Australian judge says incest and paedophilia may no longer be a taboo
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html
And this article.
Judge compares incest and paedophilia to past attitudes towards homosexuality, claiming they might not be taboo anymore
Thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
People will probably **** themselves blind with terror and criticise him for no good reason, but he's right.
Allowing one type of non-harmful unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible. Acting paedophiles would quite rightly remain despised because their actions are rape. However I wouldn't be surprised if non-acting paedophiles become more accepted by society and viewed as people with no control over their sexual preferences, just as homosexuals / transponders etc are viewed today
edit: As to the particular case he was presiding over, I have no opinion
Allowing one type of non-harmful unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible. Acting paedophiles would quite rightly remain despised because their actions are rape. However I wouldn't be surprised if non-acting paedophiles become more accepted by society and viewed as people with no control over their sexual preferences, just as homosexuals / transponders etc are viewed today
edit: As to the particular case he was presiding over, I have no opinion
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Architecture-er
People will probably **** themselves blind with terror and criticise him for no good reason, but he's right.
Allowing one type of unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible
edit: As to the particular case he was presiding over, I have no opinion
Allowing one type of unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible
edit: As to the particular case he was presiding over, I have no opinion
Paedophilia is not consensual.
Original post by Architecture-er
Allowing one type of unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible
Allowing one type of unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible
That's nonsense.
Both paedophilia and homosexuality are "unconventional" by historical standards. Given homosexuality involves consenting adults behind closed doors, there is no reason it should be illegal.
Given paedophilia involves the rape of underage children, it should be illegal. Or are you saying paedophilia should be legalised?
The thing is with this case, is that the accused assaulted her when she was 10/11, but he claims the sex was consented for when she was 18 and he was 26. He is certainly guilty of the assaults on the child, but these assaults may have convinced her to have sex with the accused upon adulthood because of the result of the incident when she was 10. I don't give a damn about two relations of the adult age having sex as long as they are consenting, but the relationship is messed up if it started with a case of sexual assault on a child.
Incest is often linked to child assault, so if it were in any way legalised, special care must be took in order to ensure that the incestious relationship is between two consenting individuals of adult age, and not child assault.
Incest is often linked to child assault, so if it were in any way legalised, special care must be took in order to ensure that the incestious relationship is between two consenting individuals of adult age, and not child assault.
Original post by AmyAintDead
The thing is with this case, is that the accused assaulted her when she was 10/11, but he claims the sex was consented for when she was 18 and he was 26. He is certainly guilty of the assaults on the child, but these assaults may have convinced her to have sex with the accused upon adulthood because of the result of the incident when she was 10. I don't give a damn about two relations of the adult age having sex as long as they are consenting, but the relationship is messed up if it started with a case of sexual assault on a child.
Incest is often linked to child assault, so if it were in any way legalised, special care must be took in order to ensure that the incestious relationship is between two consenting individuals of adult age, and not child assault.
Incest is often linked to child assault, so if it were in any way legalised, special care must be took in order to ensure that the incestious relationship is between two consenting individuals of adult age, and not child assault.
Excellent contribution, it's clear you've familiarised yourself with the case and I completely agree with your perceptive comment.
Original post by the mezzil
Paedophilia is not consensual.
Oh yeah, didn't see the paedophilia, thought this was just about incest - yeah I'd agree about that, but I think it's only taboo on the grounds of it being rape
I imagine that over the years non-acting paedophiles will become relatively accepted and seen in a similar light to homosexuals, in that their sexual preferences are chemically locked and aren't a result of a perverted personality
Society is, after all, tending towards moderation in nearly every aspect
Original post by jackdaubs
Excellent contribution, it's clear you've familiarised yourself with the case and I completely agree with your perceptive comment.
All I did was read the link you provided, I thought most people were supposed to do that before posting?
Original post by AmyAintDead
All I did was read the link you provided, I thought most people were supposed to do that before posting?
Most people just read the headline and jump straight into commenting based on their pre-existing positions on the subject.
You're absolutely right that one would expect that people would read the articles, but that's often a little too much to hope for.
Original post by jackdaubs
That's nonsense.
Both paedophilia and homosexuality are "unconventional" by historical standards. Given homosexuality involves consenting adults behind closed doors, there is no reason it should be illegal.
Given paedophilia involves the rape of underage children, it should be illegal. Or are you saying paedophilia should be legalised?
Both paedophilia and homosexuality are "unconventional" by historical standards. Given homosexuality involves consenting adults behind closed doors, there is no reason it should be illegal.
Given paedophilia involves the rape of underage children, it should be illegal. Or are you saying paedophilia should be legalised?
I've added some clarity in my first post
Original post by Architecture-er
I've added some clarity in my first post
I agree with you that over time, I suspect paedophilia as a "sexual orientation" (and I do feel uncomfortable calling it that) is largely immutable and will come to be accepted
There's a fantastic NPR radio story on this 19 year old paedophile. He has never abused a child, but it's quite clear that attraction to children is simply inbuilt into the fabric of his sexuality.
http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story
Personally, I obviously think that sexual activity with children should be harshly punished. But I don't believe simulated child pornography should be illegal, or other simulated expressions of that sexuality. And perhaps in this period of technological revolution, they will be able to find sexual gratification in technology without harming children.
(edited 9 years ago)
Paedophilia will always be seen for what it is, manipulation and dominance for the adults sexual ends and so, quite rightly, will always be taboo.
Adult incest..meah....when you have a young woman on holiday in a bar sucking 24 cocks in a row for a drink and half the internet saying" who are you to judge her?" I can only think that morals are heading in a direction that within a generation, as long as there are no offspring produced, incest will become accepted, but perhaps not mainstream.
Adult incest..meah....when you have a young woman on holiday in a bar sucking 24 cocks in a row for a drink and half the internet saying" who are you to judge her?" I can only think that morals are heading in a direction that within a generation, as long as there are no offspring produced, incest will become accepted, but perhaps not mainstream.
Original post by caravaggio2
I can only think that morals are heading in a direction that within a generation, as long as there are no offspring produced, incest will become accepted, but perhaps not mainstream.
Yeah I'd agree with this. I mean purely statistical research has indicated to me that on regular porn sites, incest videos (obviously most fake) are in fact quite a common/popular genre, though part of that might be because it's taboo.
Rape should always be a crime. Forcing yourself onto someone without their permission should be severely punished.
Therefore this talk is always going to be hazardous. How can you prove it was non-consenting. 12yo and under should remain illegal as you assume under that age they can't make reasonable logical decisions. Anyone who coerces a child 12-16 into an act of sex through plying them with toys, alcohol or sweets should still be guilty of rape.
Incest between consenting adults... tough one... Incest is a taboo to avoid muddying the gene pool with 3 headed babies. As seen in Australia I believe a year ago when the valley people were discovered who'd been committing incest for several generations and the children were coming out deformed.
Maybe banning procreation, steps being taken to avoid any chance of children through removal of ovaries or testicles (Just tying the tubes is not 100% safe, conception has occurred before after tying the tubes and an egg or sperm has slipped out) having the Doctors notes to say it is safe then ok. I mean in the future when the genome is unlocked fully brothers and sisters should be safely able to have babies if the child's genome is artificially 'mixed' to avoid deformities.
Obviously there is a huge societal issue though... similar but not the same to interracial or homosexual relations.
Therefore this talk is always going to be hazardous. How can you prove it was non-consenting. 12yo and under should remain illegal as you assume under that age they can't make reasonable logical decisions. Anyone who coerces a child 12-16 into an act of sex through plying them with toys, alcohol or sweets should still be guilty of rape.
Incest between consenting adults... tough one... Incest is a taboo to avoid muddying the gene pool with 3 headed babies. As seen in Australia I believe a year ago when the valley people were discovered who'd been committing incest for several generations and the children were coming out deformed.
Maybe banning procreation, steps being taken to avoid any chance of children through removal of ovaries or testicles (Just tying the tubes is not 100% safe, conception has occurred before after tying the tubes and an egg or sperm has slipped out) having the Doctors notes to say it is safe then ok. I mean in the future when the genome is unlocked fully brothers and sisters should be safely able to have babies if the child's genome is artificially 'mixed' to avoid deformities.
Obviously there is a huge societal issue though... similar but not the same to interracial or homosexual relations.
Original post by MatthewJoeCarr
X
Interesting and perceptive post. I loved the bit about 3-headed babies, that was funny
I totally agree with you about the gene pool issue, and procreation. Would that make gay incest more acceptable?
Perhaps more relevant for me, do you think there is an argument to be made that even where there is no possibility of procreation, that incest fundamentally undermines family relationships and family units in a way that homosexuality does not?
After all, allowing two unrelated, adult dudes to marry each other and have/adopt kids merely creates a new, health family unit.
Whereas allowing people to sleep with their children, or siblings, undermines and corrupts existing family units. That is my belief, anyway
cool now all the hypocrites who believe in gay sex but not incest can come out and make themselves heard lol.
Original post by Architecture-er
I imagine that over the years non-acting paedophiles will become relatively accepted and seen in a similar light to homosexuals, in that their sexual preferences are chemically locked and aren't a result of a perverted personality
Society is, after all, tending towards moderation in nearly every aspect
Society is, after all, tending towards moderation in nearly every aspect
Not for paedophilia and neither should it ever be condoned or accepted as 'normal' behaviour. Non-acting paedophilia should never become acceptable even if the pornography is somehow confined to 'simulated' depiction.
There are so very many reasons and situations that would make it impossible to protect children:
How will that ever be policed? Do we allow paedophiles to congregate outside school playgrounds, parks, swimming pools etc. because there is no harm in it? Should non-acting paedophiles be allowed to teach in schools because they are not a risk to children?
Homosexuality is not a threat to the vast majority of heterosexual adults. People may feel uncomfortable with unwanted attention from the same sex. But a line can be drawn. Adults for the most part are able to protect themselves and rape is illegal. However, adults have a choice and can remove themselves from an uncomfortable position in most situations.
A parents overwhelming innate reaction is to protect their children. The younger the child, the less is their ability to make informed choices and remove themselves from harms way. The fear and anxiety will be palpable for every parent who has a child. So, should paedophiles be allowed gratification at the expense of the anxiety of parents and increased risk to children even if it is proven their brains are wired that way? I think not.
Society has a duty of care and since children are the most vulnerable members of society, we all have a duty to ensure the risks to them are minimised.
Children are easy targets. Adults are not.
Paedophilia should never and will never be condoned. It's a simple case of protecting the majority of the most vulnerable members in society from a minority and I really don't give a flying **** if that is bigotry against paedo's.
(edited 9 years ago)
It's a tough one. I mean wasn't that exactly what it was like if you go back far enough? At our core being together is what we are, I don't see how if two people love eachother, understanding what that means and requires fully, how it is going to damage a family. It must be better when two people who connect raise a family than two who don't. And while it wont encourage the growth of a family in the long run (no branches out) It still has a chance of continuing a family, legacy and all that being seen as important things during the middle ages when these things really became 'taboo' as people wanted to emulate the kings and queens of certainly Europe leading to the western reasons why these things are taboo.
Incestual paedophilia is another ball park... because then you start asking what is sex... do you see animals having sex with their offspring? Yes, in baboons sex is used to diffuse tensions and as a form of social bonding like playing a game of monopoly (Bad example maybe) Age and relationship is not seen as an issue there. The internet has drawn the human race so close together and for once the most complex organism on the planet is meshing it's collective conciousness together.
These issues are so very delicate. And if not treated right it can get out of hand, realise this is a highly controversial topic... it's not like talking about the next COD or the world cup. This is the type of thing that can get you onto watchlists or at least it will do soon. While the laws are as they are these things will remain illegal, and I do not suggest you break them like people did with interracial or homosexual laws. These things will take time to work out and the fact is society has to get the egotistical 'me me me' notion out of it's head before any of this can be fully realised.
Because while people are thinking 'me me me' sex is not strictly about the other person and therefore that person has to be protected if they are in a 'at risk' group like a child or a relative where it is easier to 'lead them on' for your own personal gratification.
THAT is why we have the laws to avoid anyone being 'used' and 'abused' by those out for their own ends. So even if you do do it for all the right reasons. Because there are people out there who don't and there is no guaranteed sure-fire method of distinguishing between an honest person and and 'evil' one the laws must remain as they are.
We as a species have evolved to teach and educate, to bring up our young to be able to make their own choices in life and live it hopefully to their full potential. However this has been a rapid evolution from small closely knit groups of people where education was sparse and knowledge was just about surviving the winter to a planet spanning society with the universe almost at our fingertips, and this has occurred in a matter of seconds on the evolutionary timescale... the Dinosaurs were around for 180 MILLION years... 'Humans' have only existed for 2 million, modern humans for 250,000 years... from banging rocks together and going ugg to sending men on rockets into space and instantaneous global communication has happened in a mere blink of an eye... it's no small wonder something so central and core to our being and our own identity (sex) has become our most valued and closely guarded issue.
The only other thing we hold in such reference is our own personal power. And THAT is the issue... we hold our Power closer than anything. The ability to affect others is more important to us.
And I'll admit I don't have all the answers. I've spent alot of time thinking about this issue as you maybe able to tell and it'll require a few more years before I'm certain about anything. Some see sex as an instrument to be used, But I see it as being more of a core part of us. And this is where I fall down.
Incestual paedophilia is another ball park... because then you start asking what is sex... do you see animals having sex with their offspring? Yes, in baboons sex is used to diffuse tensions and as a form of social bonding like playing a game of monopoly (Bad example maybe) Age and relationship is not seen as an issue there. The internet has drawn the human race so close together and for once the most complex organism on the planet is meshing it's collective conciousness together.
These issues are so very delicate. And if not treated right it can get out of hand, realise this is a highly controversial topic... it's not like talking about the next COD or the world cup. This is the type of thing that can get you onto watchlists or at least it will do soon. While the laws are as they are these things will remain illegal, and I do not suggest you break them like people did with interracial or homosexual laws. These things will take time to work out and the fact is society has to get the egotistical 'me me me' notion out of it's head before any of this can be fully realised.
Because while people are thinking 'me me me' sex is not strictly about the other person and therefore that person has to be protected if they are in a 'at risk' group like a child or a relative where it is easier to 'lead them on' for your own personal gratification.
THAT is why we have the laws to avoid anyone being 'used' and 'abused' by those out for their own ends. So even if you do do it for all the right reasons. Because there are people out there who don't and there is no guaranteed sure-fire method of distinguishing between an honest person and and 'evil' one the laws must remain as they are.
We as a species have evolved to teach and educate, to bring up our young to be able to make their own choices in life and live it hopefully to their full potential. However this has been a rapid evolution from small closely knit groups of people where education was sparse and knowledge was just about surviving the winter to a planet spanning society with the universe almost at our fingertips, and this has occurred in a matter of seconds on the evolutionary timescale... the Dinosaurs were around for 180 MILLION years... 'Humans' have only existed for 2 million, modern humans for 250,000 years... from banging rocks together and going ugg to sending men on rockets into space and instantaneous global communication has happened in a mere blink of an eye... it's no small wonder something so central and core to our being and our own identity (sex) has become our most valued and closely guarded issue.
The only other thing we hold in such reference is our own personal power. And THAT is the issue... we hold our Power closer than anything. The ability to affect others is more important to us.
And I'll admit I don't have all the answers. I've spent alot of time thinking about this issue as you maybe able to tell and it'll require a few more years before I'm certain about anything. Some see sex as an instrument to be used, But I see it as being more of a core part of us. And this is where I fall down.
Original post by ChickenMadness
cool now all the hypocrites who believe in gay sex but not incest can come out and make themselves heard lol.
To call it hypocrisy is blatant homophobia. Are you saying that gay people have some obligation to agree with incest, when homosexuality and incest are completely different (given you can have incest that is hetero or homo in nature)?
Are you seriously saying that gay people who believe that it shouldn't be an issue for two consenting, adults to have sex behind closed doors, have an obligation to agree with any sexual practices, no matter how different from homosexuality?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
