". And many people did.

I see your point, and i admit that logically it is the very same argument. But you do need sometimes to draw a line in the sand and not just follow the logic to the bitter end, there is more to life than logic - we aren't vulcans.

To my mind incest is as good a place to draw that that line as anywhere. But i stand where i stand, it shouldn't be illegal - but it's still just wrong!

Deleted User wrote: »

To you. But my point would be that unless you can actual form an argument as to why it is "not right" then merely saying it is "not right" is just you projecting opinion. Many people said of homosexuals "it is just not right". Many people said of interracial couples "it is just not right".

Again, logically i can't argue. The racial thing is a more fitting analogy. I don't think my opinions or particular tastes should be enshrined in law, i don't like the idea of homosexual sex for example, but i couldn't care less if anyone else does - they can hump away to their hearts content as far as i'm concerned. If my son had a boyfriend i wouldn't care, once he was happy that would do me. If he was sleeping with his sister however i'd be disgusted - no amount of logic can make that act any less repulsive to my mind.

Should things that repulse me be illegal though - no, at least not just because they repulse me. Cheese repulses me, i don't think it should be banned (well i do, but i begrudgingly accept it won't be:D)

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone can certainly have an opinion on what is right or not _for them_ - and you can shun who you want to shun on your own biases sure - but if we are going to say it is _actually_ not right in and of itself or we in general should be "shunning" them - it takes more than merely shouting that it is so - don'cha think?

I'm conflicted.
I do agree with you - but i still feel that it's self evidently wrong and i wouldn't be comfortable around people like that. I can't logically or honestly explain why it's wrong (and that's a problem i suppose) but i also don't feel the need to correct my thinking either. I'm happy enough to just accept it on gut feeling!

CrankyHaus

How many incestous relationships are entirely consensual? As in based on informed consent between family members of equal standing.

The potential for coercion or exploitation within closed family groups with rigid hierarchies based on gender and age is vast.
I strongly suspect that decriminalisation would become an abusers charter.