This place is a hotbed of sexual deviance!

[Seth Marati]

You know, I have a friend who's in a role-playing/make-believe group called "Domina Industries". I have an inkling they're not quite aware of the sexual denotations the word carries.

[Lesotheron]

I'm a Valkyrie Lesbian Xenophile Domina with bisexual leanings, who's publicly argued in favor of both consensual incest and non-pathological Hebephilia... And I'm probably on the tame end of the local spectrum.

Any place where someone can say that is obviously pretty damned cool.

Consensual Incest? I must have missed that discussion. I have a very unique perspective on the matter if you'd like to discuss further (and before anyone asks, I've never been involved in any sort of incest. I just know people who have).

Unfortunately, I'm a little too "hetero-vanilla" to even know what Hebephilia is, or why it should be non-pathological. After seeing some of the things that are discussed here, I have to admit I'm a little hesitant to look it up.

[WangyJohn]

Any place where someone can say that is obviously pretty damned cool.

Oh hell yeah.

I mean, I frequent the message board for the Left Youth, which is pretty much the second most liberal political group in Finland, yet I just keep my sexuality under the wraps.

One girl there knows I'm a /b/tard, though. She is too.

[ManaUser]

Unfortunately, I'm a little too "hetero-vanilla" to even know what Hebephilia is, or why it should be non-pathological. After seeing some of the things that are discussed here, I have to admit I'm a little hesitant to look it up.

Hebephilia is sexual attraction to adolescents. Ironically this actually squarely in the vanilla hetero category, though many people would be afraid to admit it.

[Leeloo]

I've come more to terms with my own sexuality after joining the forum too. Even to the point where around half of my pr0n-links are ladyboy sites, and 156 pics (that's still a minor part) of my collection are of ladyboys. Before I might have looked at a few sites, but never saved a single pic

[Honor]

...what Hebephilia is, or why it should be non-pathological.

In this case, I'm using the more informal definition of the word "pathological"... Basically, "compulsive". i.e: I like fucking 16-20 year old girls, but I date women of all ages.

Come to think of it... A lot of the qualities I like in boys are most pronounced in 16-20 year olds... Although the spectrum there goes well into the 50's, too... But once they get over... say... 26 or 30, I tend to like a different type. Over 40 or so, quite different.

Consensual Incest? I must have missed that discussion. I have a very unique perspective on the matter...

With six-point-six billion people on the planet, that's a bet I'd be willing to take.

Basically, my position is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it. So long as both partners are able to form consent and aren't trying to reproduce, I see -absolutely- nothing wrong with it.

The debate in question mainly ended up going into theories on whether or not there were inborn 'distasteful' moderators against it.

Personally, I'd have no issues with using it for procreation, provided the people involved were willing to cull and society would permit it.

[Squidflakes]

Don't you know? Pervy is the new prude.

[Honor]

Don't you know? Pervy is the new prude.

::makes a cross shape with her fingers & hisses::

::sees the cross shape, realizes her error, and has only a moment for her eyes to go wide and a small scream to escape her throat before she bursts into flames::

[BriHahn]

*grabs the pussy liquor (copyright Rob Zombie) and extinguishes Honor before she burns up*

[Lesotheron]

Consensual Incest? I must have missed that discussion. I have a very unique perspective on the matter...

With six-point-six billion people on the planet, that's a bet I'd be willing to take.

Basically, my position is that there's nothing inherently wrong with it. So long as both partners are able to form consent and aren't trying to reproduce, I see -absolutely- nothing wrong with it.

The debate in question mainly ended up going into theories on whether or not there were inborn 'distasteful' moderators against it.

Personally, I'd have no issues with using it for procreation, provided the people involved were willing to cull and society would permit it.

First off, you're exactly right. I should have said unusual instead of unique. Even if there were only a couple hundred million people on the planet, if none of them thought the same way I did on the subject, Human Society (in one form or another) has been going on long enough that at some point in time, someone has certainly felt the same way at least once.

My unusual perspective is this: While I agree with you in theory about incest not being inherently wrong, harmful or detrimental to society, I think the laws regarding incest should be strengthened instead of removed, purely because it isn't inherently wrong, harmful or detrimental to society. As of right now, people (especially children) have a level of protection from those who are in a position of power or authority over them. If laws regarding incest, and the subsequent public opinion were made any less strict, there would certainly be people who would take advantage of that. I'd rather there was some recourse for people who were placed in such a situation against their own will.

And yes, I did see that you clearly stated "able to form consent", but as in situations between non-related individuals, consent can be tricky to prove. When it comes to related individuals, there are so many other factors that can be used for coersion or manipulation to get "consent" that making incest legal would take away the only chance some people would have to break away from those situations.

Obviously, it's not a perfect system. Incest still occurs and is just kept well-hidden from society as a whole. But with stronger laws, we can hope that eventually, the only people who are engaging in incest are those who have no reason to take legal action against their partner.

[ManaUser]

I have no second (let alone first) hand experience with it, but I find your position curious.

My unusual perspective is this: While I agree with you in theory about incest not being inherently wrong, harmful or detrimental to society, I think the laws regarding incest should be strengthened instead of removed,

How what you like to see the law strengthened? It's already illegal everywhere. You mean like longer prison terms or something?

As of right now, people (especially children) have a level of protection from those who are in a position of power or authority over them.

Ah, children. It seems to me this is confusing the issue. That's a separate crime. If anything, incest laws weaken the protection of children because in some cases the prosecutor can elect to to charge a parent with incest instead of statutory rape, often yielding a lighter sentence.

I also fail to see how it helps anyone who is legally capable of consent, because they would be equally guilty under the law.

[Lesotheron]

I have no second (let alone first) hand experience with it, but I I find your position curious.

My unusual perspective is this: While I agree with you in theory about incest not being inherently wrong, harmful or detrimental to society, I think the laws regarding incest should be strengthened instead of removed,

How what you like to see the law strengthened? It's already illegal everywhere. You mean like longer prison terms or something?

As of right now, people (especially children) have a level of protection from those who are in a position of power or authority over them.

Ah, children. It seems to me this is confusing the issue. That's a separate crime. If anything, incest laws weaken the protection of children because in some cases the prosecutor can elect to to charge a parent with incest instead of statutory rape, often yielding a lighter sentence.

I fail to see how it helps anyone who is legally capable of consent either, because they would be equally guilty under the law.

To answer your points in order:
1) It is not illegal everywhere. Sweden has the most lax restrictions on incest, allowing even siblings to marry. In France, incest is legal as long as neither participant is a minor. Even in the United States there are 19 different states that allow marriage between cousins with no restrictions. Seven more allow it with certain restrictions (i.e. Maine allows it so long as the couple goes through genetic counceling.)

2) You'll notice that I called for STRONGER laws, not necessarily more RESTRICTIVE or HARSH laws. The law needs to be uniform, enforced fairly and equally and most importantly, it needs to clearly define what IS and IS NOT legal. I did emphasize children in my point, but I'd like to see it enhanced to offer protection to EVERYONE who might be taken advantage of.

3) Stronger incest laws, as I've described them, would protect those capable of consent by allowing them to GIVE consent. In the example I gave about where incest is legal, you'll notice that anyone who is in those locations, and gives consent to such a union, would be punnished if they chose to visit or live somewhere where it was still illegal. Even if cousins marry in the United States, there are states that they can't go to because their marriage would be declared null and void, and both parties would be subject to criminal prosecution under the law.

To put this in perspective. The second-hand knowledge I speak of illustrates this point well.

When I was in college, an old friend of mine met and fell in love with a beautiful woman. They were happy together and decided to get married. When they went to get blood tests for their marriage license, they were told that they couldn't marry because they were brother and sister. It turns out, his mother had given her daughter up for adoption 2 years before she met and married his father. I had known this guy since the third grade, nobody was aware that she had ever had a child before my friend.

Then it gets worse, it turns out that before they tried to get married, she got pregnant. Neither of them was aware of it until after they discovered their relationship was illegal. They had a beautiful, healthy baby girl who now has to call her biological father, Uncle.

If there were STRONG, UNIFORM laws in place to protect them, they could have been living a happy life together. Instead, they're living apart and their child is living a lie.

[ManaUser]

To answer your points in order:
1) It is not illegal everywhere. Sweden has the most lax restrictions on incest, allowing even siblings to marry. In France, incest is legal as long as neither participant is a minor. Even in the United States there are 19 different states that allow marriage between cousins with no restrictions. Seven more allow it with certain restrictions (i.e. Maine allows it so long as the couple goes through genetic counceling.)

Sorry, that's my Americanness showing I guess. I had no idea what the law was in France and Sweden. I knew cousins could merry in several states, but don't think of that as incest. I suppose that's a little circular.

2) You'll notice that I called for STRONGER laws, not necessarily more RESTRICTIVE or HARSH laws. The law needs to be uniform, enforced fairly and equally and most importantly, it needs to clearly define what IS and IS NOT legal. I did emphasize children in my point, but I'd like to see it enhanced to offer protection to EVERYONE who might be taken advantage of.

So by "strange strong", you mean "uniform"? That wasn't obvious at all from your last message.

3) Stronger incest laws, as I've described them, would protect those capable of consent by allowing them to GIVE consent.

Now you've lost me again. I'm not sure at all what you mean by "strong".

In the example I gave about where incest is legal, you'll notice that anyone who is in those locations, and gives consent to such a union, would be punnished if they chose to visit or live somewhere where it was still illegal. Even if cousins marry in the United States, there are states that they can't go to because their marriage would be declared null and void, and both parties would be subject to criminal prosecution under the law.

To put this in perspective. The second-hand knowledge I speak of illustrates this point well.

When I was in college, an old friend of mine met and fell in love with a beautiful woman. They were happy together and decided to get married. When they went to get blood tests for their marriage license, they were told that they couldn't marry because they were brother and sister. It turns out, his mother had given her daughter up for adoption 2 years before she met and married his father. I had known this guy since the third grade, nobody was aware that she had ever had a child before my friend.

Yikes. That's a nightmare kind of situation that one just doesn't expect to encounter in real life.

Then it gets worse, it turns out that before they tried to get married, she got pregnant. Neither of them was aware of it until after they discovered their relationship was illegal. They had a beautiful, healthy baby girl who now has to call her biological father, Uncle.

Well, he is her uncle.

If there were STRONG, UNIFORM laws in place to protect them, they could have been living a happy life together. Instead, they're living apart and their child is living a lie.

Certainly what you describe are mostly worthy goals. Uniform laws across countries would almost impossible and perhaps not even ideal. Even across states is asking alot. But the other things are obviously good: Clarity, protections for vulnerable people, options for people capable of consent. Okay, great, but I'm having a very time imaging what kind of law would do all of those at once. Would you care to explain? Preferable without using the word "strong".

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. Obviously this has drastically effected your friend's life, and by extension, your own, where I'm only interested in sex laws as kind of a hobby. Unfortunately you're coming across kind of all over the place and I can't understand what you're trying to say. But I would like to.

[Jpnadia]

If you lurk or post here you read the comic.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I didn't get here because I read the comic. I got here mostly because I had a friend who posted here, and I ended up staying because the company is mostly pleasant.

...That I'd read the comic and don't consider myself either purely hetero or purely vanilla is entirely incidental.

I'm a Valkyrie Lesbian Xenophile Domina...

Would someone explain more fully what exactly that all entails, pleae? Every day is a new learning opportunity on the GGC forums, after all, and I'd like to get your definitions so that I don't sloppily misuse terms among friends based on whatever the Internet says (provided I can find it, and I'm not sure I could find something appropriately meaningful).

Don't you know? Pervy is the new prude.

::makes a cross shape with her fingers & hisses::

::sees the cross shape, realizes her error, and has only a moment for her eyes to go wide and a small scream to escape her throat before she bursts into flames::

Guys! Guys! Watch out, she's flaming!

...*ducks*

[Lulujayne]

mostly pleasant

Is that akin to "mostly harmless?"

[Lesotheron]

ManaUser:

Right now, incest laws are not "strong" laws. They're mostly outdated, almost forgotten edicts that are only used when other, "stronger" laws don't apply. Look at the laws regarding murder (I'm not comparing the act of incest to the act of murder, I'm just comparing the way the laws are written). Murder is clearly defined AND equally enforced. Everyone knows that it is illegal to kill someone in cold blood, just as they know that it is legal to kill someone in defense of your life or someone else's life.

If they were to rewrite the incest laws to make it PERFECTLY clear what is and is not legal, then they could enforce those laws across the board.

And yes, I know that he IS her uncle, but what do you think would be better for her:
A) A loving uncle
B) Her father

They can't tell her that he's her father, because if word got out, they'd both be able to be put in jail and she would most likely end up in foster care.

As to how the laws should be improved, I cannot say. First people would have to be able to agree on what should and should not be illegal. Then it would have to be gone over to make sure there was protection in place for ANYONE who might need it. Then it would have to allow for people who AREN'T doing anything illegal to be protected by the same laws that protect them FROM people who ARE doing something illegal.

If it happens, I look forward to crying joyously at my friend's wedding.

[Squidflakes]

Don't you know? Pervy is the new prude.

::makes a cross shape with her fingers & hisses::

::sees the cross shape, realizes her error, and has only a moment for her eyes to go wide and a small scream to escape her throat before she bursts into flames::

Well shit, if I knew it would be THAT easy, I would have done it years ago.

;P

[Fnyunj]

Not advocating here but:

For the genetic case against incest - it's only bad if there are some nasty regressive alleles tucked away in the parents' code. Apparently, it's actually beneficial, in a lot of cases, and in nature, or in selective breeding, it is a necessary mechanism in strengthening good bloodlines.

(we all know of selectively bred animals that have serious health issues, like German Shepherds - bad hips, pugs - breathing issues, yorkies - irresistable urge to kick them)

Just sayin'. . .

[Honor]

I"m not doing the research right now, but I thought I'd point out...

Point of order... Sister marrying brother isn't "incest" anymore than a wedding ceremony is "fucking". While each "Item A" strongly implies the future occurrence of its logically following "Item B", the two are not legally synonymous.

To wit, I know of nowhere where incest is specifically illegal... Any sexual act that it legal between two persons who are unrelated is, in every case I personally know of, also legal between people who are in any way related.

As I imply above... Given the sexual immaturity and psychosis of the US, I'd certainly not take any bets that such statutes don't exist somewhere in the US... I'm just saying I haven't yet encountered any.

As to the protections called for above, they are completely unneeded. There are already laws in place to protect people from sexual victimization in those circumstances... Thus, just as there is no need for a special law that says you also can't go over the speed limit in a blue car, there is no need to write a statute that essentially duplicates an existing one, just to add "Also illegal if he's her Daddy."

[WangyJohn]

Hebephilia

First I thought that had something to do with plants...

Anyway, ok, on the scale of this forum, I'm pretty hetero-vanilla. Off course, think like 19th century, someone showing some leg would have count as a perveted exhibitionist.