Dougie sez," I am not quick to ascribe any rules of society to some power
conspiracy." I would ascribe ALL the rules of society to SOME power group not a conspiracy as such.Not neccesarily for an evil purpose. Them that has the power make the rules. One of the rules they made was “No incest.” And the ‘power group’ (the ‘people’ or the dictator) defined incest. Incest is a legal term, some states prohibit 1st cousin marriage some don’t.
Just trying to break the record for total postings. I forgot,Ravenous, I don’t recall the specifics, but for some odd reason there is a dirth of family names in Korea.Something like 50% or more of the people have the same name (Lee? or Li?) so it is a concern not just in the same village.
Heinlein,yeh I always wondered what that fellow was up to.Then there was Phil.Jose Farmer even before he really opened up, all kinds of neat interspecies stuff. Real nice thing about human ‘relations’ a race of aliens descended from cats. or we can talk about Harlin Ellison, no you can I don’t want to go there.
[QUOTE]
Also, slightly off topic (sorry, OP), I’ve heard that (South) Koreans have to get special gov’t permission to marry someone with the same last name from the same village for fear of “inbreeding” (insert correct term here).
Rav
[QUOTE]
Yes, I’ve heard that too. It’s because the Koreans maintain family records that go back centuries, and because the male lineage is considered immutable. It’s silly really; it would be like two people named “Johnson” being forbidden to marry in the US. But the Koreans take this ancestry bit quite seriously.
I read somewhere about (some mammals) where the animals will not mate with siblings but cousins are OK. Seems like the critters could keep track of siblings easily enough.
Gays Vs. Incest? I see not a connection. I see but a lack of groups to associate with.
Gays Vs. Incest, Lumpy? Surely you jest, I see no relationship betwixt the two for this sort of argument.
At any rate, depending on how far back you want to go Lumpy, you could say we are all related to each other because we all are offspring of the original couple, or apes, or whatever, therefore, everyone is having sex with a ‘relative.’ WHich would make the question moot.
Oh, if anyone is looking for ‘postive’ reasons for incest [were that there actually be any], try one of the incest newsgroups…
You didn’t read what I wrote, Mr. John. I quoted Corpus Juris Secundum as an authority that first-cousin marriages are illegal in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Even where they are not illegal, such unions have a potential problem: How do you get away from such a close relative if you should break up? 
It occurs to me that incest may become more common thatn we realize, though unwittingly.
Think about it: with today’s creative reproductive technology, anonymous egg and sperm donors, 50 years from now people migh tbe screwing their brothers, sisterss, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins… it’s not only possible, it’s likely!
We do precision guesswork
Stoidela, sharing genetic material like that is not considered incest morally.
Handy, I think what Stoi meant was that in 50 years people won’t know that so and so is their sister/brother due to the gene swapping.
I guess that can’t be morally wrong either.
I don’t think it’s very likely, though…
Rav
Of course, legality and morality are two different things, and nowadays the genetic problem can be sidestepped, after all, birth control/abortion issues probably wouldn’t be much of a moral dilemma to people who have already decided they have no qualms about the act itself. Heinlein’s apologias were interesting and compelling reading, but for me, at least, like so much of his work, I couldn’t help thinking that maybe, just maybe, he was ROTFL as he wrote it.
My personal take on the subject is–the dynamic of even the most “normal” family you’ve ever heard of is such a delicate and volatile mix, the added emotional and psychological stimulus of incest couldn’t help but harm something somewhere.
–Alan Q
“Handy, I think what Stoi meant was that in 50 years people won’t
know that so and so is their sister/brother due to the gene swapping.”
Rave, this is already true, just ask some genetist and they should be able to give you the low down on how most Europeans were born from the same king/queen combo line.
Incest is very dangerous for the emotional well being of the children involved. That is why it’s a no-no.
Touche, Handy.
I have sometimes held to the notion that the “hillbilly sis/bro” incest jokes were concocted by a fertile New York mind; it’s a matter of historical record that, once urban areas sprouted in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, rurals were increasilngly treated with contempt by urbans–and no place is more urban than New York City. More to the point, I would guess that sibling or mother-son incest is perhaps no less common in urban areas than in rural areas; and father-daughter, or uncle-niece, incest is particularly deplorable–for reasons that courts and state legislatures have been expounding on for decades.
A lot of this discussion seems to be focused on adult/child incest, which I think we all agree is right up there with paedophilia in all its forms. But what about incest between consenting adults? I think perhaps this is the gist of Lumpy’s original post - is there any information on incestual relationships between consenting adults?
Cave Diem! Carpe Canem!
I have found mention of adult sibling incest in only two places: An old sexy-cartoon anthology called * Sex to Sexty, * and, more seriously, in Dear Abby’s column. A man wrote to tell Abby that he was having a sexual affair with his sister; Abby called this “sick.”
It seems probable that:
- Due to the taboo and various laws, incest of all kinds is more common in this country than is believed or reported;
- Even the frequency with which it IS reported, as well as the historical acceptance in some parts and the variety with which the boundaries are and have been drawn, all suggest that it is a cultural taboo that “prevents” it, not an evolved, physical control mechanism;
- The cultural taboo is found universally because we are all culturally descended from groups who developed the taboo (for good reason both psychologically and, in the long run, genetically).
I would then suggest that, as ours is an inquisitive and creative species, if the “good reasons” ever changed or disappeared* the taboo could be unlearned or forgotten.
- For example the Heinlein “alternative” or ready abortion allaying fears of monsters; or the public coming somehow to view cases of adult and/or same-generational incest as being different in kind from adult-child or cross-generational incest. “Different strokes…”
I agree with beatle that your gay friend’s take seems…without true thought. But it may be that he wasn’t listening, and heard only “gays are like daughter-rapists…” Possible? Or no, just unable (like so many…) to open his mind wider than 4:3 60Hz interlaced?
Or for that matter, what of incest between a younger brother and sister (or sister and sister or brother and brother)? Not necessarily rape or anything, just early adolescent exploration and the like. Any info? (I suspected that this was part of the original post).
“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Jebediah Springfield: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new
town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast
fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.
Shelbyville Manhattan : Yes, and marry our cousins.
Jebediah: I was – what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would
we want to marry our cousins?
Shelbyville: Because they’re so attractive. I, I thought that was the
whole point of this journey.
Jebediah: Absolutely not!
Shelbyville: I tell you, I won’t live in a town that robs men of the right
to marry their cousins.
This is really off topic, but maybe someone can help me. Speaking of incest… There is a horror movie (I thought it was one of the Amityville flicks) where the two siblings (teenage brother & sister) have an incestuous relationship. IIRC it happened because of the evil in the house. Anyone else remember that? What was the name of that movie?
Enright3
Robert Heinlein was a bit of a nut who liked to rationalize his own quirks as if they were provable scientific laws or at least superior ways of running society.
Thus, in “Farhnam’s Freehold,” the elder Farhnam (with whom Heinlein obbivously identifies) is so all-fired wise and right about everything that we’re supposed to accept it as inevitable when his daughter announces that he can have her whenever he wants.
On the other hand, Farhnam’s son is portrayed as an annoying, ungrateful wimp precisely because he does not acknowledge the superiority of his father. And we’re told quite specifically that the root of his problem is an Oedipus complex over his mother.
So what are we to make of this? A daughter who wants to have sex with her father–that’s empowering. But a son who wants to have sex with his mother–that’s degrading, even emasculating (literally so, in the novel, as the son ends up castrated).
What we have here isn’t a rational argument on the merits of voluntary incest. It’s an irrational tirade telling us that the Heinlein-surrogate deserves all the available women, regardless of blood ties and that the challenger to his authority shouldn’t have sex at all.
Sorry about the tirade, but I can’t understand why anyone would cite Heinlein as the voice of authority on any subject. He had talent as a storyteller, but as a thinker-philosopher…ouch!
I’ve been reminded (thanks to Big Iron, Shelbyville Manhattan, et. al) of another series of points that has long occurred to me, namely: it seems quite common (at least in this society) for successful couples to share a greater-than-random physical resemblance. Besides research showing that long-term couples grow in resemblence over time (and because that observation seems to apply with frequency to newlyweds and other newly-minted couples), I have heard it speculated that: people tend to look for those whom they find physically attractive (no surprise there); people are attracted by that which is familiar (both in the family environment and the mirror?) and possibly by that which is powerful (parents?); and so it is, if not common, at least not uncommon, for people to be attracted to others who look like themselves.
To the extent this is true, this would be a source of a psycho-physiological impetus TOWARDS coupling with your (presumably similar-looking) cousins (or nearer relatives) - and might also help in part to explain the strength of the incest taboo, i.e. it HAS to be a strong learned taboo to overcome even a subtle physical drive in that direction.
Thoughts?
P.S. Not to disagree with CFQWEST; I’d only point out that the idea that genetic testing may someday replace taboo as a means for avoiding monsters remains plausible.