German advisory board calls for incest law change

I actually agree with that stance, though admittedly I am troubled by the thought of children from such a relationship. But then again I support gay couples, men and women with multiple marriage partners, basically anything that involves consenting adults I will support.
 
Incest Is 'Taboo' but Shouldn't Be Illegal, German Experts Say

Couldn't agree more. The law has no business meddling in the carnal affairs of consenting adults.

There are many other risk factors besides genetics that can cause birth defects, so the usual puritanic argument is not a valid reason to maintain these archaic laws....
 
Last edited:
I agree with the above, if their is consent-and real consent, not one coercing the other in anyway-then who cares?

I would hope they would not have kids, the guy can go get a Vasectomy or something.....then again there are conflicting reports about children born of incest, some say it can take generations of inbreeding to have any serious issues.

And those issues? No worse than the ones kids who are born to drug addicts can have, are we going to pass a law that no one who is a drug user can have a kid?

I say it all the time, neither an alleged god or any government should tell someone who they can love.

There's more important things to worry about in the world.

But as for the USA? We somehow still live in a country that won;t allow incest to be sold -even as a fantasy, this shows how backwards we think our "edgy" society is.

In our fiction here we can rape, murder, torture, mutilate, have people torn limb from limb, ....all in great detail and everyone sells it (and I am talking movies as well as books) and parents let their kids watch it, but a fictional portrayal of two 18+ family members fooling around consensually? Oh, no! Can't have that, that is sick now....where's the next installment of Saw?

We're a joke, still living in the dark ages.
 
It wouldn't be the first place to allow sex between consenting siblings. As far as I know it's legal in every Australian state except NSW, but it'd still be heavily stigmatised, so if anybody's taking advantage of that (lack of) law they're keeping very quiet about it.

Children of incestuous pairings do have a heightened risk of genetic disease. But if we're going to ban sibling relationships on those grounds, then we also need to stop Amish, Mennonites, and Ashkenazi Jews from marrying within their own group - genetically speaking, any two Amish are very closely related, even if they don't have any common parents/grandparents, because it's an almost-closed population that started with only a few founders whose children intermarried a lot.
 
As for inbreeding, I guess I could jokingly say look at Arkansas.

But seriously folks, don't dog breeders mate sibling to sibling and father to daughter to get breeds to look like or act like they want it to?

Didn't Hawaiian royals marry each other, also the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt?

My concern would be that a domineering father would be able to exert control over an adult daughter, especially if he had raised her to be obedient. She would 'consent' but perhaps not truly want to.

I guess the same would be true of a domineering mother and son.
 
My concern would be that a domineering father would be able to exert control over an adult daughter, especially if he had raised her to be obedient. She would 'consent' but perhaps not truly want to.

I guess the same would be true of a domineering mother and son.
Power asymmetry is what I detest about IRL incest. Incest USUALLY involves an older male (father, uncle, brother) abusing a younger woman. Abuse by priests and teachers (in loco parentis) is similar. In all these cases, the older man has power (patriarchal authority) and the young woman has little recourse.

How to distinguish between power-asymmetry incest and loving consensual first-degree incest? I'm not sure this can be done with laws. Yes, consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with each other, absent severe damage. No, society shouldn't tell adults "don't do that with each other." Legal tolerance might slowly change societal attitudes, or vice-versa.

We taboo tempting subjects. Incest wouldn't be taboo if it weren't appealing, just as murder would not be illegal if people didn't like to kill. Will the incest taboo erode? Maybe some attractive role models would help effect change. Let's see some celeb siblings openly shack up, eh?
 
Last edited:
How to distinguish between power-asymmetry incest and loving consensual first-degree incest? I'm not sure this can be done with laws. Yes, consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with each other, absent severe damage. No, society shouldn't tell adults "don't do that with each other." Legal tolerance might slowly change societal attitudes, or vice-versa.


When you are of legal age, you are per definition an "adult" and therefore there cannot be any power-asymmetry.

Of course in a practical situation there is, but that is no different from a poor girl sleeping with a rich guy.
 
When you are of legal age, you are per definition an "adult" and therefore there cannot be any power-asymmetry.

Of course in a practical situation there is, but that is no different from a poor girl sleeping with a rich guy.
When one attains majority, does one's past disappear? Do the old relationships of authority, of giving and taking orders, evaporate? No, especially if dependency is involved, and especially if the younger does not relocate. More and more young people in Western societies stay at home rather than move out. I could not wait till I was 18 to leave home; my nephew, age 28, still lives with his mom and dad. Power asymmetry is strong in that household.
 
As for inbreeding, I guess I could jokingly say look at Arkansas.

But seriously folks, don't dog breeders mate sibling to sibling and father to daughter to get breeds to look like or act like they want it to?

Didn't Hawaiian royals marry each other, also the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt?


The modern dog breeder will not breed back sorter that the 3rd generation, or so I am told.
As to the Pharaohs, many of them were proof that intermarriage is not a good idea. It must be said, however, that the next in line Pharaoh may not have been the result of incest. The line of succession passed through the Queen, usually.

It just don't work, people.
Personally, I reckon that if a couple of siblings wanted to get together on a permanent basis, they should be permitted to do so - AFTER both have been sterilised (or some similar process).
 
If you believe in the bible and look at Genesis....world was originally populated by incest.
 
As for inbreeding, I guess I could jokingly say look at Arkansas.

For some reason this makes me think of one of the most disturbing(therefore excellent) shows I've ever seen on regular TV.

Anyone remember the episode of the X-Files "Home"

That is not your literotica style incest for sure.
 
The modern dog breeder will not breed back sorter that the 3rd generation, or so I am told.
As to the Pharaohs, many of them were proof that intermarriage is not a good idea. It must be said, however, that the next in line Pharaoh may not have been the result of incest. The line of succession passed through the Queen, usually.

Article here about inbreeding among the Pharaohs. Despite a LOT of brother-sister marriages, the evidence for serious genetic disease is pretty weak. Carlos II of Spain is probably a stronger example, although that still took a great deal of repeated inbreeding.

Personally, I reckon that if a couple of siblings wanted to get together on a permanent basis, they should be permitted to do so - AFTER both have been sterilised (or some similar process).

Would you apply the same rule to people who have a similar risk level for non-incest reasons?

A woman who contracts rubella during the first couple of months of pregnancy has about a 90% chance that her child will have severe birth defects. Should we ban non-immunised women from having children?

A young lady I know has an autosomal dominant genetic condition which means that regardless of the father, her children have about a 25% chance of serious genetic disease. Should we require her to be sterilised before she gets married?
 
And those issues? No worse than the ones kids who are born to drug addicts can have, are we going to pass a law that no one who is a drug user can have a kid.

Going to? We already have. Mother or baby tests positive in the hospital for opiods or cocaine at birth, the newborn is generally taken into protective custody and the mother faces felony child abuse charges. Don't go to the hospital because you know you might test positive and drug addiction makes it difficult to not get pregnant? If your newborn dies during or after delivery and someone finds out, you catch murder. America, everyone!
 
Going to? ..... Don't go to the hospital because you know you might test positive and drug addiction makes it difficult to not get pregnant?.....!

About not going somewhere when you think you might test positive. I don't do illegal drugs, but was once in a position where I interviewed and hired people for entry level factory work. Drug testing was mandatory and they knew they would be sent for one before final acceptance.

Yet, on more than one occasion we got positive tests, when they knew a couple of days in advance they would be taking the test. One person called and asked for a second chance, she said she was nervous about the test and smoked a joint on the way to the clinic to calm herself down.

My conclusion is that if someone is using drugs a lot of them won't or don't care about drug tests. I have no idea what goes through their minds.
 
Back
Top