Morality: Incest Laws

[LMSx]

Link

Eastside woman accused of having sex with adult son

Posted by John de Leon
-- From Times staff reporter Sara Jean Green:

A 54-year-old Eastside woman has been charged with first-degree incest after authorities said she had a two-year sexual relationship with the adult son she had given up for adoption when he was an infant.

Katheryn M. Thornton invited her son, now 33, to come live with her at her home near Kirkland in March 2004 after he tracked her down through an adoption agency, according to charging papers filed in King County Superior Court earlier this month.

In May, the man reported the alleged incest to a King County sheriff's detective. He told the detective that the day after he moved in, Thornton "came into his room and lay next to him. He said day three, she invited him into her room. He said on day four, they had sex," the charging papers say.

The man said his sexual relationship with Thornton lasted until March 2006, according to the charges.

The son, who is not being named because he is considered a victim of sexual assault, was granted a sexual assault protection order against Thornton on Tuesday, barring her from coming within 500 feet of him, his home, school or workplace, court records show. Thornton was briefly booked into the King County Jail on Tuesday morning before being given a conditional release, according to jail records.

First-degree incest is a Class B felony. If convicted, Thornton would face a 12- to 14-month prison sentence and be required to register as a sex offender.

Thank god this menace will be off the streets. With the pretty big caveat that there likely is more to this particular story than in the blog post, is there a practical reason for a law like this to ensnare someone in KM Thornton's situation? How do the health risks for a child conceived from a one-time incestuous relation compare to children raised in smoking households, for example?

[Kanastrous]

I'm baffled as to how consensual sex between a 33-year-old and a 54-year-old leaves either party in the position of a 'victim of sexual assault.' Fine, incest laws, whatever, but...victim of sexual assault?

[Archaic`]

Most laws against incest between a parent and child are based on the power dynamics of the relationship, which may well continue well into adulthood. With a child put up for adoption who she hadn't met since they were an infant however....there's no relationship there at all, no real or imagined power that the parent might have over the child. I can't really comment if it's not sexual assault or not based on the info in that article (was it unwilling participation or not, it doesn't seem entirely clear), but it's not really something that should be prosecuted under incest laws either way.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm baffled as to how consensual sex between a 33-year-old and a 54-year-old leaves either party in the position of a 'victim of sexual assault.' Fine, incest laws, whatever, but...victim of sexual assault?

Laws vary state to state, but many states automatically make you a sex offender and guilty of sexual assault, and not only that automatically make BOTH parties simultaneously rapist and victim. The problem is that alot of these laws are written with specific scenarios in mind and don't handle things outside of those scenarios very well, or are poorly written but can't be changed for the same reason drug laws aren't, because no one is willing to look like they are soft on anything. These laws were written around the assumption that any incest that might happen must be the result of a parent abusing their child.

[adam_grif]

What goes on between consenting adults, etc. AFAIK incest doesn't produce satanic mutant babies, it's just bad from a genetic diversity standpoint and increases the risk of recessive conditions coming out in the offspring. Even if you want laws against incest generally, laws that treat all parties involved as rapists is especially moronic.

Although I don't have any moral objections against incest, it still squicks the fuck out of me.

[dragon]

Well every state has incest laws but what is considered illegal incest varies from state to state. For example Montana only lineal (mother/son, grandparents/grankids, brother/sister) is considered incest but uncle/niece is not illegal. However certain states everything to 2nd degree cousins is not allowed.

Now go to Belgium no incest laws what so ever.

[Kanastrous]

*starts packing*

[LaCroix]

Concerning the original question.
For me, animal husbandry (Horses) has made the concept of incest less squicky, since it is occasionally done to enhance traits.

What boggles me is the fact that the act of incest is deemed illegal. For if one party is a dependent minor, it would be covered by sexual abuse/rape laws already. But there are occasional scenarios when it happens between unknowing parties. Or there might be the chance that there isn't a will or ability to procreate (various permanent options are available)

Also, it's not as if incest was a magical 100% certainty way to create cretins, and even if, the American welfare net isn't taxed with it, since it doesn't pay, anyway.

So basically, i don't think it is morally right to vilify incest, as I don't see a victim in some scenarios. Abuse of minors or dependents is already covered by rape laws. There might be a reason to criminalize the creation of offspring in such a relationship.

[Broomstick]

As already addressed, while the risks of birth defects are higher in an incestuous relationship they aren't anywhere near 100%, and most products of such relationships are normal, healthy human beings.

As for the relationship between a child given up for adoption in infancy and the bio-mother decades later - yes, actually there IS a relationship there, which is why reunions of such people are full of strong emotions. It's not the same relationship as that between a social parent (whether biologically related or not) and the child they raised but there is still a connection there. And it can still have psychological effects on all parties concerned.

Every society on Earth that I have ever heard of either entirely outlaws incest or restricts it to a very, very, very small subset of people (such as a royal family, as in Ancient Egypt and in pre-contact Hawaii). This makes me suspect that for the long-term health of society incest, while possibly of neutral impact in some cases, overall is a harm. Certainly, it is only recently that adult parties in an incestuous relationship could obtain reasonably reliable birth control (unless the relationship was homosexual in nature) and in many cases the prospect of deformed/defective children was a main motivation in banning such relationships. Problems with inbreeding, in fact are a common these in many cultures and their rules on marriage.

[Simon_Jester]

That said, trying to punish violations of the taboo by making both parties registered sex offenders and declaring them both to be rapists and both to be rape victims... that suggests that we need to revise our legal system.

[Zed]

I'd be very fascinated in a study of the amount of pre-20th century societies that allowed female homosexuality. I believe the amount will be very, very, very low. For a very good reason, I don't think that this should be grounds for suspecting that allowing female homosexuality is a harm for the long-term health of society. Likewise, it's not a good reason for suspecting this of incestuous relationships. There might be a great deal of problems with those relationships, but the mere disapproval of historical societies doesn't have a lot to do with that.

[Broomstick]

Actually, I rather suspect most pre-20th Century societies largely ignored lesbians rather than outright forbid them. Male homosexuality seems much more threatening to societies than female homosexuality.

However, I think you missed a point here dealing with frequency. While most societies seem to frown on or really abhor homosexuality there are well-documented societies where it was tolerated - such as Ancient Greece - for the average person. I know of NO society where this holds true for incest. As stated, the only examples I can come up with are societies where the royal family alone are permitted this. So while homosexuality may be tolerated for regular people I know of NONE where incest is permitted. I find that a significant difference. If NO society has found a way to make general incestuous relationships work or integrate them into a functioning society it does make me suspect that it can't be done, as opposed to tolerance of homosexuality which, while common, does have examples throughout history.

[Highlord Laan]

AS squick inducing as incest is, I just chalk it up with every other sexual deviancy that comes up and ask one question. Are those involved consenting adults? If yes, then theres no problem, if no, then the law gets involved.

Everything else is covered by already existing laws on abuse and rape.

[Zed]

Actually, I rather suspect most pre-20th Century societies largely ignored lesbians rather than outright forbid them. Male homosexuality seems much more threatening to societies than female homosexuality.

To the contrary - and this is why I mentioned female homosexuality in general. Sexuality, in ancient Greece, was not defined in terms of gender, but in terms of status. People disapproved of citizens taking a passive role in sexuality: free men were to be active, while the passive role (in sexual intercourse and elsewhere) was fit for adolescents, slaves and women. See, for instance, the following paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Homosexuality:

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

In such a context, male homosexuality is not threathening to social order at all. On the other hand, as it was believed that every sexual relationship consisted of one party adopting an active role and another party adopting a passive role, female homosexuality implied that a woman would take an active role in sex, and hence, act as though she were a free man, a citizen. This was a horror to the Greeks.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Greeks did not comprise all of ancient civilization. Traditional Hindu law from very ancient times for example provided only for punishment in the case of an older woman causing a loss of virginity in a maiden and not for other kinds of female-female sexual contact. This clearly reflects the fact that what was immoral was causing a loss of virginity, detectable lack of hymen presumably, and not sexual activity between two women per say; married women and widows and so on would not be punished for it under law, save as a private matter for their husbands if they lived, nor would a lack of any penetrative activity lead to negative consequences with younger women. Conversely however incest was quite banned.

[Zed]

That's a fair point - I wasn't aware of the Indian approach.

[LaCroix]

Given the fact that ancient societies were living with small populations with not much exchange between towns due to travel risk, these already were pretty incestuous by definition. In a small town, everybody ends up being the cousin of someone after a few generations. The term village idiot doesn't come from nowhere. This leads to a really high risk of linear incest resulting in an unhealthy offspring of whatever kind.

But now, the diversity of genome is much better, with even small towns having regular exchange with all towns and cities in a wide range, as today people usually go to work at distances that were a week's travel back then. So the risk of genetic defects due incest nowadays are not much higher than the "normal" risk. A simple screening of the people in question would show up if they have any risk of defective genome.

Also, who is the victim? The resulting child! But if there is no child, yet, there is no victim. So basically, it's like you are punishing someone for buying a knife, on the assumption he will stab someone sometime.

[Serafina]

Which brings up another point:
Are the parents to be held legally responsible if they have a child with disabilities when they know that such an outcome was likely due to their own genetics?
In this specific case - what, if any legal consequences should happen to a incestous couple if they have a child with a disability?

I would actually like to argue in favor of such a consequence (tough i have absolutely idea about the nature of it), but i see several problems with basically forbidding specific couples from having children, so i'm not sure about that yet - especially since the argument could be applied to other genetic causes for disabilities, not just to incestous couples.

[Zed]

There's a case to be made for legislating in such a eugenicist fashion, but the problem is that doing so will nearly always actually harm the resulting child even more.

[Skgoa]

Which brings up another point:
Are the parents to be held legally responsible if they have a child with disabilities when they know that such an outcome was likely due to their own genetics?
In this specific case - what, if any legal consequences should happen to a incestous couple if they have a child with a disability?

I would actually like to argue in favor of such a consequence (tough i have absolutely idea about the nature of it), but i see several problems with basically forbidding specific couples from having children, so i'm not sure about that yet - especially since the argument could be applied to other genetic causes for disabilities, not just to incestous couples.

The main problem with that argument is that the risk of a disability randomly appearing (i.e. its not a case where the whole family is at a high risk anyways) is actually extremely low in the first place and not that much increased by an incestious relationship. So baring special circumstances, it would not have been in any way likely, just a tiny little bit less extremely unlikely. I don't think anybody should be punished for that, especialy since they have to care for a disabled child.

The "genetic danger" of incest lies in further generations ALSO doing it, degrading the gene pool and leading to inbred hillbillies aka republicans. (SCNR ) It indeed has been advantagous in the past to forbid incest outright and even primates have no-mothers-with-sons rules. With contraceptives, our ability to check for risk factors and hereditary deseases, our much much higher population and the increased mobility and thus intermixing of the gene pools, I don't see the point in putting a blanket ban on what is going on between to consenting people. There is no danger to society until a significant franction of the population do it and I think we can all agree that there is to much squick and taboo for that to ever happen.

[Broomstick]

But now, the diversity of genome is much better......

The "genetic danger" of incest lies in further generations ALSO doing it, degrading the gene pool and leading to inbred hillbillies aka republicans. (SCNR ) It indeed has been advantagous in the past to forbid incest outright and even primates have no-mothers-with-sons rules.

Actually, although our potential breeding pool has gone global, we're not as diverse as you think we are. Humans have significantly less genetic diversity than most species despite our billions. It's that near-extinction event the species went through about 70,000 years ago. We are all descendants of just a few thousand people, a small village's worth.

And the fact that primates, even other species, have rules like "no mothers with sons" indicates that the squick factor may not be purely cultural but also to a degree instinctive. Of course, we overrule biology routinely these days, but if anti-incest rules have a partly genetic basis that might argue against saying this is OK, even for non-reproducing consenting adults.

[LaCroix]

Squicky detail that might fit in.

A loose friend of mine works at an otter/weasel natural reserve/breeding project. He once sent me a photo of a newborn weasel of some type. He said it was a female, since all these are born with a mane, which they lose after a few weeks. This mane is for that their father can hold them down better during copulation, as they are born fertile. They leave the nest already carrying, and their next mate will do the same. So they have an "every second generation is incest" reproduction cycle they bodily adapted to. No kidding.

I would insert a banjo/mullet joke here, but I am still not quite done with processing this info, myself, after all these years...

Edit: Found the quote. It's the ermine/stoat(Hermelin in german - the one for the king's coat) and the least weasel(Mauswiesel)...

[Zed]

And the fact that primates, even other species, have rules like "no mothers with sons" indicates that the squick factor may not be purely cultural but also to a degree instinctive. Of course, we overrule biology routinely these days, but if anti-incest rules have a partly genetic basis that might argue against saying this is OK, even for non-reproducing consenting adults.

How is it relevant whether or not these rules have a genetic basis?

[Broomstick]

If no human line survived that allowed incest, while those that had a genetic bias against the practice did, then it is possible that incest really IS harmful to the species over the long term and thus natural selection has worked to eliminate it. That many other species seem to have an inborn bias against incest would also indicate that it is selected against. Even in species that do have incestuous relationships that is typically not the only means of mating - typically, the generations will alternate (as in the examples given already) and regular out-breeding occurs. Like most species that practice parthenogenesis, it is usually not an exclusive option and, again, out-breeding occurs to broaden the genetic pool.

Humans are already inbred by the standards of a typical mammal species due to our relatively recent genetic bottleneck. Immediately after that time period there may have been very strong selection pressures against inbreeding, which were then passed down through subsequent generations. While I generally take a stance of what goes on between consenting adults is a private matter, if it can affect the health of the species then no, it isn't so private any more. Certainly, although the risk is only elevated and not certain, there is good reason to oppose incestuous reproduction. This may be a case where more tolerance can be made for homosexual rather heterosexual relationships.

And, again, there really is a psychological element to these relationships. The dynamics of a parent-child relationship do change when the child reaches adulthood, but they do not go away. Parents can retain a tendency to control their children far into their children's adulthood. That gets into unhealthy territory for the same reason a boss/employee or a doctor/patient sexual relationship is unhealthy. The few societies that have permitted a incest for a few almost exclusively allowed sibling incest - parent-child incest was MUCH rarer, even among these rare relationships, usually from perceived necessity (such as a king trying to keep power within a dynasty attempting to father sons on a daughter. Which, as far as I know, never worked. The tendency for incestuous families seems to be towards sterile sons, then to only daughters, possibly from accumulating defective genes.)

So, again, while I would normally say what consenting adults do together is their business alone, in this case there may ramifications that spread beyond the couple in question. Certainly, I cannot approve of deliberate incestuous reproduction (accidental is another - if sibling are separated at birth and later meet as strangers I can't see where either is at fault). However, given that human societies come pretty close to have[ing a universal incest taboo I think the question of possible harm really needs to be examined closely. In this it differs from homosexuality, where we can find examples of tolerance in many different cultures to one degree or another.

There is also the fact that human siblings usually (despite hillbilly jokes to the contrary) do not see each as potential mates. In fact, unrelated humans raised together will tend to treat each other as siblings (even if they do not call each other that) and seek mates elsewhere. This has been probably most studied in Israeli kibbutzim though it is not exclusive to them, and is known as the Westermarck effect, which seems to exist to inhibit incest in humans. If we do have a inherent imprinting effect that exists to inhibit incest then, again, it would seem to indicate that refraining from incest is a survival trait in our species.

[HMS Conqueror]

While it's viscerally unpleasant, I can't think of any argument for outlawing it that doesn't place you in either:

1. moral panic, people shouldn't have control over their own bodies group, in which case, why allow gay sex? a lot of people find that viscerally unpleasant.

or

2. the eugenics box, in which case, why not outlaw people with hereditary disabilities, or just anyone who isn't intelligent/good-looking enough from procreating?