What makes incest wrong?

[Melanie_]

From the linked article....

*This research was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, and the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada.

**Lisa Strohschein is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta, 5-21 Tory Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4 ([email protected]).

Lisa Strohschien's website

Perhaps the agenda is yours. I seem to remember asking you what exactly feminists "got" that you object to, and you have yet to respond.

Lesbian thread

[kengs333]

From the linked article....

Lisa Strohschien's website

Perhaps the agenda is yours. I seem to remember asking you what exactly feminists "got" that you object to, and you have yet to respond.

Lesbian thread

Thanks, feminist granny, I've already had a look at her website. It's interesting that you, a feminist, would be citing her study. That certainly further supports my contention.

[Melanie_]

Still waiting for your take on what feminists got that they didn't deserve. I'm also hoping you will answer Drea's question, if an action does no one harm is it really immoral, and Cybercoma's request for links that support your position that "traditional" families are best.

You should try to find out more about the author; it seems that she has an agenda, as her "findings" tend to show that divorce isn't all that bad as everyone makes it out to be. I would think that below the surface there lurks a feminist, and as we all know feminists have given us the divorce industry that we now have.

I love how you immediately smear someone who's research disagrees with your beliefs. Perhaps her research findings show that divorce isn't as bad because in fact it isn't as bad. Data from longitudinal studies are now becoming available, so we are able to see the long term impact rather than speculate on what it might be.

Children do best when parents use the authoritative parenting style (as opposed to authoritarian or permissive), whether they are single parents, married parents, common law, same sex or mixed sex. Parenting practices and the relationship between the parent and child are the best determinants of child outcomes, not the relationship between the parents.

[Drea]

I base my morality on this...

The Rotary 4-way test

1- Is it the Truth?

2- Is it Fair to all concerned?

3- Will it build Good will and Better Friendship?

4- Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

Morals revolve around "harm". If an action does not cause "harm" then it is not immoral. If an action causes harm it is immoral. IMO.

[Rue]

Still waiting for your take on what feminists got that they didn't deserve. I'm also hoping you will answer Drea's question, if an action does no one harm is it really immoral, and Cybercoma's request for links that support your position that "traditional" families are best.

I love how you immediately smear someone who's research disagrees with your beliefs. Perhaps her research findings show that divorce isn't as bad because in fact it isn't as bad. Data from longitudinal studies are now becoming available, so we are able to see the long term impact rather than speculate on what it might be.

Children do best when parents use the authoritative parenting style (as opposed to authoritarian or permissive), whether they are single parents, married parents, common law, same sex or mixed sex. Parenting practices and the relationship between the parent and child are the best determinants of child outcomes, not the relationship between the parents.

Lol I doubt you will get any references. I am inclined to believe the the taunts designed to insult you flow precisely because his stated position can not be referenced and/or he is not able to provide a response other then what appear to be passive aggressive derogations as to your gender. The manifested hostility towards you I find regrettable.

I commend your efforts to provide the information you did.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Rue

[Leafless]

Morals revolve around "harm". If an action does not cause "harm" then it is not immoral. If an action causes harm it is immoral. IMO.

Morals have nothing to do with "harm".

Morals are concerned with goodness or badness of human character or with the distinction between right and wrong.

[kengs333]

Children do best when parents use the authoritative parenting style (as opposed to authoritarian or permissive), whether they are single parents, married parents, common law, same sex or mixed sex. Parenting practices and the relationship between the parent and child are the best determinants of child outcomes, not the relationship between the parents.

Of course you are going to argue this, and latch onto "studies" that validate your feminist ideology. Divorce is a tactic that feminists have championed since the 1960s because the "traditional nuclear family" is viewed as a tool used by "patriarchy" to "oppress women"--despite the fact that it is in many was disadvantageous to men. There are, of course, instances when divorce is necessary, when one of the parents proves to be incapable of parenting or is exceedingly abussive--this fact has always be recognized in our society. However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

[guyser]

However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

Post of the year !

Gold jerry gold

[Drea]

Morals have nothing to do with "harm".

Morals are concerned with goodness or badness of human character or with the distinction between right and wrong.

Who or what determines the difference between something being "right" and something being "wrong".

A thing is right if no harm occurs.

A thing is wrong if harm occurs.

Easy imo.

[Drea]

Of course you are going to argue this, and latch onto "studies" that validate your feminist ideology. Divorce is a tactic that feminists have championed since the 1960s because the "traditional nuclear family" is viewed as a tool used by "patriarchy" to "oppress women"--despite the fact that it is in many was disadvantageous to men. There are, of course, instances when divorce is necessary, when one of the parents proves to be incapable of parenting or is exceedingly abussive--this fact has always be recognized in our society. However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

Better to live in misery with a partner one cannot stand than to live a healthy life. I get it. Now where did that puking icon go?

[Renegade]

Well technically Renegade the Criminal Code of Canada doesn't talk about the above but that is precisely why in the Criminal code it is a criminal offence to have sex with your parents or brothers or sisters and first cousins.

How do you know? Obviously it is not in the mandate of criminal law so this is just a conclusion you have come to. My belief, and I have no proof, is that what you say is only indirectly correct. Incest has made its way into criminal law simply because historically have always had a instinctive revulsion to it, without really knowing why. Nature and selective breeding has probably cultivated this instinctive revulsion in order to preserve genetic diversity.

[kengs333]

Better to live in misery with a partner one cannot stand than to live a healthy life. I get it. Now where did that puking icon go?

The fact that a person "cannot stand" the person that they married can be the result of many things, such as the inability to compromise and communicate, selfishness, lack of commitment... We live in a society where people are treated as disposable; people go through short term relationships trying to satisfy feelings that can never be satisfied in such a superficial manner; and when they get to a time when they feel like they want to get married the next person who fits the bill becomes their soulmate and they have a big huge picture-perfect wedding... the problem is, they've become geared to view people as disposable, and so eventually the enthusiasm wears off or the couple goes through a financial rough spot, and the marriage breaks down and usually fails.

[Melanie_]

Of course you are going to argue this, and latch onto "studies" that validate your feminist ideology. Divorce is a tactic that feminists have championed since the 1960s because the "traditional nuclear family" is viewed as a tool used by "patriarchy" to "oppress women"--despite the fact that it is in many was disadvantageous to men. There are, of course, instances when divorce is necessary, when one of the parents proves to be incapable of parenting or is exceedingly abussive--this fact has always be recognized in our society. However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

Hmmm…. Divorce is necessary when one partner is “exceedingly abusive”… what level of abuse is tolerable?

You keep implying that the author of this study had an agenda, and is a feminist. Personally, I don’t know anything about the author’s views, so I’m curious about where you are getting your information from. I managed to get a hard copy of the study, and found it to be stringently objective, but I’m sure that whatever I say is tainted in your eyes.

I think we are hijacking this thread, as we don’t seem to be discussing incest anymore. If you are interested in continuing a discussion about divorce and the feminist agenda in a new thread, I’d be willing to. I’ll leave it up to you to start the thread, so the ball’s in your court.

[cybercoma]

You should try to find out more about the author; it seems that she has an agenda, as her "findings" tend to show that divorce isn't all that bad as everyone makes it out to be. I would think that below the surface there lurks a feminist, and as we all know feminists have given us the divorce industry that we now have.

Do you have any studies to cite that refute the one she posted? Feel free to post a link this time.

[cybercoma]

Thanks, feminist granny, I've already had a look at her website. It's interesting that you, a feminist, would be citing her study. That certainly further supports my contention.

Your contentions mean nothing when put up against researched scientific findings.

[cybercoma]

There are, of course, instances when divorce is necessary, when one of the parents proves to be incapable of parenting or is exceedingly abussive--this fact has always be recognized in our society. However, in general, divorce has simply beome a means by which women can appropraite a man's wealth and segregate him from his children.

Do you have any references to support this belief? I mean, you say "in general"... so what percentage of divorces would you say that would be?

[Moxie]

The guestion was asked who are they hurting when two consenting adults have incestious sex, the answer society. Frankly I suspect those that advocate "Incest" hurts no one if it's consentual are lacking the ole grey matter that defines acceptable sexual practices.

Thankfully society at large would never allow those twisted individuals to practice their perverted sexuality openly.

What's next from the "Far Left" pet sex??

[Drea]

No one on earth, left or right, advocates sex with pets. What the hell is wrong with you? I don't think I've read one post stating that brothers and sisters screwing is "okay"... let alone boinking the damn dog!

Nextthing you know we will be... *insert your biggest fear here*. Booooooga Booooga!

ANd they sky is falling -- so you had better not go outside today...

Get a grip please... and stop spewing your rightwing "fear" (you got a hidden agenda with a poodle or what?).

Frrrrrrrriiiiiiiig.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one on earth, left or right, advocates sex with pets. What the hell is wrong with you? I don't think I've read one post stating that brothers and sisters screwing is "okay"... let alone boinking the damn dog!

Consenual sex between majority age siblings (regardless of gender) is "OK". Sex with pets and farm animals is left to the discretion of owners and their vets. My sister had a snake, and...well...nevermind.

Edited January 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[james rahn]

Consenual sex between majority age siblings (regardless of gender) is "OK". Sex with pets and farm animals is left to the discretion of owners and their vets. My sister had a snake, and...well...nevermind.

Your sister?

So thats how it is in your family huh?

WHo's your daddy, baaaah-d boy?

(Don't get your underpants in a knot now...you walked into that one! )

Edited January 26, 2008 by james rahn

[Renegade]

The guestion was asked who are they hurting when two consenting adults have incestious sex, the answer society.

Personifying "society" is a cop-out. Who exactly is "society" and how exactly is it"hurt"?

[bush_cheney2004]

Your sister?

So thats how it is in your family huh?

WHo's your daddy, baaaah-d boy?

(Don't get your underpants in a knot now...you walked into that one! )

Yes, and I'm glad you got it. There is hope....

[Rue]

Morals have nothing to do with "harm".

Morals are concerned with goodness or badness of human character or with the distinction between right and wrong.

Uh oh. I agree with Leafless on this! Absolutely and unequivocally!

Actually the concept of "harm" is a very very complex one. How we define harm and who is harmed necessarily depends on a wide range of factors and considerations.

Why I strongly agree with Leafless is that there are many life examples of people who do the right thing and still have harmed people intentionally and unintentionally and likewise there are many life examples of people who have done the wrong thing but harmed no one.

Look morality is not something I claim dibs on. I have a hard enough time defining it for myself. I am an imperfect man and I make no claims to know what it really means other than what it means for me- trying to do what I think is the right thing-being honest, treating others the way I would want them to treat me, helping people without expecting anything in return, and not lying, Those would be my personal lithmus tests for moral standards but that is all they are, my personal ones. I can't speak for anyone else. I would think the best way to show moral behaviour is in our actions not in our words.

Incest for me necessarily means there is a power imbalance that prevents free consent in the relationship because of a distortion of feelings because of that power imbalance.

For me to be moral, I would think we have to do things based on our free will and not because we were coerced or manipulated into something because of a power imbalance.

That said, I think it is important people know when a mental health care professional deals with incest they do not judge their patients what they deal with is the distortion that comes from not respecting people's boundaries. In theory sexual behaviour that is consensual between adults should not be the problem. However we all know consensual sex where one side is killed and asks to be killed or physically mutilated or injured is not going to be considered acceptable by society even if it was consensual.

With incest with due respect, it is impossible for it to be consensual because by its very definition it comes about from using familiarity from another relationship that was non sexual to now take the same trust earned when it was non sexual to provide a rationalization for engaging in sex. That very rationalization is necessarily a manipulation of trust and so it can not generate consensuality or free consent-its necessarily coercive.

At least that is how I would argue it on behalf of society and argue why it should be a crime.

As a therapist I would be clear and up front with a patient that sex with a sibling or parent is something society will never condone or accept and necessarily creates psychological and emotional issues and if a patient told me they were fine with it then I would say I am not and they need not stay because it will not be my role to help them condone it and feel good about it. I would make it clear the only help I could give is to prevent it from happeningt.

However with all the incest relationships I have come across no one came to me and said they were happy. They were either raped or they were now having a crisis from having been the molester/abuser.

You know it is probably the most difficult thing one will come cross as a family mediator/lawyer-it is very hard to stay calm and neutral. A person who rapes their child who then must be addressed which I have had to do requires every ounce of strength not to express feelings of anger and contempt towards.

Its what causes many a police officer, child run away, prostitute, to become so "hard". That "hardness" is a protective shield.

What I most often saw with children of incest was a disassociated state. Its where you leave your body as it happens to be able to cope with it.

My bias comes from seeing its victims. I confess I do not know anyone who said they wanted to engage in it.

The parents I saw doing it or the men I saw doing it to their sisters, were rapists and they knew what they were doing was wrong. Even when they tried to defend it as consensual that would not last very long. All I can tell you is something within their own bodies won't allow them to defend it-they sabotage themselves so to speak.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Rue

[cybercoma]

acceptable sexual practices.

Can I get a list of unacceptable sexual practices... y'know, just in case.

What's next from the "Far Left" pet sex??

This has already been addressed several times.

[jbg]

Uh oh. I agree with Leafless on this! Absolutely and unequivocally!

Actually the concept of "harm" is a very very complex one. How we define harm and who is harmed necessarily depends on a wide range of factors and considerations.

Why I strongly agree with Leafless is that there are many life examples of people who do the right thing and still have harmed people intentionally and unintentionally and likewise there are many life examples of people who have done the wrong thing but harmed no one.

I agree with both you and Leafless. The religion I'm a member of has been described as a legalistic religion. Simply put, it created the basis on which Judeo-Christian civilization is based upon the rule of law, not the rule of men.

The rule of law cannot be based only on whether actual harm occurs from the breach of the law, since law is the cornerstone of public order. The concept of freedom inheres in people's ability to have predictable, sensible rules to follow that are set in advance, and rarely vary. Anything else is anarchy, which at first is extreme freedom, but ultimately blots out all freedom as society ultimately needs to protect its safety.

Just ask any Pakistani why there is frequently dancing in the streets when the military seizes power from "democratic" rulers. People need the guidance and structure of predictable law. Thus, "right" and "wrong" does not always depend upon immediate harm or danger.