The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2001, 07:07 AM
Schnitte Schnitte is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
So why? I know that in terms of biology and evolution, incest is very ineffective because it allows genetic diseases to spread throughout generations and doesn't provide the mixture of genes necessary to improve a species' genome; I also know that many religions banned incest. But this cannot be an argument to formally outlaw it, since
(1) in a modern secular nation where church and state are seperate religious moral should not affect the legislation,
(2) the question of a family's genome is none of the state's business,
(3) incest has already been banned since a time where evolution was not yet acknowledged.

Doesn't the idea of freedom also mean that two individuals are allowed to have intercourse if they want to, no matter whether they are related or not?

Similar question: Why do some nations, the UK in particular, still outlaw suicide?


Note: I do not support incest or suicide; I'd just like to know how the state legitimates such heavy restrictions of an individual's rights.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-15-2001, 07:20 AM
Kaje Kaje is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Schnitte
Similar question: Why do some nations, the UK in particular, still outlaw suicide?
well... this may not be of any considerable relavance...but the UK still does have an establish religion I do believe (though it could have been seperated years ago and i'll look stupid)... so they could still have reason to base legislation on church teachings
__________________
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity." -- Bill Vaughan
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-15-2001, 07:49 AM
DougC DougC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
- - - In the US, incest is not illegal. Having sex with a minor is, and incest cases often involve that.
- Also in the US, sex between direct relatives isn't illegal, but in some states, producing children from such relationships is. - HTH - MC
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-15-2001, 08:13 AM
casdave casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,547
Suicide has not been illegal in the UK for decades.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-15-2001, 08:29 AM
Brite Brite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Wait! ......... Incest is not illegal in the US? I know that relatives as close as first cousins may not get married nor may brother and sister. There have even been questions about step brothers and step sisters wedding each other, even though not related. There was something in the news awhile back about a fugative guy who left with his oldest daughter and for a few years, they posed as man and wife, and when the police caught him, the then adult daughter had a baby. Presumably by him, though she refused to tell and declined to say anything that would incriminate her father. From my understanding, he was never charged with incest and she was not forced to submit the child to DNA testing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-15-2001, 08:36 AM
tiny ham tiny ham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I think we're saying that incest is simply sex between two blood related people, not necessarily marriage. Unfortunately, all kinds of marriages are illegal. Who you have sex with is not.

jarbaby
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-15-2001, 08:54 AM
Patty O'Furniture Patty O'Furniture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Schnitte:

In a modern secular nation where church and state are seperate religious moral should not affect the legislation.
Many people would argue that you are not describing the USA with that statement. Congress attempts to, and sometimes succeeds in, legislating morality issues. If you don't think that is true, go try exchanging money for sex.

Things that offend the morality of a sufficient number of people can, through our legal process, be made illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-15-2001, 09:34 AM
Adithya Adithya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
It wouldn't be nice if incest were made legal.

However there seems to be a law in many states of the U.S that opposite-sex siblings may not sleep in the same room(even on different beds),regardless of their age,whether 2 or 12 or 42.That's the most ridiculous law I've heard of.Are all children sex perverts like the lawmakers think(how many are anyway?)?Do all parents have the money to provide two rooms for two small children?That's such a waste of space and money.
So much for freedom and democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-15-2001, 09:40 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I'm fairly sure incest is indeed illegal in the US (probably varies from state to state). There was an interesting article in Esquire a few years back about a brother and sister who got married (they met for the first time when they were 18 or so), had kids, then were sent to jail. The judge made some kind of statement that it was having the kids that really made them enforce the law.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-15-2001, 09:50 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I managed to find the names of the brother/sister couple in the Esquire article: Allen and Patty Muth. I haven't been able to find a good web article about them yet, though.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-15-2001, 09:52 AM
Aguecheek Aguecheek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
I'd venture a guess that most countries established their basic legal system long before the trend before the separation of church and state became common. Until not too long ago in England, the Head of State was also the Head of the Church (both are only mostly ceremonial now).
At some point in the Bible - don't ask me where - I'm sure there's a point that says that "a man shouldn't lay down with his sister." Or something like that.
A lot of laws are based on religious ones; some of which make basic sense, if nothing else. I'd imagine that in England, the U.S., Canada and other primarily Christian countries, the incest law is based on Bible law, and kept on the books up to now mainly 'cause it's a good idea. Until very recently homosexuality was illegal for the very same reasons, 'cause the Bible says it's immoral, and most lawmakers' morals were influenced by the major tract of their religion.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-15-2001, 10:18 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Jackpot: Found the Allen and Patty Muth Esquire article at Britannica.Com.

http://www.britannica.com/magazine/a...pager.offset=0

I skimmed the article again; they were east sent to seperate MAXIMUM SECURITY prisons, charged under a 1849 Wisconsin statute that criminalized incest. And this was AFTER Patty had agreed to submit to sterilation, so there was no chance of more kids being produced.

I quote the judge:
Quote:
"I believe severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said. "I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future, and I believe prison is called for."
Clearly, this is a case where the state simply wanted to stop these two people from having sex, even though no more kids would have produced.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-15-2001, 10:33 AM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,251
It DOES vary from state to state, and one of the sillier aspects of it is that some states recognize in-law relationships as bars to marriage. I know of a case where a pair of sisters married a pair of brothers - in some states the second marriage would have been illegal because a woman marrying her brother-in-law would have been "incest". Never mind that the sitiuation imposes no genetic barriers on the union.

(I also know of a case where a pair of sisters married a father and son. The weird part is that neither marriage was a very wide gap in terms of age - the sisters were over 10 years apart. In-law relationships had to be very entertaining in that family.)

On the other hand, states differ on the legality of cousins marrying. Offspring from first cousins is NOT a good idea genetically - you're 1/8 related to a first cousin, which is too close, but different states draw the line differently. I know of none of them that state the law in degree-of-relatedness terms, which is what would actually make sense.

I ran across this page for people romantically involved with their cousins:

http://www.janyce.com/genecous/book.html

They claim to list 26 states that allow marriage of first cousins. Unfortunately, you have to register to follow that link.

Being perfectly pragmatic, it would seem reasonable to allow marriage as a legal contract between any individuals, under the same rationale that gay marriage makes sense1, with a proviso that steps must be taken to prevent children if the parties are too closely related in genetic terms. Yes, you may marry your sister if you are so inclined, but she will get her tubes tied or you will get a vasectomy. It would never happen of course - the fulmination by the Christian right over such a proposal would be entertaining to say the least.

1 - that would be that marriage is a legal contract, and has such things as spousal benefits wrapped up with it. Personally, I would like to resolve the issue by separating the concept of marriage entirely from the legal contract / beneficiary concept. But we are certainly moving over into GD territory here.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-15-2001, 01:17 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Schnitte

(3) incest has already been banned since a time where evolution was not yet acknowledged.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "evolution". People have been selectively breeding domesticated animals for thousands of years. While they may not have understood evolution or genetics the way that we do today, they certainly knew that the health and overall fitness of the offspring (be it human or another animal) depended largely on who the parents were. It doesn't take a Darwin to realize that if the offspring of bloodline X tend to suffer from disease Y then it's a very bad idea for two individuals from bloodline X to mate with one another. Ancient people could observe the ill effects of inbreeding even if they didn't fully understand the science behind it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-15-2001, 02:59 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,480
IIRC in most states/territories of the US incest in and of itself, regardless of age, is illegal, though in many of them the charge is combined with that of sexual contact with a minor, if the case merits it, in order to provide the appropriate harshness of punishment.

Here where I live the statute applies to any intercourse between ascendants & descendants, or between collateral relatives up to the third degree of consanguinity (sibs, half-sibs, uncle-niece, aunt-nephew) -- whether the familial link be natural, adoptive or foster, and *extending* to step-relatives and "legal guardians"; it's a felony with no statute of limitations, and an adult/minor age difference simply adds Stat Rape and Child Abuse to the charges against the adult.

Inferred from the statute's inclusion of non-blood-related "family units" is ANOTHER, non-biological reason why incest is considered illegal by a society: its potential for severe damage to the integrity of family relations. In societies where the stability of the community depends on clear lines of intra- and inter- familial loyalty, authority, succession and property transfer [1] , that is serious business. So happens the societies our Western Civilization derives from were like that.

It's very similar to the basis for thinking it's a really bad idea to carry on an affair between commanding officer/enlisted subordinate, professor/student, counselor/counselee -- Will you not send a daughter to college in order to keep your lover close by? Will you maneuver to have your husband leave all his cash to the son that's more of a mama's boy than anyone imagines? Will you use your blood relation as leverage to demand that your sibling remain sexually involved with you even after marrying someone else? -- only that, since you can't resign from your family, and that is the basic social unit, it's elevated to the status of a serious offense.



[1]As in, if someone is simultaneously the late Yoog Son of Yoog's sister and daughter, as which does she participate in his estate? And can their oldest son speak for the family before the Tribal council, or should Yoog's equally-bastard-but-non-incestuous other son?

jrd
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:17 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
EEEEWWW...that article...I'm only on the third page, and it's icky!

Now, I could see if Patty and Allen fell in love and THEN realized they were related. But come on! The guy is your BROTHER...that's gross.

It's like something out of Flowers in the Attic!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:36 PM
delphica delphica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
I've never understood the argument that the incest taboo is related to livestock. Yes, as Lamia pointed out, you do see some evidence of the negative results of inbreeding in livestock, but at the same time, people use selective inbreeding to bolster positive traits in their animals as well. I don't understand why human beings would develop a moral absolute against human incest based on results of animal inbreeding, which are sometimes good and sometimes bad. If our ideas about incest* came from watching animals, our society's response might be more "hmmm, sometimes that doesn't work out very well" as opposed to "EWWWW." Is there something I'm missing?

*with the understanding that various cultures define incest differently

Guinastasia, since you're in the know on European dynasties, what's the closest blood relationship you know of between two people who married and had children? Where the royal marriages between cousins and what-not considered an exception to the social standards at the time, or was there one set of rules for royalty, and another for us common folk?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:40 PM
delphica delphica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by delphica

Where the royal marriages between cousins and what-not considered an exception to the social standards at the time, or was there one set of rules for royalty, and another for us common folk?
And of course, after I hit submit, I realized that those two things amount to the same thing. What I meant was, if the queen could marry her cousin, could the innkeeper's daughter do the same thing, or would she be run out of town on a rail?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:45 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
First cousins, mostly. Sometimes, said first cousins were doubly related. For example, Queen Victoria married her first cousin, Prince Albert. Four of their grandchildren married each other-
Prince Henry of Prussia married Princess Irene of Hesse.
Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg married Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse. (BTW, Irene and Ernst were brother and sister and their youngest surviving sister, Alix, was Tsarina Alexandra).
The first marriage was a good one, but the 2nd one was arranged by Queen Victoria and ended in divorce shortly after her death.

In the 18th century, there was talk of marrying Prince Peter of Holstein to his aunt, Princess Yelizaveta of Russia, daughter of Peter the Great. Nothing came of it-Peter would be married to Princess Sophie of Anholt-Zerbst, and become Grand Duchess Catherine-later Catherine the Great.

I do believe that the Egyptian royals used to marry their siblings-Cleopatra did, I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:48 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Ooops, that'll teach me to read more closely!

Up until recently, marriages between cousins was not a big deal-no matter your social status.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-15-2001, 03:51 PM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Guinastasia
EEEEWWW...that article...I'm only on the third page, and it's icky!
I agree, it grosses me out too. But I'm outraged that these two kids have to be sent to maximum security prison! Gee, I feel much safer now that these kids are sent to jail with murderers and rapists, they might commit incest near me! Maybe even in the same state!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-15-2001, 04:01 PM
Odysseus Odysseus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Is the marraige really irrelevant to this? Probably. In it's strictest sense doesn't incest apply only sexual acts? If so, then surely if the parties involved are consenting adults then what they chose to do is their business - and nobody elses, particulalry not that of the state, which has absolutely *no* business legislating morality (yeah O.K. I know they do it all the time, but the frequency of a thing can't make it right).
Whatever one's personal feelings about incest, surely the issue is about consenting adults.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-15-2001, 04:52 PM
Phallyn Phallyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Guinastasia wrote:

>>>First cousins, mostly.<<<

While that was the most common relationship as far as consanguinity goes, it is by no means the closest. Probably the closest the royals ever came to imitating the Egyptian Pharoahs was uncle/niece marriages.

The Spanish Habsburgs practiced this for centuries, until the extreme inbreeding resulted in the deformed, impotent, and half-mad Carlos II, King of Spain, who's parents were uncle and niece. Carlos married his French cousin, but thankfully there were no children from this relationship, and he died childless.

Isabel II, Queen of Spain was also the result of uncle/niece marriages, as was her consort, Francisco de Assisi. In fact, Francisco's father was brother of Isabel's father, and his mother was sister of Isabel's mother! What horrifying genetic anomalies would have resulted from this marriage boggles the mind, or at least it would, had Francisco ever actually fathered any of Isabel's children. Upon learning that Isabel's daughter was ill, a courtier expressed his worry, citing Francisco's own frail health. Isabel replied, "Oh, I'm not concerned. Her father was as healthy as a horse!"

But the prize for incestous marriages goes to Jean V, Comte de Armagnac, who prefered the bed of his own sister above all others. This sister, Isabelle, was reputed to be the most beautiful woman in France, and Jean actually married her, claiming he had obtained a dispensation from the Pope. The happy couple blissfully produced three children -- two boys and a girl -- until Jean was arrested, and the circumstances surrounding that dispensation were investigated. Turns out the whole thing was forged by Jean himself! The Pope was enraged, the marriage was annuled, and the kids were bastardized, and Jean ended up getting assasinated. Just goes to show folks, you can't sleep with your own sister and expect to get much good out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-15-2001, 05:40 PM
Seraphim Seraphim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
I do believe that the Egyptian royals used to marry their siblings-Cleopatra did, I believe.
You're correct: when her father died in 51 BC, the throne passed jointy to Cleopatra and her brother, Ptolemy XIII, who were then married. It was a turbulent marriage, to say the least. Ptolemy feared Cleopatra was conspiring to take the throne (which she was) and had her exiled in 48 BC. Then Caesar arrived on the scene, and once she had smitten him together they usurped and killed her brother.

Another incestuous Egyptian couple is Akhenaton (r. 1379-62 BC), son of Amenhotep III, who married Nefertiti, who is also believed to be a daughter of Amenhotep III. Akhenaton is also believed to have impregnated his eldest daughter, Meketaten, who died in childbirth.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-15-2001, 05:57 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
There was also the rumor that King Ernst of Hanover, the Duke of Cumberland and next in line to the British throne after Queen Victoria (until her children were born-he was her uncle), had raped his sister, the Princess Sophie, and that was how her illegitmate child was conceived.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-15-2001, 06:03 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,146
This is a Great Debate if I ever saw one.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-15-2001, 06:04 PM
rocking chair rocking chair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
i believe that the suicide law in the uk is because you are a subject not a citizen of the uk. being a subject means you are property of the reigning monarch. it is a no-no to destroy royal property.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-15-2001, 06:48 PM
lucwarm lucwarm is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,789
Quote:
Originally posted by Schnitte

Similar question: Why do some nations, the UK in particular, still outlaw suicide?


One reason I've heard given is that outlawing suicide allows the police to interfere with suicide attempts.

As far as the incest question goes, don't underestimate the "ewww that's disgusting factor," as an underlying motivator for the legislation.

I agree that a brother/sister marriage is troubling, but it's hard to think of a principled reason to object, assuming that there's no possibility of children.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-15-2001, 06:58 PM
FarmerOak FarmerOak is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 296
The PRIMARY (superseding even the birth-defects rationale) reason for the incest taboo is that it was healthier for a community, tribe, what-have-you to cross-marry, forging social and economic ties that would not have existed had the "stuck to their own," as it were. As with so many things, what was common practice became law and perpetuated itself.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-15-2001, 11:36 PM
Phallyn Phallyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
>>>There was also the rumor that King Ernst of Hanover, the Duke of Cumberland and next in line to the British throne after Queen Victoria (until her children were born-he was her uncle), had raped his sister, the Princess Sophie, and that was how her illegitmate child was conceived.<<<

Naw, this was probably the only crime Queen Victoria's "wicked uncle" Ernst was ever accused of that he actually never did. Yes, the rumor circulated, but it almost certainly never happened -- I say almost certainly, because after all only Ernst and Sophia ever knew for sure, and they're both dead. Anyway, the father of Sophia's illegitimate son was one Captain Thomas Garth. I've read a bit about Ernst, and I doubt he did it, though he was capable of horrible things. Murdering his valet? Sure. Knocking up his sister? Very unlikely.

In much the same vein, Lucrezia Borgia probably never commited incest with either of her brothers or her father. She also bore a bastard son, which spawned the whole debate, but the father of little Giovanni was most likely a messenger named Pedro, who was quickly disposed of by her brother Cesare. It just so happened that in both these families such malicious rumors were very easily believed...

...on a similar note, I remember reading somewhere that Tsar Alexander I had an incestous relationship with his sister Anna, and that the Princes of Montbeliard had commited consanguitous marriages with their sisters. Anybody know more about this?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-16-2001, 08:23 AM
Freedom Freedom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
I managed to find the names of the brother/sister couple in the Esquire article: Allen and Patty Muth. I haven't been able to find a good web article about them yet, though.

Did she keep her own last name?

























(sorry....sorry....stop hitting me.....I said I was sorry)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-16-2001, 06:43 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
I didn't say it was true, just that it was rumored. I know he was certainly capable of tormenting his sisters.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-16-2001, 07:05 PM
Gaspode Gaspode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
The idea that incest became illegal due to observing the effects in livestock doesn't hold much water. Most primitive peoples have very strong laws against incest. One of the primary roels of Aboriginal elders was to memorise family trees to decide who could marry whom. Incest wa spunished by death. These are people who have one semi-domesticated species that they never deliberately bred.

It seems that the repulsion towards incest is genetic. A study done on unrelated children raised in communal households showed that if people were raised like brother and sister they rarely married, even though there was no reason not to do so. Apparently the number of step sisters/brothers that marry are virtually nil, while children raised in communal kibutzim in Israel also marry vey infrequently. Granted this is a cloudy issue, but if there weren't some inbuilt genetic block against marrying close relatives it should happen somewhere near the frequency of people marrying those who they went to school with their entire lives, which is fairly high.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-16-2001, 10:05 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by delphica
I've never understood the argument that the incest taboo is related to livestock. Yes, as Lamia pointed out, you do see some evidence of the negative results of inbreeding in livestock, but at the same time, people use selective inbreeding to bolster positive traits in their animals as well. I don't understand why human beings would develop a moral absolute against human incest based on results of animal inbreeding, which are sometimes good and sometimes bad. If our ideas about incest* came from watching animals, our society's response might be more "hmmm, sometimes that doesn't work out very well" as opposed to "EWWWW." Is there something I'm missing?
Please note that I do not claim that the incest taboo arises from livestock breeding practices, merely that (contrary to the OP) people living in centuries past were familiar with the concept of hereditary traits.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-16-2001, 11:49 PM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Gaspode
Most primitive peoples have very strong laws against incest.
Maybe humans have been seected by evolution to have a disdain for incest? After all, if repeated incestuous incidents lead to mental retardation and other genetic shortcomings, the "incest gene" may have been selected against by ordinary Darwinism.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-17-2001, 12:49 AM
Monster104 Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
rjung, I was thinking the same thing myself as I read this thread. I don't know enough about the biological aspect of the whole thing to really know though.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-17-2001, 01:17 AM
sailor sailor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
You mean to say other people have sisters who are not extremely obnoxious like mine?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-17-2001, 01:18 AM
Neon Frying Pan Neon Frying Pan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21
If you take the Bible literally, it took incest to populate the world because Adam and Eve's kids would have had to breed from each other.

Also, after Sodom and Gamorra (SP) was destroyed, was it not Lott who lost his wife (turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back) who, with his two daughters, hid out in a cave? They, the daughters, mistakenly thought they were the last people on Earth and decided to repopulate it by getting their dad roaring drunk and seducing him?

It is a known fact that many brothers and sisters learn the basics of sex by playing with each other when they start becoming aware of sexual feelings. Doctor and Nurse is a good game. First cousins, when available, do the same. (Today it would be considered sexual abuse or molestation, even though almost everyone did it as kids and folks knew it probably would happen. Today, if kids get caught and the law is brought in, it just screws the poor buggers up for life.)

BTW, almost EVERY MALE has had a homosexual experience by the age of 18. Deny it if you will, but it is a proven fact, even if it only consists of comparing wieners and seeing who can jerk off the fastest. Boys also go through a prepuberty section of development where many look decidedly feminine for a time. (These boys are most often the ones molested by molesters because they are girl looking boys.)

Incest started becoming a bad thing when someone realized that inbreeding produced morons and all sorts of nasty things. Someone with more intelligence than most started forcing people to marry out of the family grouping to spread the gene pool around.

Many folks today look on incest as a Real Bad Thing for various reasons often hammered into them, but brothers, sisters and first cousins having sex for fun is not unknown. Many a big sister has taught little brother how to screw and vise versa.

I know a girl who used to give her older brother blow jobs at 10 and by 14 they were screwing when there were no other partners easily available. How many hormonal kids do you think peek in on their older or younger sisters when they bath or change? How many of those do you think have some sexual contact with them, even if not penetrating? And not forced sex either, but mutual fun? I had a friend in junior high who used to get all turned on by seeing his older, and rather busty, sister nude when she changed or took a shower and did not close her doors good enough. Given the chance, he would have had sex with her.

I think the judge who jailed the married brother and sister over reacted tremendously, due to the taboo hammered into him. In real small communities years ago, close relations had no choice but to marry each other and you can still find some little towns where everyone is related somehow to each other.

Incest was primarily banned because of the limiting of the genetic selections which could cause major birth defects and mental retardation. In my town, as a kid, I knew of a close knit family where everyone was mentally retarded to a degree and all resembled each other so inbreeding in their line was obvious as heck. They were the end result and all had that typical look so many mentally retarded kids have. They were just smart enough to work odd jobs and take care of themselves and their parents had a little farm they worked.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-17-2001, 09:26 AM
tracer tracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,563
Attrayant wrote:

Quote:
Congress attempts to, and sometimes succeeds in, legislating morality issues. If you don't think that is true, go try exchanging money for sex.
Um ... you do realize, don't you, that there are no laws at the Federal level forbidding prostitution?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-17-2001, 04:54 PM
Opus1 Opus1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
It is a known fact that many brothers and sisters learn the basics of sex by playing with each other when they start becoming aware of sexual feelings. Doctor and Nurse is a good game. First cousins, when available, do the same.
BTW, almost EVERY MALE has had a homosexual experience by the age of 18. Deny it if you will, but it is a proven fact, even if it only consists of comparing wieners and seeing who can jerk off the fastest.
Deny it I won't, but ask for evidence I will.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-17-2001, 05:44 PM
sjc sjc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Opus1
Quote:
It is a known fact that many brothers and sisters learn the basics of sex by playing with each other when they start becoming aware of sexual feelings. Doctor and Nurse is a good game. First cousins, when available, do the same.
BTW, almost EVERY MALE has had a homosexual experience by the age of 18. Deny it if you will, but it is a proven fact, even if it only consists of comparing wieners and seeing who can jerk off the fastest.
Deny it I won't, but ask for evidence I will.
Yeah! I'd like evidence. And more importantly, a good definition of 'homosexual experience'. I'm male, I've passed the 18 years mark, and I haven't had what I would consider a homosexual experience. I can remember one or two times (there are probably a few more that I don't specifically recall) when I compared penises with another, but I was pretty young and don't recall the experience having any sexual overtones. I think I was more in to the whole puberty thing. You know, "look how I am changing! Hey, he is changing too! Weird."

If you call that a homosexual experience, fine, I would disagree with that definition, but if we are using that definition then I'd say that you are probably right about most men having a homosexual experience before 18. (I have nothing to back this up with though, I'd still like to see a good source that verifies this.)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-18-2001, 10:50 AM
Brite Brite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
It's been over 25 years since I took the psychology course in college that mentioned this normal version of peer group sex play and searching the Internet for quotes from psychology resources is a pain in the rear. So, no quotes.

Even comparing wieners is considered homosexual activity, and adult males have reported how, when their 'equipment' started doing more than just standing up, they and other males had 'circle jerks'. (Examine some college fraternity initiation rites, like the Daisy Chain, and you'll see the homosexual overtones in them.) It was not considered all that unusual for pubescent boys, unable to find an opposite sex partner to experiment with, to secretly meet and explore each other's equipment, including masturbating each other and, sometimes, anal penetration.

This was not considered true homosexuality. Mostly it consisted of simple things, like comparing organs, jerking off together, and sometimes fondling each other. (Remember, when the male becomes active, he often knows very little about sex, his main contacts are males of the same age grouping, girls are not yet receptive, generally, for him to experiment with. He often will 'display' his new function to a close friend of the same sex as well as start tying up the bathroom at home, much to his parents annoyance.) He will, within a short time, become so horny when aroused, that he will look most desperately for something to screw, and quickly learn to masturbate. His urges at the age of puberty, will be the strongest in his life, starting to decrease some when out of his teens. These urges will override, at times, concern for any female partner he might have, which is why so many young girls often experience a version of date rape, or reluctantly consensual intercourse.

This is one reason why pregnancy among pubescent teens is still common, because many are so hormonal driven that they do not consider protection. Especially once the girl becomes sexually aware. This is also why siblings will experiment with each other, along with the fact that they know each other best and feel more comfortable together through family association.

Most kids with brothers and sisters, have done some mild sex play together, especially among step children where the 'birth bond' is looser.

Boys, however, being male, with a naturally quicker sexual response, will often have more of a homosexual experience early on than girls will. It is all experimental, learning sexual play, which does not polarize them into homosexuality. (More or less "I have THIS and it does THIS and it feels so good. Do you have it too?")
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.