Wrong and freaky? Yes. Worth a criminal prosecution?

[Danoff]

So are you saying the law is wrong to prohibit sexual relations between Mother and Child? (or for that matter, most incestuous relations)

Yes, the law is wrong to prohibit sexual relations between any consenting adults.

If that's what you're saying then I disagree. See, although you only quoted two lines of text, there is a post surrounding that which lays out my opinion that incest is wrong for both biological and psycological reasons.

What psychological reasons would those be? Make sure that the ones you list cannot be applied to legal consensual adult relationships.

When I reffered to the "mutant offspring" it was a casual way of saying that incest does not yeild healthy children as commonly as "normal" relations.

That's a good reason to prosecute incestuous relationships that bear children - but is completely beside the point in cases where contraception/abortion are practiced or where no pregnancy occurs. I'd say bringing a child to term that was the result of incest is similar to consuming large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy.

Also, when I stress how this mother ended up having sex with her son after caring for him in the midst of a panic attack it was a way of saying the son might not be as mentally fit as he normally could be (especially when dealing with a subject as perverse as incest with his mother).

So you're saying that having sex with someone who is in the midst of, or in close proximity to, a panic attack should be illegal? If I meet a girl at a bar and she had a panic attack earlier that day I should go to jail if I had sex with her?

What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?
Would this sort of thing be tolerated if it was a father molesting his 18y/o daughter?

I wouldn't change my position in the slightest.

Heck, ethically speaking it isn't acceptable for a psychologist to have relations with a patient, wouldn't this be much worse than that? (although that is not legal, it is a good starting place when considering the manipulation and mental state of the 18y/o involved).

Psychologists don't go to jail (AFAIK) for having sex with patients, they lose their license or get fired. It's not illegal to have sex with your boss, but you might get fired and or have trouble getting future work.

 

[Pako]

The point of mental state, is that the mother was in a capacity of nurturing her son to calm him down. She took advantage of him while he was in a state of mental distress. His mental state could blur the lines of being in a state of mind capable of making a consensual decision.

 

[Danoff]

The point of mental state, is that the mother was in a capacity of nurturing her son to calm him down. She took advantage of him while he was in a state of mental distress.

...and? Suddenly an adult who is in a state of mental distress is a child?

 

[Pako]

...and? Suddenly an adult who is in a state of mental distress is a child?

He is her child.

 

[Danoff]

He is her child.

But he is not legally a child. His relationship to her has no bearing on whether he can be considered a consenting adult. Neither, by the way, does the fact that he had a "panic attack".

 

[Pako]

I should point out, depending how the child was raised, he could do what his mom asks of him without question, after all....she is his mom. Take 18 years of nurturing, teaching, brainwashing.... These are not two consenting adults here. Yes the boy (young man) must take ownership of his actions, but there is an awful lot of baggage for him to make that kind of decision and call it consensual.

 

[Danoff]

I should point out, depending how the child was raised, he could do what his mom asks of him without question, after all....she is his mom. Take 18 years of nurturing, teaching, brainwashing.... These are not two consenting adults here. Yes the boy (young man) must take ownership of his actions, but there is an awful lot of baggage for him to make that kind of decision and call it consensual.

I see, so if his mom asks him to commit murder, then he is absolved of the crime. After all, 18 years of nurturing, teaching, and brainwashing has left him a mere puppet incapable of personal responsibility when it comes to orders from his mom.

 

[Pako]

I see, so if his mom asks him to commit murder, then he is absolved of the crime. After all, 18 years of nurturing, teaching, and brainwashing has left him a mere puppet incapable of personal responsibility when it comes to orders from his mom.

Depends if they find him insane or not.

 

[Danoff]

What does that have to do with any of the above?

 

[Pako]

You asked the question, not me.

 

[Danoff]

...and you gave an answer that had no bearing on my remark.

 

[Kent]

Yes, the law is wrong to prohibit sexual relations between any consenting adults.

That's just your opinion and we disagree with regards to incest.

What psychological reasons would those be? Make sure that the ones you list cannot be applied to legal consensual adult relationships.

Well I'm not sure what can and cannot be applied legally. However, I'm pretty sure sleeping with your mother can result in various levels of metal disorders (although it's been a while since I thumbed through the DSM so exact disorders that may be caused by incest with your mother can't be provided at this time by me).

That's a good reason to prosecute incestuous relationships that bear children - but is completely beside the point in cases where contraception/abortion are practiced or where no pregnancy occurs. I'd say bringing a child to term that was the result of incest is similar to consuming large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy.

Well you're view on alcohol isn't really what I'd like to discuss but... You're view on childless incest is...
Basically, you're saying that if an incestuous relationship bears no child it is OK? Wouldn't that be similar to saying that shooting a gun at someone but not hitting them is OK?

So you're saying that having sex with someone who is in the midst of, or in close proximity to, a panic attack should be illegal? If I meet a girl at a bar and she had a panic attack earlier that day I should go to jail if I had sex with her?

Well you've twisted what I said here since I never brought up relations between you and anyone in a bar or you and anyone who isn't related by blood.
I addressed the idea of a mother caring for her child after a panic attack and somehow having sex with him.
Do I think that should be illegal? Yes, but not because of the panic attack part. It's the incest I see as illegal. The panic attack only goes to the idea of mental fitness. I never mentioned jail in the quote you provided in your response because I wasn't addressing that part of the issue. I was specifically addressing the issue of mental fitness.
That said, relations in the same day as a panic attack and relations only moments after a panic attack are different, would you agree? (based on your response it seems you don't agree and that you see no difference between sex immediately after a panic attack and sex in the same day as the panic attack)

I wouldn't change my position in the slightest.

As I said, "I'm sure you guys wouldn't change your opinions too much at all..."

Psychologists don't go to jail (AFAIK) for having sex with patients, they lose their license or get fired. It's not illegal to have sex with your boss, but you might get fired and or have trouble getting future work.

I mis-typed.
I know it is not illegal and my use of the term legal in place of illegal was simply a typo.
(that's also to some extent evident in the context of the statement)

Btw, let's keep in mind that as the laws stand, "child" or "adult" does not matter in the case of incest. It is the incest itself that is the crime. Now, again, I understand that some of you believe that's perfectly fine but hey, to each his own (mother?).

 

[Pako]

...and you gave an answer that had no bearing on my remark.

That would be your opinion of course.

If you allow me to elaborate, if he was brain washed into doing what ever his mom tells him to do, then yes...I would say they would find his mental state as being unstable and and not responsible for his actions as he was just fulfilling his moms orders without regard for the consequences of his actions.

Your questions and example, however, is stretching beyond the scope of this topic, but I was trying to entertain your question with an answer.

 

[Danoff]

That's just your opinion and we disagree with regards to incest.

My opinion is based on human rights. Yours seems to be based on your gut reaction.

Well I'm not sure what can and cannot be applied legally. However, I'm pretty sure sleeping with your mother can result in various levels of metal disorders (although it's been a while since I thumbed through the DSM so exact disorders that may be caused by incest with your mother can't be provided at this time by me).

Locking yourself in a box for a day can result in claustrophobia too, but that doesn't mean the box should go to jail.

Well you're view on alcohol isn't really what I'd like to discuss but... You're view on childless incest is...

It's relevant. I'm bringing up other cases where parents are responsible for birth defects as a result of their actions.

Basically, you're saying that if an incestuous relationship bears no child it is OK? Wouldn't that be similar to saying that shooting a gun at someone but not hitting them is OK?

Not at all. I don't really even see how it's similar. Sex is an activity that two consenting adults can engage in without creating a child for the purpose of pleasure. Creating a child is a separate and (currently) intentional act.

That said, relations in the same day as a panic attack and relations only moments after a panic attack are different, would you agree?

Not legally no.

As I said, "I'm sure you guys wouldn't change your opinions too much at all..."

You asked, I answered. Now you seem to not have wanted an answer.

 

[Kent]

My opinion is based on human rights. Yours seems to be based on your gut reaction.

Not a gut reaction at all, just a different view of human rights. IMO, a mother-son sexual relation is often based on a violation of the child's rights (regardless of the child's age, they are more often than not being taken advantage of and taking advantage of someone, although not illegal in all cases, does IMO violate rights of an individual).

Locking yourself in a box for a day can result in claustrophobia too, but that doesn't mean the box should go to jail.

Wasn't it not about jail but rather mental disorders that could result from incest between mother and child?

Edit... Looking back, yes it was about the mental problems...

What psychological reasons would those be? Make sure that the ones you list cannot be applied to legal consensual adult relationships.

First of all, keep in mind that "legal consensual adult relationships" do not include mother-son incest.
I was simply responding to that question, not a question regarding the imprisonment of the mother in question.
Remember, I'm not even saying she should go to jail, I'm simply saying she did in fact violate laws of incest.
Edit: I also see that the question was regarding reasons for why incest should be illegal (again though, it isn't reasons for why this particular woman should go to jail but instead simply reasons for why incest is illegal).

It's relevant. I'm bringing up other cases where parents are responsible for birth defects as a result of their actions.

I didn't say anything you said was irrelavant, I said you're views of childless incest were the object of my attention (which you didn't address but instead you addressed incest resulting in offspring).

Not at all. I don't really even see how it's similar. Sex is an activity that two consenting adults can engage in without creating a child for the purpose of pleasure. Creating a child is a separate and (currently) intentional act.

Actually, I see them as possibly being somewhat similar since both involve the idea of doing what is currently an illegal action with no result.

Not legally no.

So there is legal president to say actions immediately after a panic attack and actions within the same day as a panic attack are no different?
I don't know of the actual legal president. However, I would be willing to bet that...
An assualt immediately following a panic attack is much more likely to not result in conviction than an assualt that occured 8hrs. after a panic attack.

You asked, I answered. Now you seem to not have wanted an answer.

"Seemed" means that's just your perception.
All I did was explain that I know the members of the GTP (such as yourself) are more consistant than to change opinions regarding the issue at hand (which I did by quoting my own words that you seemed to over look).
Really, I was looking for a more general answer to the hypothetical situation (not specific to your opinion, rather, your guess regarding a general opinion from the public).

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Wrong? Yes, very. Criminal? No, both legal/consenting, after all.

 

[Danoff]

Your questions and example, however, is stretching beyond the scope of this topic, but I was trying to entertain your question with an answer.

At this point I'm trying to figure out whether you're being coy or you're just not understanding me. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're not understanding me.

The point of mental state, is that the mother was in a capacity of nurturing her son to calm him down. She took advantage of him while he was in a state of mental distress. His mental state could blur the lines of being in a state of mind capable of making a consensual decision.

^ Here you attempt to make the case that his mental state was compromised, and that as a result, he was somehow not able to consent to sex. What that means is that a temporary mental state such as "panicked" could effectively render him a child - not responsible for his actions and/or his mother becomes responsible for his actions. Which is why I responded with the following...

..and? Suddenly an adult who is in a state of mental distress is a child?

Such a claim is ludicrous. A panic attack does not somehow absolve you of rights or responsibility as you seem to be claiming that it does. Your response further narrows the situation.

He is her child.

Now you're claiming that his mental state coupled with the fact that she was his mother somehow renders him a child in terms of responsibility for actions/capability for decision-making.

But his rights should not be subject to who he is interacting with or his mental state. With no other right that I can think of would you make this distinction. If he is purchasing something from his mother and is in a state of panic, he still has the right to purchase. If his mother is attempting to steal his property and he is in a state of panic, he still has the right to property. If his mother is attempting to force him not talk to the police about something and he happens to have a panic attack, he does not suddenly lose his right to free speech. So why are we making a distinction here on that basis? How does his panic attack or her being his mother strip him of the right to consent to sex that he is legally guaranteed since he is classified as an adult? By what logic can you possibly come to that conclusion? Because they have a history? Nonsense, lots of people have histories. Because she was a teacher? Nonsense, people have lots of teachers. Because she used to be in a position of authority? See above. This is my justification for the following statement.

But he is not legally a child. His relationship to her has no bearing on whether he can be considered a consenting adult. Neither, by the way, does the fact that he had a "panic attack".

To which you responded...

I should point out, depending how the child was raised, he could do what his mom asks of him without question, after all....she is his mom. Take 18 years of nurturing, teaching, brainwashing.... These are not two consenting adults here. Yes the boy (young man) must take ownership of his actions, but there is an awful lot of baggage for him to make that kind of decision and call it consensual.

Which doesn't at all respond to my post and leads us in a new and dangerous direction. Since when did "emotional baggage" ever absolve anyone of responsibility or strip them of their rights? That is what you're claiming here. I pointed out the slippery slope you were on by giving you a more concrete example of what that sort of reasoning would lead to - which you thought was off-topic.

Hopefully that has helped explain my position since (I hope) I didn't explain it clearly the first time. If you already understood that and were simply trying to deflect the conversation, well then I'm wasting my time.

 

[Gil]

Mom boffing her 18 year old boyfriend wouldn't have been a problem.
But boffing junior is a bit icky.

Plus, there is the rule of thumb, you can date a person that is half your age plus 7 years and not look like a fool. Any younger and you are wrong.

You are also wrong if you boff junior, or any of his same age friends. (pulling the "bro-law" card)

 

[a6m5]

I swear. This is the funniest thread I've EVER ran into.

On why incest being wrong, I thought it was because it increases the chances of the baby looking like that giant from Goonies. Isn't that right? I seriously thought that's why it was banned.

P.S. After looking at the pic, I'm thinking she must be a really nice mom. Maybe the kid's blind, I don't know.

 

[niky]

Dude... 18 is an adult. Everywhere. The only thing I can think of anywhere that 18 year olds aren't automatically entitled to as adults is being served alcohol in public bars in the USA.

You can get married at 16...

Except here... we've got to be 21 before we can get married without parental consent...

Bummer... and so many of my friends were getting pregnant by 15...

------

Personally, opinion = wrong. sick. ugh... but logically... errh... that's a criminal case?

I can see it getting into law to prevent us from being over-run with hideously malformed babies, but then... isn't that their choice?

BTW: Isn't Sodomy is still illegal in a lot of places? (or it was, until recently)... ...but repealed in the UK (for adults)... wonder why they didn't repeal adult incest with it, too...

Probably no lobby to support it.

-----

I've always been of the opinion that what you do to harm others is the realm of legality and morality.

Whatever you do to harm yourself is just stupid.

 

[FoolKiller]

My general thoughts is that this is icky, but they are two consenting adults. Even having a child through incest doesn't present an issue with me as that same precedent could be used to prevent people with genetic disorders, such as possibly my own heart condition, from having children.

They were two consenting adults having a sexual relationship and even the fact that they may have had a genetically abnormal child does not play a part in this for me.

^ Here you attempt to make the case that his mental state was compromised, and that as a result, he was somehow not able to consent to sex. What that means is that a temporary mental state such as "panicked" could effectively render him a child - not responsible for his actions and/or his mother becomes responsible for his actions. Which is why I responded with the following...

Such a claim is ludicrous. A panic attack does not somehow absolve you of rights or responsibility as you seem to be claiming that it does. Your response further narrows the situation.

I don't know for sure what Pakio was getting at here, but to me the fact that child abuse is not a charge here then it seems more like the issue should be more compared to someone who lacks full mental capacity, such as a mental disability or alcohol.

To me someone with a mental disability is obviously being taken advantage of, assuming the disability is that severe. I'm not talking about something like ADHD.

The alcohol debate is one which I find to be quite fuzzy as I have seen drunk people that obviously quit thinking a long time before and others that appeared completely normal. I do have a definite line drawn at someone who is passed out and unaware of what is even happening.

Of course, then you have to argue whether a panic attack places someone in a state to not think for themselves at all.. Never having had one myself I can't say, but I can't imagine getting into full fledged sexual activities while still in that kind of state. To me this would be, at most, equal to someone comforting another after the death of a spouse or child and the emotional roller coaster of someone comforting them putting them into an amorous state of mind. This is not illegal between any other consenting adults and so in this case I don't see where any legal issue should exist.

The question could be asked: If an 18 year old man has sex with an 18 year old unrelated woman immediately after calming her down from a panic attack is that wrong? If so, why? Many intense emotional situations create sexual tensions immediately following but we aren't going around prosecuting people for it.

 

[Danoff]

The question could be asked: If an 18 year old man has sex with an 18 year old unrelated woman immediately after calming her down from a panic attack is that wrong? If so, why? Many intense emotional situations create sexual tensions immediately following but we aren't going around prosecuting people for it.

This is really the crux of the problem with the panic attack issue. One would have to argue that having sex with someone who has recently had a panic attack can be considered rape.

So how do you feel about drinking while pregnant then? Should it be against the law? Perhaps we should start a side thread.

 

[FoolKiller]

So how do you feel about drinking while pregnant then? Should it be against the law? Perhaps we should start a side thread.

I do not think drinking while pregnant should be against the law. Problems are not 100% guaranteed, although the chances are high. And we went down thsi road how far would we take it? How many other things are bad while pregnant? My brother and hsi wife are expecting a child and my best friend is a new father. I saw all the books they read and what is godo and bad is not the same in all the books. Some people suggest one Guinness a day for pregnat women.

It sets an ugly precedent for something that is easily debatable. Of course, in a society when smoking around a child is up for legal debate anything is possible.

I bet this could have its own thread.

 

[Sureboss]

I've heard of keeping it in the family, but this is taking it too far....

 

[Pako]

So how do you feel about drinking while pregnant then? Should it be against the law? Perhaps we should start a side thread.

What does that have to do with any of the above?

Lets stay on topic. A different thread would be good.

 

[BobK]

Sick and disgusting, yes, but if they're consenting adults, it should be legal.

There are plenty of other things that I find sick and disgusting that aren't illegal, and the people who engage in them are perfectly fine with it.

Bottom line, it's no business of mine what two consenting adults (or more than two) do in private that doesn't harm anybody else.

 

[Matt R]

Well it maybe the law but I don't know any 18 yr. old that is in any condition to make such a decision...

What? I could have made the decision to not sleep with my mom as soon as I was old enough to comprehend what sex was. Penis in the vagina.

I believe 18 years old is old enough to make that sort of decision.

 

[Famine]

*bump*

They say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse...

With that in mind, really bizarre story.


I wonder how many times this situation has occurred before - and what, if anything, could/should be done to prevent it.

There's no details about how long they were married or if there were any offspring.

 

[Danny]

There's no details about how long they were married or if there were any offspring.

Perhaps it's for the best we don't know.

Really freaky story.

Hundreds of people in the world, what are the odds they'd meet and fall in love?

 

[Diego440]

Hundreds of people in the world, what are the odds they'd meet and fall in love?

I think you're off by about 5,999,999,799 people, roughly there Danny.