It is Time to bring Incest out of the Family Closet

No I meant Moral Authority is going to culminate around whether it should become socially-acceptable to engage in familial incest whilst on birth control.

I imagine the Atheists are going to lose no matter which side they choose for very complex reasons which is going to give the debate winners free-access to many, many other Morally-religious arguments (abortion for example). Although I am pretty sure abortion will forever be legal in the centuries to come because pregnancy is eventually going to become completely monitored by the state and genetically modified en masse.

Just rambling, or am I...

Hadji wrote:

Let's re-write this sans dysphemism...

Sonofgloin wrote:

Fred lives today and has a wife and two female children, one is four and one is seven. He f.... the 7 yo regularly and has done for a year, previous to that he sexually assaulted the child from the age of 5 without full on f...... her. He molests his younger one as well but must wait till she is older for practical physical reasons before he can fullfill his desires (it turns my stomach to write this). MM would you condone this act or legitamize it as incest?

Fred lives today and has a wife and two girls, Winny is four and Sunny is seven. He and Sunny make love regularly and have done for a year, previous to that they were erotic together from the age of 5 without fully entering her. He is intimate with Winny as well but must wait till she is older for practical physical reasons before he can fullfill his desires (it gives me butterflies in my stomach to write this).

H, i placed the words for impact and clarity of the outcome, but your version is fine. The child gets it in the end either way, and the legitimization of that is the core issue of the OP.

Unreasonable wrote:

No I meant Moral Authority is going to culminate around whether it should become socially-acceptable to engage in familial incest whilst on birth control.

I imagine the Atheists are going to lose no matter which side they choose for very complex reasons which is going to give the debate winners free-access to many, many other Morally-religious arguments (abortion for example). Although I am pretty sure abortion will forever be legal in the centuries to come because pregnancy is eventually going to become completely monitored by the state and genetically modified en masse.

Just rambling, or am I...

.........within the realms of possibility.....yes.

Sonofgloin wrote:

In your OP you ended by saying, does anyone with balls have something to say about it. Tell me MM are you for f...... your children when they are little ones or do you want to watch them grow up and then start f...... them. please give me a direct amswer and not the escape artist rhetoric you put in your OP in regard to saving the children by rationalizing pedophilia as "incest for the sake of humanity".

Re running with the mob, my mob do not contemplate f...... their children.

While i agree with you that incestuous adult-minor relationships are unnacceptable, i do not see why you're implying that Magnet Man is trying to endorse/justify his sexual relationship with his adult dauthers, let alone with his small ones. First off, MM is a 67 year old man whose daughters must all be adult women by now. Second, there's a general agreement here that all consensual sexual acts between two adult persons is their business and their business only. Third, the problem here seems to be not the relationships per se but the unfair discrimination against both the people involved and the children who might be a result of such incestuous relationships. I don't know, maybe you're afraid that 'bringing incest out of the closet' might turn to be a justification of child abuse cases where one of the parties is the father and the other a child, but in the end, the problem is the same, and even if a child is born out of one of those abominable acts of molestation, discrimination against him/her is absurd.


i guess you haven't read this part:

MM wrote:

I am not including dysfunctional abuse
molestation
or pedophilia
that should be outlawed
within or without the family gropup

Drone wrote:

Second, there's a general agreement here that all consensual sexual acts between two adult persons is their business and their business only.

Bullshit Drone!!!

There is no "general agreement" here ... you liar. The only agreement is inside your deluded head!

Unreasonable wrote:

Drone wrote:

Second, there's a general agreement here that all consensual sexual acts between two adult persons is their business and their business only.

Bullshit Drone!!!

There is no "general agreement" here ... you liar. The only agreement is inside your deluded head!

We are all still partly trapped in the Victorian time warp

Not so long ago all of this was taboo

1.Divorce
2.Homosexuality
3.Pornography
4.Polygamy
5. Incest


1., 2., and 3 are now struck off the list
thank God
Big Love on TV is getting rid of the polygamy taboo

I am working on incest

When its all gone
the Old Queen's ghost can stop haunting us.
and treating us like children

For the record I do not encourage any of the above
But it is not the government's business
to put consenting adults in jail because of their sexual proclivities.
It is a private matter
that belongs inside each family

I agree that the government cannot or should not regulate familial affairs since they are spiritual. The problem with that is many, many people are human animals. Without the influence of the state, they will regress backward into their animal state. This is the endless conflict between Society and the Criminal. All men are "criminals" by nature. I fundamentally-believe that the only thing that prevents all men from a jail cell is 'Good' (or Godly) fatherly-parenting. When children are raised without 'Good' fathers then they have no conception of how they should act or why, at all. Forget about social conventions. Single-mothers raising boys are like ticking time-bombs because only fathers are capable of teaching true self-discipline and what it both takes and means to become men or a "real man". Was not Hitler a bastard at some point in his young life? (I cannot recall these facts) If a father is lacking in a young boy's life, then Religion is the "Prime Mover" so-to-speak. This is the reason that I see why people flock to religion. Since Christianity has lost its power to defend itself from Nietzsche the Antichrist; now the Western State is playing the role as Father beginning with Barack Obama. This kind of government socialization directly-leads to tyranny as purported throughout history at least a dozen times over now...

The State is the *WORST* kind of Father...

Why is this the case? The State is the farthest removed in terms of Authorship, especially a socialist state! Essentially, this amounts as giving complete Fatherhood over to a woman. This is an absolute mistake to do. Here is my personal motto, one of my fundamental moral beliefs that you will ever hear me say: a mother makes for the worst kind of father, a father makes for the worst kind of mother. This is the reason why homosexual couples take up roles as 'masculine' and 'feminine', despite their removal of the biological factors. This creates a situation of moral decadence that I purports weakens the familial bond in the long run. But I pay no heed to the impractical implications of the contexts. A couple of fags raising a child is *MUCH BETTER* than the State raising a child, but, of course it is not as 'strong' as an actual Man-father (male) raising children with an actual Woman-mother (female). That mechanic and biological imperative is beyond my association, control, meaning, or definition. I simply-reiterate what I see in that regard.

The "Amerikan Spirit" is one pioneered by the Spirit of Man, resulting in advanced concepts of Independence and Individuality. Mankind built the West, not Womankind. Feminized males simply went along for the ride. The pioneer spirit is the true "nature of man". And, like Satyr has posited in the past, without borders to expand ourselves into, you can count on eternal, internal, and perpetual war. The absolute *WORST* thing you can do to Alpha Male gorillas is cage them after-the-fact. That is what is occurring right now in Human History. The State is the Cage. The Gorilla is Mankind representing his family. He wants his family back. MM, I believe your philosophies and me finding you across the internet is a result of the times we live in, not unlike Duncan Butlin at the Philosophy Now Forum. He has lost his family and will soon be tranquilized by State powers. Why? -- because he is male. He has a loud mouth and does not know when to shut up. So his Country will shut him up: poor him. I will try to shed a tear for him from my stone eyeballs.


Just because men should live their lives however they possibly-can, free, Anarchists, does not mean that Mankind is not obligated to himself in terms of Moral Authority, responsibility, and self-actualization & realization. For example, if you were to give the Common Man the Power to do whatever he wanted in this day & age, then he would become a Tyrant within the same day. He would fuck, kill, perform incest, beastiality, rape, murder, torture, cannibalism, etc. etc. etc. until the entire Earth becomes rubble. The reasoning behind this is the advanced forms of self-restraint Western Globalization has placed upon *ALL* men, small & weak, big & strong, no matter who you are, what you think, or what you look like. There is no outlet for mankind, as we know it today, to do anything *PROGRESSIVE* at all. Where can anybody progress to? What is left to dominate & conquer that has not already been done so several times? Hitler tried to conquer the world and guess what happened, an Amerikan Empire rose up to claim the World instead of a Germanic Empire. And it is no coincidence.

Let me digress from my rant here...

The point is: I believe the State is the absolute worst kind of Father-figure, Moral Authority, or authority of any kind that is remotely-possible. I believe the Amerikan Founding Fathers built the Amerikan Republick in order to prevent what is happening today from ever happening again at all. But, in due time, history repeats and you have nowhere left to go from social stagnation, and the bottom, but UP UP UP!!! And that is where we are headed right now, to the bottom! The pioneering and Republickan spirit of the "Old Republicks" so-to-speak never died. That is why I say mankind cannot die. His spirit to maintain his own personal family is much, much too strong. Early Amerikans realized this power of (masculine) individuality and independence. Man is a conquerer by his implicit nature. If you feminize this man, then watch out! Bad things will happen, if not now, then all the situation needs is applied-gradual-pressure over time. In Amerika, we are familiar with school shootings, so-called random acts of violence, road rage, and even young childish males (ages 5-10) killing people with guns. Women, feminized men, and society are all shocked & surprised when these events occur, but are they truly a surprise? No, of course not. The truth of the matter is the Truth is covered up and cast out of the publick limelight. The Truth can crash the entire system! And that is exactly what is coming...

The strongest family on Earth leads by example, through strength and dignity. Who owns the West? The Western Monogamous (Christian) family does. Who owns the East? The Eastern Monogamous (Buddhist) family does. Why is Amerika and China so strong if not because of their Moral Strength as countries that represent two opposing ideals? One values a 'masculine' ideology that praises individual 'rights' and 'freedoms' (of men). The other values a 'feminine' ideology that praises social 'obligations' and 'cohesion' (of men and women). I will leave it to others to evaluate and suppose which-is-which. There has always been a strong duality in Human History when it comes to Mankind and what He chooses for Himself: individuality and freedom or sociality and protection. You cannot have one without the others. The only exception to the rule that I have known in my life came from the Founding Fathers of Amerika who balanced this duality the best that they could, praising the Strength of Man on one side, and understanding the necessity of moral obligation and self-responsibility on the other.

If you kill a man, then that is fine. You would just be an idiot to presume that there will not be consequences.

This same rule applies to *ALL* moral phenomenons:

MM wrote:

1.Divorce
2.Homosexuality
3.Pornography
4.Polygamy
5. Incest

Moral rules were put into place not to deride and conquer the will of Mankind to God. Islam is right to say: submit to no man! Here my nature as an Anarchist resonates quite clearly: it is what *YOU* choose to do that defines you. If you "rape a 5-year-old little girl in her butt", then you can only guess that there will one day be consequences for these kinds of actions. But remember, all sex acts 'rape' folks. A man is defined by how he treats a woman (and who he calls a woman); that is all.

P.S. I do not know what inspired my rant, lol.

MagnetMan wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

Drone wrote:

Second, there's a general agreement here that all consensual sexual acts between two adult persons is their business and their business only.

Bullshit Drone!!!

There is no "general agreement" here ... you liar. The only agreement is inside your deluded head!

We are all still partly trapped in the Victorian time warp

Not so long ago all of this was taboo

1.Divorce
2.Homosexuality
3.Pornography
4.Polygamy
5. Incest


1., 2., and 3 are now struck off the list
thank God
Big Love on TV is getting rid of the polygamy taboo

I am working on incest

When its all gone
the Old Queen's ghost can stop haunting us.
and treating us like children

For the record I do not encourage any of the above
But it is not the government's business
to put consenting adults in jail because of their sexual proclivities.
It is a private matter
that belongs inside each family

you have a point, and a cause, there, however it's difficult to imagine people talking about such issues (especially pornography and incest) with a really open mind. Even the most open-minded men tend to look at this sort of thing with an eye full of suspicion sometimes. For instance, i have nothing against pornography/prostitution, but I do not know how I could talk overtly about it with my relatives, or with my friends. Even though I know there's nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, everytime I think about it there's a slight sensation that it's not, definitely not a subject worth of attention, as if only when we're on a determined environment, in the company of a determined kind of people, we could talk freely about it. I guess it has everything to do with our inherited social/cultural prejudices...

now, if it's hard, and sometimes constraining, to talk about prostitution/pornography, what can we say about incest? I live in Brazil, which happens to be a very liberal/secularized society by now, but even here such subjects are taboos. There are surely a lot of people here who live incestuous relationships, but they would never, i mean, NEVER confess that publicly. If they did, I guess most people in their surroundings would start looking at them with suspicion and even disgust. But I must admit, talking overtly about this issue on the internet may be a first step in the struggle against an otherwise useless and outdated prejudice, that is, discrimination against adult people who are supposed to know what they do with their own private lives...

maybe we will have to live our whole lives through without seeing the end of all this disgusting hypocrisy towards the sexual lives of others...

Drone wrote:

i do not see why you're implying that Magnet Man is trying to endorse/justify his sexual relationship with his adult dauthers, let alone with his small ones. First off, MM is a 67 year old man whose daughters must all be adult women by now. Second, there's a general agreement here that all consensual sexual acts between two adult persons is their and even if a child is born out of one of those abominable acts of molestation, discrimination against him/her is absurd.

i guess you haven't read this part:

MM wrote:

I am not including dysfunctional abuse
molestation
or pedophilia
that should be outlawed
within or without the family gropup

Drone, how does the acceptance of incest by society aid or abet a child that has been sexually abused via an incestuous relationship? MM inserts a caveat regarding under aged children but does not consider that the vast majority of incestuous relationships are formed with an adult and a child, so he is left to champion the cause of acceptance between consenting adults who are psychologically comfortable with the decision that they have made in regard to their choice of partner, and that segment enccompasses the smallest percenage of the whole. So to take the moral high ground on the rights of the child after the act in the context of acceptance from the wider society is bogus, he is playing with semantics.

You take umbridge over my suggestion that he sleeps with his daughters, but in his OP he qualifies the background as to why incest has got a bad wrap through out history. You can not interlectualize the subject to a higher plane if the vast majority of these acts include children, and if you espouse these thoughts then actioning them is within the bounds of possibility.

If MM had started with the premise that incest is a socially destructive event for the individual and we have to assist the victims of the act, and then qualified the hstorical imperitive of the act in certain societies for practical reasons I would have construed the OP differently, but that is not the tangent he took. He placates the act by blaming society for the response. This coupled with his isolationist life style leaves me suspect to his motives.

MM makes statements and then picks up his bat and ball and runs home if the response is not positive, leaving the likes of you to defend his position. Also when he qualifies his thoughts it is in non empirical terms, he is an escape artist never willing to redirect his thoughts or qualify his motives as his ego is sacred to his psyche............Me I have often been redirected and changed my thoughts accordingly, if he is 67 when did he concrete his thought process, In his 20's I would surmise by the reams of non empirical thoughts that flow from him and the abandonment of discussion if the response is not positive.

Drone having said all of that I could be completely wrong in regard to MM's motives and his personal thoughts, but how could I know, he talks in etherial tangents, never a straight answer.

Sonofgloin wrote:

You take umbridge over my suggestion that he sleeps with his daughters, but in his OP he qualifies the background as to why incest has got a bad wrap through out history. You can not interlectualize the subject to a higher plane if the vast majority of these acts include children, and if you espouse these thoughts then actioning them is within the bounds of possibility.

If MM had started with the premise that incest is a socially destructive event for the individual and we have to assist the victims of the act, and then qualified the hstorical imperitive of the act in certain societies for practical reasons I would have construed the OP differently, but that is not the tangent he took. He placates the act by blaming society for the response. This coupled with his isolationist life style leaves me suspect to his motives.

MM makes statements and then picks up his bat and ball and runs home if the response is not positive, leaving the likes of you to defend his position. Also when he qualifies his thoughts it is in non empirical terms, he is an escape artist never willing to redirect his thoughts or qualify his motives as his ego is sacred to his psyche............Me I have often been redirected and changed my thoughts accordingly, if he is 67 when did he concrete his thought process, In his 20's I would surmise by the reams of non empirical thoughts that flow from him and the abandonment of discussion if the response is not positive.

Listen up you moralizing son of bitch!
I do not consider incest and evil act
I see it as totally natural
if it takes place between consenting adults
that is my right as a free-thinking individual
and I don't think I am a freak of nature
for seeing it like that

I believe the government should butt out
of the lives of adult s
who the fuck are they anyway
but made up of elected pricks like you

and if you don't like my french
then watch your step

Implying that I am raping my children
is a monstrous accusation
which you are theoretically trying to rationalize
via some modern psychological mumbo jumbo
about family cults
that originated
in a fucked mind like Freud's

If you were not hiding your ass
and bigoted attitude in virtual space
I'd beat the crap out of you.

MagnetMan wrote:

If you were not hiding your ass
and bigoted attitude in virtual space
I'd beat the crap out of you.

MM thanks for the reply, I said I could be wrong in my assumptions in regard to your motives, and if I was I appologize. Your expectation of understanding of context from your reader is floored if you you do not spell out the holistic view, and we are left with just the thoughts of your OP. Also your quatrain style of information transferance is limiting in regard to your views. Brevity does not enhance understanding.

Hinting toward another male that he is raping his children is a fairly-large accusation to throw around.

I find it better to ask straight-out in a polite and direct manner. If you have reason to believe he is lying, then that is when accusations hold merit.

Unreasonable wrote:

Hinting toward another male that he is raping his children is a fairly-large accusation to throw around.

I find it better to ask straight-out in a polite and direct manner. If you have reason to believe he is lying, then that is when accusations hold merit.

U, if we are talking incest then we are talking pedophilia in the vast majority of cases. From the perspective I took from the OP MM condones it as natural and historic,what conclusion then for me as a reader of his thoughts?

Sonofgloin wrote:

U, if we are talking incest then we are talking pedophilia in the vast majority of cases. From the perspective I took from the OP MM condones it as natural and historic,what conclusion then for me as a reader of his thoughts?

My personal recommendation is to be completely-unassuming as to any possible deeper meanings until you probe them.

I-myself have wondered if MM has taken any liberation to his own daughters, but I have not asked him and I do not plan to.

The reasoning is rather simple: although he hints toward some kind of thought pattern regarding incest, *TO ME*, it does not seem like he has done so (engage incest to harm another), does so now, or plans to do so. Now, I could be wrong without MM saying one way or the other. But the point is I did not ask him the question. Furthermore, I never accused him of it or hinted toward it. To be quite honest, I am not that interested in this subject-matter except where it concerns just a few thoughts I have about it. I am already pretty well acquainted with the subject material, if I do say so myself, because of how I have experienced and seen the topic of incest play out around me throughout my own life. Incest is probably THE LAST moral dilemma that any socialized group of people are willing to talk about, and for good reason. It exposes everything!!! There are no more secrets left after incest falls out of the closet. All you are left with is a human animal with no mystery to him/her. It can be pretty traumatic.

I believe this history of incest comes directly-from how much moral weight & pressure has been applied to it by Moral Authorities throughout the History of Man. I mean, for starters, imagine 5000 years ago when Mankind, as an animal, was "more primal" (as if that were possible to begin with). He ran completely on instinct. My question to you is this: what stopped him from having sex with whichever females he wanted in his own tribe, the tribe/family he owned? I would say this: nothing stopped him. Incest was a very, very *COMMON* thing during pre-civilization --because-- there were no (moral) reason to resist the natural procreative inclination for a male to have sex with *ALL* females. The problem with this dynamic, however, is that it does not include beta males in the picture. Early human tribes were comprised of not just one male, but a plethora of males. And if one male hogged them *ALL*, the alpha, then the rest of them would gang up to dispose of the *TYRANT* and replace him. And I have some very interesting theorems and assumptions which confirm these kinds of social inclinations. Therefore, early human tribal societies relied on a kind of 'moral' weight to prevent incest from occurring, or in other words, one alpha male from completely-dominating the sexuality of the entire group. If one man, the father, the king, the Author of the group, decides to indulge himself (temptation, Cardinal Sin, Christian guilt/guild), then bad things are going to happen (if he is smart enough to see it).

But back to the point: my intuition tells me that MM is not incestuous. I could be wrong; maybe I am and maybe I am not. If my intuition told me otherwise, then I would just ask him myself. Either way, if he *WAS* incestuous, then he could not even state it so explicitly across the internet because of child services. I do not really-mind if he does or do not engage in it on a personal level. I mean, there are men who have sex with young prepubescent children too. So what? This is a philosophy forum. Get everything out in the open, because there is no such thing as "in the closet" anyway to a free mind. Everything is already "out in the open" if you have seeing eyes.

But the 'criminal' mentality is still 'criminal'. Society seeks to castrate the criminal and she will castrate him if he exposes himself.

If I were to ask MM a direct question about his own sexuality and relationship with incest, then I would ask him if he was a victim of it ... connecting to the message of talking about victims of incestuous sexual experiences to begin with. That is the topic/issue/subject at hand is it not? MM did not create a thread saying "I want to fuck my young daughters". The linguistic connotations are different...

Unreasonable wrote:

Hinting toward another male that he is raping his children is a fairly-large accusation to throw around.

I find it better to ask straight-out in a polite and direct manner. If you have reason to believe he is lying, then that is when accusations hold merit.

.....................

Magnet Man wrote:

Listen up you moralizing son of bitch!
I do not consider incest and evil act
I see it as totally natural
if it takes place between consenting adults
that is my right as a free-thinking individual
and I don't think I am a freak of nature
for seeing it like that

I believe the government should butt out
of the lives of adult s
who the fuck are they anyway
but made up of elected pricks like you

and if you don't like my french
then watch your step

Implying that I am raping my children
is a monstrous accusation
which you are theoretically trying to rationalize
via some modern psychological mumbo jumbo
about family cults
that originated
in a fucked mind like Freud's

If you were not hiding your ass
and bigoted attitude in virtual space
I'd beat the crap out of you.

you have changed a bit since the first time I spoke with you on these boards, MM ...aren't you getting excessively aggressive towards others? OK, I agree that Sonofgloin's insinuations were a bit exaggerated...

Sonofgloin wrote:

Drone, how does the acceptance of incest by society aid or abet a child that has been sexually abused via an incestuous relationship? MM inserts a caveat regarding under aged children but does not consider that the vast majority of incestuous relationships are formed with an adult and a child, so he is left to champion the cause of acceptance between consenting adults who are psychologically comfortable with the decision that they have made in regard to their choice of partner, and that segment enccompasses the smallest percenage of the whole. So to take the moral high ground on the rights of the child after the act in the context of acceptance from the wider society is bogus, he is playing with semantics.

You take umbridge over my suggestion that he sleeps with his daughters, but in his OP he qualifies the background as to why incest has got a bad wrap through out history. You can not interlectualize the subject to a higher plane if the vast majority of these acts include children, and if you espouse these thoughts then actioning them is within the bounds of possibility.

Sonofgloin, the first step to help these children is to accept them as what they are: innocent human beings. It's obvious that mere 'acceptance' won't erase the bad memories from a past of child abuse, but it could be even worst without it. A first step is always a good thing, isn't it? and I guess MM is pretty aware that there are a lot of cases of incest in which the two parties 'involved' are an adult and a child. So far I have never read any post from his that might have suggested that he approves/endorses such weird 'relationships'. I think you have clearly missed his original point.

Quote :

t=Arial]If MM had started with the premise that incest is a socially destructive event for the individual and we have to assist the victims of the act, and then qualified the hstorical imperitive of the act in certain societies for practical reasons I would have construed the OP differently, but that is not the tangent he took. He placates the act by blaming society for the response. This coupled with his isolationist life style leaves me suspect to his motives.[/font][/b]

MM makes statements and then picks up his bat and ball and runs home if the response is not positive, leaving the likes of you to defend his position. Also when he qualifies his thoughts it is in non empirical terms, he is an escape artist never willing to redirect his thoughts or qualify his motives as his ego is sacred to his psyche............Me I have often been redirected and changed my thoughts accordingly, if he is 67 when did he concrete his thought process, In his 20's I would surmise by the reams of non empirical thoughts that flow from him and the abandonment of discussion if the response is not positive.

Drone having said all of that I could be completely wrong in regard to MM's motives and his personal thoughts, but how could I know, he talks in etherial tangents, never a straight answer.

i have nothing to do with MM's style and approach. I just appreciate his humanitarian concern for the children born out of incestuous relationships.

In France, incest is not a crime; incest laws were abolished by Napoleon in 1810 ...
Incest is legal in The Netherlands. Incest laws were abolished some 200 years ago..

MagnetMan wrote:

In France, incest is not a crime; incest laws were abolished by Napoleon in 1810 ...
Incest is legal in The Netherlands. Incest laws were abolished some 200 years ago..

MM, where does this thread go from here, given that you started it, would you care to further it along with some ideas on how can use the law and changed public opinion to aleviate the childrens psychological isolation in regard incest. Tell me what you are actually saying about incest and the negative and positive outcomes of it in the first world.

Drone wrote:

Sonofgloin, the first step to help these children is to accept them as what they are: innocent human beings.

Drone I do not recall ever hearing of an individual that had been identified, or singled out socially as an incest victim, but even I have personal knowledge of a victim of pedophilia, and in the majority of cases where long term abuse occured it was a blood relative. My view is that if we can not defend the defenceless why did we evolve consciousness.

Sonofgloin wrote:

Drone I do not recall ever hearing of an individual that had been identified, or singled out socially as an incest victim, but even I have personal knowledge of a victim of pedophilia, and in the majority of cases where long term abuse occured it was a blood relative. My view is that if we can not defend the defenceless why did we evolve consciousness.

i hear of a new case of pedophilia every single day in Brazil. You're right, most of the times the molester is a relative, mainly the father. However, I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't defend the defenseless victims of such abominable acts, but rather, just accept that there can be cases in which the two persons involved in it are equally aware and equally responsible for their actions. And as I said before, child abuse is child abuse.

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM, where does this thread go from here, given that you started it, would you care to further it along with some ideas on how can use the law and changed public opinion to aleviate the childrens psychological isolation in regard incest. Tell me what you are actually saying about incest and the negative and positive outcomes of it in the first world.

Good question.
Open compassionate discussion is a beginning.
I am not in any way encouraging incest
But I do believe it is self-regulatory
Eight generations of non-legal intervention in France, Holland and Sweden
should be enough proof of that.

I would like to see it no longer stigmatized by the public.
In the rare cases where a family is faced with it
they should not be forced to live in fear of the law
and face public ridicule
As it is now two entire extended families are adversely affected
and the after-affects of the family skeleton in the closet
lasts for several generations
that is not right
I know of a young family
who cannot enjoy a public outing
for fear of the neighbors finding out their relationship

How many such cases are out there?
We do not know
The only way to ever know
is to change the law
and like the gay issue
and the polygamy issue
allow public discussion
As it stands now
the whole thing reeks of primitivism

MagnetMan wrote:

I am not in any way encouraging incest
But I do believe it is self-regulatory
Eight generations of non-legal intervention in France, Holland and Sweden
should be enough proof of that.

MM, you are also in no way encouraging facts. France certainly freed the population to no barrier relationships eight generations ago, but Holland only repealed the legislation in 2001 and in Sweden it is illegal. In fact there is only one other first world society that disregards incest and that is Japan. The exception is single states within a commonwealth , exampled by Rhode Island in the U.S.A.

Quote :

I would like to see it no longer stigmatized by the public.
In the rare cases where a family is faced with it
they should not be forced to live in fear of the law
and face public ridicule
As it is now two entire extended families are adversely affected
and the after-affects of the family skeleton in the closet
lasts for several generations
that is not right
I know of a young family
who cannot enjoy a public outing
for fear of the neighbors finding out their relationship

Such is life, as long as the incestuous partnership is perceived as primarily a sexual relationship by wider society you have Buckleys chance of acceptance into the community. One of the greatest things that any one of us can take on as a life skill is the ability to judge when we should keep our mouths shut. Your exampled familiy should move and once relocated keep their mouths shut and live their lives, happy ending.

Quote :

How many such cases are out there?
We do not know
The only way to ever know
is to change the law
and like the gay issue
and the polygamy issue
allow public discussion
As it stands now
the whole thing reeks of primitivism

MM, the whole thing reeks of primativism is what I think regarding incest, except that I would use tribalism as well. The law had to change for gays as they represent a large subculture in all nations. Polygamy on the other hand like incest represents a minute segment in comparison to the gay community and it can be practiced without debilitating social ramifications in most modern societies as is. If you can afford more than one and CAN find women simple enough to play the game go for it would be the attitude of most in regard to polygamy. MM take into account that I am excluding the Christian crazy enclaves we have in most modern societies, they won't put up with it, excepting the Mormons..

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM, you are also in no way encouraging facts. France certainly freed the population to no barrier relationships eight generations ago, but Holland only repealed the legislation in 2001 and in Sweden it is illegal. In fact there is only one other first world society that disregards incest and that is Japan. The exception is single states within a commonwealth , exampled by Rhode Island in the U.S.A.

Where it remains legal
among huge societies
and has shown
that it posses no real danger
to the commonweal
why have the law elsewhere
and publically stigmatize extended families
for the actions of one or two members?

What is the point in legally demonizing it?
What danger are we are preventing?

[quote="MagnetMan"]

Quote :

Where it remains legal
among huge societies
and has shown
that it posses no real danger
to the commonweal
why have the law elsewhere
and publically stigmatize extended families
for the actions of one or two members?

I agree in regard to the right of concenting related adults to do anything they want as long as it is not detremental to others, but as I said until society changes its perception of the motivation for the practice the laws in place will stay in place. I can't see a grass roots lobby group emerging to champion incest.

Quote :

What is the point in legally demonizing it?
What danger are we are preventing?

MM the only time you hear about incest in the broader community is when it is linked to pedophilia. I can not recall hearing of incest in a news item or from any one I have spoken to related singularly to the incestuous relationship between adults. It's a beat up ,it never happens, people threaten to be incestuous but it does not occur. As an example I tender my constant comment to my older brothers.....fuck you......but I never did it.

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM the only time you hear about incest in the broader community is when it is linked to pedophilia. I can not recall hearing of incest in a news item or from any one I have spoken to related singularly to the incestuous relationship between adults. It's a beat up ,it never happens, people threaten to be incestuous but it does not occur. As an example I tender my constant comment to my older brothers.....fuck you......but I never did it.

But incest between adult family members does occur
and because it is punishable by the state
they have to hide their love
hide ownership to their own children
two extended families are deeply affected

When the divorce laws were lifted
shame was removed

same with homosexuality

The same is gradually happening to polygamy.

I am not trying to encourage any of them
Just trying to be civilized about ALL of them