'Incest is no longer a taboo,' says Australian judge Garry Neilson

District Court Judge Garry Neilson has been criticised for espousing the view that sexual contact between siblings or between adults and children should perhaps no longer be viewed as “unnatural” or “taboo”, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Neilson drew parallels with widely changing attitudes towards gay sex. In the same way, he said, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having (a) sexual partner”.

The judge went on to say that incest is only criminalised because of the high chance that any resulting offspring will be born with serious birth defects, but added that “even that (risk) falls away to an extent (because) there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”. (Source)

Well, here's a rather outrageous perspective, though one that is not surprising in this day and age. In a trial of a man accused of raping his sister, Neilson suggested that, because the woman was 18, if the relationship was consensual, it was wrong only because of what Neilson viewed as the antiquated laws against incest.

Following media coverage of his statements and the expected reaction from the public, Neilson has been removed from the case and is currently under suspension.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that things like pedophilia, incest and polygamy are reprehensible, but doesn't it seem like our "enlightened" view of human sexuality and standards of things like marriage are kind of sweeping away some of the arguments that are normally put forward against them?

How do those who criticize moralists by saying things like "humans are just self aware animals and it's perfectly normal for them to want to have sex with everyone in sight" reconcile statements like that with objections to things like incest? If it is acceptable for two men or two women to marry, why is it not acceptable for a man to marry two women, or a woman to marry three men?

As outrageous as Neilson's comments are, they are less shocking than they would have been ten years ago, and I wonder if they will be shocking, at all, ten years from now?

a reply to: adjensen

I just want to say that I consider incest immoral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Absolutely disgusting. How could family members do this to each other? This judge has some serious mental problems. No wait! Moral problems. Maybe he is dating his sister or something??? There has to be a root to his sickening mentality. Also, he needs to be drug-tested immediately and have a psych evaluation.

Ewwwwwwwww!

I don't even want to think about his reasoning. I hope he's not populating the gene pool.

If gays are permitted to have a sexual relationship why arent family members? With all honesty it may seem disgusting but some feel the same way about homosexuals.

This judge is making an important point. Where do we draw the line as humanity?

a reply to: adjensen

I applaud you for beginning this thread. I give you a Star and Flag. (with me they don’t come cheap.)

At one point in our culture it was considered okay if children “played doctor”. Not many people viewed it as incest or criminal behavior. The children were exploring their sexuality, not a big deal.

Why is it now every time some child acts out sexually it becomes a crime. I don’t condone molesting a child or children having sex but honestly….. they will explore.

Take care.

Heh, a taboo, gross subject? I'll bite.

At face value, what ever consenting adults do sexually with each other is fine... as long as no body gets hurt and everyone doesn't have to hear about it (heh). Psychological harm is harder to quantify, though.

Incest between different generations is even more debatable (aside from both the societal "ick" and messed up baby factors). An offspring of any age would likely benefit from unconditional/chaste love from an adult ... and sex would make it more conditional and break a certain trust bond, even if it was just society's problem with it that made the one or both of the participants uneasy.

But somewhere back in the beginning, families were a tad...er... closer ... and we all have at least one generation of ancestors that committed incest. However, the familiarity that family brings usually makes for less than sexy thoughts. As in "yuch."

There are reasons strangers are usually far sexier... at first.

originally posted by: Fylgje
Absolutely disgusting. How could family members do this to each other? This judge has some serious mental problems. No wait! Moral problems. Maybe he is dating his sister or something??? There has to be a root to his sickening mentality. Also, he needs to be drug-tested immediately and have a psych evaluation.

Whatever. It's innocent. Read something besides the bible.

a reply to: Fylgje

Absolutely disgusting. How could family members do this to each other?

Absolutely ignorant...

If you truly are against this, you would support it, as they will only breed themselves out of existence.

Well....
Other once great civilizations accepted incest before their systems collapsed. Ancient Egypt comes to mind. Pharaohs married their sisters and their sisters bore them children.
So maybe we can start doing that and follow their footsteps into history as a collapsed civilization.

So what happens within those lost tribes that are occasionally found?
Having been isolated from all the taboo's of the (supposed) civilized world, I would imagine they must have gotten things about right or they'd never have survived for so long.
Do they allow more than one partner? or maybe they dont have life long partners but instead sleep with whom ever they choose to sleep with?
Do they have gay people amongst them?
Do they sleep with members of their own families?

I'm just wondering how humans behave when they're not being influenced by religion etc.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm just wondering how humans behave when they're not being influenced by religion etc.

Cue the banjo music.

There was a charge and trial of rape and then the judge brings up consensual sex? Aren't the two opposites of each other?

He was 17 and she was 10, and now that she is 18 and he 25, how much practiced intimidation lies as the bottom of this story? If he was charged with a criminal offence, then she did not want it to happen and spoke out.

For anyone to give into sexual urges with a minor and willfully remove their innocence is deeply disturbing and criminal. If it happens at the behest of someone that child trusts, all the worse.

nothing.

I'm going to keep it to incest, and not sex with the underage. 17 and 10 is wrong, incest or not. Incest is something we're biologically supposed to be repelled by, and for good reason. We have it in us to be attracted to like, except when we bond in youth. That's an evolutionary advantage to not want to bang your kin.. less chance of genetic screwups for children.

What about when it's a relative that we didn't grow up around? That's what the culture is for. We get curious as kids, want to play around with a cousin, and family intervenes and tells us this is wrong. Works out in most cases.

What about now that we have the means to regulate having children? We've got contraceptives and abortions, so why the taboo? If you have a natural urge, and are willing to do what it takes not to have children, up to abortions if it must be, whats' the harm? There is none, at that point. The best logical argument someone could say is that you're wasting time by not banging someone you're willing to have children with. No different from millions of other non-family bangers using contraceptives.

So I think it's a somewhat outdated taboo. I've certainly wanted to get it on with some of my cousins, and am pretty sure they wanted to as well. Would have been a lot of fun, but it didn't happen because it's implanted in our heads that it's "wrong". Whatever.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I wanted to get it on with your cousin too.

(joking.)

My point is we are animals. Most people would screw anything that comes near. Same as a dog humping your leg. (some people hump the dog but that's a story for another day.)

Lighten up sex is sex and in my opinion if it's consenting then who cares?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm just wondering how humans behave when they're not being influenced by religion etc.

Cue the banjo music.

Hmmm....looks at your avatar

a reply to: minusinfinity

I care about the genetic deterioration within our species.

I don't mind some incest, but take the necessary precautions, or be willing to agree on a last-resort abortion by both parties before the banging commences.

Some of my cousins are.... words do not suffice.

a reply to: minusinfinity

My point is we are animals. Most people would screw anything that comes near.

And I think that's where some of us have a problem -- I see humans as something more than animals, and we shouldn't want to "screw anything that comes near." Stuff like this, or pornography, or polygamy, diminishes us, it denigrates us. To say that "incest is fine, because you can always abort any defective babies" just seems evil.

We should be better than a species that is ruled by its genitals and lascivious nature.

I don't understand how people can equate adult sexual relationships with molesting a child, who cannot consent. The former, I don't care about - it's none of my business. But when an adult makes the decision to take advantage of a child, it becomes all of our business.