Beyond platitudes

Of course, the standard libertarian answer to this question is, “If no non-consenting third party is harmed in the action, there is nothing wrong with it.”

Right?

Wrong!

I know that many libertarians, including my fellow Cartelians say such a thing lazily, but the precise way of saying it is: “If no non-consenting third party is harmed by the action, then the Government has no business legislating against it

But either way, I am sure Gaurav did not ask the question so that he could hear the standard libertarian answer. He must have known the standard answer because he explicitly clarified the question in a way so that the answer would be tough. He asked me to “Forget inbreeding”, i.e. he set up the question in such a way that the action of incest would cause no harm to anyone else, including to a newborn baby. So essentially, I can paraphrase his question as:

I happen to think that incest is “yuck”. From the “yuck”, I intuitively feel that it is morally wrong. However, I cannot give a logical reason why I think that it is morally wrong, beyond that I feel “yuck” when I think of it. I am pretty sure you feel the same, and yet your principles prevent you from criminalizing the action. So I am curious how you will reconcile your principles with your intuitions.

Is that a valid paraphrase of the question? If it is, here is my answer.

I freely confess that incest makes me too go “yuck”. Let me also concede (for argument’s sake) that there is something morally wrong with the action, independent of the harm it causes by inbreeding. For that reason, let me assume that both I and Gaurav want to see less of it. Does that mean that there should be a law against it?

Not really. Even if I drop my objection to laws against actions that do not hurt any non-consenting party, here is my next question: “Why do we need the law?”

The taboo against incest seems to be one of the most deep-rooted in human society. Even if there were no law against it, there is an incredible amount of social pressure against it. Practically every child that grows up in any current society grows up with a feeling of “yuck” that will act as a barrier to his committing the act. So I think that it is safe to assume that millions of brothers and sisters aren’t quite waiting for the law to be repealed to jump to bed with each other.

So given this fact, why is there a need for a law against incest? What purpose would it serve? Why waste enforcement resources and give the government more powers to stop the miniscule number of brothers and sisters who have sex with each other?

Note that this argument is actually an inversion of what we instinctively feel. We instinctively feel that something that is utterly wrong and which practically everyone agrees is wrong should automatically be banned. That does not really follow. We should write laws to achieve something, not to express our feelings.

This last sentence, more than any platitudes about individual freedom and personal liberty, explains why I am a libertarian.

This naturally brings up Gaurav’s next question, i.e. what do I think of Social taboos? What is the “correct” libertarian way to think of them? I will tackle that two posts down the line, because in the next post I want to ruminate on where the taboo on incest came from.

37 thoughts on “Beyond platitudes

  1. Yes, I meant it the way you rephrased :-), only a little malice was intended.*

    Your arguement in essence is it is impossible to monitor the bedrooms of citizens without avoiding the exorbitant cost involved in setting up such mechanism and what is much more important serious curtailing of the individual’s right. Even if it is achieved it will work in the same way our socialist republic works.

    However at risk of sounding like “the other half”, your answer assumes social values and what is more a functional society. Yet it is very rare when anyone (i.e. not limited to cartel or even libertarian) emphasizes this point. IMO this is not a sound position because like all organisation cohesion and more important vitality of society demand work from the members. I am afraid social ethos & “laisser faire” liberalism doesn’t go together.

    * The reason I feel yuck is of course my social conditioning. My dilemma is these social taboos evolved by machinations of a small (and shrewd )group for further its narrow interest (something like casteism or racism) or these taboos have sound basis with aim to preserve functionality of society.

    Regards

  2. We should write laws to achieve something, not to express our feelings.

    This last sentence, more than any platitudes about individual freedom and personal liberty, explains why I am a libertarian.

    I have a problem with each of the above sentences.
    The first sentence is wrong by itself, and also it does not seem to follow from the previous sentences.

    We should write laws to codify what is just; not to “achieve something”.
    Second, even otherwise, if society has extensive societal restrictions against something, it has to be pretty important, and it does not follow that policing the few transgressions would not “achieve something”.

    In your second sentence, you conclude your libertarianism from a desire to have laws that achieve something. It is the statists who’d derive their ideology from the said sentence.
    The minimalists, including libertarians, want their laws restricted to a apriori theory of justice; not on the basis of “something to achieve”.

  3. The minimalists, including libertarians, want their laws restricted to a apriori theory of justice; not on the basis of “something to achieve”.
    Justice is best understood as a mechanism of deterrence; courts and laws are meant to deter people from acting in certain ways we have deemed to be harmful to the society as a whole. We frame laws after considering whether the probabilistic cost of deterring a certain crime through that law is lesser than the probabilistic harm that crime can inflict on the society. We implement all laws only to the extent it is efficient to implement them; we do not implement all laws 100% so that our society can conform to some Platonic notions of justice for its own sake.

  4. Gaurav, both your points are the subjects of the next two posts.

    Venu 1: “Both of you”? Who is the other one? I certainly do not think so. In fact, I am going to conclude in the next post that the taboo against incest is probably innate, not built through society.

    7*6, your argument is extremely weird. My theory of justice tells me that murder is unjust. Having so concluded, do you think that

    a) I should just have a law on the books and ignore the question of whether it is being effectively implemented, because thinking of achieving something leads me on the road to statism?
    or
    b) I should support every measure that is intended to reduce murder, because once I draw a conclusion from my theory of justice, it is statist to ask whether the benefits from an extra measure outweigh the cost of implementing them?

    As to my first sentence, what is “wrong” about that? It is a statement of belief in the same way that “humans have a right to life” is a statement of belief. It does not need to follow from any previous sentence, because it is axiomatic to my way of thinking.

  5. Venu, Ravikiran: Let me elaborate.

    From what I understand, a minimalist favors an apriori jurisprudence: a set of laws that codify an apriori theory of justice. A statist, on the other hand, favors a more dynamic set of laws that are a function of his desire to “shape” things, things that he wishes “to achieve”.
    A minimalist avers this is dangerous, how does anyone know what to achieve, setting hard constraints in the form of law is dangerous he thinks.

    A statist thinks this is intellectual cowardice; a withdrawal in the face of a complicated problem. Better to tinker and keep changing with feedback than to not tinker at all: human civilization would not have been formed but for such statist thinking, he says.

    My personal take on this is: both arguments are correct, and are not contradictory.

    Hard constraints, in the form of laws, should be very few. Legislators should not try to “achieve” things for the simple reason that it is difficult for a democratic system to throw up a jurisprudence based on prudence.

    Soft constraints in the form of societal restrictions should be what should define a civilization; this is where one should attempt to “achieve something”.

  6. Ravikiran: to answer your comment specifically;

    perhaps you’re mistaking “enforcement” of a law and the law itself. Codification of enforcements of laws are not parts of the law themselves.

    To take your example; the law should only say murder is punishable by (say) the death penalty.

    It should not try to “achieve it” by measures like outlawing guns because, yes it is statist.

    and when I said that first sentence did not follow from prev. sentences, I actually meant the converse: the prev. sentences do not follow from that line. I explained why in the prev. comment: if societal restrictions are unanimous towards a particular injunction: it has to be an important injunction. (And it is; it maintained genetic health at a time when people had no conception of genetics)
    So it is not clear that preventing the few trangressions is not “achieving something”.

  7. @Ravikiran: Sorry :D. Given that you were talking about societal pressures and taboos mostly, I assumed what I did.

    @7*6: Laws, even minimalists’ laws, try to achieve something. What’s the point of anything if its not meant to achieve some goal? Whats unlibertarian about trying to achieve, say, enforcement of contracts – through a law?

  8. Venu: the point is subtle; laws are not constructed to achieve justice, they only codify justice. It is enforcement of law that then tries to “achieve” justice by enforcing the law.

    You’d say, hey this is hair-splitting, but mixing these two issues have unfortunate consequences: it would result (and has resulted) in codification into law things which do not deductively follow from the theory of justice but which follow from “wanting to achieve justice”. Gun Laws are one example of a law which does not follow from the dictum of “do not murder” but from a desire to achieve that dictum.

    The reason this is a problem is something that’d require more elaboration, but suffice here to say that a jurisprudential minimalist by definition does not like these “extra” laws.

  9. This entire topic touches upon two underlying concepts; important ones; without an understanding of which discussion will be at best superficial, at worst, fallacious.

    The concepts are: innate instincts and enforcement of law. As many of you noted, many societal restrictions are actually innate instincts, i.e. they are innate (soft) restrictions. But this does not mean human moral software is completely hardwired. It is possible, even with all innate instincts, that a child raised in a cannibalistic society that eats humans to have abhorred the death penalty if it’d been raised in France.

    It is here that societal memes that are not innate instincts, but that play on innate instincts, come into the picture.

    An enforcement of law, does NOT follow from codification of “suitable” laws. Most importantly, enforcement of sterile codified laws is difficult if it conflicts with people’s utility functions. Regarding the deterrence provided by codified laws, an unwritten apriori assumption is that humans are rational machines.
    a. The intellect is not as strong as we think vis-a-vis our instincts.
    b. People will find loopoles that render the deterrence void. (e.g. India)

    Thus the answer is to use societal restrictions to alter people’s utility functions.

    This is why Africa, and South Asia and the Islamic world have floundered with law enforcement and laws that were borrowed from the Western Civilization.
    Because what is the most important thing is not a sterile law or the inevitably weak enforcement of a sterile law; it is the utility function.

    (Even more tragically, corrupted utility functions of people, in a statist democracy, result in turn in corrupt jurisprudence; constructing a sad vicious cycle.)

  10. Why should not laws be random statements that reflect feelings? How is this any different than having a law in order to achieve an end? And where do you draw the distinction between what is a feeling and what is an end?

    The dichotomy is not clear from your argument.

  11. A few practical points.

    1)First, about the epidemiology of incest. Of the classic heterosexual incest pairings, father-daughter incest vastly exceeds brother-sister incest. the rarest of all is mother-son. Homosexual incest pairings overwhelmingly tend to be father-son. Though the disparities in proportions themselves raise questions about the cultural determinants of the taboos that operate here (which have been widely studied), going into that will entail a substantial digression.

    It may be noted that almost all father-daughter/father-son incest happens without consent i.e. it constitutes abuse.

    2) Secondly, about the social contexts of incestuous behaviour. Classically, incestuous behaviour is far more common in communities isolated in more than one way e.g. geographically and racially isolated, conservative afrikaaner farming communities, small island communities etc.

    3) Further, you assume that incestuous behaviour is considered universally ‘yuck’. Not so. In some island communities, it is a perfectly acceptable evolutionary safeguard against extinction, however badly it compromises the gene pool. These, I concur, are exceptions. But let’s not forget that many animals inbreed.

    “So given this fact, why is there a need for a law against incest? What purpose would it serve? Why waste enforcement resources and give the government more powers to stop the miniscule number of brothers and sisters……?”

    The incestuous pairing that the law would curtail the most (by far) is father-daughter/father-son incest, which, as discussed earlier, nine times out of ten, constitutes abuse. In the absence of effective safeguards against minor abuse, a crude incest law may help. Again, from a qualitative perspective, most brother-sister abuse involves some degree of coercion from the male, and a law will certainly help.

    Finally, regarding why one should write laws. If you look at that from a genuinely libertarian perspective, both reasons should be equally acceptable, in isolation and combination. What suits you suits you. Though the feeling bit has an unpleasant whiff of moral majoritarianism.

    P.S. It is rather difficult to disentangle the practical bits from the philosophical bits with this kind of an issue. For many kids out there, incest is an unpleasant reality, one which can mar their personalities and mental health forever. But if one has a sister/brother whom one is attracted to and they reciprocate, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t have a go at it. Complex, no?

  12. 1. If that law is a genuinely effective one, you don’t need a law agaainst incest.

    2. If it isn’t and you are someone who has experienced abusive incest (as most incest is), that question is useless intellectual masturbation.

  13. Why would the law against incest work where a precise law against sex with underage children did not? If the police aren’t catching people who are raping their children, how does giving them an additional responsibility of catching adult brothers and sisters having sex help?

  14. I think point 1 (above) answers your first question:-) i.e. I think we completely agree on that one.

    Regarding point 2, that depends on contexts again. In many societies where there are effective mechanisms for preventing abuse, there are no incest laws. Good. In say, family centred societies like India (or parent centred societies like Japan), where restrictive familial codes and secrecy often veils abusive incest from father/brother, the incest law may act as an additional safeguard. The point is, we don’t live in Thebes where a question like this could have been a purely philosophical one. In the real world, questions like this are inextricably linked to practical everyday experience.

    Anyway, thanks for the post and the opportunity to draw attention to an issue many people would rather pretend doesn’t exist.

  15. Ravikiran, Gaurav and others,

    The manner in which the question has been framed is indeed philosophical. Therefore, while the ensuing debate does illuminate some key arguments, the practical value of it (ie the public policy implications) are unclear.

    Since we are certainly not about to inaugurate a new nation on a new plant, perhaps the participants can consider framing the question slightly differently — should India repeal its anti-incest laws? If repealing the law will make no real difference, then the question is whether there are any costs to having the law on the books. If repealing the law does make a positive difference (and just what do we mean by a positive difference?) then are the costs worth it? The last case, where repealing the law makes a negative difference is a no-brainer, I would presume.

  16. Oops,

    A two mistakes in my previous post – one typo and one assumption.

    It should read “a new nation on a new planet” and I’m assuming India hasanti-incest laws.

  17. I’m seeing this concept in many comments: that one is to look at the cost of (implementing) a law, and then determine if it is “worth” it.

    I’m not a lawyer or a jurist or suchlike, but since we’re talking of “practical” issues here, has this EVER been a reason to create or not create a law? Even more, SHOULD it ever be the rationale for a law? How do you calculate “costs” with respect to children molested?

    a law, to repeat myself, is seen by most jurisprudents as an embodiment of a theory of justice. As such, the set of laws is not seen as a “means” but as an end on their own. It is very uncomfortable for me not to assume an apriori theory of justice.

    Or perhaps, we’re confusing different types of laws — statutory vs common laws. I believe the former should not even exist, but perhaps one could argue that legislations pertaining to regulations and suchlike should stem from “cost analysis”.

    Laws against molestation is not a statutory law, and as such the question of “costs” is moot.

  18. Nitin,

    The question was indeed not related to implementation of public policy.
    On implementation side I do not think that laws on incest will work.
    However my questions was why is incest considered taboo.
    And if there is not basis for it isn’t it time to redefine morality

    Regards

  19. @Nitin Pai:
    If repealing the law does make a positive difference (and just what do we mean by a positive difference?) then are the costs worth it?

    It doesnt really matter whether you have a law banning (consensual) incest, since its so rare anyway. There is some opportunity cost to fighting to get incest laws repealed, because we ought to devote time and resources fighting the far more harmful laws against gay marriage or any of the other discriminatory laws that prevent adults from doing things that dont infringe on others’ freedoms. In other words, if there were already a law, I think its not worth our time fighting to get it repealed (because we would have to fight for it, without doubt).

    @7*6:
    If we lived in a world where the Govt was omniscient, then, sure, we shouldnt be talking about costs, because justice would be free and instant (indeed many people seem to imagine we live in such worlds, where the govt can do any and everything for the welfare of its citizens). Unfortunately, govts are far from perfect, and they have to work hard to administer justice. Time and effort are scare; and where you have scarcity, you immediately have costs and prices.

    To your other comments saying that we should have an apriori theory of justice, there immediately arises the question of how to decide what laws to have. David Friedman explores these issues brilliantly well in this chapter, “The Economic analysis of law”, from his book on anarcho-capitalism. It will also help you understand where I come from.

  20. I was trying to stress the orthogonality of two issues: effort to enforcement; e.g. with more money to the police and effort to creating appropriate laws viz. more “power” to the police by explicit non-deductive restrictions on people.

    Anyway, I myself am not clear about many things, and most other commentors too seem to be confusing and mixing different concepts — I’ll cohere things as soon as I get some time.

  21. Ravikiran:
    If Law is seen as a ‘code of conduct’ for members in a society, and if incest is agreed upon by nearly everbody, in that society, as something to be proscribed, wouldn’t it be natural to codify it as a law?

    Hypothetically, if in a certain society, law enforcement is so pathetic it’s virtually nonexistent, and if enforcement is the basis to making a choice between enacting and not enacting a law, does it also follow that there shouldn’t be any laws?

    Seven_times_six:
    what’s an apriori theory of justice?

  22. pM: in two lines you managed to convey more eloquently what I struggled to convey in many more words and many more lines 🙂

    By apriori theory of justice I mean just what you were hinting at: a theory of justice, and consequently a theory of law, not contingent on the extent to which it is enforceable. We have an anti-child-molestation law orthogonal to the issue of whether or not it is possible to fully enforce it.

  23. With respect to the slightly digressive discussion I started, I should also mention the War on Drugs example in the US.

    The liberals make the claim that the limited benefits of the War on Drugs do not justify the costs. They do not realize that this argument does not make any sense to the conservatives since it violates their very premises of a theory of justice and law.

  24. WRT an a-priori theory of law, I think the law should allow you to do anything you want, as long as it doesn’t prevent anyone else from doing what they want. In that sense, consensual incest (which I think is very prevalent in India) should be perfectly ok, no matter how many of us agree is a “bad thing.” Similarly, I make the case that the “war on drugs” should not have legal sanction because people who use drugs are not taking anybody else’s rights away.

    I think most of you have downplayed the prevalence of incest in India. Anecdotally, almost everybody I knew in India had their first sexual experience (not necessarily sex), with a relative. Recent studies in the US have found that 10-15% of college students have had a consensual sexual experience with a sibling – I think the numbers maybe higher in India because there are fewer avenues for sexual exploration otherwise.

    South Indians continue to marry cousins as part of their weird culture – this would be considered incest in most parts of the western world. Incest is not unknown among the royal families of India, who don’t seem to have been any more morally upstanding than the Roman emperors. The Tamil Sangam works have an entire category devoted to “weird” love, like incest.

  25. Kingsley: While I’m the utmost believer in complete freedom to people to maximize their utility functions, I do not believe in complete freedom to people to define their own utility function. Therein lies decay: we must distinguish between these two types of freedom.

    Family and religion and such cultural institutions provide the societal restrictions that tweak our moral compass and our utility functions to an “appropriate” one. This is an important function, but which essentially involves coercion. I’d also stress that this is what distinguishes different civilizations: this is what determines their prosperity, the amount of creative progress they make.

    Our intellects (quite def. the average intellect) hasn’t developed as yet to the degree where we can do away with these coercive tweakings.

    As such, yes I fully support the War on Drugs and restrictions against incest.

  26. I should also point out a link to Artificial Intelligence wrt previous comment (since I’m just coming back from a conf. in that)
    Engineered solutions through evolution, such as vision, are so advanced even in small insects like bees that to induce these is a very very difficult problem, one that lots of very smart people are devoting their lives towards.

    Similarly, it is very difficult to induce what tweakings would result in a creatively productive individual. We have to draw knowledge from an evolved set of societal traditions, and societal restrictions. It is a difficult problem, but by no means one we (or rather the socio-political-acumenically gifted ones; the ones who end up defining the civilization) should withdraw away from.

  27. Ah, I am waiting with bated breath for the day when our technocratic Messiahs can tweak me for my own benefit!

  28. egads Venu, you misunderstand me.

    The purport of my earlier comment was to express my awe for evolution: both in the genetic and memetic sense. The “tweakings” that occur through these are fantastically more advanced than “tweakings” by technocrats.

    Most of what I say above is far more distasteful to me than it is to you, but things are what they are, not what I wish them to be.

  29. seven_times_six:

    That enacting a law is orthogonal to its implementation follows from how I define law–as a “code of conduct”–in that respect it isn’t much different from customs, traditions and such. I still don’t see why you use the term ‘theory of justice’ and qualify it with ‘apriori’. The reason I ask is because I feel I haven’t fully understand your point until I understand what you meant to convey by those terms.

    Kingsley:

    If your definition of incest is what merriam-webster says, then the south indian marriage customs seem incestuous only from a foreign cultural perspective.

    Also, if in your ethical framework, you hold that principle you state as binding, how do you reconcile the contradictions that arise with respect to ‘values’? To be more specific: drugs and sibling courtship may not be your kind of values, but what about science? I just visited your blog and you seem to be against teaching ‘intelligent design’ in classrooms. It doesn’t harm anybody to teach ‘intelligent design’, then why do you oppose?

  30. Hm. Libertarians probably tend to forget they live in a fallible world. Even though social pressures may be excruciating, there are always abberants. Laws are not there to deter those who will pay heed to society (or for a libertarian – the market), they are for the exceptions.

  31. Awesome discussion. But Gaurav has already clarified that his question was not about a law against incest but about the prevailing taboo against incest. Therefore, I do not think we need to stray into legalities. Any law is as effective as its implementation. There are severe taxation laws yet many politicians and bureaucrats evade taxes. Cops commit crimes. Even cops indulge in forced incest and rape. Pointless talking about it here.

    Why the taboo? That’s the sole issue. And several posters have already come out with the intellectual answer : between consenting adults it is strictly their private matter.

    I think the corollary question is : given that there is a taboo against incest should potential consenting incestors allow that taboo to come in the way of their pursuit of fulfilment ? Now, I am not sure if there in fact is a law against incest. But let’s assume there is not. Then, if adult brother and sister, or adult daughter and her father, or adult son and his mother wish to make out, and they do it privately, then they can just carry on as long as they like. No one’s the wiser. The pivotal thing here would be that they do it in private to escape opprobrium. In a utopian world, that we all aspire for, my argument would imply that if their act is known to the entire neighborhood society should turn a blind eye.

    My take is, a little prudence always helps matters. That is to say, other than the law, society also has this thing called taboo to control or curb certain disliked acts or behaviour. As in any custom, or law, this is a rule of the majority. The minority (in this case, consenting incestors) have two choices : violate the societal norms unabashedly and invite public outcry, ostracism, maybe even violence (remember, we are assuming there is no law against incest), or be discreet and preserve the peace. Leave the taboos for those who respect them.

  32. Update on the new real number system
    Posted: Feb 16, 2008 12:10 AM Plain Text Reply

    The results below are listed from my keynote address, The Mathematics of the Grand Unified Theory, at the 5th World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, July 2 – 9, 2008, Orlando, Florida.

    1) the set-valued dark number d* is a continuum, i.e., d* is not the union of two disjoint nonempty sets (note that there is no reference to open set; this is an algebraic notion of continuum).

    2) The decimal system consists of predecessor-successor pairs of adjacent decimals in the lexicographic ordering. Two decimals are adjacent if they differ by d*. In an adjacent pair of decimals the average is the smaller one. Thus, the average of 1 and 0.99… is 0.99…; the average of 4.3800… and 4.3799… is 4.3799…

    3) The new real number system R*, the union of these adjacent pairs of decimals and d*, is a continuum, non-Archimedean and non-Hausdorrf but its subset of decimals is countably infinite, discrete, Archimedean and Hausdorff.

    4) R* is the closure of the terminating decimals in the g-norm. The g-norm of a decimal is the decimal itself; thus, the g-norm of pi is pi.

    5) The only set with cardinality is discrete set; the continuum has none.

    6) R* does not contain nondenumerable set.

    7) Nondenumerable set does not exist.

    These results are included in an upcoming book, The Grand Unified Hybrid Set Theory; its main chapters are:

    a) The Grand Unified Theory, and
    b) The Mathematics of the Grand Unified Theory.

    E. E. Escultura
    Research Professor
    Gayatri Institute for Advanced Studies
    and Departments of Mathematics and Physics
    GVP College of Engineering
    Jawarhalal Nehru Technological University
    Visakhapatnam, India

  33. Traditionally in India, i.e Bharat, incest was unknown and unheard off till modern times. It appears that incest came into being in modern times in Hindu society (which precisely what India was till invasions began) much before internet began. Till the modern era nobody in India could even imagine such things. This was because moral lessons from mythology or quasi religious texts have always taught sense control and Brahmacharya as ideals and people worshipped these ideals. Well, now it will be a misconception if anybody thinks that incest is not prevalent in today’s Indian society. Another popular misconception is, “it is always the man who committs incest” and often man is presented as a villian molesting female children. This is not true! women also seduce young unsuspecting boys to have incestual sex. Most psychologists say that this type of incest incdents sure disturb mind of boys or girls what ever the case may be.
    However adult consensual incest in an intelligent fashion taking care to avoid pregnancy and maintain secrecy probably causes no psychological ill effects. However how many brothers can dare suggest to their grown up sisters to have incest with them without knowing how the sister will react?
    Adult consensual Incest between parensts and children, however is unthinkable even to most liberal in Indian society. Are’nt we taught to treat parents as gods? Adult consensual Incest between brother and sister perhaps is more understandable as they belong to same age group and lived like friends since their child hood.
    I think incest in modern India is probably due to modern society abandoning child marriages. During those days of child marriages and combined families incest did not exist. Not that I am recommending child marriages, but this is one fallout. But if financial condition of a man permits, it is better to marry as early as possible. Once you are in happy married life, incest will become abhorrent for you.

Comments are closed.