Mom who made sex tape with son, 16, is jailed for four years...

Dude, go debate it somewhere else I doubt incest will be made legal (to your heart's content) anytime soon :P

I personality think that consensual incest where both partners are over the age of consent will eventually be legalized, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

Reply 101

Vampire90210

9

All the crazy nuts seem to reside in the US.

Reply 102

RowingGoose

12

Firstly, I can't believe the Mail saying "isn't it disgusting what she's done!...but here's some photos of her doing sexy poses".

It doesn't say whether this kid consented, I suspect she could have been grooming him. If so, poor kid.

Lucky guy.

Original post by Tabris

Why are most people glossing over the incest in favour of age of consent?

I think incest is the bigger issue here.

Not everyone deems consensual incest (ie, not the version where a parent sexually abuses their child) morally wrong. It doesn't present a danger to anyone, so the only reason it is illegal is because some people think it's wrong. A big argument is that is the same reason why sodomy and extra-marrital sex were once illegal: some people didn't agree with it morally. It's generally considered now that what people do in their own sex lives is their business, as long as all parties are old enough and consenting ... but that doesn't extend to incest in the eyes of the law.

However, most people agree that age of consent exists for a reason - it protects people too young to physically have sex or deal with the emotional/mental complications of it. People may disagree on what the age should be, but it's generally considered to be important and therefore violations of it will mean more to some people than incest.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 105

xXxiKillxXx

14

The truth is that no-one can argue that incest is wrong if they approve of homosexuality. I KNOW I am going to get a lot of negs and people screaming ''OMG how dare you compare the two OMG''..

Reply 106

Tabris

16

Original post by TheSownRose

Not everyone deems consensual incest (ie, not the version where a parent sexually abuses their child) morally wrong. It doesn't present a danger to anyone, so the only reason it is illegal is because some people think it's wrong. A big argument is that is the same reason why sodomy and extra-marrital sex were once illegal: some people didn't agree with it morally. It's generally considered now that what people do in their own sex lives is their business, as long as all parties are old enough and consenting ... but that doesn't extend to incest in the eyes of the law.

However, most people agree that age of consent exists for a reason - it protects people too young to physically have sex or deal with the emotional/mental complications of it. People may disagree on what the age should be, but it's generally considered to be important and therefore violations of it will mean more to some people than incest.

I don't care about the morality of incest, that's not really got anything to do with my point. I'm just saying, people are making out as if age of consent is the only thing that matters and paying no heed to incest, which should be the primary issue as attitudes towards incest (by law) tend to be more consistent than ages of consent.

Transplant the exact situation to a state, or to the UK, where 16 is the age of consent and people who were only kicking up a fuss about the age of consent in the first few pages wouldn't have anything to moan about because that's all they seem to care about. Which basically boils down to them kicking up a fuss simply because it's illegal where the crime occurred. If actually they do have an issue with 16-year-olds having sex, I don't see the same people throwing up threads here about how the age of consent in the UK should be upped to 18. Admittedly, what I'm saying is snowballing things a bit, but I hope you get my point.

The incest is a more consistent issue. I think there'd be more variation in laws regarding the age of consent than laws regarding incest as incest's legality would be pretty straight forward, yes or no; rather than a range of multiple ages.

Reply 107

Rarrgh

12

Original post by iamjeeoh

The age of consent in California is 18 making it illegal for his mum to have sex with him. I'm unsure if they have laws regardling intra-family sexual relationships, however, the fact that the incidents where recorded classes them as possession of indecent images of children, because the age of consent is 18. It is not pornography or else it would be a completely different matter.

In regards to her custodial sentence the jury, which we have in the UK, would most likely see it as an aggrovating factor, and so may the judge. However, I am unsure of the speicific laws in California. But in the UK these kind of issues are lawfully dealt with under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003.

Should read the OP better I thought this was in England hence why I said age of consent was 16 xD But what you say is very true.

Reply 108

james22

16

Original post by _vilaseca_

Incest is illegal, like it says in the article, which is what she was convicted for. Pretty sick how you can say something like that.

Why is it sick to say that it should not be illegal for two consenting adults to have sex?

Reply 109

sorafdfs

11

Original post by james22

Why is it sick to say that it should not be illegal for two consenting adults to have sex?

Because incest is an extremely complex issue especially when it involves parent-child relationships.

Reply 110

TheHistoryStudent

11

Original post by Chow mein

Well in California the age of consent is 18. Aside from that I agree with you. It is disturbing but, is it wrong?

This for me really - providing both people are above the age of consent, consenting, and also that they use protection to ensure no pregnancy can occur, I really see no problem with incest if the above criteria are met - because if they are, opposition basically boils down to this:-

Original post by sleep99

Which isn't a valid reason to stop people from doing what they want if they're not going to be hurting anyone and again, the above criteria are met...

However in this case the son, in that area, was neither above the age of consent (so that's already a crime), and the act was recorded, meaning that not only did she have sex with someone under age, that she has in effect, created Child-porn... so I think she does deserve to be punished for it.