Professor charged with incest

[Meadmaker]

No I don't. That's a strawman.

If that's a strawman, you haven't been very clear about your position. I assumed that he had, in fact, accurately represented your position. I'm surprised to hear you say that he got it wrong.

 

[Rairun]

If that's a strawman, you haven't been very clear about your position. I assumed that he had, in fact, accurately represented your position. I'm surprised to hear you say that he got it wrong.

Yeah, I don't get how that's a strawman. Let me try paraphrasing the following passage again:

But outlawing incest doesn't actually outlaw the "grooming", it just outlaws what the grooming is for. And yes, that distinction very much matters. It matters because outlawing incest is easy to do without granting the government significant discretionary power which can be abused. But your examples do that. Even ignoring the fact that having doctors is generally considered a good thing, you can only outlaw "grooming" by giving the government vast discretionary powers which can, and will, be abused. Even if we all agreed on what sort of "grooming" should or shouldn't be outlawed (not gonna happen), it would STILL be a bad idea because of the absolute wreckage that implementation would cause. But outlawing incest doesn't have that problem.

"Outlawing grooming itself is tricky because it grants the government power that can be easily abused, so that's not an option. The only solution to that problem is to outlaw what grooming is for. Of course, we aren't going to outlaw all things that might come from grooming, like doctors, who are usually considered a good thing. We are only outlawing incest, which is considered...?"

So you tell me. It really sounded like you were saying incest itself was bad.

But okay, maybe you don't think regular incest (without grooming) is worse than, say, fundamentalist Christianity; but you still think "grooming for incest" is worse than "grooming for fundamentalist Christianity". Fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree. I think I'd rather grow up believing that a sexual relationship with my parents was a valid (or even desirable) choice than become an anti-science bigot.

Anyway, I realize that the law is a blunt instrument. The age of consent is an example. When we decide that a 18 year old is capable of giving consent but a 17 year old is not, we are being unfair both to mature 17 year olds and immature 18 year olds. It's unfortunate, but it's the best we can do. The 17 year old will have to wait one more year to do whatever she wants, and the 18 year old will make stupid decisions that could have been avoided. But that's the price we pay to try to educate children while giving adults civil liberties.

The problem with outlawing incest between two consenting adults is that you are suddenly saying, "certain adults with no mental disabilities aren't capable of making their own decisions". And, in my opinion, that's a lot worse than the few cases of "grooming for incest" that would come from legalizing incest -- just like curtailing religious freedom is a lot worse than having a few cases of fundamentalist brainwashing.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem with outlawing incest between two consenting adults is that you are suddenly saying, "certain adults with no mental disabilities aren't capable of making their own decisions".

That is precisely not what incest prohibition does. Its virtue is in the fact that it does not single out any adults for this prohibition, but applies equally to all. Rather than saying certain adults can't make decisions, it says that certain decisions (to have sex with immediate relatives) can't be made by anyone. It is thus non-discriminatory. Hell, it doesn't even discriminate between the mentally handicapped and the mentally capable.

 

[Rairun]

That is precisely not what incest prohibition does. Its virtue is in the fact that it does not single out any adults for this prohibition, but applies equally to all. Rather than saying certain adults can't make decisions, it says that certain decisions (to have sex with immediate relatives) can't be made by anyone. It is thus non-discriminatory. Hell, it doesn't even discriminate between the mentally handicapped and the mentally capable.

Yeah, kind of like gay marriage bans apply equally to all, since no one--gay or straight--is allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

 

[Rairun]

Seriously, I have to question whether you are being dishonest here. If an incest prohibition is not telling certain adults (those who desire consensual incestuous relationships) that they are not capable of making decisions, then why would you create a law saying the decision can't be made by anyone? Why would you tell a 24 year old woman that she cannot sleep with whoever she pleases?

Again, you only have 3 options:

1. She is not capable of giving consent because of the way she might have been raised.

2. She is capable of giving consent, but you want to prevent other kids from being raised that way.

3. Incest is icky, a sin, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, kind of like gay marriage bans apply equally to all, since no one--gay or straight--is allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

I must agree. I can't see any difference at all.

An incest ban tells people, "I know you want to sleep with that person, but we aren't going to let you." In the case of incest, emotionally, that seems like not such a bad idea. It seems like letting brothers and sisters have sex is something we might be better off without. Indeed, even those people who are having sex with their sisters might be better off without that sort of relationship, even though they really want it.


Intellectually, though, I can't come up with a good reason to prohibit it. In the absence of a compelling reason why we have to curtail someone's liberty, I choose not to curtail that liberty. In order to enforce an anti-incest ban, I have to throw people in jail for having consensual sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, kind of like gay marriage bans apply equally to all, since no one--gay or straight--is allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

From a constitutional perspective, this is in fact exactly correct. The law says nothing about sexual orientation, only gender. And yes, the difference very much matters.

Look, I'm all for gay marriage. But that's because I think it's good policy, not because I think that the constitution requires it. And the reasons I think it's good policy aren't simply because I don't like discrimination.

 

[Ziggurat]

An incest ban tells people, "I know you want to sleep with that person, but we aren't going to let you." In the case of incest, emotionally, that seems like not such a bad idea.

Perhaps because it isn't a bad idea.

Intellectually, though, I can't come up with a good reason to prohibit it. In the absence of a compelling reason why we have to curtail someone's liberty, I choose not to curtail that liberty. In order to enforce an anti-incest ban, I have to throw people in jail for having consensual sex.

Most incest isn't consensual. A blanket prohibition keeps the state from having to make the determination of which was and wasn't truly consensual, a task the state is ill-equipped to handle in this circumstance. A rather minor liberty of a few might be restricted (and yes, not getting to have sex with an immediate family member is a very minor restriction on your liberty), but seriously, it's a bloody small price to pay, and I think well worth paying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously, I have to question whether you are being dishonest here. If an incest prohibition is not telling certain adults (those who desire consensual incestuous relationships) that they are not capable of making decisions, then why would you create a law saying the decision can't be made by anyone?

That's like saying drunk driving prohibition discriminates against people who want to drive drunk.

People who want to sleep with their relatives are exactly as free to choose who they want to sleep with as everyone else. The fact that one of their preferences is prohibited doesn't change the fact that they have exactly as many choices as the rest of us.

Why would you tell a 24 year old woman that she cannot sleep with whoever she pleases?

Because she can't. NOBODY can. In fact, I'm quite positive that you don't think she can either. If you did, you'd be in favor of permitting rape and pedophilia. So you already accept that we can (and should) restrict who people can have sex with. You just don't like this one particular prohibition.

 

[Rairun]

That's like saying drunk driving prohibition discriminates against people who want to drive drunk.

No, not quite. Drunk driving endangers other people's lives, no matter how careful and deliberate the driver is. It's different from owning firearms, for example, because a person who owns a gun doesn't lose their capacity to reason and make decisions.

On the other hand, two adults in a consensual sexual relationship don't risk hurting anyone but themselves.

People who want to sleep with their relatives are exactly as free to choose who they want to sleep with as everyone else. The fact that one of their preferences is prohibited doesn't change the fact that they have exactly as many choices as the rest of us.

Yeah, exactly, like gay marriage. I'm sorry, no matter how you try to word it, outlawing gay marriage is discrimination. You're basically saying, "People are free to pursue happiness, as long as they derive it from the same things as I do." It's very convenient for everyone to be allowed to do the same things, as long as the allowed things happen to be the things you yourself like.

Because she can't. NOBODY can. In fact, I'm quite positive that you don't think she can either. If you did, you'd be in favor of permitting rape and pedophilia. So you already accept that we can (and should) restrict who people can have sex with. You just don't like this one particular prohibition.

You're just grasping at straws here. Of course I accept that sexual behaviour should be restricted. This is my only restriction: sex requires consent. You can do whatever you want, as long as your partner is willing. Any other restriction is arbitrary for obvious reasons. I don't think I need to spell out the difference between consent and lack of consent here.

Most incest isn't consensual. A blanket prohibition keeps the state from having to make the determination of which was and wasn't truly consensual, a task the state is ill-equipped to handle in this circumstance. A rather minor liberty of a few might be restricted (and yes, not getting to have sex with an immediate family member is a very minor restriction on your liberty), but seriously, it's a bloody small price to pay, and I think well worth paying.

"Hey guyz, I know how to make rape cases easier to arbitrate! Make sex illegal!"

You can't seriously be suggesting this?

(Also, please provide evidence that most incest between two adults isn't consensual, i.e. rape)

 

[Ziggurat]

No, not quite. Drunk driving endangers other people's lives

Now you're arguing that the discrimination is justified, not that it isn't discriminatory. Under your definition, it is discriminatory, whether or not it's justified. But I think under any sensible definition, it is not discriminatory.

Yeah, exactly, like gay marriage. I'm sorry, no matter how you try to word it, outlawing gay marriage is discrimination. You're basically saying, "People are free to pursue happiness, as long as they derive it from the same things as I do." It's very convenient for everyone to be allowed to do the same things, as long as the allowed things happen to be the things you yourself like.

The problem with such a scenario is not that it is discriminatory, but that it is an unjustified infringement of freedom, for everyone. Even the people who like what I like still have their freedom unacceptably restricted. But there's no discrimination involved.

You're just grasping at straws here. Of course I accept that sexual behaviour should be restricted. This is my only restriction: sex requires consent. You can do whatever you want, as long as your partner is willing. Any other restriction is arbitrary for obvious reasons. I don't think I need to spell out the difference between consent and lack of consent here.

The notion of consent is itself arbitrary. Why is an 18 year old able to give consent, but a 17 year old not able to? There are certainly some 17 year olds better able to make decisions than other 18 year olds. Yet we arbitrarly rule that the 18 year olds can give consent, but the 17 year olds cannot. Why is that arbitrary rule about who can and cannot give consent justified?

But it gets worse for your position. In some states, a 17 year old can give consent to have sex with another 17 year old, but not a 37 year old. It isn't even a matter of having drawn lines of who can and cannot give consent, we also draw lines of who they can consent with. So incest prohibition is not even unique in terms of arbitrary rules about who can consent to sex, and with whom.

So why are such laws justified? Simple, really: age is correlated with what we really care about (ability to make rational and informed decisions, and accept the consequences), even if imperfectly. But the state is not really capable of evaluating what we would ideally like to know, so we accept this imperfect proxy of age because it's good enough, and we can't get perfection. We accept the cost of exceptions as being small compared to the benefits of prohibiting minors from consenting to sex and avoiding the problems that burdening the state with more complex determinations would create.

Similarly, incest is correlated with coercion and a lack of proper consent. The cost of an imperfect proxy is acceptable.

"Hey guyz, I know how to make rape cases easier to arbitrate! Make sex illegal!"

You can't seriously be suggesting this?

Of course not. The cost of such prohibition would be, well, rather extreme, and far outweigh any possible benefits. I'm disappointed that I even have to clarify this point about my position.

But what are the costs of prohibiting incest? Well, they aren't extreme, that's for sure.

 

[Meadmaker]

But what are the costs of prohibiting incest? Well, they aren't extreme, that's for sure.

I must admit I agree with this. Although I have been taking a "pro incest" stance in this thread, it's more of an intellectual exercise than a practical one. You won't see me carrying any signs demanding familial love rights any time soon.


I can't come up with a good reason to ban incest, but since it's already banned, I can come up with a good reason to not get worked up about it and to complacently accept the status quo as it is. After all, there aren't many people harmed by the ban, and the people who are harmed by the ban are, frankly, a little creepy.