Another Person Notices That Consanguinamory Should Be Legal

Jamie Fairlie asked, “Why is Incest Illegal?”

It is the position of this blog that there should not be a law against incest per se, so as to punish consanguineous sex and consanguinamory, but rather charges of child molestation or rape of a minor should be enhanced if perpetrated by a guardian. Consensual experimentation between minors close in age, and consensual sex between adults should not be a crime.

But let's see what Fairlie wrote, prompted by the father-daughter couple recently sentenced in the UK.

The judge said when sentencing them that “There appears to have been a relationship that involved genuine affection,” but then went on to say that it was “abhorrent to society at large.” Why is this being deemed as acceptable?

If the ongoing fight for LGBT rights has taught us anything it is that no matter what the opinion of society at large is about certain sexual practices they should still be legal between consenting adults. To say that an activity is not something you would wish to partake in yourself should be illegal when it does not affect anyone beyond those taking part is simply bigotry.

Right. It is Discredited Argument #3.

As far as I can tell there are two arguments those who support the current incest laws use to back up their position. The first is that it makes it easier to convict people in the case of non-consensual abuse. This argument clearly makes no sense. Non-consensual sexual abuse is already illegal. If there are problems obtaining convictions then there is a serious problem, but it will not be remedied by making something else unrelated illegal. It would be like making jay-walking illegal in order to make murder prosecutions easier.

Good point.

But it becomes worse than illogical when someone who has not committed an abuse is prosecuted and ends up in prison – it becomes unjust. Failure and laziness on the part of prosecutors and legislators to properly address a problem has lead essentially innocent people being jailed.

People are being jailed because they love each other.

The second argument against incest is that any resulting offspring from such a union would have a higher chance of having a disability.

That is Discredited Argument #18.

This line of argument has a name: eugenics.

The idea that a particular person or couple should be banned from breading on the basis of the lightly genetic health of their offspring has been around for a long time. It is, however, widely recognized as an abhorrent restriction of a person’s freedom and human rights. If we invoke this as an argument for the continued ban of incest then surely we must extend it to other individuals and couples who have similar or higher chances of producing disabled children. I for one find that suggestion horrific.

Nobody should be banned from breading; I like bread. It is yummy. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Our prisons are full. We are spending an inordinate amount of money on them while simultaneously cutting vital public services. Why are we still locking people up for who they want to have sex with?

Jealousy, envy, arrogance, ignorance, irrational fear.



James doubted consent, pointing out…

A father could raise his daughter ready for sexual relations when – if we followed your recommendation – it had become legal. So too could a brother or a mother and so on.

While I am strongly against “grooming” a child to be anything other than an independent adult, parents are allowed to raise their children however they want, provided they are not abusing or neglecting them. Some think it is wrong to “groom” children to eat meat, drink alcohol, or engage in extreme sports. If one wants to support children filing sexual harassment charges against their parents, more power to them.

But even if James had been right, should, say, twins or other siblings close in age be prevented from being consanguinamorous?

Fairlie points out something about the news item that prompted this…

Let us assume that you are right, and that the father was an abusive manipulator in every way, and fully deserves his time in prison. There has still been a gross injustice done as the daughter was also jailed. If what you are saying is true then the courts have treated the victim of abuse as a criminal. If this is the case then something is clearly very wrong.

It is contradictory to claim that the father manipulated his daughter and thus abused her, and then turn around and punish her for being abused. Perhaps she consented to the relationship, and neither should have been prosecuted?

There is no compelling reason to deny consenting adults their rights to share love, sex, residence, and marriage.