I heard the same thing on "another" forum by a "famous" gay porn director.
While many of us feel it is a bit "creepy", but I keep asking why such archaic laws exist? Is it an old religious thing? It sounds to me like old anti gay laws or racial laws of mixing races. I can see why heterosexual incestuous couples could have a baby with a genetic defect, but why can't two brothers jerk each other off or give a little head? And what is the penalty, a weekend in "debtors prison"? lol
*************************************
Hey, Stowe ~ Excellent research!!!!! And carefully observed by all U.S. studios. I've been on several sites which featured cute twins (notably the very cute "Fisher twins") - and the directors were always very careful to ensure that (while they did side-by-side j/o scenes, or sometimes three-ways with another guy) they never touched EACH OTHER.
Mike, sure, these laws are archaic. But keep in mind that the common law in English-speaking jurisdictions (unlike the many European jurisdictions whose laws are based on some descendant of the Napoleonic Code, which was conceived as a complete, rational, articulated body of law) operate on the system of
stare decisis; that is, the updating of law in terms of precedents, which allow the law to evolve in a conservative fashion, over time, as particular issues and challenges are litigated. (Much as the question of gay marriage was recently brought before your Supreme Court.)
Both systems have their merits and flaws. But the practical import is, that English and American law tend to be much more a "patchwork", than it is in some European systems. So, for example - - - gay marriage is now (finally) legal throughout the U.S.A. (Huzzah!) But. . . there will still be islands of enforceable statutes throughout the U.S.A., which may be inconsistent with some of the reasoning behind decisions which validate freedom of gay sexual association, gay marriage, etc. . . but which will ALSO have to be litigated and overturned by the courts, as people contest them. . . unless state legislatures feel democratic pressures to amend them, and beat the courts to the punch. (And in many states, don't hold your breath ;-)))
As regards anti-incest laws, they are a particularly thorny PART of this legal "patchwork." Of course, the most common and compelling reason currently cited for anti-incest laws is the biological argument you mentioned. This really has no relevance for gay siblings, as you rightly noted, but. . . don't forget that, by and large, NONE of our laws regarding sexual conduct, marriage, or partnerships, was ever framed with gay relationships in mind - gay sex itself only having been taken off the criminal books in most Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, in our lifetimes. (In Canada, it was in the late 1960's, and this initiative was spearheaded by our former Prime Minister, and Father of our current, cute, Prime Minister - Pierre Trudeau, who was then Minister of Justice. . . and was the occasion for one of his most famous quotes, "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." ;-)
Nonetheless, the bedrock of sexual laws, in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. (which is now shifting like the earth around a Pennsylvania fracking-site) was, and to some extent still IS, a Judeo-Christian, explicitly Biblical outlook, which received its fullest definition only in the Victorian era. (Which, while being much more SALACIOUS in outlook than many people now care to recall, was also quite stringent about such matters.) And re-constituting and re-building the laws relating to the universe of what is and isn't acceptable in sexual terms, on more rational and libertarian terms (which most people seem to accept today, but not in all regions, and not in all places) will take a lot longer in all the Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, for the reasons I cited above;
viz., the mechanics of legal change, in our systems.
*********************************************************************
When it comes to possible RATIONAL, legal, reasons, for the maintenance of the current laws forbidding incest, beyond the most important one that you adduced - namely, concern for the offspring of heterosexual siblings - there is a subtler public-policy case to be made, with respect to maintenance of the prohibition for ALL siblings. And here it is (in outline) ~ whether is has some merit, or none at all, I leave for you to decide:
Traditionally, in our societies, relationships between parents and children, but secondarily also between siblings, constitute possibly the most important bond we have. Not only do these bonds offer crucial emotional sustenance; also (especially in the days before the advent of the welfare state) these bonds are an important source of economic and social support for those who are in trouble or in need, for various reasons. (And we all know of siblings who help THEIR siblings out in times of crucial need - in times of illness, destitution, and so on.)
Sexual relations are, though wondrous and sometimes blissful, also notoriously stormy. And often lead to great and earth-shattering "partings of the ways" ~ especially when jealousies and infidelities, happen.
So. . . the reasoning goes. . . EVEN IF there is no danger of a biologically deficient or endangered offspring, being produced by an incestuous couple. . . there is still a compelling public-policy reason to discourage such relationships, inasmuch as they may tend to disrupt the mutually supportive relationships, we have usually (formerly) considered to be constitutive of the sibling-to-sibling relationship.
Of course, a thoroughgoing libertarian will not ACCEPT this argument, because it still relies on a prescriptive moral code, and suggests the state should ENFORCE that code - even if that code is secularized, and justified on humanist, rather than explicitly religious grounds. I do think, though, there is a rational argument to be made for the prescriptive position, which exceeds mere arbitrary dictation of morals, to others.
******************************************************************
Going to the extreme borderlands of this question, Mike, I will tell you that my compassion was animated (to some extent, to the extent that a wicked old Tory like me is able to FEEL actual compassion ;-) by a long correspondence I had with an Internet friend, who claimed vociferously and consistently (over many years) to be in a gay, committed, relationship with his brother. But who was very concerned about the legal implications it might have for them, not to mention the shock and anger it would occasion, in his family.
I tried to offer caution about the legal implications, and comfort about the personal ones - as well as a suggestion that both lads owed it to themselves to be open to other partners, given the many perils (and threats to their amicable brotherhood) involved. (And jealousies and anger DID arise between them, by times.) At any rate, he never accepted my cautions, or deviated from the path he was on. . . and eventually I lost contact, with him.
****************************************************************************
This issue was treated very sensitively and well, by "Dear Prudence", from
Slate magazine - and since we are on the topic, I will give you the link.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...should_reveal_their_secret_relationship_.html
And that's all I know, about this quite unusual subject! LOL!!!
"A" ;-)))
