Mum had sex with son

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Well, suppose a white child is raised by a black family, and the dad teaches the boy that it is right to date inter-racially...

We should make this illegal immediately because it is disgusting.

Erm, yeah. Ok. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one..

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Genetic defects, as pointed out in this thread can equally apply to those with haemophillia, CF and other geneticalyl transmitted conditions, they are allowed to procreate, so this is a procreate with caution scenareo as Eugenics is not something we want to be promoting. Come on Jerrek - Hitler did promote this...

Grooming is the real reason this is so wrong, parent child and even sibling relationships should have an element of trust in them that means when you are told right and wrong, that is the norm. It seems the scenareo here is easier to discuss as those involved are over 16/18 however to end up in this position, the sons definitions of normal and acceptable must have been severly screwed up by his parents (and the article does indicate a history of abuse).

As a parent you are in a position of trust, sleeping with your children in this manner is an abuse of this, as a sibling (i am thinking more of a older sibling relationship here) you are also often put in the same position for periods of time, the same level of trust should apply.

I'm suprised that formerly black, formely popular, singer have not appeared in this thread yet.

(I do hope you weren't getting me mixed up with Jerrek! )

Good point about the genetic defects, we don't practice eugenics with people who already have genetic defects, so why should we do it against people who only "may" have genetic defects.
Remember, you may have a defective recesive gene, but that doesn't mean a close family member of the opposite gender automatically has it too.


So, that leaves the protection against grooming as a valid reason for keeping incest illegal, after all, we have similar rules against the risk of teachers/doctors and other influential/authority figures grooming children.


Edit - Can we keep away from the "it's disgusting" arguments? they're just personal opinions.

[Russ]

In the interests of "seperating the wheat from the chaff" (plus the fact I've had perhaps the worst day at work of my life ) I think we should have a poll asking: "Do you think it is acceptable for a mother to have sex with her son?".....

Straight answer, NO.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

(I do hope you weren't getting me mixed up with Jerrek! )
<snip>

No he just occasionally throws that mans name into discussions.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

In the interests of "seperating the wheat from the chaff" (plus the fact I've had perhaps the worst day at work of my life ) I think we should have a poll asking: "Do you think it is acceptable for a mother to have sex with her son?".....

Can't we just work on a undisputable reason for keeping it illegal, like the protection of children?

[Russ]

No

Originally Posted by scastle

Erm, yeah. Ok. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one..

I think Jerrek was being sarcastic there, not serious.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

There was consent, therefore it was not abuse.

So, you believe that if an 11 year old girl consents to have sex with a man then that's not abuse because she consented

Originally Posted by Paul M

So, you believe that if an 11 year old girl consents to have sex with a man then that's not abuse because she consented

That is not the context of the case that is being discussed here. Clearly the example you have quoted is abuse, but its relevancy to this case in question is questionable.

What did he just say?

Originally Posted by dr wadd

That is not the context of the case that is being discussed here. Clearly the example you have quoted is abuse, but its relevancy to this case in question is questionable.

What

I feel some squirming going on. You clearly stated "There was consent, therefore it was not abuse". Now, when presented with another case of consent, you state it "is abuse".

Which view should we believe you hold ?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Paul M

What

I feel some squirming going on. You clearly stated "There was consent, therefore it was not abuse". Now, when presented with another case of consent, you state it "is abuse".

Which view should we believe you hold ?

The case in question is between to consenting adults.
Where is the abuse between them?

Originally Posted by Paul M

What

I feel some squirming going on. You clearly stated "There was consent, therefore it was not abuse". Now, when presented with another case of consent, you state it "is abuse".

Which view should we believe you hold ?

This thread is not about the age of consent, it is about two adults who had reached the age of consent. Any discussion within this thread therefore has to be taken within that context. It is therefore logical that we define consent, for the purposes of this debate, in the same manner as we accept in law.

The two adults in this case can therefore legally give consent, both did, so it is not abuse. In the hypothetical situation you gave as an example, the girl is 11 years old, and therefore even if she says that she consents, she is not considered to be capable of giving consent in the first instance, therefore abuse has occurred.

I`m afraid you'll find no squirming going on here, it is perfectly justified to classify the example in the original case as non-abuse, and the hypothetical example as you gave without any contradiction.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m afraid you'll find no squirming going on here, it is perfectly justified to classify the example in the original case as non-abuse, and the hypothetical example as you gave without any contradiction.

That's your opinion.....my view is that we have here a classic case of family abuse.