German couple fight to legalise incest

You are all looking at this from the point of view of siblings having sex with one another. What about if it's a parent and child? Do you think that should be allowed? Or do you think that an age of consent would be the best way to protect against that?

I don't care about these two people in particular, but I think the issue isn't quite as cut and dried in terms of legal vs moral issues as some of you claim it to be.

Parents and their direct offspring - definitely not. There is too much scope for abuse of dependence and power, not to mention influence and manipulation for a child to really know its own mind and decide for his/herself even when past the age of consent applicable under the current law.
In a lesser degree the same applies to any relations of different generations.

Showem, not sure if you're referring to my posts, but I made it very clear that my standpoint was predicated on incestuous relationships occuring between two consenting adults. Other permutations, i.e. between parent and minor child as you suggested, clearly fall outside of that.

Georgiagirl, I wasn't particularly looking at your posts, but since you've responded; I'll ask my follow-up question. When is someone considered to be an adult? And wouldn't years of influence over the child (as Sarabyrd suggests) still have a huge bearing on the relationship, even if the child was of age?

If you develop it further, children grow up and eventually end up being consenting adults and therefore can well have a sexual relationship with one of their parents, the two of them even (I am not referring to sexual abuse of minors here but to sexual intercourse after 18). The Question is: are they truly consenting on their own will? I think not...

EDIT: Showem beat me to it...

Determining legal age of consent in any situation is a very gray area. I reckon that in order to avoid reinventing the wheel, you would just assume that the age of consent for an incestuous relationship is whatever has already been established as legal in that particular geographical area.

Lots of people have influence over us during our lifetime, not just family members. So I don't think you can use that as a rationale for prohibiting incestuous relationships. What if I start a relationship in adulthood with a close childhood friend? Obviously that person has had a great deal of influence on me, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can no longer act out of my own free will.

And, just to be clear, what I've read (the Guardian article, for example) seems to suggest that consenting incestuous relationships most frequently occur between family members who have been separated and reunited after many years, or in some cases are even just meeting for the first time - so they actually haven't had much influence on each other.

Dear God, never thought I'd be sitting here defending the rights of people to shag their relatives.

Not a particularly funny topic, but your last line made me laugh. Don't worry, it's not a line of discussion I'll continue; I was just asking about the step beyond and opinions.

@ GeorgiaGirl
If I agree that other people have influence over us during our lifetime, however, a mother and a father (biological or not) aka the main caretakers will have the most decisive influence over us for the rest of our lives. And if it´s ok for relatives to have a sexual relationship, it also includes parents and their adult children.
I agree with showem that a clear cut between legal and moral issues is sometimes very very difficult, if not impossible...

@Showem
Well, hopefully most people reading this topic know that I am actually in a relationship with someone who doesn't share my DNA. We are definitely not from the same family, and in fact most of the time I wonder if we are even from the same planet.

Just wanted to clarify that. Not interested in being known as TT's Resident Incest Advocate.

@gg - That is always my problem when arguing a legal point here, so many people let the moral aspect take the upper hand. Justice has nothing to do with morality or even fairness. So even if you can take the legal view and argue its ramifications you are not necessarily supporting the matter in question.

Don't worry Georgiagirl, you're post made me laugh too! Mind you, by you're last post (#59) I think you are just asking to be given a nickname

Whether or not the kids from an incestuous relationship get a dodgy DNA mix is not the only issue. How would it be growing up with your parents related in this way ? I don't know anyone who has, and up to today I never gave it any thought. There could be all sorts of reasons this particular couple had their kids taken into care but I assume the kids emotional well being was a factor somewhere.

I think my primary point is that this goes beyond just incest. There are all sorts of laws enacted which criminalise sexuality, some of which are just ridiculous. Just as laws prohibiting sodomy are used to prosecute homosexuals, I worry about any sort of legislation that prohibits the activities of adults who are acting of their own free will and otherwise aren't causing any harm to themselves or others. Civil liberties and all that.

Maybe my earlier post said it better.


Anyway, that's quite enough from me. I've done enough defending and publicising of unconventional sexual behaviour over the last couple of weeks.

Freak signing off.

Woooaaaah. Hold on a sec. What if Beatrice Dalle came round my gaff, reckoning she's my long lost sister? One of the longest standing rules of my own personal code of conduct is that if I was to meet Beatrice Dalle, I would have to try to meat Beatrice Dalle*, y'know whaddamsayin?
People could say "eeeew, thats your sister dude", and I'd be like "dude, Beatrice Dalle. Beatrice Dalle dude", and they'd have no course of action other than to backdown, and nod their head at me in a knowing and understanding fashion. She's so awesome.


They is doin' quite enough rootin' on their own,

*High 5 for the great pun there eh? Who's with me? Nobody? C'mon, its 7.30 in the morning, what do you expect. Screw you all then.

All meaning regardless of degree of relationship?

maybe with a bag over her head...

Thing is, he'd be ok if he had been legally adopted and not fostered because on paper they would no longer be siblings although they are genetically related but if he had been adopted and had an adoptive sister then they couldn't fuck because on paper it would be incest...it's mad Ted

Daily Mail article goes for the Daily Mail angle.

As for Béatrice Dalle, she deserves a thread all to herself.

You know how teenagers go mad for a film and it belongs to them? My school colleagues all went for The Breakfast Club or similar fluff, I went for 37,2° le matin (Betty Blue).
All my school books had the film poster as wrapping.
Yes I was 14 at the time it came out, but still, Betty being utterly sexy and utterly bonkers burned into my brain.
Maybe it was the wrong film to have watched at such an impressionable age, but hey, if you're going to have a role model (apart from the burning down houses, stabbing people with forks, poking your own eye out and the bit at the end), I guess... I learnt French thanks to this film. Seriously.
She should have never made another film, well, she might have, I never watched any of them, for me she's forever Betty and Betty forever.

I don’t know about you but I am going to be on my best behaviour during my stay in Germany. Imagine doing time locked up in the same cell as the guy that eats people and the sibling shagger – YIKES!!!

From today's SZ:

Der wegen Inzest zu einer Haftstrafe verurteilte Patrick S. muss vorerst nicht ins Gefängnis. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht wird dem Eilantrag des Mannes aus dem sächsischen Zwenkau auf einstweilig Haftverschonung stattgeben, bis im Hauptsacheverfahren entschieden ist, wie der Vizepräsident des Gerichts, Winfried Hassemer sagte. Die Entscheidung werde Patrick S. in "allerkürzester Zeit zugestellt".

The person in question does not need to go into jail until the case is finally decided.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht misst der Klage eine hohe Bedeutung bei. Dies sei „ein Verfahren, in dem es eine fundamentale Diskussion in der Republik geben wird“, sagte Gerichtsvizepräsident Winfried Hassemer.

The court expects a "fundamental discussion across the country" as it thinks that this case touches important questions. So apparently members of the constitutional court have been following the discussion on TT

sorry I think the victims are the poor kids, the reason incest laws are in place and have been around for a very long time is that there are high chances of children having medical problems when the parents are close relatives, the royal families of Europe even show this with distant relatives interbreeding.

sorry I think these people are sick and should be re-educated and separated if possible

Even if the kids are healthy, imagine have to grow up knowing that your mum and dad are also your aunty and uncle, that your brothers and sisters are also your cousins and you will only have presents from one set of grandparents at xmas.

kind of nails it on the head really. We can shite for ages about the possible genetic deformities, but when it comes down to it, only getting one set of pressies @xmas is the one reason why it shouldnt be allowed. Not fair on the kiddies.

This is all too much for me – what happens if their children start having sex and the parents then start having sex with the children or the children’s offspring– have they no self control. Maybe the Pandora’s Box has been opened with us, contrary to the norm since Adam and Eve, allowing the legalization of wedding ceremonies between same sex couples and permitting them to rear children (no pun intended). Where do we draw the moral line or legal line? that is the question.

Totally mixing up morality and legality in my opinion.

I totally agree with Deccie's opinion the law and morality is mixed up. The law is considered a living governing system constructed by present and historical debate and moral consensus among juries, and more generally, all citizens under the system. This system is used to maintain order, righteousness, and justice in everyday life. Individual actions or events can be summoned to court for reveiw, investigation, and prosecution if it is believed that there has been a breach of morality (meaning, a violation of the law) or if a law's moral implication is questioned. A verdict is a lawful determination of guilt, and a guilty party is one that has committed an immoral act.

Here's a video from Sky News of the Happy family...err...couple...err...siblings...
Sky News

From BBC Online today (nothing new, though): Couple stand by forbidden love.

I saw a programme on TV recently about a guy who donated sperm on a *very* regular basis. He managed to work out that he probably created well over 400 children. These children don't have the father's name and his identity is protected. He started to be concerned for "his children" that there would be a fair chance that some of them could meet each other without realising that they were siblings... Kinda dodgy

That must of been the same program I was watching. They did mention that the main difference between a sperm bank and a normal bank is that with a sperm bank one looses interest after making a deposit.

I missed this due to being away but just wanted to add that I agree completely with the excellent points made by georgiagirl. If I had been online I'd have made the exact same arguments.

Also, interesting point raised by BadDoggie regarding the attraction to people genetically similar to ourselves. This point has always made me wonder as it makes logical sense from an evolutionary point of view, yet we see evidence of people being attracted to people genetically similar all the time. We tend to be attracted to people within our own race, we tend to be attracted to people with whom we have many things in common. One would think if it were really that simple we would only be attracted to our polar opposites.

There's a built-in tendency to avoid choosing a sexual partner you've been brought up with though. First noticed on Kibbutz's I think, where the children were brought up communally. They just didn't find each other sexually attractive. That would normally take care of siblings.

its really a question of how good looking your sister is tho innit??

Wheel,

Hmm, that's true. Being reared together does seem to discourage sexual attraction from blossoming. I wonder if there is any difference in the rates of attraction between genetic siblings raised in a kibbutz and those not biologically related to one another.

following ER and Wheel's theory then, wonder what the rate of incest or sexual attraction is in polygamy homes in some of the Mormon communities between halfbrothers/sisters.

In theory it should be low. But there are plenty of societies where you don't get a choice who your primary sexual partner will be - arranged marriages and so on. Does that apply to Mormons?

This Guardian article on the subject is interesting, I didn't know all the details.

@Wheel
Thanks for posting. It's an extremely thought-provoking article.

Wheel - that was a truly fascinating and eye opening article. Worth a read for anyone who would care to proffer an opinion.

Back into the corner until you have a new idea.
How high is the rate of genetic difficiencies among inbreeding Mormons? The health issue is something the government should worry about as sickly offspring mean high health care costs.

Follow your own advice.

I put that nonsense to be http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=60678&view=findpost&p=863175]two pages ago://http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum...5]two pages ago://http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum...5]two pages ago://http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum...5]two pages ago, and georgiagirl's quote from Slate rips the "genetic dangers" argument to shreds. Were there true concern for genetic "cleanliness", all couples would be forced to be tested. We still don't ban marriages between people who carry genetic defects, much less prevent them from having kids.

woof.

I just wanted to second what BadDoggie said. For a real world example, my brother and I had a 50% chance of being born with my mother's genetic eye defect that causes you to slowly go blind starting in your late teens/early 20s. Should she have been subject to a penalty for going ahead and having children anyways? Personally, if I knew I was a carrier for any serious inheritable diseases, I'd look into adoption. But this is an issue of personal ethics and not something the government should mandate.

I think the saddest point in all of this that no one here has really touched on much is about the couple's children. There are at least 4 children produced by this 22-year old woman. Four. And, she only has custody of ONE at the present time (not sure if that's the one that she had with the dude while the brother was in prison, or if there's possibly a 5th kid, or if this is just the healthiest kid of the bunch, etc..) but the point is, these poor kids have been removed from their home, albeit for probably good reasons, and thinking about their future just breaks my heart. And back to the mother, when you push out 4 kids in 6 years, can you honestly tell me that those kids were brought into this world under the healthiest circumstances (either emotionally or physically)? We're not exactly talking about granting rights to a woman, or even a couple, who are capable of making sound decisions. Clearly, issues for ALL of the family members started a long, long time ago when the couple was originally removed from their home when they were children, and their kids will probably be as messed up, if not more messed up than they are. why are they wasting their time trying to legalise incest? the couple should probably be in serious therapy (probably WITH medication.) They all just make me sad.

Whilst I have to admit that BadDoggie's statement is correct (ie that first generation incest does not have a significantly higher rate of malformations than other unions) do and also that I am fundamentally against governing who can have sex with whom (as long as they are people able to give full consent) I have an issue with the effects of incestuous inbreeding.

In a western society, where there are no social and familial pressures to "keep it in the family" I would agree that this is not an issue that needs to be legislated. However, one only needs to look at the Bangladeshi community in Britain for evidence of what repeated inbreeding can do to a community. The pressure amongst Bangladeshis arises from a desire to keep wealth within a(n extended) family. Marrying your cousin or second cousin in a way to ensure this and this is repeated generation after generation. The compounded effect has caused a far higher rate of malformation and disease occurance than in the rest of the British population.

Indeed, precisely this problem was highlighted by BadDoggie himself in his examples within Jewish communities.

The effects of repeated incestuous offspring would be no concern to society in general if these offspring remain the burden of that family only. However, modern society has created far reaching social states. In such societies the burden of caring is extended to the whole society. And yes we can also extend this to other inherited defects. Modern societies prevent nature taking its course by eliminating defects by "survival of the fittest". We are, indeed, our own worst enemies and are continuing to allow "bad genes" to reproduce whereas nature would have removed these individuals from the gene pool.

Let's put this into perspective. Society, or more specifically the government, has shifted in its focus from steering basic economics and alleviating poverty to controlling other social issues. Governments are more concerned with obesity and health than ever before. Nicotine and alcohol are highly taxed, firstly because it generates high tax incomes and secondly because they are seen as a social evil. This is an example of the government making those pay who create the cost to society and also of steering the society into a healthy and sustainable (low cost) one. Fat taxes have been proposed, regulations on the levels of fat, sodium and other ingredients have been introduced. These are examples of the government stepping in where a non-legislated society has failed to do the best for the common good.

Maybe we should, therefore, legislate against incestuous unions and maybe we should also let nature take it course and stop trying to keep people alive and able to reproduce who shouldn't.

@OG: your last sentence seems rather contradictory. Brother and sister met and fell in love - isn't this something that according to your argument nature should have taken care of? So at this point according to you the law should step in to correct nature.

no. If nature were left to itself, siblings would not be separated at birth and be adopted by people half way across the planet. If the mother were incapable of raising the children, they would die. By intervening, we have not allowed nature to run its course. Nature makes it unlikely that siblings raised together will be sexually attracted. The most frequent cases of incest appear to be sibling re-united or, as detailed in my previous post, a result of social pressure "to keep it in the family".

These young adults are refusing to accept the aknowledgement of being lawfully brothers and sisters and so until that train of thought IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THEM; is placed within the norm of the Law and in society, they will be doing business as usual, producing siblingings, having four children allready, symbolises to them that 4 wrongs make a right.iGNORING COMPLETELY the fact that there blood tie wont be producing healthy offspring.

Wrong because, nature was not kind to the children being born with horrible disabilities. These 2 young adults, will probably have more children in the future, because its there way of cementing there relationship,and giving the big finger to us all, with the newly born babies as victims of there refusal to acknowledge there blood tie.

They need to be shown and not punished by the law, using compassion and understanding and heeps of therapy,so as to have time, to finally realise, that they are not man and wife but brother and sister. Shock takes time to recover from. They have years of seperation to catch up on and have missed out on ,so much in growing up together as a family and not as strangers who one day had met and fell inlove. How does one switch all that off?

Therapy will be their solution, but one needs to acknowledge the need for it and for them its not in their agenda. The Law should perhaps have a strong arm towards that and not towards jailing, because rehabilitation ,wont be found behind steel bars in this case.
Elizabeth in Hamburg

The man has had a vasectomy so there's no danger of more children.

Try reading this article on the subject. Therapy can't deal with issues like these, they are too deep.

You are taking a very high moral stand here, albeit a particularly conservative and well-rooted one in the western world.

But, what's the problem? Their point is that just because they are brother and sister doesn't mean they can't love each other sexually, just because you* think so. They insist that they have as much civil liberty in this regard as do disabled people, or those with diagnosed potentially congenital problems.
As other posts have pointed out, there have been studies done that indicate inter-family relationships cast no aspersions on the health of the child, so they are not hurting anyone.

And anyway, therapy? What are you imagining here? Something similar to Clockwork Orange, strains of Beethoven's Ninth, eyes held open with devices to show a video repeatedly showing a cartoon saying "Dude, she's your sister, for fuck's sake, you sister!"

*And other people along similarly moral lines..

[quote name='TheSwedishChef' date='Mar 9 2007, 5:41 pm' post='871968']

But, what's the problem? Their point is that just because they are brother and sister doesn't mean they can't love each other sexually, just because you* think so.

To each his or her own opinion. Yes I do think and strongly beleive that having sex with a family member, is not only wrong but VERYYYYYYYYYY SICK.

Picture this.
My 2 adult children, on the lounge bonking each other...WHATS NEXT...Hubby does my adult daughter? I do my adult son? oh lets get the Grans into this... why not have an orgy..a wonderful family gathering...Christmas time we are all having dinner and whats for desert I wonder?

Oh please, the line has to be drawn here, otherwise why stop, we can then proceed to bonk into the animal kingdom and as the centuries go by we may even mate with Aliens and their brothers and sisters, giving a new meaning to the phrase, Sexual Liberation? and then we can all attend a Universal Seminar and compare our experiences and move onto interdimensional sex, what a way to spread universal love.

Thank you but no thank you.

Elizabeth from Hamburg

wow!!!she 22 and has poped out 4 kids!