Why does Israel permit(ted) incest???
The general prohibition against incest with one’s “near of kin” (Lev. 18:6) has been held to be limited to the following degrees of consanguinity: parents (18:7); mother-in-law (20:14); stepmother (18:8); sister and half sister (18:9) (but not a stepsister as the Karaites maintained); granddaughter (18:10); aunt (18:12–13); wife of father’s brother (18:14); daughter-in-law (18:15); brother’s wife (18:16); stepdaughter and step granddaughter (18:17); and wife’s sister during the lifetime of the former (18:18). This list is exhaustive and may not be added to by analogies (Sifra, Aḥarei-Mot 13:15), since creation of any criminal offense requires the express pronouncement both ofthe conduct prohibited and the resulting punishment (see *Penal Law; cf. Ker. 3a; Sanh. 74a). A list of another 20 degrees of consanguinity was later drawn up, however, by way of analogy – albeit not to create additional criminal offenses, but as additional prohibitions of intercourse and impediments to *marriage (Yev. 21a; Maim. Yad, Ishut 1:6).
The punishment for the various offenses of incest varies – while biblical law prescribed death by burning for incest with one’s mother-in-law (Lev. 20:14), it did not prescribe any particular mode of execution for other capital offenses of incest (Lev. 20:11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21), some of which were clearly to be visited with *divine punishment (*karet; Lev. 20:17, 20, 21). In talmudic law, the offenses of incest were eventually classified as follows:
(1) those punishable with death by stoning – incest with mother, stepmother daughter-in-law (Sanh. 7:4);
(2) those punishable with death by burning – incest with stepdaughter, stepgranddaughter, mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, daughter, and granddaughter (Sanh. 9:1); and
(3) all other offenses of incest to be punishable with karet or *flogging (Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 1:4–7). As several of the offenses are threatened with both judicial and divine punishment (e.g., incest with mother and stepmother; Ker. 1:1), the rule was evolved that capital punishment would be imposed judicially only where the offense had been committed after previous warning that it was punishable and in the presence of witnesses; while divine punishment was deemed to apply where the offense had been committed without such previous warning and without witnesses being available (Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 1:2–3). Flogging came to be administered not only by way of punishment for such incestuous acts as had been made criminal offenses, but also by way of admonition and rebuke (makkat mardut), for incestuous acts which were not criminal (Maim. ibid. 2:8). Occasionally, capital offenses were reduced to offenses punishable with flogging, as in the case of incest with one’s wife’s near relations after her death (ibid.)
Incest is a capital offense only where sexual intercourse has taken place (Shab. 13a), although complete penetration is not a required element (Maim. ibid. 1:10); but the prohibition to come near anyone of one’s “near of kin” was interpreted to render any bodily proximity, within the prohibited degrees of kinship, punishable with flogging (Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 21:1) – except kissing or embracing one’s mother, daughter, sister, or aunt, or such other relatives who do not normally arouse the sexual urge (ibid., 21:6; and see *Sexual Offenses). The offense of incest is committed by the female as well as by the male participant (Yev. 84b; TJ, Sanh. 7, 9, 25a; Ker. 2:4; Maim. Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 1:1); but where the offense is committed upon an infant or upon a person asleep or by a person unaware of the incestuous relationship, only the initiator of the act is punishable (Ker. 2:6).
Each single act of sexual intercourse amounts to a complete commission of the offense (Maim. ibid. 3:12). The turpitude of this kind of offense is stressed in the Bible by such epithets as “wickedness” (zimmah, Lev. 20:14; Ezek. 22, 11), “corruption” (tevel, Lev. 20:12), “shame” (ḥesed, Lev. 20:17), and “impurity” (niddah, Lev. 20:21). Incest is one of the three cardinal offenses (together with murder and idolatry) which a man may not commit even in order to save himself from certain death (Sanh. 74a; Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah 5:2); nor in order to save another person’s life (Tosef. Shab. 15:17); nor can there be any justification for its commission on any medical grounds (TJ, Shab. 14:4, 14d; Pes. 25a). Opinions are divided among medieval scholars as to whether a woman, as well as a man, must choose to die rather than commit incest. Some hold that a woman, being the passive partner, may submit to incest rather than be killed (Rashi to Yoma 82a; Isserles, YD 157:1 and cf. Tos. to Av. Zar. 54a), while others maintain that she should prefer death (ET, 6 (1954), 110). It is also maintained that the female’s enjoyment is tantamount to the male’s action (Tos. BK 32a), constituting “an overt act” for which her punishment is flogging.
In the State of Israel there is no statutory prohibition against incest as such, but it is an offense, punishable with five years’ imprisonment, for anyone to have sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl below the age of 21 who is his or his wife’s descendant, or his ward, or who has been entrusted to him for education or supervision (Section 155, Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936). Apart from this particular provision, it would seem that sexual intercourse within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity described above is, indeed, left to divine punishment.
In the 10th century, Pope John XII is said to have taken his niece and his mother as mistresses. Despite anthropologists insistence that the incest taboo is fundamental to human nature, clearly people have been at it forever. Freud famously argued that everyone’s first sexual desires are directed toward their family, while Melanie Klein considers sexual relations between siblings to be virtually the norm. The real taboo is in mentioning that perhaps it is not a taboo at all. Historian Lloyd DeMause argues that incest is universal. He cites examples throughout the world and refers to the old Indian proverb (“For a girl to be a virgin at ten years old, she must have neither brothers, nor cousins, nor fathers”) as an example of how common incest has been. His examples are endless and worldwide: tribes who have sex dormitories where older adolescents initiate younger siblings into sex; households where parents incorporate the children into their sexual activity in one happy family orgy; fathers marrying daughters when the mother dies, and sons marrying mothers when the father dies. While I can’t verify every one of DeMause’s claims and references, clearly it gets darker than sitting on granddad’s knee. The recent case of the German couple, Patrick and Susan, who were separated as children and later met and fell in love, has made headlines. They’ve been together for nine years and have four children, three of whom are in care. He has served time in prison fighting for his right to love his sister. While my gut reaction is this is monumentally fucked up, why is it illegal? The obvious answer is that it increases the chances of passing down bad genes. But by that logic, everyone with a genetic condition should be outlawed from having sex–which is rude. In fact, the impetus behind the 1908 Punishment of Incest Act was just that–the proponents of the act were the same people who advocated the “sterilisation” of the “feeble-minded”. Siblings generally don’t fancy each other due to something call the Westernak effect: Being reared together forms non-erotic bonds
woman faces sexual assault
A Grand Island woman faces sexual assault and incest charges, after being turned in by her own husband who apparently caught her in the act with her stepson.
The 27-year-old woman faced a Judge Art Wetzel on Friday morning.
The Hall County Attorney says the woman’s husband caught her in the act of the alleged crimes with her stepson and went to police.
The prosecutor said the woman and victim both admitted it to police as well.
She appeared in court by a video link from the jail. She sat a desk in the jail in a black and white jumpsuit, her hands in shackles. She leaned forward on the desk, and said she understood her rights and planned to hire a lawyer.
According to the charges, the sexual assault happened sometime between January and June. The incest was between June and August.
Judge Wetzel set bond at $50,000 and ordered her to have no communication with the boy, who court records say is between 12 and 16.
committed the first sin
Matt Barber of the conservative Liberty Council went off on “homosexual activists” earlier this week, accusing pro-marriage equality folks of gradually leading America onto a road of polygamy and incest, hell-bent on “deconstructing the Judeo-Christian notion of marriage as marriage has always been.”
Let’s be generous to Mr. Barber and assume that whatever is in the Bible – as disagreeable and detestable as some of it may be (remember, the Bible supports slavery, as well as putting gays to death) – is right. According to Barber, homosexual fornicators are the bringers of polygamy and incest, while Matt’s righteous heterosexual living has been society’s saving grace. But reading from the Book of Genesis all the way through to the Book of Revelation, it’s not been gay people who have multiplied across generations via polygamy and incest – it’s been straight people.
Take Earth’s very first humans (according to the Bible). Bigots will tell you there was no such thing as “Adam and Steve.” And they are correct, because it was actually Adam and Eve’schildren who were forced by God to commit incest in order to populate the earth. It was also Adam and Eve who are responsible for kicking mankind out of paradise (Eve taking that bite of the apple). And it was Adam and Eve’s child Cain who committed the first murder.
This isn’t even mentioning the fact that Adam and Eve lived in sin, since it’s not entirely clear they were ever married.
Adam and Eve’s other kids include Seth, as well as “other sons and daughters” the Bible neglects to name (they probably got into lousy colleges or something). Even more interesting? Not one homosexual to be seen.
The Bible continues on with more accounts of heterosexual incest, including Lot and his daughters, Abraham’s marriage to his half-sister Sarah, and Isaac’s marriage to his cousin Rebekah. If traditional, Biblical marriage means having to marry one of my sisters, or that weird cousin with the One Direction obsession, count me out.
Matt also insists that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Returning to the Bible (the one book that matters, remember?), it’s not gays who have monster-trucked society via polygamy, but rather heterosexuals. Countless Old Testament figures revered by Christians had multiple wives, including Abraham (a double-whammy, since he’s also the incest guy previously mentioned), King David, King Solomon, Moses, Gideon, and Saul.
Again, not one homo in the bunch.
Even more telling are Bible verses seemingly condoning heterosexual polygamy, like Deuteronomy 21:15 (“If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other…). Equally awkward is that conservatives frequently cite this very book when condemning homosexuality. But it’s not like bigots are known for cherry-picking the Bible or anything like that.
And finally, when it comes to the Gingrich Award for Most Wives, the honor goes to David’s son Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines to his credit. Again, none of those seemed to be gay marriages, but rather traditional, Biblical, heterosexual marriages. Sure, today’s conservatives claim that marriage is between one man and woman, but if we’re following the word of God as shown in the Bible, Newt deserves to get his bush burned for not having married all three of his wives at once.
Matt Barber want us to believe that gay marriage is to blame for society’s downfall, and will be ultimately responsible for destroying traditional marriage. Except that claim couldn’t be any more false. Some Bible study would show that it’s never been gays who have been responsible for these acts, but rather heterosexuals. Furthermore, when it comes to redefining traditional marriage, it’s heterosexuals who no longer follow the Biblical tradition of marrying 700 women at once.
Now excuse me while I go wash my eyes out with bleach.
Rape and incest case is put off for 81st time
HE sentencing of a man convicted of raping and fathering three children with his 13-year-old daughter was postponed for the 81st time in the Nelspruit Regional Court yesterday.
This time because the 54-year-old man’s lawyer, advocate D Chambale, was absent, prosecutor Elise du Plessis told the court.
At 9.24am, the accused’s wheelchair was pushed into courtroom two. He was wearing a grey sweater and a fawn gown.
The door leading to the passageway to the cells was locked and an officer left him sitting in his wheelchair next to the door, about 1.5-metres from where Du Plessis stood. A few moments later, he tried to get up from the wheelchair. He looked tired and sick.
But court officials, including Du Plessis, had seen “the act” before.
Since April 2 2008 when the father was convicted on nine counts of rape and alternative charges of incest, he has caused much drama every time he appeared in court for sentencing.
The accused was found guilty of raping his daughter from 1998 to February 2006 and fathering three children with her