Mother-Son Relationship in News.

[TranquilMind]

http://nbc4i.com/2016/08/09/mother-and-son-madly-in-love-will-fight-for-romantic-relationship-in-court/

 

NBC news. Who didn't see this coming? The money quote.

 

"They say they went public with their relationship to raise awareness of Genetic Sexual Attraction relationships. Mares said she would give up the right to see her other children if she was asked to choose between them and Peterson."

 

The woman has 9 children!

 

Is it acceptable since they are consenting adults if she agrees not to reproduce with him? Why or why not?

Edited August 10, 2016 by TranquilMind

[justasque]

Incest aside, any time a mom says she'll give up (abandon) her children for a man, there's a lot going on there that's not good, which is hard to tease out from a brief news article.  
I don't think these two are an effective "poster couple" for any particular cause.
Instead of gossiping, let's just pray for all of the people involved in this chaotic extended family, rather than try to use them to make political points.
More details in this article.

[luuknam]

I have moral issues with any person who chooses a romantic partner over their (minor) children, and since this woman has one 19yo she gave birth to at 16yo and 8 other children, I'm going to assume most/all her other kids are underage.

 

That said, I don't think it'd be impossible to develop a crush on a kid who was given up for adoption and who you never saw until the kid was an adult. I don't think "incest" is a sexual orientation though - it's not like some people are only attracted to their kids/parents/relatives.

[mamiof5]

Will pray for the other kids, what a mess :(

[gardenmom5]

It is still incest.   I think it's disgusting.

 

eta: my mother chose a 'romantic partner' over minor children. any mother who does, is showing she's more interested in her own base urges than nurturing her offspring.

Edited August 10, 2016 by gardenmom5

[mathnerd]

This woman seems to have multiple exes and her kids have different fathers. Though she is saying that her son is the love of her life now, I am not sure how long it will be before he becomes an "ex" as well. Incest aside, there seems to be many other things going on in this extended family - and these people look like they are too poor to get therapy or mental health help.

Edited August 10, 2016 by mathnerd

[Callie]

Incest aside, any time a mom says she'll give up (abandon) her children for a man, there's a lot going on there that's not good, which is hard to tease out from a brief news article.  

I don't think these two are an effective "poster couple" for any particular cause.

Instead of gossiping, let's just pray for all of the people involved in this chaotic extended family, rather than try to use them to make political points.

More details in this article.

 

Gossip?  It is a news article we discuss those all the time here.

[Janeway]

Picking your nose is not socially acceptable. But as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, no one should be arrested for it. I think it is dumb to arrest them for this. I do not approve of what they are doing, but as long as they are all consenting adults, the government needs to butt out. As far as procreating goes, I know people who purposefully got pregnant knowing both were carriers for genetic problems. If that is not illegal, which it is not, then there is no justification to making it illegal for mother and son.

[gardenmom5]

Picking your nose is not socially acceptable. 

 

Picking your nose *where someone else can see you* is not socially acceptable.   fify. 

 

no one cares if you do it where they don't have to watch.  I keep trying to drill that detail into dudeling's head . . . .

 

[TranquilMind]

Incest aside, any time a mom says she'll give up (abandon) her children for a man, there's a lot going on there that's not good, which is hard to tease out from a brief news article.

I don't think these two are an effective "poster couple" for any particular cause.

Instead of gossiping, let's just pray for all of the people involved in this chaotic extended family, rather than try to use them to make political points.

More details in this article.

They went public with it. I'm not interested in gossiping about them, but merely in examining the parameters of this sexual freedom we have and why. We can stick to the topic without discussing or disparaging them as people.

[TranquilMind]

Picking your nose is not socially acceptable. But as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, no one should be arrested for it. I think it is dumb to arrest them for this. I do not approve of what they are doing, but as long as they are all consenting adults, the government needs to butt out. As far as procreating goes, I know people who purposefully got pregnant knowing both were carriers for genetic problems. If that is not illegal, which it is not, then there is no justification to making it illegal for mother and son.

Why don't you approve of what they are doing if they are consenting adults?

[TranquilMind]

I have moral issues with any person who chooses a romantic partner over their (minor) children, and since this woman has one 19yo she gave birth to at 16yo and 8 other children, I'm going to assume most/all her other kids are underage.

 

That said, I don't think it'd be impossible to develop a crush on a kid who was given up for adoption and who you never saw until the kid was an adult. I don't think "incest" is a sexual orientation though - it's not like some people are only attracted to their kids/parents/relatives.

She is claiming that it is a thing- Genetic Sexual Attraction. Could she just be first to be public.

[JustEm]

She is claiming that it is a thing- Genetic Sexual Attraction. Could she just be first to be public.

No she's not the first. I've heard of fathers and daughers that never met until adulthood falling in live. And siblings. Actually I just heard a story if half siblings on NPR with GSA on Saturday. The first time I heard about it was probably 2 years ago.

[luuknam]

She is claiming that it is a thing- Genetic Sexual Attraction. Could she just be first to be public.

 

Not sure you're understanding me. I said it's not a sexual orientation. She probably is attracted to her kid. But, unlike gay people who are exclusively attracted to people of the same gender, she's not exclusively attracted to people she's related to (she does have 9 kids from various people she isn't related to, afaik). I haven't seen any examples of people who are solely attracted to people they're related to.

 

I mentioned that, btw, because at some point you asked in your OP whether it was a new orientation. Seems like you've edited that out now.

 

ETA: and they're not the first - I'd heard of it at least a decade ago.

Edited August 10, 2016 by luuknam

[Haiku]

If they put these people in prison, they are massively wasting taxpayer money. I don't like it, but they are not hurting anyone. I mean, the woman sounds crazy, but being crazy is not illegal.

[luuknam]

If they put these people in prison, they are massively wasting taxpayer money. I don't like it, but they are not hurting anyone. I mean, the woman sounds crazy, but being crazy is not illegal.

 

I'm just not sure of the "not hurting anyone" part. If they both had been, say, 15 years older when they first met and started their relationship, I'd have fewer issues. I know that 19 is old enough to be a consenting adult, but in current society at least, it's also still very young - most 19yos are still very easily influenced. This particular case just seems quite dysfunctional. Now, dysfunctional relationships aren't illegal (for one, it would be very hard to make them illegal), but I don't think there's a societal interest in encouraging them either.

 

If a woman had raised a kid herself and then started a sexual relationship with that kid the moment the kid turned 18, would that be okay? Especially given that these days, many/most 18yos don't know how they could possibly support themselves financially?

[Haiku]

I know that 19 is old enough to be a consenting adult, but in current society at least, it's also still very young 

 

So what? Either people are legally consenting adults, or they're not. There isn't a "technically an adult but still needing protection from being young" clause.

 

Whatever their issues are, throwing them in jail won't solve them.

 

I don't think incest is cool, but I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to involve the legal system if the participating parties are consenting.

[foxbridgeacademy]

It's gross, so gross, and IMO wrong in so many ways.  I don't think it should be an arrest-able offense.  It's their private lives, even if they choose to be public, these are two consenting adults and we should respect that (seriously so gross) if we want to have people respect our rights.  

 

To clarify even further..... I don't approve, I think it's wrong but I don't feel I have the right to tell them what they can and can't do/say/believe in their own homes with other consenting adults.  If I don't have the right to tell them then no one has the right to restrict MY freedoms. 

[luuknam]

So what? Either people are legally consenting adults, or they're not. There isn't a "technically an adult but still needing protection from being young" clause.

 

I'm aware. That said, whatever is "legally adult" depends on whatever society votes it to be. You never answered the question I asked at the end of my post.

 

Throwing them in jail won't solve their issues. It will discourage others from doing the same thing though. I really feel much more of an 'ick' factor about someone having sex with a young adult s/he raised (or gave birth to and then refused to raise) than with someone in their 30s or older, because it just seems a lot more prone to abuse (and, that abuse would often be a "he said, she said" kind of thing, think the issues surrounding date rape). And we totally *could* make it law that you can if both partners are over 30 but not otherwise. There are many ways in which society protects people who are young but are over 18. You can stay on your parents' health insurance until you're 26. In some states people are forced to pay child support for kids 18+ who are attending college. Etc.

[SKL]

As a single mom, I would never compromise my kids for any man.  At least not until they are somewhat mature adults.

 

If these two are that much in love, they can wait until the younger kids are grown.  Meanwhile he can mature and think things through.

 

I don't have a problem with two people who happen to be biological relatives (but did not grow up together) feeling attracted to each other.  But we don't always need to act on our sexual feelings.  This is just one of many cases where people need to control their urges for the greater good.

 

She sounds cray.  It would be my hope that he would realize that eventually.  But who knows ... one of those famous cases where a teacher went to jail for having sex with a young boy (12yo IIRC)?  They ended up getting married after he was an adult.  Just weird.

[Haiku]

If a woman had raised a kid herself and then started a sexual relationship with that kid the moment the kid turned 18, would that be okay?

I thought this was rhetorical.

 

What do you mean by ok? Would I think it was awesome? No. Would I think they should go to jail? No.

[luuknam]

What do you mean by ok? Would I think it was awesome? No. Would I think they should go to jail? No.

 

By 'okay' I meant legally speaking. So, in your opinion, if a person were to indoctrinate their kids to believe that it's a great idea to have sex with their parent(s), possibly while sheltering them from the rest of society, and then had sex with them when they turned 18, it shouldn't legally be an issue, so long as they 'consented'?

[Haiku]

So, in your opinion, if a person were to indoctrinate their kids to believe that it's a great idea to have sex with their parent(s), possibly while sheltering them from the rest of society, and then had sex with them when they turned 18

First of all, that's not at all what you said in your first post.

 

Secondly, I think it's an unwise use of taxpayer money to jail people for incest as long as both people are consenting adults.

 

Third, there are lots of unfortunate things that happen in society (such as your elaborated scenario) that we can't make laws to address.

 

If a parent tells her kid it's awesome to have sex with family members but doesn't actually do that with the kid, are we now going to prosecute thought crimes? People teach their kids all sorts of things I think are wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal to teach them ideas Haiku thinks are wrong.

[luuknam]

First of all, that's not at all what you said in your first post.

 

Secondly, I think it's an unwise use of taxpayer money to jail people for incest as long as both people are consenting adults.

 

Third, there are lots of unfortunate things that happen in society (such as your elaborated scenario) that we can't make laws to address.

 

If a parent tells her kid it's awesome to have sex with family members but doesn't actually do that with the kid, are we now going to prosecute thought crimes? People teach their kids all sorts of things I think are wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal to teach them ideas Haiku thinks are wrong.

 

I know that's not what I said; it is, however, a quite possible scenario. It's also quite possible to make laws to address that - in fact, we have laws that address that - you can't do that currently because incest is illegal. So, the question is, should we get rid of incest laws to benefit the rare few people who happen to be in a non-dysfunctional, consensual, incestuous relationship, but at the same time risk the elaborated scenario, or do we keep incest laws and those rare few should act like any other case in which someone develops a crush on someone they shouldn't develop a crush on and protect against the elaborated scenario? Or should we make all sorts exceptions to incest laws to try to get it both ways?

 

If a parent teaches a kid that it's awesome to have sex with family members, but doesn't act on it, that parent does set themselves up to be an accomplice if another family member has sex with the kid and there's some legal issue. But, more importantly, parents are unlikely to teach their kids that kind of thing if they're not planning on acting on it, because it's not in their self-interest. And none of that is thought crime (presumably you use words or actions to teach kids stuff, not thoughts). A thought crime would be if we made it illegal to fantasize about having sex with your kid, and I don't think anyone cares to make that illegal since it's not something you could prove anyway.

[Anne in CA]

I don't understand how this can be illegal, no matter how disgusting it is. Lots of disgusting things are not illegal, and even though this is probably hurting their whole family and everyone who loves/ loved them, I don't see how they can be arrested. I do think she should lose custody of her other kids if she doesn't want them that much. I hope their father/ fathers do want them.

 

 

[Haiku]

I think that adults should be legally allowed to have a sexual relationship with any consenting adult they choose to, whether I personally approve or not.

 

I am fine with not allowing blood relatives to marry, but I don't think the government should be interfering in consensual adult sexual relationships.

[luuknam]

I am fine with not allowing blood relatives to marry, but I don't think the government should be interfering in consensual adult sexual relationships.

 

What would the point of not allowing them to marry be, if we're letting them have sex and long-term relationships and all that? I thought that from the gay rights movement, the point should've gotten across that marriage offers legal protections such as the right to visit their loved one in the hospital and make decisions such as whether/when the plug gets pulled in a coma etc. Now, in the case of a parent-child relationship, it probably wouldn't matter very often, but in a brother-sister relationship it would.

[Haiku]

What would the point of not allowing them to marry be, if we're letting them have sex and long-term relationships and all that? 

 

Society has a legitimate interest in discouraging inbreeding. Prohibiting incestuous marriage is a legitimate way of trying to do this. But as large numbers of people regularly have sex without producing children, I don't see it as legitimate to criminalize incestuous sex solely to prevent inbreeding. And beyond the inbreeding issue, I don't see any legitimate reason we need to criminalize incest (again, of consenting adults). Thinking it's yucky is not a good enough reason. What if a brother and sister in their 60's decided to have a sexual relationship? If there is no chance of creating children, what would be the purpose of throwing these people in jail?

[luuknam]

Society has a legitimate interest in discouraging inbreeding. Prohibiting incestuous marriage is a legitimate way of trying to do this. But as large numbers of people regularly have sex without producing children, I don't see it as legitimate to criminalize incestuous sex solely to prevent inbreeding. And beyond the inbreeding issue, I don't see any legitimate reason we need to criminalize incest (again, of consenting adults). Thinking it's yucky is not a good enough reason. What if a brother and sister in their 60's decided to have a sexual relationship? If there is no chance of creating children, what would be the purpose of throwing these people in jail?

 

Seriously? 40.2% of all births in the US are to unmarried women*, and iirc the percentage of first births is even higher than that (don't care to look it up). Lack of marriage is not preventing people from having kids. Not having sex prevents kids. Also, by your same logic, it would make perfect sense to let 60yo siblings get married.

 

* http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm

[ktgrok]

Anyone else remembering the call the midwife episode about the brother and sister, that were "married"?

[Haiku]

Lack of marriage is not preventing people from having kids. 

 

Yep. I'm completely aware of that. There is absolutely nothing that the government can do to prevent incest and inbreeding. Absolutely nothing. Criminalizing it won't prevent it, and it's debatable whether it would even reduce it, given at a) most people are not open about their incestuous relationships, so identifying them to punish them is difficult and b) it's not a given that criminalizing a behavior is actually a deterrent. 

 

That said, the government doesn't have to give an official seal of approval to incestuous relationships. The government can, and does, say "this is not ok" by not issuing marriage licenses to related individuals. Not all states even have criminal incest laws anymore, and marriage licenses are available to people beyond a certain degree in kinship. Some states would consider a sexual relationship between my kids, who are not blood related, to be incestuous. It's kind-of all over the map.

 

Given all of that, I think it's a waste of resources to incarcerate people for consensual sexual relationships, and beyond attempting to discourage incestuous relationships that could lead to inbreeding by denying marriage licenses, I think this is an instance of the government needing to just stay out of people's private lives.

 

It seems that you and I disagree with this, and there is little more I can say to explain my position.

[luuknam]

Yep. I'm completely aware of that. There is absolutely nothing that the government can do to prevent incest and inbreeding. Absolutely nothing. Criminalizing it won't prevent it, and it's debatable whether it would even reduce it, given at a) most people are not open about their incestuous relationships, so identifying them to punish them is difficult and b) it's not a given that criminalizing a behavior is actually a deterrent.

 

If you're in prison, you're not having sex that leads to inbreeding at the same time.

 

But w/e.

[Haiku]

If you're in prison, you're not having sex that leads to inbreeding at the same time.

 

Until you get out. ;) The woman who is the subject of this article has stated that if they go to jail, when they get out they will just move somewhere else.

 

I was just discussing this with my husband, and in his typical, "Why are you even worrying about this, you people at TWTM discuss the weirdest things" way, he said, "So if the government tries to prevent incest to prevent inbreeding, is it also going to try to prevent people with heritable genetic conditions from breeding?" He then said, "It's not my creepy life. I don't really care what people do if they aren't hurting other people."

 

I agree with him.

 

:D

[Haiku]

If you're in prison, you're not having sex that leads to inbreeding at the same time.

 

Also ... do you honestly feel that it's in society's best interest to jail people for consensual sexual relationships?

 

We could also jail people for speeding, because while they are in jail they can't speed. Is that just? Is it wise? It would probably result in greater harm reduction than jailing people for incest.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Haiku

[luuknam]

Also ... do you honestly feel that it's in society's best interest to jail people for consensual sexual relationships?

 

We could also jail people for speeding, because while they are in jail they can't speed. Is that just? Is it wise? It would probably result in greater harm reduction than jailing people for incest.

 

Since you seem to care so much about the cost of jailing people, the lifetime cost of a kid with disabilities can easily exceed the cost of jailing a person.

 

Wrt speeding, depends on the odds of getting caught and actually going to jail. If it's too rare, it wouldn't work.

[luuknam]

So what, you jail the woman until she reaches menopause ? 

 

There are many ways to approach this. You could order the couple to stay apart, and only jail them if they break the court order. Then, you start with a relatively short sentence, hoping that will convince them to just move on, and if it doesn't, jail them longer. Or offer the option of one of them proving they're sterile.

 

Btw, I never said I think they should be jailed. I'm just brainstorming the pros and cons.

[TranquilMind]

And apparently, we already have "experts" on Genetic Sexual Attraction:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-genetic-sexual-attraction-expert-7715679

You can bet it will arise as a defense.  Rhode Island has decriminalized incest already. 

And, yep...found this:

 

http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2011/11/frequently-asked-question-why-is-incest.html   

The writer concludes, not surprisingly, given the name of the blog:  Short answer: It isn’t illegal everywhere, but where it is, it is the lingering result of sex-police holdovers, superstition, prejudice, and legislative inertia.

 

 

[Haiku]

Since you seem to care so much about the cost of jailing people, the lifetime cost of a kid with disabilities can easily exceed the cost of jailing a person.

 

It's not just the financial cost. Society has finite resources, and choices must be made in allocating them. I believe we allocate far too many resources (not just money) to incarcerating people in this country. Incarceration has severe negative affects, both on society and on individuals, and often the negative impact is not associated with an attendant positive outcome for society or the individual. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't mean incarceration is the right way of dealing with it.

 

My point with the speeding was that we really shouldn't incarcerate people to stop them from doing things that don't really affect other people if we're not going to incarcerate people for doing things that are more likely to cause harm to other people.

[luuknam]

Or you could make support, information and counselling easily available to couples with GSA to help them work through it and make good choices around their relationship - particularly but not only for the adult child in the relationship.

 

For one, unlike the community near you*, everybody already knows that incest is illegal because of inbreeding being bad for kids (even if you didn't, the moment you're told your relationship is illegal, you'd ask "why?", and be told the answer). I'm not sure what more education is supposed to do. You did notice that most of the people in your Wikipedia article had one or more kids, right?

 

*I'm assuming the community near you doesn't see cousin marriage as incest, since it's not incest in many places.

Edited August 10, 2016 by luuknam

[luuknam]

It's not just the financial cost. Society has finite resources, and choices must be made in allocating them. I believe we allocate far too many resources (not just money) to incarcerating people in this country. Incarceration has severe negative affects, both on society and on individuals, and often the negative impact is not associated with an attendant positive outcome for society or the individual. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't mean incarceration is the right way of dealing with it.

 

My point with the speeding was that we really shouldn't incarcerate people to stop them from doing things that don't really affect other people if we're not going to incarcerate people for doing things that are more likely to cause harm to other people.

 

I agree we incarcerate too many people. *Very* few of those are because of incest of the adult consensual variety. And if we wait for an incestuous couple to harm someone else by having a baby with disabilities, that'd be an even worse time to jail/fine/etc them than before, because then you'd be harming the child too.

 

Really, it'd just be so much better for people to just move on. Don't we all at some point develop a crush on someone we shouldn't, because we're married, or they're married, or w/e? Just because you develop a crush on someone doesn't mean anything. (and no, that's not the same thing as the gay thing, in which people are only attracted to one gender and can't just "move on" to someone who is 'appropriate')

[Haiku]

And if we wait for an incestuous couple to harm someone else by having a baby with disabilities

 

I don't care for this characterization. It implies that anyone who has any sort of risk factor for having a baby with any sort of genetic condition or medical issue is somehow guilty of causing harm to their baby. You're basically saying that older parents, people with certain diseases, people with genetic predispositions, etc., shouldn't be having kids.

[kiwik]

GSA is a real explained thing BUT we don't need to have a relationship with everyone we are attracted to. Most of us manage to follow conventions regarding who is available and who is not and don't leap into bed witb our friend's husbands or underage sons. This women has 9 children to several men. I bet she has felt this way before and got over it. I also strongly believe a parent's first duty is to the children in their care. We need to keep anti incest rules so fathers (mostly) can't legally raise their daughters to be willing concubines (the will still do illegally in some cases but we can charge them with it).

Edited August 11, 2016 by kiwik

[marbel]

GSA is a real explained thing BUT we don't need to have a relationship with everyone we are attracted to. Most of us manage to follow conventions regarding who is available and who is not and don't leap into bed witb our friend's husbands or underage sons. This women has 9 children to several men. I bet she has felt this way before and got over it. I also strongly believe a parent's first duty is to the children in their care. We need to keep anti incest rules so fathers (mostly) can't legally raise their daughters to be willing concubines (the will still do illegally in some cases but we can charge them with it).

 

Yes. 

 

I don't see the point of jailing these people but I also can't muster much compassion for them either.    There are appropriate and inappropriate relationships.  How many of us have felt a strong attraction to someone but knew we shouldn't follow up on it - and didn't?   

[Bluegoat]

I think labling this as a syndrome is a little silly.  People can be attracted to people they are related to, and sometimes they want to act on that.  That's why we have social taboos against it.  It is more likely when the concrete relationship doesn't mirror the genetic one, vice versa, so there may be some level of innate inclination to avoid it, but if it was really that overwhelming there would be no need for social taboos or laws that are pretty common in most societies.  In my view, sexual attraction that will attach itself in all kinds of ways is just human nature.

 

I also don't especially have a problem with the idea of laws of one sort or another against incest.  I'm not of the view that any consensual agreement or contract between adults should be legal, first of all, and I don't think there is really such a think as a truly private contract.  I also think there is a significant area of overlap between social acceptability and taboo with legality.  We don't of course make everything socially unacceptable illegal, but at the same time we have a tendency not to take social taboos very seriously unless they also have, in some way, some coercive force.  In less legalistic regulation driven societies, taboos do often have real force beyond a sort of disapproval by others, and in part that is how they work.  Given that we can't easily have that kind of effective disapproval without some legal back-up, we may need the law at times to support taboos.

 

I also think that there are significant real reasons beyond the yuck factor that make it a sensible taboo, and that is why it is so very common in many different societies.  There is the genetic issue, which isn't so much an individualistic risk as a social/cumulative one.  It might well be les serious in western societies where there is so much mobility and general genetic mixing over the whole population though.  There is also the social factor though, which is just as important in many incest taboos - the idea that family connections are the most basic ones in any society which ultimately tend to connect people through a web of relations, and that allowing incest tends to weaken those connections while out-marriage tends to extend and strengthen them. And then the third thing others have alluded to which is incestuous relationships seem to have a particular capacity to be prone to exploitation, particularly of children and the vulnerable members of society. 

 

All round, I think this is a good reason to make them illegal, though not necessarily in terms of jail time.  Of course that will not always mean it will prevent every incident, and there may be cases where it makes more sense for those who decide about laying charges to refrain.

[ktgrok]

16 yr age difference

Power differential (mother/son)

Willing to abandon other children

 

Yeah....you can take the incest issue right out of it, and still have a trifecta of reasons this isn't a healthy relationship. I get that in romantic love there is a feeling of belonging, of KNOWING this person in a way that is nearly spiritual, and I see how a genetic connection could recreate or mimic that feeling. But you address that, and deal with it, not go along with it. Out of love for the son, you get over your damn self. 

 

I've found people attractive I shouldn't, or had a connection with them. Doesn't mean you do anything about it. You consider it a near occaision of sin and get the hell away from that person. 

[Reefgazer]

Gross, but they are consenting adults and should be allowed their relationship. But heck, that's one piss poor mother who would abandon nine children for a boyfriend of any type.

Edited August 11, 2016 by reefgazer