Do we need a law against incest?

[Spiffy]

But now that I think about it, why is incest between an old brother and younger sister that but different than between parent and daughter. Wouldn't the same imbalance be there?

There is no difference. Perhaps the power-relationship is not identical to parent/child, but there's still an inherent power-relationship. Even if there's little to no age difference, there's always a hierarchy in a family, and more importantly, you can't ESCAPE your family (short of extreme measures), so there's forced co-habitation. You don't have the choice to just walk away you would in any other relationship, which is why I say there's no difference. And then even beyond childhood, once you are out in the world, there's just too much baggage. You STILL can't "just walk away", because even if you don't have to physically live together, there's ANOTHER relationship for life you'd have to navigate, or eject, if things went wrong in your romantic relationship, creating a real unnatural kind of pressure.

In some theoretical case where siblings weren't raised together? Okay, fine. I'll kind of give a bit. You know, the classic "we didn't know we were siblings" yarn. Still squicky, but the morality is different. But if you've lived together as children? No.

[Hugin]

There is no difference. Perhaps the power-relationship is not identical to parent/child, but there's still an inherent power-relationship. Even if there's little to no age difference, there's always a hierarchy in a family, and more importantly, you can't ESCAPE your family (short of extreme measures), so there's forced co-habitation. You don't have the choice to just walk away you would in any other relationship, which is why I say there's no difference.

I've been speaking of relationships between adults, where there is far less co-habitation, and it isn't mandatory.
And maybe the control thing is true in some families, but very few of my friends have any sort of control over their siblings. My parents made it clear from day one that I couldn't order my brother around, that he couldn't order me around, and that neither of us was more important than the other.

[AthenAltena]

In some theoretical case where siblings weren't raised together? Okay, fine. I'll kind of give a bit. You know, the classic "we didn't know we were siblings" yarn. Still squicky, but the morality is different. But if you've lived together as children? No.

Luckily there is the Westermarck effect, so nature does have a mechanism to try and prevent such relationships. Doesn't always work, but it's there. And indeed most of the cases of sibling incest occur when the children were separated, and I've read that most cases where they weren't usually had some other factor (for instance, the parents sexually abusing the children or one of the siblings, usually the older one, initiating the relationship without or with dubious consent) that throws off that dynamic.

[t.c.johnson]

I've been speaking of relationships between adults, where there is far less co-habitation, and it isn't mandatory.

But these ratio ships start when one is a child.

And maybe the control thing is true in some families, but very few of my friends have any sort of control over their siblings. My parents made it clear from day one that I couldn't order my brother around, that he couldn't order me around, and that neither of us was more important than the other.

I am an only child but with my friends who had younger siblings they idolized them. They would follow them around and want to do everything they do. A sick mind could take advantage of that.

[Karen El]

I don't think we need a law specifically against incest, as all the bad types of relationships discussed here are already illegal under standing laws.

[t.c.johnson]

I don't think we need a law specifically against incest, as all the bad types of relationships discussed here are already illegal under standing laws.

Not really. An 18 year old marrying her dad would not be illegal if it wasn't for incest laws. You could argue that there must be some sort of abuse when the child was younger but how do you prove it?

[Kingsmythe]

I think laws prohibiting parent/child sexual contact are valid for any number of reasons, most of which have been enumerated above. I personally am not comfortable with brother/sister relationships of that nature, but I'm not sure about making it illegal. I favor fewer, simpler, laws myself. The potential offspring health issues are a concern but... I admit, I don't know how to handle that part.

[AthenAltena]

I think laws prohibiting parent/child sexual contact are valid for any number of reasons, most of which have been enumerated above. I personally am not comfortable with brother/sister relationships of that nature, but I'm not sure about making it illegal. I favor fewer, simpler, laws myself. The potential offspring health issues are a concern but... I admit, I don't know how to handle that part.

Yeah, my fear about making it illegal would be the potential ramifications for the children of such relationships, and in principle I'm generally against anything that punishes or stigmatizes kids for who their parents are.

Also I really don't see a legal need for such laws since things like rape (both forced and statuatory) are already illegal, and those are the things most people worry about when it comes to incestuous relationships. And sadly, we have enough trouble even handling the things that are already illegal, so I don't think adding new laws would help.

[Kingsmythe]

Also I really don't see a legal need for such laws since things like rape (both forced and statuatory) are already illegal, and those are the things most people worry about when it comes to incestuous relationships. And sadly, we have enough trouble even handling the things that are already illegal, so I don't think adding new laws would help.

Those kinda things are sometimes called "botique" laws. The best example I heard is the law against carjacking. Stealing a car is all ready illegal. Robbery by force is already illegal. Using a weapon to commit a crime is already illegal. But, if a polilcitician sponsors a "carjacking" law, he can claim he is tough on crime come election time. Which is all the time now, it seems.

[AthenAltena]

Those kinda things are sometimes called "botique" laws. The best example I heard is the law against carjacking. Stealing a car is all ready illegal. Robbery by force is already illegal. Using a weapon to commit a crime is already illegal. But, if a polilcitician sponsors a "carjacking" law, he can claim he is tough on crime come election time. Which is all the time now, it seems.

Yup. Although this seems to be one thing that US politicians haven't jumped on, which is kind of surprising. Maybe the squick factor is too much for them.

There's also the issue of enforcement. Unless it's a case where there's rape or coercion involved, which again are already illegal, what exactly are you supposed to do to the perpetrators if they're caught? Even if it was just a misdemeanor and the only real punishment was public shaming, would that have any legitimate purpose in regards to protecting the community (again, only if we're talking consenting adults)? I'm also generally skeptical of anything that tries to tell consenting adults that they can't do something in their private lives just because it makes another person who has nothing to do with it uncomfortable.