Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

should incest be legal?

should incest be legal?

  • Total voters
    107
So make the police do their job and find out if there was some sort of coercion by an older relative. I say the same thing about age of consent laws, I think pedophiles are the scum of the earth and I'd like to beat everyone of them with a lead pipe, but it's more often abused to jam up a boyfriend (or girlfriend) that the parent's don't like. I heard about two teen girls who had been dating since they were 16 and 17. The second the older girl turned eighteen the parents of the younger one called the cops and reported her for statutory rape because they couldn't handle that their daughter was gay.

I think whatever happens in someone's sex life, as long as it's TRULY consensual, is no one's business. But then you would probably expect that answer from me, lol.
 
Yeah, your name kind of gives it away...

But I, for one, whole not interested in it in real life, I think I agree with the point, as long as everyone involved is okay with it, sure, same goes for underage and close to it (Like the case yu mentioned, I have read about it way too many times), people's sex life should be their own first and foremost
 
I think I've read enough now to actually reply. There are a few things brought up here in favour of incest being illegal that are already regulated by other laws, such as grooming, coercion, age of consent as other such issues.

If a parent, or uncle/aunt or even a much older sibling grooms a child to become a sexual partner then in my opinion the same laws should apply as if it was a stranger doing the same thing (and there are many doing this through the internet), you could argue dependency (as is the main argument against teachers having affairs with students (no matter what level of education we are talking about, this goes all the way to university level where students for the most part are legally adult.

I also have to stop and ponder for a while exactly what constitutes incest to some people. I saw one having had a sexual relationship with a cousin by marriage (I take that to mean the person had had sex with the spouses cousin) I can't even begin to understand how that would be incest because unless there has already been a lot of incestuous relationships happening in the family your spouse's cousin is probably not related to you by dna, and as such not incest.

Another mention cousins being in a sexual relationship being ok as long as they were second cousins. True a first cousin it the offspring of your aunt or uncle but it is still not someone directly related by dna, your aunt's or uncle's dna is not the same as your parent's. First there is the genetic material from your other parent and adding to that a person with no genetic relationship to your parent has added their dna to make your cousin. Now I know many has also argued that it is not about the genetic issues in the case where an incestuous relationship results in a child and this is true but that also mean that the actual definition of incest becomes more complex.

On that note I will say that where I live it is actually legal for cousins to marry, even first cousins.

I will use myself in an entirely theoretical example: Say my mother married someone who already had a child when both children were very young. That partner's child would then be my step-sibling, (no shared biological parents, no genetic relationship whatsoever.) We would of course grow up together as siblings, forming the same kinds of emotional relationships siblings normally do, but if when we were both of legal age fell in love and embarked on a sexual relationship would that too be incest? This of course applies to children in foster care and adopted children as well. Or, to make the theoretical example even more provokative, what if I (being of legal age of course) fell in love with my mother's new partner and embarked on a sexual relationship with said partner? Or in the case of adoption fell in love with either of the adopted parents.

I am not trying to piss on anyone's opinion here. I am merely raising a few questions that I feel might be worth considering before painting the issue even in grey, much less black or white.
 
I study human behavior with an emphasis on pre-adolescence to young adults, trauma, and sexuality.

The consequences of prohibiting a sexual behavior is usually more devastating than the actual act of exhibiting the sexual behavior. Stigma, shame, closeting, I really don't need to tell you how these things impact the lives of the people who need to endure the preferences of the mass people; because you all belong to a generation that has been honored to witness the distress it impacts on people. Sexism, homosexuality, trans, the color of your skin, all of these things can be reflected on and then re-imagined in the vision of the illegals today. Todays population is no different than the ones of the 1950's, we just simply have an updated list of what we will allow and what we don't.

In reality, there is nothing really wrong with being incest. There is however, something wrong with incestial re-population. But guess what, go to the orphanage. There are a ton of people that need help, especially from a person that is readily available such as the person who wants a kid.

I don't believe in a system that allows the average person to govern the sexual Endeavors of other people, but the prevention of damage has been weaponized in the format of oppression by the same people who felt the hoses blast their backs in the 1970's.
 
I think it should stay illegal if we are talking about incest in general. At least until the persons involved have reached a certain age.
Kids of parents are depending on their parents in reagrds of everything. (Getting food, clothes, toys, etc.) To start a relationship with someone who provides for you is making you dependent on that person and leads to, that you can't just break up with said person and move to a different place, if you come to a point where you find that you don't have romantic feelings any longer. Dependency is unhealthy for relationships in general but in a family dynamic it can quickly get to a point where one part is afraid of stepping back or saying no because of the dependency.

In general is the power dynamic in a family very problematic when it comes to romantic love/sex/relationships. This mostly affects relationships between parents and their kids but also would be the case with siblings. So from a psychological point of view, I think it should remain as illegal!
 
It's bringing us closer to the Reckoning. But if a man can already marry a man, siblings should be able to do the same. As long as it is consensual and they understand that in some parts it's rather frowned upon. And the health risks to offspring. That may be the only way it's illegal. You would be agreeing to bring children into the world with an increased chance of an abnormality.

Edit: A parent with their child seems particularly heinous to me. But siblings not so bad.
 
I'm not going to argue against it. But the cases you bring up are from generations and generations of inbreeding. I don't condone it... but should it be completely illegal? No.

Completely consensual. Siblings "love" each other and want to express that openly. Go right ahead. To me, this and gay marriage is no different.
 
I dunno how many Jaime and Cersei's are out there, but for the ones that are, I don't see any reason to punish them legally for their relationship.
I mean, to those who think it should be illegal, what would you deem as a suitable punishment for it? Fines? Prison time? Who is that going to help, when the only harm that might come from it is health problems in a child they might have.

I suppose that's a valid reason, but even then, it doesn't make sense to ban a relationship for incest specifically, when that law would apply to a couple who may have sought sterilization surgery, even though they won't be able to cause the harm that is the reason for their relationship to be illegal.

You'd want to make a law against unprotected sexual relationships that can result in birth defects. Which might be fine, but it opens up another topic as to how much and who that should be legislated for. Should anyone with a genetic defect they have a high chance of passing on be barred from reproducing?


If abuse is the issue, you're only going to hold one person accountable. Its not the incest that is wrong, its the abuse. If you were going to make a law against parent-child relationship, assuming that it is nonconsensual on the child's part (much like how age of consent laws presume nonconsent on the part of the minor), I think that would be completely valid.

That wouldn't apply in a case where there isn't a clear abuser, a consenting relationship, then presumably you would punish both parties for engaging in incest. And again, I don't think sending people to prison over that or making them pay money is really meaningful.
 
Without weighing in too much, remember that if a parent raised a child, and then entered a relationship with them when they were an adult, that is grooming of a kind even if that wasn't the original intent. It's hard to really tell how much the power dynamic of the parent/child relationship influenced the son or daughter's decisions and how much it plays into the consent, how much they were raised to believe it was right, okay, maybe even expected. The same thing can apply to a lesser extent to siblings, an older sibling might practically raise the younger these days, that influence can have huge consequences. It's not insignificant, and does border on a form of abuse and manipulation. I'm sure not all cases would be like that, but enough would and I think that's one good reason to not allow it.

All that is considering the relationship starts when the younger is a legal adult, which should be the baseline for any discussion here. When people are asking if incest should be legal, child molestation is a silly argument against it. Nobody here is suggesting that should be legal, at least I hope not, and whether they are related or not shouldn't be a factor. Related or not, it's abhorrent.

I have incest RP's by the way, I enjoy them, but I do think keeping it just fantasy is my preference.
 
This thread was quite the ride.

a) I'm dismayed by the comparisons between a taboo against incest and a taboo against homosexuality. The argument that "they're both examples of how people should be allowed to love who they want" is (to use the technical term) banana bonkers cuckoo nonsense. Homosexuality is an orientation. Thinking your sister is sexy is not. It is right and necessary to allow adult gay relationships; criminalizing homosexuality cruelly prevents an entire group of people from finding love, marriage, etc. The same isn't true of an incest prohibition, which just stops you from indulging with one or two specific people. A fetish does not deserve the same human rights protection as an orientation. That analogy is horrible.

b) It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a romantic/sexual sibling-sibling or parent-child relationship doesn't have its roots in grooming and exploitation, even if everyone is an adult now. I suppose such a scenario is possible, but as a matter of practical policy implementation, I think the prohibition on incest serves an important enough function in discouraging grooming that it's worth keeping.
 
Depends how close. Cousins are legal in most countries. Depends also on age at meeting, age now, and risk of babies if close (siblings and half siblings, obvs first line relative and direct descendancy, parents and grandparents should never be ok).
 
No for relations closer than cousin, but with lax practical enforcement. Basically, the way it is - it comes up when there's something seriously fucked up, and people are (hopefully) vigilant regarding abusive relationships in general. Something harmless I'm not going to chase, namely consenting adults.

Often I think every person for themselves; in some cases I think the law is useful as a stance to try and subvert certain problems. Grooming is a huge one to me.
 
Incest is my absolute favorite kink to write about on this forum, most of my threads involve brother x sister pairings so believe me when I say, absolutely not! the risks of genetic disorders are way to high (approximately 25%) when having a child with a full blown sibling. It decreases the further you get from family, but we have seen the effects generations of inbreeding had on families like the Hapsburgs, but even putting aside the genetic issues with such a pairing, you are talking about legalizing something that is usually abusive.

You can't compare same sex marriage to marriage between siblings or parent child, they are not equivalent.

I write incest because I enjoy writing about the taboo and the abusive, but it would be horrifying to have any of those relationships be brought into the real world.
 
Like @east : I too heavily enjoy writing incest stories as the tension and fear that comes with such a taboo is a joy to write about. You cannot help who you fall in love with it, so I understand it happening in certain situations. Should it be legal? In my opinion, no. Is it the most evil thing in the world? No, but usually the ones hurt most are the ones who have no choice in the matter. I don't think siblings naturally respond to each other that way. Writing it and experiencing it are two completely different things. It might just be the way culture looks at it. That undeniable feeling that you did wrong but it felt so right makes writing it a joy.
 
As many have said, maybe not with parental incest relationships since, as many have said, there is a power struggle going on in the middle of the relationship. The child was probably even raised to see their parent that way and no matter how it looks on the paper/roleplay site, it is far more suspicious in real life.

So, a parent could have raised their child in a way the child wants and desires the parent in a more romantic way, but all of it is just indoctrination by the parent. If you are dependant on someone, even after being legally able to give consent, you have probably been raised to still depend on your parent in this scenario. How do you say no when food, shelter and commodities depend on accepting having a thing with mom or dad? It is something it'd have to be looked up into. Also, how do you exactly break up with your parents after that? There is no guarantee that the parent won't turn manipulative, wether by cutting off food, making you pay rent, using physical or psychological violence or downright guilt tripping you with all the things they did as a parent for you or how they would never find someone else. So, that's a huge power struggle. I think if parental incest was legal, single parents would use it to make their children stay in the nest. We have single parents raising their child so they depend always on them, so I don't think anything would improve if parents have the option to get in a relationship with their offspring.

As for fraternal incest or someone else that is not directly linked to the family (cousins) I really see no problem. Of course, both parties should be consenting while also having a reasonable age difference. A sibling or a cousin 5 years older, while still being a minor, could convince the younger party that their relationship should be. When looked in closely, one party had convinced the other. I am pretty sure there are laws concerning that matter so I won't get much into that.

My opinion doesn't differ from most of the ones I have seen, yes, incest should be legal but...

Both parties have to be in the consenting age, or meet the respective law standard when the two are minors. But I would prefer if incest was only allowed when the two are consenting adults.

Only between siblings or cousins, parents will most likely twist their children like puppets

While legal, it is still something to look up into.

I don't think it should be illegal, but it should have its limitations. As long as both parts know what they are doing and don't harm each other, that's fine.

Also, if we are going the "extreme" route. If I am allowed to go down that way. Parties of incestual relationships should either use obligatory means of contraception and should not be allowed to have children.
 
Hm...I'm not sure.
I really dont care for you it as long as you don't tell me x')
 
The trouble to me comes where to draw the line. If you regulate it, all the problems still exist, but loopholes are attempted and dug into. Make it illegal outright and people will do it, but are mildly discouraged. It won't be talked about and it's better known something is probably screwed up. If it's innocent, that's all it ever needs to be. If it's abusive, it unfortunately stands the same chance of being discovered - if it is, at least that can be used to help with charges to get the abuse every smackdown it deserves. Ideally the more abusive relationship is more easily seen than the one where both parties don't see a problem. But there will always be ones to slip the cracks.

Even at its most innocent, two kids banging each other probably don't know what they're doing, and if it's without contraception, they stand a risk of seriously screwing up their lives. Personally, I encourage as much as possible for people to get romantic later than sooner as having that emotional maturity vastly decreases the chances of things going wrong. Parents doing it have every power dynamic mentioned above, and if you make it only for adults, you run into earlier discussed problems with grooming.

So, this is to slightly counter the stance of 'it should be legal, but' when the problems are considered. The gain is pretty minimal by dropping the law (will be seen as encouraging it regardless to change it now) and the problems that underage incest leads to would be even harder to address in court short of serious invasions of privacy I doubt many people are willing to subject to. The status quo is basically 'don't ask don't tell', and relaxing it any more than that would be problematic.
 
Carefree_Snake said:
Also, if we are going the "extreme" route. If I am allowed to go down that way. Parties of incestual relationships should either use obligatory means of contraception and should not be allowed to have children.
Click to expand...

This feels like a human rights violation. Like, dictating in such a specific way on what consenting adults are allowed to do with their bodies. How would you enforce this? Are we inserting the government into the bedroom for a condom check? If someone gets pregnant, based on your rule, what happens then? State mandated abortion? Even as most laws are right now, with incest being illegal, it's not nearly as Draconian as it would have to be if we made it legal but put up a list of rules on technicalities.

And I'm bothered by the conversation sliding over and over into, "Just consenting adults". Yes, that should be the base assumption that when we talk about making incest legal, we're not referring to children or underage being involved in sexual or romantic relationships. The fact that this is so heavily tied to the topic of incest that there needs to be a disclaimer, illustrates to me a very clear problem. Like you're admitting, "if I don't specify adults only, then people will assume I advocate for underage predation." That seems like a glaring issue that makes it an automatic no from me. Especially since it does ignore the grooming issue most of the time. As if family abuse is only harmful if it is physical or sexual.
 
Very complicated to force adults on birth control. Who says "weirdos" aren't next?
 
I like incest in hentai and fiction because fuck it, it's fun to mess with the taboo. But kind of a reason it's Taboo. Honestly in terms of RL incest, It is kind of a gray area. Like parents and their kids or siblings or cousins are obviously no gos. But as someone mentioned there are odder cases like 'Oh he's the cousin to my step brother's brother,etc etc etc'.
Personally I think it's just best to keep familial relationships like that in the 'No Fly' zone kinda like 'Dating an Ex's sibling/family member' just like one of those silent social agreements. Just not worth it, save everyone the head ache and move on.
 
I've always been in the camp that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever greases their gears provided it doesn't bring any real harm to another. While Incest is a kink I love to explore in fiction, I believe it may be one of the big kinks that should be left to fiction. Even as adults Incest can carry a heavy emotional implication on the participants. Due to the family dynamic there is always a concern that one of the participants might not 100% want to do so. There may be interest but there could very well be a sense of 'obligation' due to the family structure. Fear to say no, to disappoint or insult someone who is part of their most intimate circle: Family. The power dynamic could easily come into play without either participant meaning to.


I dunno. The family unit is a very delicate thing. It's a very important thing. Muddying it with sex, no matter how erotic it might be or how strong the temptation might be could damage the most important relationships one has in their lives.
 
That's a good point. Also, what happens if the participants break up? A lot of breakups are messy and painful, just ask any divorce lawyer. So, if the two break up do they just lose their family? That too can be an unspoken pressure. A daughter might hesitate to break up with her father or mother because it means she won't get to see or be with siblings or aunts and uncles without the issue coming up, or her "ex" showing up for holiday events. Like, breaking up with the family member would cut off her access to one of the most basic and fundamental support systems humans have. Plus, the breakup would change her relationship with that family member if there was a lot of passion and upset between them. It is kinda rare for a regular relationship to end with a healthy warmth between partners, or for both people to continue to find platonic safety and vulnerability with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom