Jump to content

Incest Debate And Liberal Double Standards


Donald Trump
 Share

Recommended Posts

img

Hur du hur. So you hung out on 4chan or reddit one day and read what ammounts to an infographic. Neat.

 

The fact remains unchanged that to avoid a slippery slope you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can. Your argument that x was used to justify y and therefore x will be used to justify z IS, by deffinition, a slippery slope fallacy plain and simple.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said Kemal and if I wasn't clear, I was just saying that finding a couple of siblings with no "baggage" would be quite difficult. If you have siblings you know that the older siblings inevitably form a parental role with younger siblings, and sometimes that can also be abusive (bullying) because the older sibling has the desire to care for the younger but not the patience or emotional maturity. I'd imagine that in most cases where a relationship emerged between siblings that had a sexual nature, it would emerge when they are in close proximity (as children) and would be a perversion of the existing brother sister relationship rather than an entirely separate relationship like you would have with a stranger. That overlap would probably be exploitative, ie an older sibling egging on a younger one.

 

However in your hypothetical situation where two fully mature adults of approximately the same age and no history of exploitation suddenly decided to go like rabbits I can agree there would be no ethical concerns.

 

I think it's unlikely (and this is the social element) because of the taboo. By this I don't mean peer pressure-as best I know (may need to consult our Mensa peers with psychology backgrounds) there is a strong aversion to sex with siblings which forms within family units. They've tested it with foster children and it still applies if enough time is spent with the host family. It is instinctive and strong. I'd argue few balanced healthy adults would overcome that aversion.

 

On the other hand, in a "comedy of errors" style situation where siblings were separated at a very young age and then met up later, that aversion wouldn't exist and there would be no moral objections based on exploitation. If I remember correctly people find those of close genetic background but not of their family unit especially attractive, hence the cousins thing.

 

I think we completely agree.

 

I also think, however, that in the very long run, sex without reproduction will not be something as sensationalized as it is now, as our norms from the ages where contraception was not a thing erode. As long as no baby is produced, sex is just two sacks of meat creating heat and sweat through friction, and I can see it's importance falling down in a few centuries. When humanity reaches that point, no one will care who shags whom.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a radical liberal (feel da burn, yas! ayyyyyyy), there is no double standard! If you want to touch your daughter in an inappropriate way, that's ok! If you feel strongly attracted to anyone, it's ok. Hell! Even if you are really attracted to yourself, you can go !@#$ yourself too! There is no double standard, i don't know what you guys are talking about.  

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about consent, we've already discussed age of consent. I'm not sure you're getting this, and I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so this will be my last try to engage with you on this.

 

1. Why is this not just about consent?

 

The age of consent is the age at which people are considered rational enough to consent to a sexual relationship with another person. In some countries it is as young as 14/15/16. You use an example of a psychologically healthy 25 year old who enters a relationship with a parent. That would be a very rare example of incest. In most cases legalising incest would lead to a legotimisation of abusive relationships and grooming.

 

2. Power balance isn't implying lack of consent

 

People raised in an abusive relationship (i.e. They are groomed) often go for years before they inform the police, if they ever do. They may or may not consent, but because they have been groomed they can't be considered to be giving informed consent. The same could be argued for example about child soldiers, who are raised in an environment where certain behaviours are the norm and this decides their future behaviour to a certain extent.

 

Ps in most education/work environments a relationship between teacher and students or boss and workers is frowned upon and can result in disciplinary action.

 

Consent can encompass more than just age of consent (e.g. an unconscious person can't consent), so I was using it in that broader context when I was reading your examples. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that some "power balances" are situations where someone can't consent; just the opposite. "Power imbalances" is the superfluous factor to the ethical judgement being made, it's actually the lack of consent that some power imbalances create that is objectionable, which is why I was saying we should just stick with "lack of consent" because there exist relationships with "power imbalances" that do have consent (the examples I provided). It's just a matter of avoiding confusion :) . And when it's put in that perspective, at some point a child will no longer be a child and is going to be able to give consent. That may be "rare," but as Kemal is pointing out the issue is whether incest between consenting adults can be seen as non-deviant in the ethical sense by sexual liberationists. If the issue is "consent," then just like regular sex that the law has required needs consent, the law can require incest to have consent. However, the nature of what that would look like would likely be more legally restrictive given what you point out.

 

 

Hur du hur. So you hung out on 4chan or reddit one day and read what ammounts to an infographic. Neat.

 

The fact remains unchanged that to avoid a slippery slope you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can. Your argument that x was used to justify y and therefore x will be used to justify z IS, by deffinition, a slippery slope fallacy plain and simple.

 

  :lol: â€œI suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." That isn't by definition a slippery slope fallacy at all. Another example that you don't understand the words you use. 

 

 

 

The phrase by definition has a precise meaning: the speaker is asserting that a property can be assigned to an object that has been named, by virtue of the fact that the definition of the object requires it to have that property.             http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/by_definition.html

 

Your example is not by definition a slippery slope fallacy because not all slippery slopes use the the act of justifying as their causal link. 

 

 

[...] you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can.

 

 

 

You can retreat into Humean skepticism all you want with causation. That's why causation is treated inductively, not deductively. Slippery slope arguments, like ALL arguments, are evaluated on the principle of charity, meaning they are treated as inductive if (1) it fails as a deductive arguments and (2) the argument does not purport itself to be deductive via its grammar. I even told you as much that these are inductive arguments. 

 

But to your example, even your example is a strawman of sorts. A more accurate argument being made is:

 

P1 x can be used to justify y

P2 x can be used to justify z

P3 x was used to justify y

:: x will be used to justify z

 

This addresses the jaywalking/murder analogy. Obviously if P2 isn’t true, if reasoning X can’t be used to justify action z (murder/incest), then the conclusion is not cogent. So how do we know X can be used to justify Z? Because we created the syllogism for it explaining the reasoning of sexual liberationists:

 

P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance.

P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm.

::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance.

 

And murder clearly would render this syllogism unsound by virtue of making premise 2 false. 

 

Your example was obviously a ridiculous one because we can also reduce the population of your example down to just one person, say you for example, and making the argument "x was used to justify y by LordRahl2 and therefore x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2":

 

P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2.

P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2.

:: x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

 

Obviously that is not something that anyone could claim WILL happen with certainty. There clearly would exist the possibility of LordRahl2 not making that second justification for z. And this is where that wikipedia portion I first linked to you comes into play:

 

 

 

If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument. Non-fallacious usage acknowledges the possibility of a middle ground between the initial condition and the predicted result, while providing an inductive argument for the probability of that result versus a middle-ground one, usually based on observation of previous comparable circumstances. 

 

The unstated middle ground here is the possibility of X not being used to justify Z, in which case the argument is this: 

 

P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2.

P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2.

:: x will be probably used to justify z by LordRahl2 OR x will not be used to justify z by LordRahl2 and LordRahl2 is a hypocrite.

 

The probability of one result vs another was based--as previously explained--on a presupposition that people prefer to be consistent than be hypocrites. For you, that presupposition is clearly wrong. You prefer to be a hypocrite.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I used both an example and the definition.  Nice try Bubbles.

 

So.  Follow the definition and provide an non-opinions based set of inductive arguments.  You have not because you cannot.  You can P1 x all over the page and it will not improve your argument.  So ACTUALLY Q.E.D. and I will be content.  What we have so far is me saying that the argument is a fallacy you say nuh uh and provide a proof based on an opinion which is invalid.

 

By the way, take note that I have never used the phrase "non-harm" nor do I accept it as x.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I used both an example and the definition.  Nice try Bubbles.

 

So.  Follow the definition and provide an non-opinions based set of inductive arguments.  You have not because you cannot.  You can P1 x all over the page and it will not improve your argument.  So ACTUALLY Q.E.D. and I will be content.  What we have so far is me saying that the argument is a fallacy you say nuh uh and provide a proof based on an opinion which is invalid.

 

By the way, take note that I have never used the phrase "non-harm" nor do I accept it as x.

 

What exactly is the opinion you are referring to? A syllogism isn't an opinion. It's an argument. It's either valid or it's not. And no, you did not define it there. You haven't even defined it correctly. You asserted that all slippery slopes are fallacies. You were already wrong from the beginning, and I have not seen you attempt to correct that. If this is your "definition" of slippery slope:

 

 

 

you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can.

 

...then anything that does not "logically follow" is a "slippery slope" which describes EVERY FALLACY.

 

That's fine if you don't personally accept the syllogism, but that (to my understanding) was the normative reasoning put forth by sexual liberationists. In that event, you are presumably saying that is not a reason to be accepting of homosexuality. However, those who DO fall into that category, like the sexual liberationists, would merely replace your position in the argument.

 

Edit:

 

P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance.

P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm.

::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance.

 

And just to test you, do you think the above syllogism is a valid or an invalid argument?

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehm, incest between parents and their children should be illegal given the fact that children cannot consent, and are heavily influenced by their upbringing, which may lead to them accepting incest in legal age. 

 

Brothers/sisters? I guess that's fine as long as they're both in legal age. It's none of our business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehm, incest between parents and their children should be illegal given the fact that children cannot consent, and are heavily influenced by their upbringing, which may lead to them accepting incest in legal age. 

 

Brothers/sisters? I guess that's fine as long as they're both in legal age. It's none of our business.

What about adults and adult children? IE Trump and his daughters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about adults and adult children? IE Trump and his daughters? 

The thing about incest, as opposed to homosexuality, is that one characterizes a behaviour and the latter characterizes a sexual orientation. There is nothing inherently different about having sex with your cousin than with a stranger aside from the larger shared genes, but there is a difference in having sex with the orientation you're attracted to. While both homosexuality & incest could be harmless and a "choice" comparing the two is a false equivalence .

 

The point being is that you can't grow into or out of homosexuality through choice as it is an in built function of your genetic codes, while incest is mainly something you could be grown into or out of. This leads to a fuzzy, and arguable, problem of consent. When you say "adults and adult children" you are implying that the 'adult children' are making a choice through their own volition, which is something impossible to judge.

 

Parents' parenting skills, culture and behaviour(etc) are the most influential part of determining the behaviour of their children, even as adults, which means for incest to happen, there needs to be a behavioural reinforcement of sexual practice between children & their parents or a culture built around it. Once such a reinforcement is established, consent is impossible to maintain as children are heavily influenced into adulthood.

 

Incest isn't an inherently immoral action, but the circumstances surrounding and causing it are, infact, abusive and thus immoral. 

 

The problem of legality is a different one and it involves many different aspects aside from the moral qualms about incest, for example - should government be involved? Is outlawing it going to be effective? How do we determine case by case if there has been abuse prior to adulthood? etc. 

 

I guess this argument is less relevant to brothers/sisters even if they are grown through abusive parenthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about incest, as opposed to homosexuality, is that one characterizes a behaviour and the latter characterizes a sexual orientation. There is nothing inherently different about having sex with your cousin than with a stranger aside from the larger shared genes, but there is a difference in having sex with the orientation you're attracted to. While both homosexuality & incest could be harmless and a "choice" comparing the two is a false equivalence .

 

The point being is that you can't grow into or out of homosexuality through choice as it is an in built function of your genetic codes, while incest is mainly something you could be grown into or out of. This leads to a fuzzy, and arguable, problem of consent. When you say "adults and adult children" you are implying that the 'adult children' are making a choice through their own volition, which is something impossible to judge.

 

Parents' parenting skills, culture and behaviour(etc) are the most influential part of determining the behaviour of their children, even as adults, which means for incest to happen, there needs to be a behavioural reinforcement of sexual practice between children & their parents or a culture built around it. Once such a reinforcement is established, consent is impossible to maintain as children are heavily influenced into adulthood.

 

Incest isn't an inherently immoral action, but the circumstances surrounding and causing it are, infact, abusive and thus immoral. 

 

The problem of legality is a different one and it involves many different aspects aside from the moral qualms about incest, for example - should government be involved? Is outlawing it going to be effective? How do we determine case by case if there has been abuse prior to adulthood? etc. 

 

I guess this argument is less relevant to brothers/sisters even if they are grown through abusive parenthood.

 

I want to preface this post by saying I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. I'm going to try to simplify your argument. If the following is not representative of your argument, my apologies, but this was what I understood it to be:

 

P1 If a child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior, then consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest.
P2 A child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior.
:: Consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest.
 
This is certainly a valid argument. I agree: if the environment is abusive, that qualifies as a situation of duress, so I would not challenge P1. However, I am uncertain of how true P2 actually is. It could be that this is true in many--if not most--cases, but I don't think it's true of all cases. Certainly I know the internet has its share of individuals who express a desire to have sex with their parents. There's also a subreddit (/r/incest) largely dedicated to this subject. I think you might be hard pressed to assert that those individuals are all the product of an abusive environment. You could possibly assert that fantasies don't equate to actual desires, but that, too, is not going to be true for all. 
 
Perhaps, though, you don't mean to imply that abuse is a necessary condition, but that simply by virtue of the fact that it's a parent-child relationship, that that alone is sufficient to at least create a situation of undue influence (distinct from duress). If that is the contention, I agree in cases of minor children, but again am more skeptical when it comes to adult children. Legally, we allow adult children to enter into contracts with their parents. If the possibility of parent-child undue influence were something that precluded being able to consent to entering into a contract, then all parent-child contracts would be illegitimate; but that's not how things are. Adult children are presumed to have the capacity to consent to this kind of contract despite a possibility of undue influence. Not to mention that as time passes, the situation is usually the reverse: the child begins to have possible undue influence over elderly parents. So in-between those ends of the spectrum is the median: a point where both parties can enter into a contract without undue influence. What does happen in these types of contracts, however, is that when a dispute arises, unlike a typical contract, the burden of proof is shifted to the accused party. So perhaps this would require some kind of legislation to deal with, but--regardless--possible undue influence is not a means of precluding contractual relationships or consent.
Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want to preface this post by saying I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. I'm going to try to simplify your argument. If the following is not representative of your argument, my apologies, but this was what I understood it to be:

 

P1 If a child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior, then consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest.
P2 A child's desire for incest is a product of an abusive environment (duress) and not a natural behavior.
:: Consent is impossible to maintain for child-parent incest.
 
This is certainly a valid argument. I agree: if the environment is abusive, that qualifies as a situation of duress, so I would not challenge P1. However, I am uncertain of how true P2 actually is. It could be that this is true in many--if not most--cases, but I don't think it's true of all cases. Certainly I know the internet has its share of individuals who express a desire to have sex with their parents. There's also a subreddit (/r/incest) largely dedicated to this subject. I think you might be hard pressed to assert that those individuals are all the product of an abusive environment. You could possibly assert that fantasies don't equate to actual desires, but that, too, is not going to be true for all. 
 
Perhaps, though, you don't mean to imply that abuse is a necessary condition, but that simply by virtue of the fact that it's a parent-child relationship, that that alone is sufficient to at least create a situation of undue influence (distinct from duress). If that is the contention, I agree in cases of minor children, but again am more skeptical when it comes to adult children. Legally, we allow adult children to enter into contracts with their parents. If the possibility of parent-child undue influence were something that precluded being able to consent to entering into a contract, then all parent-child contracts would be illegitimate; but that's not how things are. Adult children are presumed to have the capacity to consent to this kind of contract despite a possibility of undue influence. Not to mention that as time passes, the situation is usually the reverse: the child begins to have possible undue influence over elderly parents. So in-between those ends of the spectrum is the median: a point where both parties can enter into a contract without undue influence. What does happen in these types of contracts, however, is that when a dispute arises, unlike a typical contract, the burden of proof is shifted to the accused party. So perhaps this would require some kind of legislation to deal with, but--regardless--possible undue influence is not a means of precluding contractual relationships or consent.

 

 

I will give you that consent is arguably maintained within consenting adults(most of the time), however, this is especially destructive for family relations. Here is a good article that specifically deals with this issue and I tend to agree with it;(quoting most of the article)

 

 

So let's set aside genetics and consider the next question: exploitation. Nowadays, when we talk about incest, we tend to think of child sexual abuse. That's how we use the term in the repressed-memory debate and in abortion legislation. When politicians such as President Obama make exceptions in abortion laws for "rape and incest," they're using the terms synonymously, except that in the incest scenario, the rapist is your dad.

But you can't prosecute Epstein under that theory. According to news reports, his daughter is 24, and their affair began in 2006. That makes her an adult. Furthermore, police say the sex appears to have been consensual. Four years ago, Ohio's Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy, for what the court called "consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter." And last month, a 27-year-old Florida woman was sentenced to five years of probation for sex with her father. Clearly, we're prosecuting people for incest regardless of age or consent.

At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that's what people said about homosexuality, too. It's all private conduct. To which conservatives reply: We told you so. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow. And now you're proving us right.

The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.

That's the basis on which the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Lowe's conviction: "A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit." This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since "parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority." The German court offered a similar argument against sibling incest. Roughly translated, the opinion's key passage says:

Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of [clear] assignments. … Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community … is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.

Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the "family unit" would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn't follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of "ex-gay" ministriesattests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all theopposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does. Don't take my word for it. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest messageboards. Or what Woody Allen's son says about his dad: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …"

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn't. If the law bans gay sex, a lesbian can't have a sex life. But if you're hot for your sister, and the law says you can't sleep with her, you have billions of other options. Get out of your house, for God's sake. You'll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don't tell me you're justadding a second kind of love to your relationship. That's like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That's what incest is: cancer of the family.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.2.html

Edited by Beatrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you that consent is arguably maintained within consenting adults(most of the time), however, this is especially destructive for family relations. Here is a good article that specifically deals with this issue and I tend to agree with it;(quoting most of the article)

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.2.html

 

Thank you for sharing that article. I found myself actually agreeing with a lot of it. However, if we follow the idea of banning things based on the harm that [most instances of] a behavior does to family, then that opens the door for other legislation: legislation--that the article somewhat addresses--that would fly in the face of the arguments many liberals (read: sexual liberationists) proffer beyond just homosexuality. Liberals recoil from the argument of the article because many of them reject the central premise: they reject the idea of the good of the family superseding individual "rights." 

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a tough time seeing how this thread made it 5 [email protected]#$ ing pages.  There are almost 7.5 billion people on this rock we all call home. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/).  Is it really that difficult to find someone who is not of your immediate/direct bloodline to have "relations" with......or is it that people are just too damn lazy to go look outside there family.  "Hey, I want to get laid tonight, but I'm too [email protected]#$ ing lazy and I don't want to leave the house.....hey there little Suzie, daddy has a nickel in his pocket for you to get......its way down at the bottom, but you can have it if you can find it."  Sick [email protected]#$ ing bastards.......get off your ass and go find someone......at the very least, try "Adult Friend Finder" or any of those other "Hook-Up" online dating things and I'm sure you can have arranged for them to come to you!

Edited by Sailor Jerry
  • Upvote 2

X4EfkAB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

However, if we follow the idea of banning things based on the harm that [most instances of] a behavior does to family, then that opens the door for other legislation

This can be argued in both ways. If you're not even willing to ban incest, what else won't you ban? Would you allow underage incest? 

To that, your answer might be that "Well, no. underage incest is harmful and causes massive psychological damage in most, but not all cases." 

 

The argument you provided proceeds - "If we follow the idea of banning things based on the harm that [most instances of] a behavior, then that opens the door for other legislation" and thus we should keep underage incest legal. 

 

Let me give you another example:

 

The age of consent is 18, but we do not view, in society, someone that is 18 having sex with someone 17 and 364 days old as statutory rape. If so, what about 363 days? 362 days? 361? And so on. The argument against criminalizing incest follows the same logical trajectory. The line drawn is arbitrary and inconsistent, but it serves as a general guideline for a healthy society. Incest is arguably the same, the line is drawn when there is a real possibility of irreparably damaging family units by introducing, as the article states " a notoriously incendiary dynamic - sexual tension - into the mix". 

 

When introducing legislation, there is a cost vs benefit analysis which we ought to do. What do we get by banning and delegitimizing incest? 

Firstly, we get rid of the risks above, obviously.

Secondly, we prevent the misapplications of incest - duress, child abuse and statutory rape.

Third, we define laws based on moral guidelines, in order to reduce suffering through minimizing loss of freedom.

 

What do we lose by banning it?

The main concern is actually one of "slippery slopes" & the role of government- the slippery slope being that through banning incest we might find ourselves banning other similar behaviours that ought not be banned, and the government one being that its role in societal health has changed.

You don't really lose any freedom, because as we've established, incest isn't inherently different from normal sex, it's not a sexual orientation. Banning homosexuality, for example, bans you from indulging in your sexual orientation, whereas you don't quite lose anything from not practicing incest.

 

The things we're "losing" aren't practical to individual health, and they deal with greater issues beyond the scope of incest. They're arguments that don't stem from the moral or immoral behaviour but through an ideological world view. Which is why I don't accept the argument that this opens to "other legislation" - as other legislation usually involves losing essential freedoms, whereas providing minimal benefits if any. (For comparison, banning homosexuality doesn't add any benefits, and removes essential freedom)

 

Does incest need to be banned in practice? I don't know. All I know is that incest is a very harmful behaviour even when practiced between consenting adults, and banning its practice is mostly beneficial. There's a lot of leeway here as well, since "banning incest" doesn't mean /r/incest becomes illegal, or that fantasies become illegal, or that even incest practiced in discrepency should be illegal - but the support of incestious relationships through public funding, not recognizing marriages, etc. It could also mean banning everything, which is why legislation is a problematic issue in this case, whereas the amorality is quite clear.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This can be argued in both ways. If you're not even willing to ban incest, what else won't you ban? Would you allow underage incest? 

 

To that, your answer might be that "Well, no. underage incest is harmful and causes massive psychological damage in most, but not all cases." 

 

 

The argument you provided proceeds - "If we follow the idea of banning things based on the harm that [most instances of] a behavior, then that opens the door for other legislation" and thus we should keep underage incest legal. 

 

 

 

First off, this argument you have me making (which I wasn't making) is a non sequitur. That conclusion does not follow from the premise you provided. I was having trouble following the rest of what you were trying to say because of this. To be clear: I was not asserting that legislation is not desirable. The desirability of legislation or lack thereof was not at issue. 

 

My actual response to the prompt would be that underage sex violates consent laws. We have age-related consent laws because we posit that most people below a certain age are not considered capable of giving consent. It's true that some under-aged people may be physically capable of consent, but an arbitrary delineation of the law at 18 does not preclude under-aged people from consenting legally at a later point in time.

 

The issue isn't necessarily the psychological harm but the consent. It's either there (legally) or it's not. Obviously consent exists on a spectrum, and yes, the law draws a somewhat arbitrary line on it. But that doesn't then mean that drawing arbitrary lines on law itself is acceptable.

 

 

The main concern is actually one of "slippery slopes" & the role of government- the slippery slope being that through banning incest we might find ourselves banning other similar behaviours that ought not be banned, and the government one being that its role in societal health has changed.

You don't really lose any freedom, because as we've established, incest isn't inherently different from normal sex, it's not a sexual orientation. Banning homosexuality, for example, bans you from indulging in your sexual orientation, whereas you don't quite lose anything from not practicing incest.

 

Except you're wrong. You do lose freedom. You lose the freedom to have consensual sex with your family. It's irrelevant if you can have sex with other people as alternatives. Maybe that loss of freedom is acceptable, but that is an objective loss of a consensual, physical ability by legal action nonetheless. Adultery laws make it illegal for someone to have sex with someone who is not that person's spouse: that reduces the population of potential legal sexual partners to just one, and that, too, has in the past been considered acceptable. But since the sexual revolution, that has largely changed. Sexual liberationists and their libertine followers have helped erode adultery laws and divorce laws (e.g. we now have no-fault divorce in some states) despite the "damage" those things have done to the family in the name of individual "rights." My point was the left isn't going to accept the argument of the article, e.g. of "for the benefit of the family," because if we follow that reasoning, then we should bring back adultery laws and do away with no-fault divorce. That is not an arbitrary issue, it's one of consistent principles. The point of this thread was to argue that these leftists (sexual libertationists) either do not have consistent principles and are hypocrites if they reject incest or they must be accepting of an otherwise deviant behavior that the majority of people consider abhorrent. If you are trying to defend their position, that article you posted did not do so because adultery CAN have consent. And being arbitrary with principles is not acceptable.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except you're wrong. You do lose freedom. You lose the freedom to have consensual sex with your family. It's irrelevant if you can have sex with other people as alternatives. Maybe that loss of freedom is acceptable, but that is an objective loss of a consensual, physical ability by legal action nonetheless. Adultery laws make it illegal for someone to have sex with someone who is not that person's spouse: that reduces the population of potential legal sexual partners to just one, and that, too, has in the past been considered acceptable. But since the sexual revolution, that has largely changed. Sexual liberationists and their libertine followers have helped erode adultery laws and divorce laws (e.g. we now have no-fault divorce in some states) despite the "damage" those things have done to the family in the name of individual "rights." My point was the left isn't going to accept the argument of the article, e.g. of "for the benefit of the family," because if we follow that reasoning, then we should bring back adultery laws and do away with no-fault divorce. That is not an arbitrary issue, it's one of consistent principles. The point of this thread was to argue that these leftists (sexual libertationists) either do not have consistent principles and are hypocrites if they reject incest or they must be accepting of an otherwise deviant behavior that the majority of people consider abhorrent. If you are trying to defend their position, that article you posted did not do so because adultery CAN have consent. And being arbitrary with principles is not acceptable.

 

I don't value the "loss" of freedom to have consensual sex with family members. Most laws have some sort of limitation on your freedom - laws outlawing making loud noises late at night are there to protect people while limiting the freedom of people to make noises at night. The offset is that your "right" to quiet ends at daytime. 

 

In this instance, both of the parties are losing "rights" in exchange for a protection of other rights, which is the cost vs benefit I was talking about - the benefit of outlawing loud noises at night is to protect the people who sleep and ought not be disturbed.

 

In a similar fashion, outlawing incest has an insignificant "loss" of rights, but the benefit serves to protect the family unit. Adultery is a bad example, as adultery is a product of a bad family unit in the first place. Not to mention, adultery isn't a harmful substance to family units given that adultery doesn't require a family in the first place. It could, potentially, in some instances, damage the family unit temporarely or cause a divorce, but that's about it. 

 

I think you missed my point, though, I'll reiterate it; the laws don't have to be consistent in their logical application, the lines drawn between "legal" and "illegal" is drawn arbitrarily, in a similar fashion where we decided that 18 years old is able to consent whereas a 17 year old with 364 days of age is unable to. You could quiet easily conjure up all the valid reasons that an 18 year old is an adult regarding his biological and mental development, but these could also apply when you're a day younger, or two days younger, or three and then argue that the principals behind consent are inconsistent & arbitrary, thus making those who support them hypocrites. The point being, we decided on a number that has no consistent logical reasoning which is why you see different nations have different definitions of adulthood - some ranging from 15 to 21.

 

Imagine the possibility of having a family unit destroyed as a point system where more points -> greater chance. As long as I can argue that incest has an inherently greater chance of causing harm, I can argue for the illegality of of incest and the legality of adultery.

 

The expand on that, when considering the loss of freedom, you ought to consider who these laws affect most and how often. Laws that mainly affect small groups cannot always be defended, as long as they positively affect the majority. When Britain voted to exit, it was against the needs and desires of 48% of the population, but the majority in this case have decided in favor of it. The smaller the group is, the less important it becomes and that's completely alright.

 

To add that on top, adultery is actually a result of a healthy behaviour in an unhealthy enviornment whereas incest is an unhealthy behaviour caused by an unhealthy enviornment. So unless you have an example where something is practically comparable to incest that is legal, I fail to see where there is inconsistency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't value the "loss" of freedom to have consensual sex with family members. Most laws have some sort of limitation on your freedom - laws outlawing making loud noises late at night are there to protect people while limiting the freedom of people to make noises at night. The offset is that your "right" to quiet ends at daytime. 

 

In this instance, both of the parties are losing "rights" in exchange for a protection of other rights, which is the cost vs benefit I was talking about - the benefit of outlawing loud noises at night is to protect the people who sleep and ought not be disturbed.

 

In a similar fashion, outlawing incest has an insignificant "loss" of rights, but the benefit serves to protect the family unit. Adultery is a bad example, as adultery is a product of a bad family unit in the first place. Not to mention, adultery isn't a harmful substance to family units given that adultery doesn't require a family in the first place. It could, potentially, in some instances, damage the family unit temporarely or cause a divorce, but that's about it. 

 

I think you missed my point, though, I'll reiterate it; the laws don't have to be consistent in their logical application, the lines drawn between "legal" and "illegal" is drawn arbitrarily, in a similar fashion where we decided that 18 years old is able to consent whereas a 17 year old with 364 days of age is unable to. You could quiet easily conjure up all the valid reasons that an 18 year old is an adult regarding his biological and mental development, but these could also apply when you're a day younger, or two days younger, or three and then argue that the principals behind consent are inconsistent & arbitrary, thus making those who support them hypocrites. The point being, we decided on a number that has no consistent logical reasoning which is why you see different nations have different definitions of adulthood - some ranging from 15 to 21.

 

Imagine the possibility of having a family unit destroyed as a point system where more points -> greater chance. As long as I can argue that incest has an inherently greater chance of causing harm, I can argue for the illegality of of incest and the legality of adultery.

 

The expand on that, when considering the loss of freedom, you ought to consider who these laws affect most and how often. Laws that mainly affect small groups cannot always be defended, as long as they positively affect the majority. When Britain voted to exit, it was against the needs and desires of 48% of the population, but the majority in this case have decided in favor of it. The smaller the group is, the less important it becomes and that's completely alright.

 

To add that on top, adultery is actually a result of a healthy behaviour in an unhealthy enviornment whereas incest is an unhealthy behaviour caused by an unhealthy enviornment. So unless you have an example where something is practically comparable to incest that is legal, I fail to see where there is inconsistency.

 

Now, I'm al for the illegality of incest, but there's a few things I'd like to correct here.

 

A family unit can be just 2 people, so in that, adultery is harmful unless it is consensual (see; cuckolding, open relationships), but even then it is detrimental to the relationship in almost all cases, as a lack of a sexual relationship means a lack of respect between partners, unless one of the people in the relationship are asexual. Saying adultery "potentially damages the family unit temporarily or causes a divorce" is such a huge understatement as adultery means there is no respect between partners, and therefore no healthy relationship.

 

Concurrently, incest and adultery are similarly destructive, however their method and actual effects differ. Adultery leads to either an explosive reaction where the relationship is ended, or the relationship continues in a cancerous matter, as adulterers are usually repeat offenders, and there is no respect between partners as I detailed earlier. Incest is equally cancerous amongst parents and children, as the continued relationship is, more often than not, cancerous in nature - especially in young adults/children. It desensitises both individuals to other relationships and creates an unrealistic worldview on relationships, similar to how porn desensitises us to sex. Therefore, adultery should be illegal just as incest is, because they do more harm than good in almost all cases.

 

Saying adultery is a healthy behaviour is exactly the type of desensitisation I'm talking about. Adultery is completely unhealthy in nature, as it is destructive to the adulterer and the person being cheated on. Yes, a sexual lifestyle is healthy, but it should be exclusive to the partner you are committed to, otherwise there is no point in a relationship. If there is no commitment, there is no point in going ahead with a relationship in the first place. Sex outside of a relationship is destructive to a persons character as well (I can expand on this if you want but I cbf typing the whole scenario out). So, in saying that, incest is somewhat comparable to adultery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I'm al for the illegality of incest, but there's a few things I'd like to correct here.

 

A family unit can be just 2 people, so in that, adultery is harmful unless it is consensual (see; cuckolding, open relationships), but even then it is detrimental to the relationship in almost all cases, as a lack of a sexual relationship means a lack of respect between partners, unless one of the people in the relationship are asexual. Saying adultery "potentially damages the family unit temporarily or causes a divorce" is such a huge understatement as adultery means there is no respect between partners, and therefore no healthy relationship.

 

Concurrently, incest and adultery are similarly destructive, however their method and actual effects differ. Adultery leads to either an explosive reaction where the relationship is ended, or the relationship continues in a cancerous matter, as adulterers are usually repeat offenders, and there is no respect between partners as I detailed earlier. Incest is equally cancerous amongst parents and children, as the continued relationship is, more often than not, cancerous in nature - especially in young adults/children. It desensitises both individuals to other relationships and creates an unrealistic worldview on relationships, similar to how porn desensitises us to sex. Therefore, adultery should be illegal just as incest is, because they do more harm than good in almost all cases.

 

Saying adultery is a healthy behaviour is exactly the type of desensitisation I'm talking about. Adultery is completely unhealthy in nature, as it is destructive to the adulterer and the person being cheated on. Yes, a sexual lifestyle is healthy, but it should be exclusive to the partner you are committed to, otherwise there is no point in a relationship. If there is no commitment, there is no point in going ahead with a relationship in the first place. Sex outside of a relationship is destructive to a persons character as well (I can expand on this if you want but I cbf typing the whole scenario out). So, in saying that, incest is somewhat comparable to adultery.

 

 

A family unit can be just 2 people,

 

Not in the context I'm referring to. Yes, it's true, technically, but it should be obvious that isn't the case here.

 

 

so in that, adultery is harmful unless it is consensual (see; cuckolding, open relationships), but even then it is detrimental to the relationship in almost all cases, as a lack of a sexual relationship means a lack of respect between partners, unless one of the people in the relationship are asexual. Saying adultery "potentially damages the family unit temporarily or causes a divorce" is such a huge understatement as adultery means there is no respect between partners, and therefore no healthy relationship.

Adultery is a healthy action that is caused by an unhealthy enviornment. The fact that no respect exists between the partners means that adultery isn't the cause of said disrespect, but the outcome. In that sense, adultery could harm the relationship further or end it, but relationships that get to non-consensual adultery are most times doomed to failed either way, which is why adultery itself, as a symptom, is not that harmful.

 

 

 

Concurrently, incest and adultery are similarly destructive, however their method and actual effects differ.

No, they're not. Adultery is very common. Infact, it's so common that you could make the argument that humans are polyamorous based on adultery data alone. Yet, you don't see its destructive behaviour at all - infact, the opposite. Serial monogamy could be a form of polygamy, and the causes of it are many times similar to the cause of adultery, which is one reason why adultery is a mentally healthy action inherently. (Even if it isn't so in the long-term)

 

Incest, aside from its biological downsides, is a recipe for disaster on its own. The fact it's so uncommon compared to adultry already points towards its destructiveness, given how often incest has been detrimental to the lives of families.

 

 

 

Incest is equally cancerous amongst parents and children, as the continued relationship is, more often than not, cancerous in nature - especially in young adults/children. It desensitises both individuals to other relationships and creates an unrealistic worldview on relationships, similar to how porn desensitises us to sex. Therefore, adultery should be illegal just as incest is, because they do more harm than good in almost all cases.

Adultery doesn't lead to more harm than good, that is false. Adultery is usually one way of coping with an unhealthy relationship, and unfullfiling one, or a combination of both(amongst other reasons). Adultery usually results in hearts broken, but ultimately, it's not an inherently destructive behaviour for the family unit - again, even without accounting for the fact that adultery is already a result of a destructive family unit, thus it's less influential.

 

 

 

Saying adultery is a healthy behaviour is exactly the type of desensitisation I'm talking about. Adultery is completely unhealthy in nature, as it is destructive to the adulterer and the person being cheated on. Yes, a sexual lifestyle is healthy, but it should be exclusive to the partner you are committed to, otherwise there is no point in a relationship. If there is no commitment, there is no point in going ahead with a relationship in the first place. Sex outside of a relationship is destructive to a persons character as well (I can expand on this if you want but I cbf typing the whole scenario out). So, in saying that, incest is somewhat comparable to adultery.

Yeah, no. It has nothing to do with a 'sexual lifestyle'. Adultery in married couples stems from a form of unhappiness, except the unwillingness to end the relationship for a myriad of reasons lead to seeking confirmation elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<I don't value the "loss" of freedom to have consensual sex with family members. Most laws have some sort of limitation on your freedom - laws outlawing making loud noises late at night are there to protect people while limiting the freedom of people to make noises at night. The offset is that your "right" to quiet ends at daytime. 

 

In this instance, both of the parties are losing "rights" in exchange for a protection of other rights, which is the cost vs benefit I was talking about - the benefit of outlawing loud noises at night is to protect the people who sleep and ought not be disturbed.

 

In a similar fashion, outlawing incest has an insignificant "loss" of rights, but the benefit serves to protect the family unit. >>

 

 

Your analogy between noise laws and consensual sex between adults is a weak one: the former does not have all parties consenting to the action; the latter does. The limitations of freedom with noise laws exist to protect the non-consenting parties.

 

However, the damage done to the family is an externality (as your article argued), and one can make the case that the law exists to prevent those externalities despite all parties consenting and no immediate transgressions upon 3rd parties. I’m absolutely willing to accept that argument.

 

 

<<I think you missed my point, though, I'll reiterate it; the laws don't have to be consistent in their logical application, the lines drawn between "legal" and "illegal" is drawn arbitrarily, in a similar fashion where we decided that 18 years old is able to consent whereas a 17 year old with 364 days of age is unable to. You could quiet easily conjure up all the valid reasons that an 18 year old is an adult regarding his biological and mental development, but these could also apply when you're a day younger, or two days younger, or three and then argue that the principals behind consent are inconsistent & arbitrary, thus making those who support them hypocrites. The point being, we decided on a number that has no consistent logical reasoning which is why you see different nations have different definitions of adulthood - some ranging from 15 to 21.>>

 

 

Yes, I can agree that some laws (but not all) will have arbitrary delineations as to what will be legal and illegal. This is because the physical world has spectrums, and laws that apply to spectrums have to draw a line somewhere. The next question is: is that true of incest? I don’t agree that it is--at least not in the same physical way that age-related consent is. Some things are black and white. You can ask an adult and a 10 year old if they consent to something and get the same answer. The reason we legally accept the consent of the adult and not the child is we recognize that the child’s brain is not sufficiently developed. The child lacks sufficient agency and awareness of consequences. But clearly childrens’ ability to consent—regardless of their actual words--exist on a spectrum. The same is not true of adults (with the exception of the mentally handicapped). At some point, even if that point is fuzzy, a person is no longer a child. That is the prerequisite for consent.

The reason drawing a legal line on such a fuzzy spectrum would not be considered hypocritical is because calling it hypocritical would be committing the fallacy of the beard: making an assertion that there is no spectrum. I do agree that there is a spectrum with age-related consent. I don’t agree that there is an equivalent fuzzy spectrum with consensual sex between otherwise healthy adults because only external factors (e.g. undue influence or drugs) can render a TRUE result (both consenting) a FALSE one (non-consent); whereas internal factors (brain development) can render a child’s TRUE result (consent) as a false-positive (absence of consent). The law also factors for the external factors on a case-by-case basis which it cannot do for internal factors because there is no realistic means to do so. These are significant dissimilarities that make your analogy a weak one. And this was just in regards to one application of law: sexual consent. Others are even more clear-cut.

 

Keep in mind I’m working with normative arguments. I’m arguing (secondarily) that the law should be held to a standard of consistency, not debating whether it actually is in reality or not. Really though, my primary argument was in regards to the normative reasoning of the sexual liberationists. If it wasn’t already obvious, of course I detest incest and am not defending it; I’m critiquing libertine reasoning. The law itself was secondary to that because it is subject to other factors such as means and practicality.

 

And, perhaps this is nitpicking, but I disagree with the assertion that there was no consistent logical reasoning in determining age-related consent limits. The conclusions may have been inconsistent because the members of the spectrum form a “fuzzy set†(as mathematicians put it), but the methodology and reasoning was--for the most part—consistent.

 

<<Re: adultery>>

 

 

Your only defense to an accusation of double standards/double think at this point now rests upon the factual claims of adultery as not harmful to family, which is certainly not accepted as true by most people. Because this is not a believable claim on its own, it would require some kind of evidence to support such a claim. If it can be shown with evidence and reasoned out that adultery is harmful to the family and not a healthy behavior (and you can’t show otherwise), then either you have to abandon the position and accept that adultery laws should come back for the “good of the family,†or you are guilty of double think and the OP has another example to call upon to prove his point.  If I really had to, I could go over to Google Scholar and try to do this, but I feel like I’m already spending too much time in this thread.

 

I will say though that most marriages are formed under the implicit--if not explicit--assumption of monogamy. If we’re categorizing adultery as distinct from open relationships, then there is a victim/aggrieved party to a contract: the cheated spouse (who becomes the plaintiff in legal action). And the obvious externality of adultery is the social costs of this legal action. Consensual incest doesn’t even have that. And this is secondary to the damage that adultery does to relationships.

 

<< Adultery is a bad example, as adultery is a product of a bad family unit in the first place.>>

 

 

This is an ambiguous statement. We don’t know what you mean by bad family unit. But don’t bother defining it unless you contend that it is always the case. If it’s not, then your point is only true some of the time. But I also don’t see why you wouldn’t make the same assertion about incest: that incest is a product of a bad family unit.

 

<<Adultery isn't a harmful substance to family units given that adultery doesn't require a family in the first place.>>

 

 

Neither does incest. Another case of ambiguity. What do you mean by family? Like Solaire pointed out, a family can be as few as two people. Obviously with adultery, at the very least one marriage is involved, even if one of the sex partners is not married themselves. For argument’s sake, let’s suppose adultery only referred to those within a marriage. If the argument is adultery isn’t a harmful substance to family units given that adultery doesn't require a family [of more than the two people in question] in the first place, then neither would an incestuous couple whose family makeup consisted only of themselves. So either the point is incorrect or it can extend to incest as well. But obviously, it’s the former as the “argument†itself is an absurd one:

 

P1 Things that don’t require a family are not harmful substances to family units. (Unstated)

P2 Adultery doesn't require a family.

:: Adultery isn't a harmful substance to family units.

 

Specifically P1, your unstated premise (which you left unstated for a reason), is the ridiculous one. Murder doesn’t require a family either, yet obviously murder—when acted upon a member of a family that does exist—is “a harmful substance to a family unit.â€

 

<< It could, potentially, in some instances, damage the family unit temporarely or cause a divorce, but that's about it. >>

 

 

You are underplaying the damage it does. Not only to the spouse, but to children as well. I can speak of this experience first-hand.

 

<< [A]dultery is actually a result of a healthy behaviour in an unhealthy environment>>

 

 

Gonna disagree with this one.  I don’t accept that it’s a healthy behavior (otherwise you should be advocating for adultery in relationships). My own personal opinions on this subject (which you can obviously reject if you wish) align with CS Lewis’s:

 

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monogamy is an evolutionary adaptation that is only present in the female of the species. Only females have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess". Males, on the other hand, retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as he can access. Love and empathy go a long way toward maintaining monogomy, but it is in no way natural or psychologically healthy for the male.

 

Adultery is a legal term. A contract that most men are incapable of not breaching.

 

Incest isn't comparable to Adultery. Sex with siblings or offspring is inherently unhealthy genetically. And of course, incest harms the primary relationship of sibling or offspring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<Monogamy is an evolutionary adaptation that is only present in the female of the species. Only females have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess". Males, on the other hand, retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as he can access. Love and empathy go a long way toward maintaining monogomy, but it is in no way natural or psychologically healthy for the male. >>

 

 

At face value, I'm a bit skeptical of these assertions and in particular the ones based on scientific claims of fact.

 

Translations are in the spoilers.

 

<<Only females have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess".>>

=

No human males are people that have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess".

 

 

<< Monogamy is an evolutionary adaptation >>

è Monogamy = a specific evolutionary adaptation

 

<<Monogamy is an evolutionary adaptation that is only present in the female of the species.>>

=

No things identical to monogamy are human male evolutionary adaptations.

=

No human males are things that possess monogamy

 

 

<<Males, on the other hand, retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as he can access.>>

=

All human males are things that retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as accessible.

 

Argument A

P1 No things that possess monogamy are things that retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as accessible. (Unstated)

P2 All human males are things that retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as accessible.

::No human males are things that possess monogamy.

 

Argument B

P1 All people that possess monogamy are people that have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess". (Unstated)

P2 No human males are people that have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess".

::No human males are things that possess monogamy.

 

Argument A is the one more likely to be accepted as sound. Both premises at least seem plausible. P2 may not be quite as universal as indicated, but is probably true enough. Argument B is more questionable. You are asserting a scientific fact, so perhaps you have the evidence to support this claim. If it is true scientifically, it still only pertains to monogamy (exclusivity) as an evolutionary characteristic. So perhaps you are right, that male monogamy is non-existent as an evolutionary trait, but that doesn’t then mean that monogamy as a social construct had no purpose for men

 

<<Love and empathy go a long way toward maintaining monogomy.>>

<<Monogamy is in no way natural or psychologically healthy for the male.>>

 

Perhaps in some ways that is true, but it did serve a purpose. It allowed your normal man to have children. It allowed for a family. And societies that lacked this tended to either not develop or fail.

 

 

<<Adultery is a legal term. A contract that most men are incapable of not breaching. >>

 

 

 

Yes, adultery is a legal term. So is incest. Neither are only legal terms, though. The last part there, though, is a huge leap (and is probably a naturalistic fallacy/appeal to nature). That’s asserting that social institutions and norms have no capacity to hamper undesirable human behavior, which is the entire point to law, religion (mostly), and social ostracism. Some men may be incapable of not breaching (very skeptical of the claim that it applies to most men) such a contract, but that is irrelevant: if they enter into it, then they are beholden to its consequences; otherwise the contract should never have had the stipulation of exclusivity from the beginning. You can argue for that and be acceptably consistent, but it would be an exercise in fraud to desire both the contract and a lack of consequences.

 

I also noticed you didn’t care to address the impacts that adultery has on families (regardless if it’s “natural†or not), which is the crux of the argument.

 

 

<<Incest isn't comparable to Adultery. Sex with siblings or offspring is inherently unhealthy genetically. And of course, incest harms the primary relationship of sibling or offspring. >>

 

 

So now you’re introducing a new argument regarding genetic health. This also only describes heterosexual incest between two people capable of reproducing. Presumably this wouldn’t apply to homosexual incest or infertile partners. Basically the argument is the law should be prohibiting sex when there is a significant chance of genetic damage to offspring. And as the OP pointed out, this, too, can be extended to other circumstances with similar risks: aging partners, those who have inheritable and damaging genetic disorders, the mentally handicapped, etc. And here's a really big one that should be illegal in that case: drinking alcohol while pregnant. If this were sufficient for one, it should be sufficient for others.

 

But you created a strawman. Incest IS comparable to adultery if the argument is that risk of significant familial damage (relationship wise) is sufficient reason to make consensual incest illegal.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.