IdleRich
IdleRich
This is a strange story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/australia
A number of things worth mention here I think. Firstly, I understand that it's quite common for close relatives who have never met each other to become sexually attracted to each other when they finally do (even to the extent that two formerly hetero-sexual brothers have been known to become sexually involved) - why is that? Is it because basically people are attracted to people like them? This case is especially strange because some people are claiming that the father and daughter did actually know each other so this may not be relevant but still I think it's worth mentioning.
Secondly, the judge has ruled that they meet but may not have sex. To me it seems very odd that courts are still trying to rule on what people can get up to in the bedroom. I guess here the taboo is strong and also the ostensible reason (to prevent "inbred" children) may be valid but what if the people involved can no longer have children or have chosen to be sterilised? Maybe it's just simpler to rule that relatives can't have sex than to rule that they must not have children as that seems to point to enforced sterilisation or enforced abortion.
Anyway, what I'm asking really is, should incest be illegal and if so why? And also is there a difference between sex between siblings and sex between parent and child?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/australia
A number of things worth mention here I think. Firstly, I understand that it's quite common for close relatives who have never met each other to become sexually attracted to each other when they finally do (even to the extent that two formerly hetero-sexual brothers have been known to become sexually involved) - why is that? Is it because basically people are attracted to people like them? This case is especially strange because some people are claiming that the father and daughter did actually know each other so this may not be relevant but still I think it's worth mentioning.
Secondly, the judge has ruled that they meet but may not have sex. To me it seems very odd that courts are still trying to rule on what people can get up to in the bedroom. I guess here the taboo is strong and also the ostensible reason (to prevent "inbred" children) may be valid but what if the people involved can no longer have children or have chosen to be sterilised? Maybe it's just simpler to rule that relatives can't have sex than to rule that they must not have children as that seems to point to enforced sterilisation or enforced abortion.
Anyway, what I'm asking really is, should incest be illegal and if so why? And also is there a difference between sex between siblings and sex between parent and child?