I was always mean to my sister & told her to get a life & get some friends cuz she weird & painfully shy. Like a few months ago, we were home alone, I called her ugly, then she went to her room & started crying. So I apologized & told I really think she's the prettiest girl ever, & we hugged. Then she kissed me on the cheek & we did more kissing & eventually were both naked. She told me that I was her 1st. I was like,"LOL obviously, you think I didn't know that." Now we talk to eachother all the time & cuddle. & our mom will never suspect anything since were siblings. She comes into my room almost everynight & sleeps with me. We hang out just the 2 of us all the time now & we respect eachother. We always say we love eachother. But I would never get her pregnant because I'm a girl but even if I wasn't I wouldn't. We know that were gonna have to get different boyfriends & girlfriends eventually, but we enjoy what we have now & will never forget.
BTW I'm 18, shes 16
So you fucked your own sister. And your asking us why that's weird? Hmmm, were you dropped on your head when you were younger, by any chane? Or is this some kind of new Autism, I don't know about?
So, you still fucked eachother. Are you trying to explain away the problem here? Like are you mentally ill? You're asking us why it's wrong to fuck your own siblings. just /thread please.
It's mostly just bad because oftentimes the older sibling is taking advantage of the fact that the younger one looks up to them, etc, and that it is really bad if you actually end up breeding with them by accident.
I'd say that if you're going to fuck your sister you should be really careful to ensure that it's what she actually wants and that a fetus is not conceived. For instance, use a spermicidal condom and make sure she's on birth control.
you were incredibly dumb about it though, holy shit
>I wouldn't fuck my sister in a million years and am not into incest, but whatever, I know of way kinkier shit
>You aren't trying to turn your penis into a sentient snake or wearing other people's skin over yours as if it were a suit
Consent is all that matters. If a dog (which is legally unable to give consent) fucks a dog, it's rape. Nature is basically all rape except for humans and maybe apes and dolphins. maybe crows, too. and octopi.
>human laws apply to non-human on non-human interactions
>except for apes and dolphins, maybe crows, too. and octopi
well dolphins are known gangbanging rapists to their own species and will even reputedly force sex on humans so your counterexample is stupid too
Chimps and human children have a similar but far-from-identical set of instincts (being closely related but different species.) Human children are capable of a whole suite of learned behaviors (far more sophisticated language & tool use, culture, and so on) reflecting their significantly lower intelligence and capacity for absorbing new knowledge. Adult chimps experience sexual urges and aggression far beyond what most children do. Shall I go on?
Well, I guess what I'm getting at is - what is the fundamental difference that makes their sex OK, consenting or no, but consenting sex between children not OK?
We are seemingly saying that because chimps are dumber and experience sexual urges, this legitimates their sex. Is that what we really think, too, or have we failed to communicate? My instincts would tell me we have failed to communicate, because on the face of it that seems like an indefensible position to take.
Children can't consent. They don't understand the full implications and consequences of their actions, or many of the reasons why they do what they do.
Sex is serious, emotionally and physically, and needs to be taken seriously.
I fully agree. But sex between 15 year olds is held OK - thus, if you are both ignorant, apparently it's OK to have sex and suffer the unforeseen consequences. If you have sex with an 18 y.o. and you are 15, that could be statutory rape in some cases - the idea is that you were taken advantage of by a more knowledgeable adult.
Sex between animals is OK no matter the degree of consent or foreknowledge; we hold humans to be fundamentally different. What is that fundamental difference? If it is intelligence, then why do we speak of the possibility of rape between children? We hold child-child sex as acceptable, even though they can't know the consequences; yet at the same time if consent is withheld then it is rape (though neither party is assumed capable of consenting at all in the first place).
Dude, read about chimpanzee behavior. Or even (relatively) lower animal behavior (ducks are famous for this.) They have both consensual sex and nonconsensual sex.
Animals can consent, or not consent, as the case may be. A dog can consent to having its belly rubbed. It's quite clear when it does. An animal can consent to sex.
The difference is they can't give 'informed' consent, because they mostly operate on instinct. They can't be 'informed.' Humans don't operate on instinct. We can be informed. So we require informed consent, which a child cannot give.
It's really not that complicated.
>what is the fundamental difference that makes their sex OK, consenting or no, but consenting sex between children not OK?
humans are subject to human law, animals are not subject to human law. One is an animal, one is a human. Rape is a legal/moral concept based on consent. Consent is defined as a legal/moral concept. We as a society have agreed that children lack the ability to legally consent to sex even when they seemingly consent.
Animal-animal sexual habits do not make sense when analyzed under human legal/moral restrictions and you are a stupid faget
There's really no point in replying because you aren't addressing the fundental issue I brought up, which is that we find human children both capable and incapable of informed consent. You say that intelligence is the meter, but there seems to be something note at stake
Sorry, I misread you. I was mostly replying to the assertion that "nature is basically all rape", which it is not.
I'm not sure how you think that consenting sex between children is not socially okay. Consenting sex between children is not criminalized as rape and it's socially seen as normal, so I don't understand why you are implying that it is.
The problem with adult/child relationship is the potential for exploitation and abuse, which is why we automatically create the legal fiction that they cannot "consent" until a certain age. that's based, as the other guy says, in intelligence, but that's only a partial answer.
I never said consenting sex between children was wrong. I said that it is still possible for a child to be raped by another child - and that makes no sense, because the idea is they can't give consent at all
Jesus fucking Christ. The idea ISN'T that they "can't give consent at all." The fact that there's scenarios in which minors CAN give consent (you know, like when they're at least 12 or so and the other partner is close to them in age) is allowed for in most legal systems. Nobody's saying that children (well, teenagers) can never, ever give consent. They're saying that they can't ever give consent to ADULTS WHO ARE MUCH OLDER THAN THEM. Because the inherent power imbalance implies coercion, whether it's intended or unintended.
Real "children" (e.g. under about 12) arguably cannot ever give consent to anybody, whether an adult or another child, which is why THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN THE LAW ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE SEX. In most jurisdictions, anyway.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Christ.
As regards whether children can "rape" each other, as I'm sure you're aware, we don't hold children responsible for any lawbreaking or wrongdoing to the extent that we do with adults. The older you are, the more responsible you're held, until you hit 18. You understand this.
If you think that there'd be no difference in how two children who willingly had sex with each other would be treated, vs. how a child who physically forced another child to have sex with him would be handled, you're out of your mind.
This begs the question - why are they suddenly mentally competent when their partner is equally inept?
I agree, and I wasn't arguing that. So children are "less guilty" of their crimes, sure. But that is not a complete denial of their competence to make the right choice - and by the way, it doesn't legally vary depending on the age of the victim - that's left to judge and jury to decide on a case by case basis.
For the record, I'm trolling. I just find interesting that no one is willing to come out and admit that laws are as they are because consent based on intelligence is simply not the whole equation.
>that's based, as the other guy says, in intelligence, but that's only a partial answer.
I explicitly said it wasn't the whole equation already
....ya know I'm just gonna chalk this whole thread up to lazy reading. Also why hasn't the OP delivered any photos yet?
That's not what begging the question means, and again, it's not that children are inherently mentally incompetent -- it's that their lack of maturity and experience RENDERS THEM INCOMPETENT when dealing with somebody much older and much more experienced, as well as far more physically imposing.
Your second paragraph is frankly pretty incoherent and I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, but for what it's worth, in many jurisdictions the penalties for molestation are absolutely graded based on the age of the victim, and nobody claims that the ability to give consent is predicated on "intelligence" ... really, at all. Maybe a tiny bit. It's based on a whole suite of things; life experience, mental and emotional maturity, physical development, and so on.
OK, so what else is it?
OK, thank you for the corrections, though I was just using the phrase in the colloquial sense.
I'm surprised you found that paragraph difficult to comprehend given your command of rhetoric and general level of discourse, but I will let that stand for now; your first paragraph interests me more anyway: maturity, experience - these are proxy terms for various kinds of mental aptitude. Life experience, mental and emotional maturity, etc. These are all proxy terms. Playing a game of semantics doesn't escape the problem. Physical superiority is assumed, but not always in play.
I think really the thing is we just want to protect them from situations that we know to be dangerous more often than not. The issue of their consent is a nice fabrication to make it seem like we are treating them along the same lines as adults, but really that's just not consistent with the laws.
What precisely do you do?
We want details!
You will come to regret this immensely. Do not be so short sighted and sit your sister down and tell her this can not go on. If this gets out to your family, it will do a lot of harm
>b-but no one expects it, we're siblings!
Sooner or later it will blow up in your face and then you will be left with a terrible relationship with your sister and a feeling of isolation/disgust from anyone in the family that knows
consent laws are also based in the social power dynamic, the potential for exploitation, and the psychological harm caused by (some) of these relationships, which can be severe and causes a lot of social problems later on. Intelligence probably plays some role in this, as does maturity, as does earning power, as does not being an adult with normal adult ability to control one's own life (e.g. being able to drive, have a job to provide for yourself, etc)
>a nice fabrication
yes, that's what the law does in a lot of circumstances. Corporations are all legal fictions - they're treated as entities, but they're just groups of people acting towards a common purpose. Laws are abstractions crafted to produce useful social outcomes (like protecting children from abusive relationships). They're not supposed to be rational or 'one size fits all'. Maybe that's what you're not getting here.
Alright OP, listen up. Theres only a few options you have here. One of them is keeping this whole thing a secret for all eternity and only letting your most trusted friends know. The second is telling your family and just hoping they think incest is wincest. The third is ending it before it gets too serious.
Honestly, OP. I personally see nothing wrong with doing something because its what makes you happy. The american dream is the pursuit of happiness and if loving your sister makes you happy then go for it. ^_^
>you will be left with a terrible relationship with your sister and a feeling of isolation/disgust from anyone in the family that knows
What is happening between you and your sister will not continue forever, and one of you will end up butthurt. Your relationship will suffer. It 's likely this will not stay a secret.
That's when the shit will really hit the fan...
The cultural stigma for homosexuality is fading fast. The one for extra-marital sex is all but gone. My guess is polygamy will be the next one, but incest won't be far behind.
>There's no way!
Liberals gonna lib, they're running out of causes.
I get that, all of it. What I'm saying is that there seems to be some willingness to believe that the laws justify a belief in consent being the one thing that really matters; what I'm pointing out is that the law really doesn't conform to the idea that consent is all that matters; the law, as you and I have said, is a hodge-podge fabrication created by adults to protect children (who have no say in the matter - for good reasons).
The idea that incest is intrinsically justifiable due to consent is not justified by the law, actually or theoretically.
Recap of the thread prior to my entry at >Consent is all that matters. If a dog (which is legally unable...
>I don't see the problem with homosexual incest as long as both parties are freely consenting adults.
>I'd say that if you're going to fuck your sister you should be really careful to ensure that it's what she actually wants
>We hang out just the 2 of us all the time now & we respect eachother.
These are implications to the effect that what's important here is consent, but the law appears to have been created with intentions other than simply protecting consensual sex while preventing nonconsensual sex.
According to the law, OP's relationship is statutory rape in some states, yeah? Or if not, then suppose one or both parties were below the age of consent. That person would not legally be held capable of consent - EXCEPT (under law) if having sex with another person also unable to consent, legally speaking. That's pretty clearly an artifact of the law, not directly derived from the concept of consent = good sex. Two people legally held to be incapable of consent are nonetheless protected by the law to some extent; they would not be held accountable for rape of any kind, at least, yes?
The law protects some kinds of nonconsensual sex while preventing others; it is not equating consent with legal sex.
You really don't get it, though. You keep claiming you do, but you don't.
>That person would not legally be held capable of consent - EXCEPT (under law) if having sex with another person also unable to consent, legally speaking.
No. No no no. You're just wrong. Please just listen.
Sex is fully consensual when there's no coercion involved. The laws on statutory rape are in place to criminalize situations where there's likely to be coercion.
If a fifteen-year-old has sex with a sixteen-year-old, generally speaking, there's no huge power imbalance there. Therefore there's no coercion, and consent is possible.
If a fifteen-year-old has sex with a twenty-five-year-old, there's a good chance there's some kind of power imbalance there, for all the reasons that have been stated already in this thread. That strongly suggests coercion, and so it's criminalized.
If a sixteen-year-old has sex with a twenty-five-year-old WHO IS IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY OVER HER, i.e. a teacher or a priest, in many jurisdictions that would still be criminalized, even if sixteen is the legal age of consent; there are often special exceptions built into the age of consent laws criminalizing specifically that situation, because there's a power imbalance, again implying coercion.
Are you getting it now?
It's not "people who legally can't consent CAN CONSENT to sex with somebody else who legally can't consent." That's not an accurate summary of the intent behind the laws; stop imposing it on them. It's "people before a certain age can consent in certain situations, but not when there's the strong possibility of coercion."
Fuck you for making me type the words "consent", "coercion" and "power imbalance" so many times.
bumping to keep the thread alive; I want to respond to this but I don't have time to right now.
I think we are getting somewhere, just slowly. The problem up until now was likely that you and I had different ideas of what "consent" meant.
Until I can expand on that later, a simple question: if any sex not involving coercion is consensual, then would you say it is plausible that one could have consensual sex without understanding the potentially negative consequences of the act on your self and others which would outweigh the benefits of the act?
Being careful to define things here because of all the huffing about what may well have been semantics thus far.
Basically, here's where I'm trying to go with that question: To me it does seem plausible, even probable, that even consensual sex between two people who are very inexperienced would lead to unforeseen consequences the likes of which would have caused the participants to not have sex, had they been aware of them at the time. The idea that they can really consent is tenuous at best, but this is best determined by more experienced individuals than them; thus there should be laws regulating their behavior, even against their will, for their own good.
Similarly, I don't think the notion that consent is all it takes for morally good sex makes much sense, though it has been espoused here repeatedly. Consenting individuals are capable of such grave and common errors in this regard that them having sex is like allowing the sale of hard drugs - there may be reasonably safe ways to use cocaine, but most people won't manage to stick to that, and so society has an interest in judging that behavior morally reprehensible or illegal at best, to save the inexperienced from themselves and thus preserve the health (physical and mental) of its members.
Walking a fine line between nanny state and full on retarded libertarianism is of course important, however, and surely whether or not incest is acceptable to society should be determined by careful judgment of the relevant risks and tendencies inherent to the act.