Today folks, I’d like to talk a little bit about the double standards that exist in society, namely the fact that consanguinamorous couples are somehow held to a different standard than the rest of society. A double standard by definition is discriminatory, unfair, and usually fairly blatant, it is an expression of thinly veiled bigotry, and it must be exposed as such. In essence, it is a way of saying ‘these rules do not apply to most people, but they apply to you’.
Imagine if somebody said to you, ‘right, I’ve got £100, and you’ve got £100, I am allowed to spend mine but you can’t spend any of yours because I said so’. If somebody said that to you, you wouldn’t just accept it and say ‘oh, okay then’, would you? You’d be more inclined to tell them that it’s your money and you can do as you please with it (although perhaps not so politely, ‘fuck off’ would be my first response if I’m totally honest), and rightfully so. So why, if we wouldn’t accept this kind of oppression financially or socially, would we accept it when it comes to our intimate relationships? My answer is that we shouldn’t.
This in mind, let’s examine the double standards in a bit more detail, so that we can identify when they’re used in a debate, and what’s more, have an answer for them.
DOUBLE STANDARD NUMBER ONE: ARMCHAIR EUGENICISTS
The age old ‘mutant babies’ argument crops up again and again as an objection to consanguine relationships. It’s proponents claim that society has a responsibility to ensure the genetic health of the next generation by preventing pregnancies which may lead to the birth of a child with a defect. On the surface that may sound pretty reasonable to a lot of people… but how reasonable is it?
There are many groups of people who may also be at higher risks of having a child with a defect of one kind or another, or who have a higher chance of the baby being damaged during the pregnancy:
- Women over 40
- People who have inheritable illnesses such as Tay Sachs, Huntingtons Disease…etc
- People with conditions such as diabetes who may have problems during a pregnancy
- People who drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or take recreational drugs
- People who must take medications which may effect an unborn baby
- People who have certain STIs such as HIV which may be passed to the fetus.
- People who are malnourished or who suffer from eating disorders like anorexia or bulimia
- People who suffer from some mental health issues which could place themselves and their unborn child at risk of injury or death
- People with severe respiratory or cardiac problems which could lead to the unborn baby not getting enough oxygen.
- People who work with toxic chemicals as part of their job (like farmers who spray their fields with round-up or other pesticides for instance)
- People who have been exposed to radioactive materials.
- People with learning disabilities
This list is by no means exclusive, but you get my point, all of the above persons have a higher than average chances of a child being born which has an abnormality of one kind or another. Some of the people on this list will have a higher chance of having a baby with defects than the average incest couple, some may have a smaller chance.
My point is that if preventing the birth of less than perfect children was the REAL aim, then the above groups of people would also be banned from sex and marriage, and yet this is not something we see in society. Why? Because people know that it is unfair and immoral to ban people from sex and marriage because of their medical status or genetics. The REAL reason that people use this argument with regards to incest, but not for the above listed groups is simply that they find it ‘icky’. It is to do with enforcing the will of the majority upon us, it has little to do with true Eugenics if we’re going to be absolutely honest here.
The mutant babies argument is a scientific smokescreen, deployed to disguise obvious bigotry. It’s proponents seem to think that ALL incest leads to deformed babies, when the truth is as follows:
- Of those consanguine couples who choose to procreate, only about 9% of them (assuming first degree relatives) will have any genetic problems, the rest of the babies will be perfectly healthy.
- Many choose not to have children and will use appropriate contraception
- Some cannot have children, if the woman is post menopausal or is otherwise infertile, if the man is firing blanks, or if it’s a same sex relationship.
So, that’s the facts, and now you know them, next time you see some idiot using genetics as an excuse to deny us our rights, you can point these facts out to them and call them out on the double standard.
DOUBLE STANDARD NUMBER TWO: PREVENTING ABUSE BY DENYING CONSENTING ADULTS
This is another one of those arguments that is enough to drive anyone mental. Some people like to claim that all incest should be banned in order to prevent childhood sexual abuse and grooming. Yet they fail to see the complete and utter disconnect in their logic. This is in effect like saying that high school teachers should be banned from having sex just in case one of them molests a child. Makes no sense does it?
I suspect that many of the people using this argument know full well that it is illogical and doesn’t stand up to even the mildest scrutiny, but they do not care because the issue of consanguinamory carries such an emotional charge.
So, what are the facts?
- People who sexually abuse children are usually people known to the child, they may be teachers, relatives, or others who are in some capacity responsible for their welfare. Occasionally, children may be groomed by unknown strangers on the internet.
- Healthy adults of any persuasion have no sexual interest in children
- There are healthy regulars and there are pedophile regulars.
- There are healthy consang couples, and there are pedophiles who molest their own kids.
- Many of the pedophiles who molest their own children do so because those children are more readily available to them then the neighbours kids.
In other words, by discriminating against consenting adults because they happen to be consanguinamorous, they’re missing the target completely! If we’re going to be serious about tackling the scourge of child sexual abuse, let’s all work together on the issue to better identify child molesters and hold them to account for their despicable actions.
Don’t say ‘some people who date family members are pedophiles therefore all incest is bad’, because some regulars are pedophiles too and we don’t say that all sex and relationships are bad because some people are child molesters, that’s ridiculous and such an obvious double standard that I’m surprised anyone still argues this way.
On another note, those who compare us to pedophiles or deliberately conflate the two need an education, because sex between related consenting adults has NOTHING AT ALL to do with pedophilia any more than sex in general has to do with child molesting. It’s bigoted incestophobia, and it’s got to stop, plain and simple.
DOUBLE STANDARD NUMBER THREE: NO NORMAL PERSON WANTS TO DO THAT SO IT SHOULD BE BANNED
If I’ve heard this stupid line of reasoning once, I’ve heard it a thousand times, it’s actually a logical fallacy anyway, the notion that if something is not ‘normal’ then it shouldn’t happen. What exactly is ‘normal’ anyway? Society defines normal as what the majority do. By this definition, homosexuality, BDSM, polyamory, role-playing…etc are ALL ‘abnormal’ in the sense that those who engage in them are minority groups… but we do not legislate to make those practices illegal purely on the basis that those who engage in them are in the minority, do we
So why are incestuous couples singled out for legal abuse? We shouldn’t be! If other non-standard behaviours which harm nobody are legal, then our non-standard behaviour which also harms nobody should also be legal. This is another obvious smokescreen to hide incestophobia.
DOUBLE STANDARD NUMBER FOUR: CHILDREN SHOULDN’T GROW UP SEEING THAT SHIT GO ON, IT WILL HARM THEM/MAKE THEM CONSANGUINAMOROUS TOO.
I’ve heard this bullshit argument quite a lot too, a ‘think of the children’ argument holds no water at all when you consider what children are often exposed to in some apparently ‘normal’ homes anyway. Many of the people screaming this from the rooftops probably have no problem at all letting their tweens and teens watch horror movies or other violence on TV. How can that be not harmful and yet seeing their parents in a loving relationship with a relative be somehow harmful?
What are we trying to protect children from, really? What is most important? Children should not be exposed to seeing explicitly sexual material of any kind, nor should they be exposed to violence of any kind, either on TV or in the home. That’s it, and most people would agree with that assessment.
A child is NOT going to be harmed by seeing healthy adults in a loving functional relationship, regardless of what type of relationship that is.
Likewise the fear of the child turning out consang because his or her parents are is ridiculous, most of the children raised by consang parents will turn out to be regulars. People used to have this very same objection to LGBT people raising children, and most of those kids turned out to be heterosexual.
So let’s stop the fake ‘protecting the children from seeing things they shouldn’t’ double standard, if you’re that worried, stop letting your kids watch horror films, eat junk food and make sure they don’t see any porn online. Don’t hold us to a higher standard than yourself, hypocrite.
If we are to life in a sane and fair society, one which respects everybody’s rights and applies the law in an even handed manner and genuinely protects the young and vulnerable from sexual predation, then incest must be legalized and our people given full equality.
Holding a minority group to a different standard than the rest of society is the height of hypocrisy. It betrays not genuine concern for the vulnerable, but hate and fear of the unknown, get to know us a little better and your fear will be much reduced. It betrays deeply ingrained prejudice that society has allowed to run amok and trample over all sense of logic and fairness. Let’s recognise these arguments for what they are, cruel and unnecessary double standards. Rather than protecting the innocent, these double standards used as a justification for legal persecution are HARMING the innocent.
How, as a society, can we claim to be compassionate and understanding of minorities, when the only minorities that get that compassion and understanding are those which the media tells us to be compassionate and understanding of? As a member of this downtrodden minority I am speaking up to say that we are not happy to stay quiet any more while you jail us and treat us like we’re subhuman, we are not happy being denied the right to be who and what we are openly without fear, and we are not happy with being exposed to bigoted nonsense and scorn. We want our rights, and we will not stop blogging until we get them. It is not us that should carry the shame, it is the society that oppresses us.