Incest in Ireland

Widdershins

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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


Some siblings lack the genetic predisposal to revulsion at the thought of intimacy with siblings. Especially those who grew up apart. And I can see the fascination with a long lost secret sibling of a similar age to mine. That could develop, maybe. It's an abuse of a bond of love and trust in some cases.

seamus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I strongly suspect that decriminalisation would become an abusers charter.

Abuse starts long before the age of consent kicks in.

Removing the criminal offence of incest would have no impact on abuse rates.

Ultimately coerced sex is not legal, regardless of whether it happens between blood relatives, unrelated people or even spouses.

To think that there are loads of potental abusers out there not acting because they're terrified of being charged with incest, is beyond naive.

It's a pointless law that serves no purpose.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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.

I wholly agree that sometimes this is true. I just see no reason as yet as to why _this_ is one of them. Other than you personally thinking it should be.

You are disgusted by what you are disgusted by. You probably can not change that easily - just like most people terrified of spiders can not change it easily.

But as I said - while there is nothing wrong with that at all - it is just worth being clear that this is all a conversation about you and none of it reflects whatsoever on the rights - or wrong - of incest. We are discussing solely _your_ reaction to incest. But in a few sentences it seems you think that it being wrong _to you_ means it is in and of itself wrong. And that is where the leap is.

Hands off my cheese though. I deeply deeply love the stuff in just about all it's forms

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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.

And homophones think homosexual sex is self evidently wrong. And racists think that other races are self evidently inferior. Conservatives and democrats think each other self evidently deluded and insane. Theists think god self evidently exists quite often.

I am sure some things seem self evident to me too at times. The trick is when someone asks you to actually back it up - to ask yourself if you can actually do it. Theists racists and homophobes certainly can't. I often can not on some subjects too. And I think - on this subject - you can not either.

Our biases can often make us think something self evident when it is in fact nothing more than our biases.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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!

I can probably help but I would be stealing it from someone else. While I do not think Incest is "wrong" like you do - as I am perfectly happy for consenting adults to have any relationship they want with almost no limits - I did hear a strong argument as to why it is a bad idea.

And the argument was that our relationships sexually can be frequent. We can have many partners. But sexual relationships often change previous relationships in a way that can not be reversed. Many friends have sex - and then find they can not be friends any more for example. Sex changes things. Thing is though - you can always get new friends!

So I think one reason people have a gut reaction against incest - and the one strongest argument I have heard to advise against it - is that our sibling and parental and other family relationships are often unique. We mess with them and change them - you can not get them back. They are gone. You can get new friends if you lose some to sex. You can't so much go out and get a new sister or father or whatever.

Of all the arguments against incest I have heard - that one was the most moving to me. It is not a reason to ban it or shun people doing it though - but it is a reason to advise people against considering following through on it unless they are really really really really sure. With incest then for me it is not so much about the relationship you are entering - but the one you are giving up in it's place.

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

Some siblings lack the genetic predisposal to revulsion at the thought of intimacy with siblings. Especially those who grew up apart. And I can see the fascination with a long lost secret sibling of a similar age to mine. That could develop, maybe. It's an abuse of a bond of love and trust in some cases.

Ahh genetic sexual attraction isn’t really a thing though, it’s been widely criticised as pseudoscience, but I know what you mean - it’s a fairly popular category on pornhub specifically because of the taboo, which as you say is something of a powerful aphrodisiac.


I totally typed that with a straight face

Gynoid

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.

Cannot imagine how such a neurotic co-dependent entanglement could be at all erotic. One of the ingredients of sexual attraction for me is the fierce independence of the other, and by extension myself. Feeling erotic because someone hangs on in there regardless of how much you annoy ir mistreat them, that sounds a bit, no, a lot, sadomasochistic for my tastes.

There are different types of love. The love of friends. Of lovers. Of parent and child. Of siblings. It seems to me to be a regression to limit societies potential to publicly disapprove of the confusion of familial love for the erotic.

But anyways, have at it. Its your world.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Has the absence of legal prohibition on incest in France, Spain, Portugal, Australia, most of Eastern Europe, and most of South America caused any issues?

Laws that endeavor to prevent consenting adults from having sex, such as Ireland's prohibition on gay male intercourse up to 1993, only create victimless crimes. They are difficult to enforce and routinely disregarded.

So it makes not a whit of difference whether incest is legal or not. The (very small) number of people who engage in it are probably going to do so anyway, while the (very large) number of people who would never engage in it aren't going to do so just because it's legal.

osarusan

Immediate massive yuck factor for me, but I haven't thought about it enough to work out if I have anything against it other than that massive yuck factor.

At first examination, my standard position that by and large, consenting adults should be free to do as they choose, seems to apply.

The bit about pregnancy seems strange though. Are they considering legalising it only when pregnancy is not a possibility? That seems almost incredibly messy to legislate for. But that might not be what the quoted extract actually means.

Widdershins

Gynoid wrote: »

Cannot imagine how such a neurotic co-dependent entanglement could be at all erotic. One of the ingredients of sexual attraction for me is the fierce independence of the other, and by extension myself. Feeling erotic because someone hangs on in there regardless of how much you annoy ir mistreat them, that sounds a bit, no, a lot, sadomasochistic for my tastes.

There are different types of love. The love of friends. Of lovers. Of parent and child. Of siblings. It seems to me to be a regression to limit societies potential to publicly disapprove of the confusion of familial love for the erotic.

But anyways, have at it. Its your world.

Sure, if it was co dependent and neurotic. If you first met as adults then you'd be fine about time spent apart. Similar to typical love, you'd just feel happy knowing they exist, they love you and they're happy, and you'll be together again. The neurotic partners in my life weren't related to me, and most obsessive relationships aren't incestuous are they? Seems to me brothers usually take care of sisters, and vice versa, something that was absent in the abusive relationships I had (one physical one psychological).

Raconteuse

Raconteuse wrote: »

But transgenderism doesn't involve defilement of children.

Sure, it does. There are groups of people out there right now, pressuring their own children to change their gender. Psychologists are actively creating new terms to excuse applying transgender procedures to minors.

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.

Will they? Already sentencing in various countries have been reduced towards sex offenders who molest or rape children in the cause of being sympathetic. Psychiatric care is recommended rather than heavy prison time due to the likelihood of them being hurt by prison inmates due to their crimes. And it's not nutters. It's generally fairly intelligent people with their own agendas to follow who seek changing the system in favor of these people.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Separating the two works fine for you and me, but it doesn't happen when supporters of changes to the justice system seek to reduce the severity of the crime. Instead, that separation is used as a crutch to encourage the sympathy, which will then be used to expand on the laws over time.

I'm not concerned with people who have desires for children but never submit to that desire by molestation or rape. They're not criminals. The people who do commit the crime should be dealt with harshly. I haven't an ounce of sympathy for their "condition", and I genuinely feel that we, as a society, shouldn't either. Sympathy and support for those who don't commit the crime, harsh punishment for those who do. Simple and clear rules tend to work best with people.

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.

Not really. In 42 years, I have seen western society change so much. In some cases, the changes were initially very good. Gay rights being one. However, the dominoes' analogy works here, because further changes always follow. It's well known on boards that I'm rather anti-modern-feminism. The initial changes to provide equality were very welcome, but the changes have continued far beyond what people originally would have considered reasonable.

My problem is that rarely does a change stop with that initial change. Instead, it's used as a lever to create a ripple of other changes with anything even remotely associated with it....

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.

Concerned deeply? Err... no. I am concerned but not that deeply. Why? Because I recognise that I have no real influence over the process. The changes will occur with or without my consent. It will depend mostly on public reactions after the changes and the effects it has on society, and then, my concern can change into something more productive.

Annasopra

I wouldn't support changing the laws on incest at all but I don't see a major issue with looking at it in the context of an overall review of sexual offences.

Gynoid

Widdershins wrote: »

Sure, if it was co dependent and neurotic. If you first met as adults then you'd be fine about time spent apart. Similar to typical love, you'd just feel happy knowing they exist, they love you and they're happy, and you'll be together again. The neurotic partners in my life weren't related to me, and most obsessive relationships aren't incestuous are they? Seems to me brothers usually take care of sisters, and vice versa, something that was absent in the abusive relationships I had (one physical one psychological).

You are describing part of the problem, as I see it anyway. The confusion of loves. Human beings are highly developed creatures who can discipline themselves, which is a positive thing despite what modernity thinks, and who can do nuance, subtlety, subconsciousness, self awareness, instinctiveness, foresight, and so on. Confusing sibling or parental love with erotic love is regressive, lacks proper foresight, does not correctly evaluate the weight of things. For example families require taboos in order to function justly and wisely. The father recognises the beauty of his blossoming daughter (mother son likewise) but has the self awareness, maturity, discipline, etc to eradicate eros under the stronger cohesive force of parental love. Anything else is chaos, disintegration. Sibling love likewise is a maturing process for the human. To confuse these loves is retrograde for humanity. In my opinion.
Also some things cannot be expressed clearly, they are instinctly known, so close to one that the words are not found. I cannot find the words in this case.

Widdershins

Gynoid, I don't believe it's true love. I know it's fundamentally a bad idea. Things are bound to become confused between adult siblings who didn't grow up together. It's probably only the part of me that's experienced disloyalty, romanticising the loyalty of siblings. I was just trying to mentally walk in their shoes.

Gynoid

Widdershins wrote: »

Gynoid, I don't believe it's true love. I know it's fundamentally a bad idea. Things are bound to become confused between adult siblings who didn't grow up together. It's probably only the part of me that's experienced disloyalty, romanticising the loyalty of siblings. I was just trying to mentally walk in their shoes.

I get ya.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wouldn't support changing the laws on incest at all but I don't see a major issue with looking at it in the context of an overall review of sexual offences.

That’s essentially all the Law Reform Commission is doing, and the media, doing what the media does, took what he was saying completely out of context, knowing that it would generate clicks.

Nobody on the LRC is arguing that incest should be decriminalised, and as part of a broader review of sexual offences legislation, I would expect that they will actually broaden the context of the offences and recommend increasing the maximum sentences that can be handed down upon conviction.

The most recent change in legislation made the maximum sentences for males and females convicted of a criminal offence, equal -


Dáil to close 21-year-old legal ‘loophole’ on incest


I don’t imagine there’s too many politicians willing to risk their reputations on any attempt to decriminalise incest in the current social and political climate.

u140acro3xs7dm

How will this affect Crystal Swing?

Bobtheman

Given the anything goes and everybody is a victim mantra out now its only a matter of time before it's legalised. It should not be

Still waters

Things falling into place about 1 particular poster on here that I've wondered about for a long time, it all makes sense all of a sudden

Gonad

Incest ?

Some guys have all the luck . Don’t evens got to leave the house ....

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Decriminalising may make it more normal, and brother/sister shouldn't be encouraged and parent child should never be tolerated.

I read an article of a woman who was done recently for having sex with her teenage son. That wasn't the issue though. She was weak minded and her son new she could be handled to do what he wanted. He actually manipulated her into doing it, but oddly as the child, he was seen as the victim.

I'm not too keen on the morality discussion. It's not about morals. It should be about making sure their is no manipulation in the scenario that presents itself. If theres no abuse targeted against either party by the other, or theres no reason to doubt them wanting to partake in it, who am I to paint them as bad people for it.

One eyed Jack

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not too keen on the morality discussion. It's not about morals. It should be about making sure their is no manipulation in the scenario that presents itself. If theres no abuse targeted against either party by the other, or theres no reason to doubt them wanting to partake in it, who am I to paint them as bad people for it.

That’s about morals though - specifically what constitutes manipulation or coercion. The people in question charged with a criminal offence are unlikely to see how or why their actions could be construed as manipulation, and even if they do, they’re unlikely to agree they should be penalised for their actions.

I’m not going to claim it’s not a question of morals, it absolutely is, and people’s morals inform our laws which apply to society as a whole, in the interests of the common good. Fcukall good about decriminalising incest only that some people will have carte blanche to use the idea that the other party or parties consented. A far more interesting legal quandary presented itself in a recent case though -

Half-Sisters Compete In Disgusting Race For Father's Affections


But the cause of the incest wasn't the only thing authorities learned during the course of the investigation.

Police also learned that Kershner and Fieldgrove got married at the Adams County Courthouse in October.

But how could a father and daughter legally marry?

Well, to answer that, you have to go back 21 years when Kershner was born. For some reason, Fieldgrove is not listed as Kershner’s father on the birth certificate, which is why no flags were brought up when they applied for a marriage license last year.

Fieldgrove even went as far to say that he didn’t believe he was the girl’s father because of this, but a paternity test conducted in January came back with a 99.999 percent probability that he was, in fact, her father.

With that being enough for police, Kershner and Fieldgrove were arrested and charged with one count of incest each.

Dravokivich

Morals arent being used here to differentiate between right and wrong as abusive or non abusive though. Morals are being used here, in the same manner as has been with other perversions, in that "no right person would do it, so something has to be wrong with them and we need to make sure it's wrong." If theres no abuse, if theres no issue of consent. What's the issue, other than a lot of people are disgusted by it?

howamidifferent

Gynoid wrote: »

The father recognises the beauty of his blossoming daughter (mother son likewise) but has the self awareness, maturity, discipline, etc to eradicate eros under the stronger cohesive force of parental love. Anything else is chaos, disintegration. I cannot find the words in this case.

This. I 100% agree with this sentiment as a father of 3 young girls..

One eyed Jack

Dravokivich wrote: »

Morals arent being used here to differentiate between right and wrong as abusive or non abusive though. Morals are being used here, in the same manner as has been with other perversions, in that "no right person would do it, so something has to be wrong with them and we need to make sure it's wrong." If theres no abuse, if theres no issue of consent. What's the issue, other than a lot of people are disgusted by it?

Well it’s an unhealthy relationship for starters, because right from the off, it violates the boundaries of the familial relationship.

In the Stübing case in Germany for instance his legal team tried to argue that his conviction and sentencing violated his right to respect for private and family life. He lost his case not only because member States have a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to legislation regarding family law, but basically because the Courts regarded the German authorities interference as pursuing a legitimate aim of protecting the social institution of the family within the context of Article 8.

Widdershins

Still waters wrote: »

Things falling into place about 1 particular poster on here that I've wondered about for a long time, it all makes sense all of a sudden

Who?

Feisar

Just to point out the phrase is no holds barred, not no holes.

Holds referring to small joint manipulation, knee and spine locks. (edit) As being examples of holds that would be barred.

Victor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The most recent change in legislation made the maximum sentences for males and females convicted of a criminal offence, equal -

Dáil to close 21-year-old legal ‘loophole’ on incest

I don’t imagine there’s too many politicians willing to risk their reputations on any attempt to decriminalise incest in the current social and political climate.

That bill wasn't passed.

These two were.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/4/enacted/en/print.html

One eyed Jack

Victor wrote: »

That bill wasn't passed.

These two were.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/4/enacted/en/print.html

Cheers Victor, the link was just for reference though because I was frankly too lazy to bother going to too much effort for the sake of this thread when I know incest isn’t going to be decriminalised any time soon :pac:

Buggery!

No, I mean, buggery, isn't it a crime?
With regard to incest, I believe the rights to sexual relationships and partnership/marriage are subject to the law and can be appealed to the court of human rights. (I haven't a clue really).

nkl12xtw5goz70

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. That's not a dig at minorities it's a simple fact that doesn't get a lot of attention.

Genetic defects within Pakistani communities are due to repeated marriage among first cousins, which is already legal in the UK and Ireland.

The current Irish legislation, dating from 1908, prohibits only sexual relations between a man and his mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, or half-sister (and equivalent relations for women). It does not address sexual relations between other family members (e.g., between an uncle and his niece) and does not apply to same-sex relations at all, which is problematic from an equality standpoint. So the legislation does need to be reformed.

For the record, I agree with you that consanguineous marriage leading to genetic defects is a significant issue in close-knit communities — we have similar issues in Ireland with Travellers, many of whom marry their first or second cousins — but in my view the answer there is education, not legislation.

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? We should be really concerned about this. It's the 21st century not the Dark Ages.

Legislation on incest is entirely separate from laws prohibiting rape or the defilement of children. At stake is the question of whether consensual incest among adults should remain a criminal offense. We're not talking about legalizing rape or letting adults marry little girls.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

But as I said - while there is nothing wrong with that at all - it is just worth being clear that this is all a conversation about you and none of it reflects whatsoever on the rights - or wrong - of incest. We are discussing solely _your_ reaction to incest. But in a few sentences it seems you think that it being wrong _to you_ means it is in and of itself wrong. And that is where the leap is.

Agreed......but:eek:

Deleted User wrote: »

Hands off my cheese though. I deeply deeply love the stuff in just about all it's forms

Sicko:mad:

Deleted User wrote: »

And homophones think homosexual sex is self evidently wrong. And racists think that other races are self evidently inferior. Conservatives and democrats think each other self evidently deluded and insane. Theists think god self evidently exists quite often.

Our biases can often make us think something self evident when it is in fact nothing more than our biases.

You know, last night i done something i haven't done before (i swear). I spent the evening thinking about incest:P

It is just a bias, i have no real reason to think it's wrong. I'm not at all sure however that i'm ever going to be able to think otherwise, and that possibly is unfair to some brother and sister somewhere who are very much in love/lust and just want to get it on in peace......but fúck them, there are more pressing issues in the world!

It's possibly an issue who's time is coming though (pardon the pun) - there seems to be no end of incest porn online...eh, so i'm told. Someone must be in to it!

Thalia Tiny Limb wrote: »

How will this affect Crystal Swing?

Probably not at all, there's a fair chance she's getting hucklebucked by that lanky bastard as we speak:D