Why does Israel permit(ted) incest

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.

Pope John XII have taken his niece and his mother as mistresses

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 bondsIncest_Mom

Chibombo man caged 20 yrs for incest

Chibombo man caged 20 yrs for incest

KABWE High Court Judge Elita Mwikisa has sentenced a 33-year-old Chisamba farmer to 20 years imprisonment with hard labour after he was found guilty of having sex with his 14-year biological daughter.

In March this year, the 14- year-old girl broke down as she narrated before Kabwe Magistrate Mary Chibanga how her biological father had carnal knowledge of her after he allegedly gagged and tied her to a bed.

In her ruling, Judge Mwikisa said it was saddening that the man who is supposed to protect the child could act in such a manner and that he was sending him to prison to deter other would be offenders.

During the hearing of the case, the girl who was 12 years old when the incident happened and is now 14, told Magistrate Chibanga that on the fateful day her father followed her in the house where she had gone to get mealie meal to prepare nshima and she was shocked that her father took her by her hands and covered her mouth and face before tying both her hands and legs to the bed using a chitenje material.

The girl could not hold back her tears immediately after identifying her father who was in the dock prompting Magistrate Chibanga to allow her to speak from chambers.

Ms Chibanga later committed Elvis Chitindi a farmer of Chisamba to the Kabwe High Court for sentencing after he was found guilty of the offence of incest contrary to Laws of Zambia.

Facts before the court were that on December 3, 2010, the accused person allegedly took advantage of the absence of her step mother who was away in Lusaka in having canal knowledge of her.

The girl who was sobbing when testifying led by State prosecutor Aaron Kuyeli said after the act she managed to sneak out of the house and ran to her grandmother within Chisamba area where she reported the matter.

Her father had threatened to kill her should she reveal the incident to anyone.

The following morning her father followed her and rebuked her and took her back home.

When her stepmother came back, she narrated to her what had transpired and the matter was immediately reported to the police.

Later medical examinations were conducted. But in his defence the convict who earlier during the trial denied the charge, admitted after three witnesses were called to testify against him.

In his defence, Chitindi said he had sex with his daughter because he wanted to teach her as she had come of age. / Times of Zambia

Tips to Help Sexually Abused Victims Overcome Their Fear of Pap smears

Tips to Help Sexually Abused Victims Overcome Their Fear of Pap smears

Every two minutes someone in the country is sexually assaulted, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN).  Victims of sexual assault or abuse are three times more likely to suffer from depression, as well as a host of other mental conditions. A new study also indicates victims are more likely to skip Pap smears.

In a study published in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, researchers instructed volunteers to complete a survey on the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) website. The survey included closed questions on demographic characteristics and cervical screening attendance. Open ended questions included discussed barriers to screening. A content analysis was used to decipher the responses.

The results revealed only 49 percent of women who were abused as children underwent cervical screening compared to 79 percent of the general population.

“One way of coping with the trauma of sexual abuse is to control or avoid the triggers of trauma responses,” researchers wrote. “Intimate gynecological examinations can be particularly stressful for women who have been abused because of the parallels with the abuse situation, for example, perceived loss of control, the power disparity, and the physical sensation of the examination.”

Though the fear of reliving the feelings of shame, guilt, self-blame and feeling unclean, contaminated or dirty may inhibit victims of sexual abuse from undergoing cervical cancer screenings, it is imperative they do. Women who have been sexually abused are more likely to develop cervical lesions in addition to participating in risky behavior such as drug or alcohol abuse.

However, Sarah Kelly, training and development manager at the abuse survivors’ support association, was able to compose a list of steps successfully taken by sexually assaulted victims to improve their experience.

These tips include:

  • The survivor having time and space to talk about their fears and anxieties of having the test.
  • A friend or supporter being present during the test.
  • The smear taker having an understanding and insight into the issues of childhood abuse and the legacy of issues that adult survivors can face.
  • A discussion of words/responses which would trigger anxiety or flashbacks for a survivor and finding alternative ‘safe’ words to replace these. For example, many smear takers would tell the woman to try to relax during the test. The word ‘relax’ is often used by abusers and can be very frightening for survivors; an alternative is to agree a word in advance to use in discussions with the patient.
  • A private and comfortable environment for undressing and for the smear test to be taken.
  • A clear signal agreed beforehand for the woman to be able to halt the test if she needs to at any stage.

Read more at http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12469/20121002/tips-help-sexually-abused-victims-overcome-fear.htm#ScqVg0xskQ1LOa8Y.99

A man accused of having sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old

A man accused of having sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old

The 50-year-old man, who cannot be named, was charged with incest after the girl became pregnant.

The prosecution used DNA evidence from the foetus to allege her father was responsible.

But today Chief Justice Terence Higgins told the court he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the DNA showed the accused was the father of the child.

He said he had no evidence as to how a family genetic disorder would have affected the DNA results.

The victim has a chromosomal disorder which she inherited from her mother and passed on to the foetus.

Questions were raised during the evidence about what impact that disorder would have had on the weight and size of the foetus and whether estimates of the time of conception would have been correct.

Justice Higgins found the man not guilty of the charge.

The wife of the accused man was in tears when she heard the verdict and shouted ‘thank you your honour’ as Justice Higgins left the court.