According to this really creepy story it is. Who knew?
I didn’t know either, but to be honest, i couldn’t give a flying fuck.
If two consenting adults want to fuck each other, why do i care? I think it’s gross, but there are plenty of sexual practices i find gross but that i also don’t want made illegal.
Wikipedia seems to imply that it is, though my Google-Fu is having trouble finding the specific state statute that applies to incest. I did find that “sexual penetration with another person” where “The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree” is considered sexual assault in New Jersey.
For what it’s worth, though, Snopes thinks the story that prompted your OP is doubtful.
I couldn’t possibly imagine that the New York Daily news would print it if it wasn’t true! </sarcasm>
It should be legal everywhere. Consenting adults and all that…
I’m not sure about the specific statute but I guess the key question is the relationship. Cousins are one thing, but father and daughter? I also can’t claim to know the actual risk of birth defects, but father/daughter?
Read the statute again. It only applies if the victim is under 16. There might still be a general adult incest statute (but it would be of doubtful constitutionality given Lawrence v. Texas), but that is not it. It’s a child molestation statute.
Yes adult incest is legal in New Jersey. You just can’t get married.
Blood relation changes the age of consent from 16 to 18. That’s all.
Your Google-fu is failing because the statute does not exist.
(withdrawn)
Right. There is a difference between “it’s not considered a matter for criminal law” and “it’s accepted and supported”. There are already statutes on sexual assault. Creating a “special” sex crime just to add jail time to guaranteed social opprobrium and censure “because, Ewww” is not mandatory.
Agreed. But an artificially generated moral panic might be a good way to charge up the base to ensure a high turnout in the next election.
I’d hope that, by this point, there are no laws anywhere in the US criminalizing consensual sex between two parties above the state’s age of consent.
If Billy Bob wants to boink his sister Betty Sue, and Betty Sue wants to boink Billy Bob, ain’t nothing. Hell, I’m not even creeped out personally by incest, so long as both parties are consenting adults.
How many states do specifically proscribe sexual intercourse between consenting adults of different genders irrespective of marital status?
In my state, marriage between certain relatives was illegal, and sex outside of marriage was illegal, but I do not know that sex between certain relatives was illegal.
“Not illegal” would sound significantly less … creepy.
I shall endeavor to be less creepy.
As far as I know only New Jersey and Rhode Island do not have adult incest statutes.
Look I find incest as distasteful as anyone, but I can’t support making it illegal for two adults to consensually have sex. And thinking of it the only incest that really should be illegal is parent and child where the child is a minor(or other pairings where one side is a minor), and in that case we don’t even NEED the incest law on the books since raping a minor is already illegal no matter if you’re related or not.
Incest laws are basically pointless to protect true victims, and wrong when used to enforce morality, they should all be struck down.
*Yes I realize out in the thing called the real world most cases of incestual relationships between grown children and parents indicate there was abuse/and or rape and grooming or an incredibly fucked up upbringing and parent taking place while the child was still a minor. And even other cases like sibling probably indicate a messed up childhood at the least.
…Meanwhile, in Arkansas, everyone takes a deep sigh of relief: Finally! another state can take the crown for the most incestuous state in the country! Yee-Haw!"
I’d argue for an age of consent of 21 in incestuous relationships involving immediate family members, including people who have lived together as immediate family while at least one party was under the age of consent. And with a rebuttable presumption that the older party to such a relationship has committed a crime, but the younger party hasn’t.
Why? Because of the all-too-real likelihood that one of the players has been in a position of power over the other (parent-child, older brother-younger sister), and that power relationship doesn’t just disappear the moment the younger party turns 18.
Given that truly voluntary incestuous relationships are few, and abusive incestuous relationships are numerous, ISTM like the right way to tip the balance.
If non-consensual sex is a crime, why do we need a law saying THIS type of non-consensual sex is a crime?
I really didn’t think I’d see the day when I’d run the risk of being labeled an extremist for saying that incest ought to be illegal, but, well, here we are.
The state has a valid interest in prohibiting incestuous relations, mainly because it’s nearly impossible for someone to consent meaningfully to intercourse in a relationship where one person inherently holds power over another (parent-child, older sibling-younger sibling, aunt/uncle-niece/nephew, etc.), and those ties don’t go away with age - most of us, as adults, still view our parents and/or older siblings with respect if not necessarily obedience. For every completely consensual such relationship that might exist, there are countless others that are abusive, and the waters are far too muddy for the law to try to sort out the one from the other.
(Preventing inbreeding is a secondary concern, but not as compelling to me.)