Anti-Incest Laws in Germany under review

[Cyrisnia]

This is sick.

No, this is sick.

No,

[The Emerald Dragon]

WINCEST.

[Arestari]

So we should ban people from doing something because it might end up with something that might, if repeated over several generations, cause a possible problem at some point in the fairly distant future.

I bet you think climate change isn't a problem because it won't harm this generation too.

Exactly. By his logic, we should ban jobs that expose people to higher radiation doses, since the cumulative rise in DNA mutations could just keep getting worse if the kids keep taking up their parent's trade.

Love is a different matter than what job I want. If I'm not allowed to take a job because it could potentially harm my future children's lives? Sure, whatever.

- My family has been having incest for generations, and I genuinely love my brother. However, our children will most definitely have a birth defect just because we were the last ones in a long line of incest. Now, all of our children will have birth defects. But oh, "it would only be a problem in the distant future." Well, it's a problem for me now! -

Completely not fair.

With both examples, incest and your radiation example, people would be harming their respective children just by doing said thing. Basically, if you drink this, THERE IS A CHANCE that your child will drink it too, and their child, so on and so forth, and give birth to a deformed child that probably won't enjoy it.

[Savoyae]

I bet you think climate change isn't a problem because it won't harm this generation too.

Exactly. By his logic, we should ban jobs that expose people to higher radiation doses, since the cumulative rise in DNA mutations could just keep getting worse if the kids keep taking up their parent's trade.

Love is a different matter than what job I want. If I'm not allowed to take a job because it could potentially harm my future children's lives? Sure, whatever.

- My family has been having incest for generations, and I genuinely love my brother. However, our children will most definitely have a birth defect just because we were the last ones in a long line of incest. Now, all of our children will have birth defects. But oh, "it would only be a problem in the distant future." Well, it's a problem for me now! -

Completely not fair.

With both examples, incest and your radiation example, people would be harming their respective children just by doing said thing. Basically, if you drink this, THERE IS A CHANCE that your child will drink it too, and their child, so on and so forth, and give birth to a deformed child that probably won't enjoy it.

This is also assuming that what makes inbreeding prevalent (multiple generations of incest) happened naturally.

It didn't, it's because of arranged marriages in history and keeping it in the family, and never really an independent decision. So the whole "one incest = family of incest" thing is weak in a modern, secular, educated world.

[Enfaru]

>.>;

To each their own.

The evidence against incest is pretty slim. In fact there is evidence that not only is incest between first cousins easier to conceive but the risk of harm is no more than a woman having a child over the age of 40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics

We don't stop people with Huntingtons disease having children, neither do we stop people with aids having children. In fact we don't apart from incest stop anyone having children. Yet incest carries less risk and in most cases the children grow up healthy. Incest just isn't as bad (albeit definitely icky) as it is made out to be. The risks come much later after generations of inbreeding where genetic faults in the gene pool have been exacerbated to higher levels. In the same way, that we don't like it if people with Aids go out and sire a hundred children (except that clearly leads to more problems ...but hey, consenting adults and all that).

Incest laws should be scrapped. It does nothing to protect children (pedophilia laws) it does nothing to prevent abuse (anti-rape laws, child abuse laws, domestic abuse laws)... it doesn't even prevent genetic disorders any more so than allowing people who might share a genetic fault (even though very very distantly related...like...seven hundred generations ago) would cause. We also don't perform genetic screening. (We should at least offer it).

The only people that tend to advocate against incest are, generally religious (that includes the scientists), generally those who believe in family values (Man, Woman, 2 kids and a dog...NOTHING ELSE kind of people)...and generally those people who are more concerned with what's going on in someone else's bedroom, perhaps because nothing is going on in their own.

If Germany had smashed the incest laws to pieces it would have done no real harm to society what with modern technology and social stigma would still be around. Heck the majority would still feel it really icky to jump into bed with their brother, it's a common and inherent human response.

Those who advocate against incest are doing so because of personal taste and not because of any real justification in science. They would be better off supporting the case for eugenics (because that's what they're doing), sterilizing the handicapped and disabled, manditory scans for everyone and pairing them up with the best genetic counter part to yield the best genetic off spring. It's rediculous and there's no need for it. People should be free to love who they wish and engage in sexual relationships with whomever they wish provided they're told of the risks. It'd be cheaper for the government.

[Arestari]

Love is a different matter than what job I want. If I'm not allowed to take a job because it could potentially harm my future children's lives? Sure, whatever.

- My family has been having incest for generations, and I genuinely love my brother. However, our children will most definitely have a birth defect just because we were the last ones in a long line of incest. Now, all of our children will have birth defects. But oh, "it would only be a problem in the distant future." Well, it's a problem for me now! -

Completely not fair.

With both examples, incest and your radiation example, people would be harming their respective children just by doing said thing. Basically, if you drink this, THERE IS A CHANCE that your child will drink it too, and their child, so on and so forth, and give birth to a deformed child that probably won't enjoy it.

This is also assuming that what makes inbreeding prevalent (multiple generations of incest) happened naturally.

It didn't, it's because of arranged marriages in history and keeping it in the family, and never really an independent decision. So the whole "one incest = family of incest" thing is weak in a modern, secular, educated world.

I have never once said or implied anything about why incest happens in todays modern world.

What I wrote is if by some chance the brother+sister of each generation fell in love with each other, that it did happen naturally. Of course, I don't find it very LIKELY but it could happen.

I don't believe that incest is bad. However, just by continued incest, you limit the possibilities for your future offspring. I suppose the chance of a family of incest going on for that long is so minuscule that it really doesn't matter, but if it did somehow happen, that is what my opinion would be.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Yes, generally if consenting adults are allowed to have sex with other consenting adults, that means all consenting adults, even if their parents were siblings.

Sure it could. But it's not especially likely. Incest being legal doesn't mean that everyone's going to start fucking their siblings all of a sudden.

*rubs temples slightly* The first pair of brother and sister marry, have some children. 4% chance of genetic mutation. However, now the children of those two fall in love, marry, have children. 16% chance of genetic mutation. Same thing happens again, marry, have children. 32% chance of genetic mutation.

(I have no idea if that's the actual percentage, I only understand the basic principles of genetics, forgive me if I'm wrong in these calculations)

Inbreeding does not increase the risk of mutations. It increases the chances for recessive genes to be expressed (because you are more likely to get the same gene from both parents), and that includes recessive traits that cause genetic disorders. Most genetic disorders are recessive because that allows them to be passed on without the disorder appearing in every generation, and that means it's harder for natural selection to remove them from the gene pool.

Mutations are a separate thing.

[Trollgaard]

Wtf. Stop this nonsense Germany. Incest is, and should always be illegal.

[Ifreann]

Wtf. Stop this nonsense Germany. Incest is, and should always be illegal.

Why? It's not hurting anyone. The children of incest do not actually end up like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel.

[Arestari]

*rubs temples slightly* The first pair of brother and sister marry, have some children. 4% chance of genetic mutation. However, now the children of those two fall in love, marry, have children. 16% chance of genetic mutation. Same thing happens again, marry, have children. 32% chance of genetic mutation.

(I have no idea if that's the actual percentage, I only understand the basic principles of genetics, forgive me if I'm wrong in these calculations)

Inbreeding does not increase the risk of mutations. It increases the chances for recessive genes to be expressed (because you are more likely to get the same gene from both parents), and that includes recessive traits that cause genetic disorders. Most genetic disorders are recessive because that allows them to be passed on without the disorder appearing in every generation, and that means it's harder for natural selection to remove them from the gene pool.

Mutations are a separate thing.

Thank you for explaining that.

[Liriena]

Finally, Tokio Hotel fans will get the twincest they wanted.

I'm not so sure how I feel about these laws. I am usually of the mind that, if it's harmless and between consenting adults, there's really no reason to ban it. But I suspect that incest in particular might be trickier.

[Ifreann]

Finally, Tokio Hotel fans will get the twincest they wanted.

I'm not so sure how I feel about these laws. I am usually of the mind that, if it's harmless and between consenting adults, there's really no reason to ban it. But I suspect that incest in particular might be trickier.

Why?

[Liriena]

Finally, Tokio Hotel fans will get the twincest they wanted.

I'm not so sure how I feel about these laws. I am usually of the mind that, if it's harmless and between consenting adults, there's really no reason to ban it. But I suspect that incest in particular might be trickier.

Why?

Well, what if it happened to be a relationship between a parent and their child? In principle, I would say "keep it consensual and we're cool", but what if the relationship in question were the product of said parent's "grooming", so to speak, aimed specifically at having their child become sexually attracted to them?

[Anglo-California]

Fun for the whole family.

[Laerod]

Finally, Tokio Hotel fans will get the twincest they wanted. :P

I'm not so sure how I feel about these laws. I am usually of the mind that, if it's harmless and between consenting adults, there's really no reason to ban it. But I suspect that incest in particular might be trickier. :?

But the laws aren't being changed...

[Laerod]

Fun for the whole family.

The report only suggest decriminalizing incest for siblings, yo.

[Laerod]

Why?

Well, what if it happened to be a relationship between a parent and their child? In principle, I would say "keep it consensual and we're cool", but what if the relationship in question were the product of said parent's "grooming", so to speak, aimed specifically at having their child become sexually attracted to them?

Maybe that's why the report never suggests making that legal?

[Kazomal]

>.>;

To each their own.

The evidence against incest is pretty slim. In fact there is evidence that not only is incest between first cousins easier to conceive but the risk of harm is no more than a woman having a child over the age of 40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics

We don't stop people with Huntingtons disease having children, neither do we stop people with aids having children. In fact we don't apart from incest stop anyone having children. Yet incest carries less risk and in most cases the children grow up healthy. Incest just isn't as bad (albeit definitely icky) as it is made out to be. The risks come much later after generations of inbreeding where genetic faults in the gene pool have been exacerbated to higher levels. In the same way, that we don't like it if people with Aids go out and sire a hundred children (except that clearly leads to more problems ...but hey, consenting adults and all that).

Incest laws should be scrapped. It does nothing to protect children (pedophilia laws) it does nothing to prevent abuse (anti-rape laws, child abuse laws, domestic abuse laws)... it doesn't even prevent genetic disorders any more so than allowing people who might share a genetic fault (even though very very distantly related...like...seven hundred generations ago) would cause. We also don't perform genetic screening. (We should at least offer it).

The only people that tend to advocate against incest are, generally religious (that includes the scientists), generally those who believe in family values (Man, Woman, 2 kids and a dog...NOTHING ELSE kind of people)...and generally those people who are more concerned with what's going on in someone else's bedroom, perhaps because nothing is going on in their own.

If Germany had smashed the incest laws to pieces it would have done no real harm to society what with modern technology and social stigma would still be around. Heck the majority would still feel it really icky to jump into bed with their brother, it's a common and inherent human response.

Those who advocate against incest are doing so because of personal taste and not because of any real justification in science. They would be better off supporting the case for eugenics (because that's what they're doing), sterilizing the handicapped and disabled, manditory scans for everyone and pairing them up with the best genetic counter part to yield the best genetic off spring. It's rediculous and there's no need for it. People should be free to love who they wish and engage in sexual relationships with whomever they wish provided they're told of the risks. It'd be cheaper for the government.

Any info on the genetic danger of bro-sis incest?

[Ifreann]

Why?

Well, what if it happened to be a relationship between a parent and their child? In principle, I would say "keep it consensual and we're cool", but what if the relationship in question were the product of said parent's "grooming", so to speak, aimed specifically at having their child become sexually attracted to them?

Well that would be a very bad relationship, but the problem isn't that the people in it are related, the problem is that it's abusive. The same can happen with teachers and students, or employers and employees, or what have you.

[Infected Mushroom]

>.>;

To each their own.

The evidence against incest is pretty slim. In fact there is evidence that not only is incest between first cousins easier to conceive but the risk of harm is no more than a woman having a child over the age of 40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics

We don't stop people with Huntingtons disease having children, neither do we stop people with aids having children. In fact we don't apart from incest stop anyone having children. Yet incest carries less risk and in most cases the children grow up healthy. Incest just isn't as bad (albeit definitely icky) as it is made out to be. The risks come much later after generations of inbreeding where genetic faults in the gene pool have been exacerbated to higher levels. In the same way, that we don't like it if people with Aids go out and sire a hundred children (except that clearly leads to more problems ...but hey, consenting adults and all that).

Incest laws should be scrapped. It does nothing to protect children (pedophilia laws) it does nothing to prevent abuse (anti-rape laws, child abuse laws, domestic abuse laws)... it doesn't even prevent genetic disorders any more so than allowing people who might share a genetic fault (even though very very distantly related...like...seven hundred generations ago) would cause. We also don't perform genetic screening. (We should at least offer it).

The only people that tend to advocate against incest are, generally religious (that includes the scientists), generally those who believe in family values (Man, Woman, 2 kids and a dog...NOTHING ELSE kind of people)...and generally those people who are more concerned with what's going on in someone else's bedroom, perhaps because nothing is going on in their own.

If Germany had smashed the incest laws to pieces it would have done no real harm to society what with modern technology and social stigma would still be around. Heck the majority would still feel it really icky to jump into bed with their brother, it's a common and inherent human response.

Those who advocate against incest are doing so because of personal taste and not because of any real justification in science. They would be better off supporting the case for eugenics (because that's what they're doing), sterilizing the handicapped and disabled, manditory scans for everyone and pairing them up with the best genetic counter part to yield the best genetic off spring. It's rediculous and there's no need for it. People should be free to love who they wish and engage in sexual relationships with whomever they wish provided they're told of the risks. It'd be cheaper for the government.

Any info on the genetic danger of bro-sis incest?

those dangers are over-rated...

they aren't likely to materialize until several generations of continued incest. The odds of so many brothers and sister finding True Love with each other is infinitesimal...

[Infected Mushroom]

Fun for the whole family.

only for those who freely consent

[Nazis in Space]

Government already said they won't consider following them either way.

Still, I'd approve. What adults do in their bedroom, etc.

Adults?

Germany's AoC is 14. And I'm pretty sure that the law won't strike if both parties are < 14, either.

'Sexually mature' seems more appropriate.

[Geilinor]

Aside of course from my clear ripping on those with single figure IQ's that live deep in the wilds of Alabama

I know you're trying to be funny, but those people don't exist.

[Infected Mushroom]

Aside of course from my clear ripping on those with single figure IQ's that live deep in the wilds of Alabama

I know you're trying to be funny, but those people don't exist.

its also kind of offensive

[Threlizdun]

Why?

Well, what if it happened to be a relationship between a parent and their child? In principle, I would say "keep it consensual and we're cool", but what if the relationship in question were the product of said parent's "grooming", so to speak, aimed specifically at having their child become sexually attracted to them?

Considering that raising a child for the expressed purpose of them becoming a tool for sex would in itself be considered child abuse regardless of who is intended to have sex with them, I don't see how it would be any different with legal incest.