A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings. 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.True enough, in this day and age of essentially universal access to the birth control of your choice (despite feminists whining that if it isn't paid for by your employer or your government that you don't really ha access, there is really no good strictly biological reason for a prohibition on incest.
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.
"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 said.
. . .
The comments were labelled misogynistic and "completely disgraceful" by Sally Dowling, the crown prosecutor, who has asked an appeal court to appoint another judge.
"The reference to abortion is particularly repellent," she said.
Dr Cathy Kezelman, an advocate for preventing child sex abuse, said incest was horrific, regardless of the ages of those involved. "The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal," she told The Sydney Morning Herald.
However, I can see behavioral/societal reasons that incest may not be such a good idea. It can't possibly be good for other family relationships. But our civilization (note that I'm including the Aussies as civilized, but just barely) increasing values individual freedoms over controlling behavior which, while they not (or may) be harmful to the individual, degrade the ties that bind us together in familiar and communities.