Has any of the allegations been verified?.

Apologies for being a little too flippant, examinator.

What I do know is that definitions of what constitutes 'incest' vary very much between cultures - although I can't think of any where father-child or mother-child sexual relations are acceptable (mind you, there is apparently a fairly common practice in Japan whereby mothers masturbate their adolescent sons so they don't get distracted from their studies by girls).

There have been plenty of examples in Western history and in contemporary non-Western societies of endogamous marriage practices that would raise eyebrows among most contemporary Australians (except perhaps Tasmanians... joke!). In some royal and other high status lineages there have been examples of brothers marrying sisters, and in such situations marriage between first cousins is still reasonably common.

On the other hand, in many exogamous societies sexual relationships that would be considered quite normal in our society are considered incestuous. Interestingly, in parts of Australia one of the most damaging things the missionaries did was to encourage 'wrong-marriages' between people of the same moiety as part of their 'civilising' project. Ironically, in so doing the missionaries actively destroyed the basis for some of the most strictly controlled sexuality described in ethnographic literature.

Indeed, it wouldn't be hard to run an argument that most of the appalling cases of sexual abuse that are being reported in contemporary Aboriginal communities are the direct results of the deliberate transgression of Aboriginal Law regarding incest by well-intentioned but blundering missionaries and social workers.

However, too much knowledge can be a bad thing - which is perhaps why I didn't respond to your OP as seriously I probably should have...

CJ's response partially validates my point. Incest depends on the religion influenced cultures.
If one can intellectually exclude those issues one is then left with the base acts and one can then investigate their primary cause i.e Abuse of power.
then the rest follows doesn't it?

Dear examinator,

I'm not sure about the 'religion-based cultures,'
to which you refer. However, I am sure about the Law.

Acts of sexual penetration are prohibited between parents
and children, other lineal descendents or step-children
and between brothers and sisters and half brothers
and sisters. Under the Law - consent is not a defence
for incest. It is a criminal offence.

I don't understand to what you're referring in the last
sentence of your post.

Foxy
I'm referring to the fact that religion defines taboos/mores etc within cultures. These are often codified into laws. Which tend to create unnecessary victims as well as anomalies, A&D.

Much of the religious input is in the final analysis was to ensure their power over their devotees. This is best seen by the extremes, the sects. take the Hasitic Jews, The Brethren, Scientology, etc.
They all use a common Psychological methodology. Alienate them from the rest so they are dependent on the leadership/organization.

As the religion changes so does the taboos/mores and therefore the culture.

While there are similarities and some have an element of substance they are never-the-less R/C defined add-ons/justifications.

Outside of cultural mores say in Islam, a defiled woman isn't worthy of marriage. The essence of that is clearly patriarchal and it's truth was based on the need to ensure, legitimize hereditary power structures.

Religion arguably adopted this to ensure their lines of hereditary accession(exclusivity) and as a means of controlling the devotees.

In so doing, they left the door open for victimization of those that were outside the rules, children and victims of incest etc.

The 'victim' in the example continued a consensual relationship for 10 years. Now the 'father' is dead and can't defend himself she's claiming victim status because the system allows her to do so.

There are several issues of fairness and justice etc. there. The key is the flawed way we decide right or wrong.

The “natural” (sic) brain electro/chemical argument for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
The problem is that it over generalises and over states.

Sex is a bodily function, albeit a pleasurable one to most. Our preoccupation with sex and its sanctity, publicity value etc. is religious and culturally (R/C) based.

Many of the traumas that victims face are as a consequence of this R/C conditioning. We are told from childhood that it's some how dirty, inappropriate except under R/C defined/approved situations.

In the examples I clearly showed that Rape is about aggressive dominance over the victim ergo its about abuse of power.

Some people can't climax, unless there is an element of dominance is used. In the extreme cases they become rapists.

When I said de-sexualised I three interpretations of that non word in mind.
1. Neutering the common over fascination of sexualising every thing i.e. media stories, ads, etc. (NB I didn't say get rid of it just keep it in perspective) less salaciousness.
2.Reduce the impacts on victims in legal cases and R/C induced stigmatising aftermath. Violence is easier to prove than rape and would lead to discouraging other abuses of power i.e. the 40+ ex-football (star?) executive who had a series of sexitaries who were just of legal age.
One case I remember was of a 20 yo uni student and Muslim who had given herself to her boyfriend but he prematurely died in a car crash. She committed suicide because she could never get married because of the R/C shame.
.
3.De genderise and bias the public perceptions of rape and rape victims
Consider the plight of the Mormon male pack raped by bikkie type females. The
police and according to Stuart's principal, his biggest problem should have been how
to get the smile of his face.
Likewise the scenario of a male dressed in the fashion of the day was pack raped
'because he looked like a poof (someone's bitch).'
In both cases the common element is violent suppression of the victim (power) might is right so punish that not sex.