I think DavidFoster makes a good point. The taboo vs. incest needs to be strong because the temptation toward it tends to be strong. We’re attracted to people who look like us. Also, as someone else pointed out, horny/curious adolescent kids may tend to see op. sex siblings as, well…handy.
I’d say that the really big no-no is incest between an adult and a child.
Re Heinlein, I’m a fan – with the exception of Farnham’s Freehold. I actively dislike that one. Re the others of his later works that included incest, I’ve wondered if he didn’t include this in the belief that there wasn’t much else left that would shock anyone in these decadent times.
Sorry, but I really think you’ve missed the point in several directions here. First of all, the major theme of “Farnham’s Freehold” is not incest but racism. In the passage you mention, Hugh Farnham’s daughter mentions her preference for her father over her brother or the other man present (a black man who was the family’s houseboy before they are, for lack of a better word, “marooned” by a nuclear blast) as one throwaway line in the middle of a discussion about whether miscegenation should be a factor in their new circumstances. Also, nothing comes of it beyond that discussion.
Second, Duke (the son) has a lot more problems than just disliking his father or being a mama’s boy. He is also a racist who is emotionally undone by being transported into a society where blacks are in charge and whites are slaves. Also, the castration you mention (a customary operation performed on whites in the society depicted) is performed on Duke at his MOTHER’S urging.
Also, your contention that Heinlein felt father/daughter incest was good and mother/son incest is bad is directly contradicted by his last books, “Time Enough for Love” and “To Sail Beyond the Sunset,” which examine a mother/son relationship (among MANY other things) from both sides of the coin. It is portrayed as a very positive thing. (I should point out that due to time traveling and such, the son is much older than the mother at that point.)
And finally, may I point out that your assertion that the Heinlein figure deserves all the available women is not borne out by the narrative–after all, he ends up with only one of the women and she’s the only non-family member in the group. As a matter of fact, no actual incest occurs in this book at all.
In summary, I feel obliged to say that you’ve chosen a Heinlein text of questionable relevance to the subject to prove your point (his books that deal with incest in more than a cursory way are the two I mentioned above and “Number of the Beast”) and then supported your argument from that text by distorting some things and leaving others out entirely. Come on, you can do better than that.
As for Heinlein’s worth as a philosopher/thinker, granted most of his work is now quite dated (for example, “Starship Troopers” and “The Puppet Masters” with their ham-fisted Cold War imagery, and the hokey new-age crap that is “Stranger in a Strange Land”) but the philosophical concepts outlined in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” are used in many a classroom discussion even today. I’m not trying to claim that everything the man wrote should be taken as gospel, but he made some excellent points…including genetic hazard as the only sensible basis for defining incest.
well there are a lot of links on the internet for this subject. this is another subject that I just have a plain old hard time with…so Ill leave it at that
I remember that in a psych. class I took back in high school, the teacher mentioned something sort of related to this. Apparently, brothers and sisters who have never met and don’t realize they are related (but have grown to adulthood) are usually very sexually attracted when they meet. The study posited that this was due to a couple of things, the main one being that people are attracted to others who resemble themselves. The study also posited that the reason why brothers and sisters who grow up together do not usually experience the same kind of attraction is because societal standards have influenced them.
A `can anyone help me find this book’ question related to incest:
[spoiler]A man finds a paradise planet from hearing about it from an old spacer friend who had to leave lest he divulge the Big Secret. Once there, the man gets bizay with the natives (hell, doesn’t everyone? :)) and finds out the Big Secret is … incest. In the story, incest cures the natural human drive to be assholish by moderating the gene pool and making big genetic swings in any direction impossible.
I’ve read at the contrary that people were more attracted when the genetic difference between them was greater. But I can’t remember at all what methodology was used to demonstrate that…
I remember reading something written by a psychologist?,sorry but i have no idea where to find it to cite
Basically it was posited that father daughter intercourse was almost always harmful to the daughters emotional health,mother son incest was not considered that severe.
Incest between siblings or between aunts nephews,uncles neices was considered to be not harmful,and sometimes beneficial to the participants emotional health.
Now the article was discussing at least mid to late teen participants,so child molestation wasn’t covered.
I do remember that the article claimed that males faired far better than females in the emotional problems area,sexist maybe but i see a basis for it.
Maybe you mean the short story “If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?” by Theodore Sturgeon, in the collection Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison.
I read an article (about a year ago, IIRC) in “Discover” magazine regarding a tribe and described their approach to child raising. The boys and girls would be segregated once weaned, boys raised by the men and girls by the women, and they boys (it did not mention the girls) were used as sexual objects until such a time as they could establish their manhood through hunting and whatnot.
This goes back to the original OP which, if I understood the question correctly, simply asked if incestuous relationships would or could ever gain the same societal acceptance as homosexuality (not making a correlation between incest and homosexuality, just using them as two issues that in earlier years were both socially unacceptable). So the society described in “Discover” magazine WAS accepting of both factors - as to whether America’s ways and mores ever stretch this far? I doubt it - too much puritan thread in the American lifestyle - we’re lightyears behind many other countries…
::Admits that she remembers this article strictly because she had such a hard time with it’s premises - and that it raised many discussions in her group to get other people’s opinions::
It boils down to acceptance of other cultures and, as someone said earlier, celebrating diversity.
Though in this case, when in Rome I could NOT do as the Romans do…!!!
I see two reasons why incestual relationships might be so widely unaccepted.
Parents-children relationship: One of the participants is in a position of power. The participants are not on equal footing, even in those societies that accepted siblings relationships parents-children seemed to be a no-no. I would like to know what the genetical consequenses would be. I GUESS that it is worse than in the case of the offspring coming from siblings.
Siblings: Well, I don’t know if there is a great danger of the offsprings having genetical deffects. I have heard that for organism that reproduce through sex variety is an advantage.
There is also the fact that it is advantegous to create links between clans/families/tribes. If people just marry in the family new links will not be created, in that case there will be no need for a larger society to exist.
Please excuse me if my response gets a bit rambly. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time last night and got my nose broken and I am a bit foggy today, but I do have something to add, even if it may not flow as well as I wish.
About 12 years back I briefly worked as a translator for a fellow who was examining a relationship between pheramones (sp) and sexual desire. Well actually, it went beyond that, it dealt with lack of desire. His contention was that, as we all know, sexual attraction is directly related to scents emmited below the cognitive level by specific individuals and other individuals’ responses. He took this a step further and was well on his way to establishing a link between the virtually universial taboo (yes it is done almost everywhere, but it is taboo almost everywhere too) of incest and those same pheremones.
He was suggesting that because of genetic similarities of specific pheremones within a family unit, individuals within that family unit were predisposed to not find those other individuals within that family unit sexually appealing dispite having many other sexual attributes that others would be arroused by. At the time I knew him, he was not certain whether it was a specific aspect of the pheremone or merely that the constant nearness of a family member’s phermones sort of overdosing the other individual into being unresponsive. He said it was linked to animals’ genetic proclivity to widen the gene pool.
When I first read the OP, I did a search for the informaton and was unable to find a cite (or site for that matter). I could well be misspelling his name or he may have never published (or both). However, when I worked with him he seemed to have compiled a great deal of evidence on the topic.
Sir Francis Beaufort (inventor of the wind scale) reveals in his diaries an incestuous affair with his sister, that took place when they were both quite elderly.
Allegations of incestuous behaviour have frequently been made against female royalty in order to discredit them.
In fiction, you have a brother and sister liaison in Irving’s The Hotel New Hampshire.
Re: Egyptian brother-sister incest, I think a telling fact that speaks to the OP’s interest in consensual incest is how quickly the (Greek/Macedonian) Ptolemaic dynasty adapted to the custom. The second ruler of that dynasty, Ptolemy II Philadelphos, married his full sister (Arsinoe). Of course they had no children, so it’s hard to tell if it was more a sham marriage to fulfill forms. It wasn’t until Ptolemy IV that a Ptolemy married his sister and had a child with her. I guess by that time you could posit them having “gone native” as it were. In general Greek and native Egyptian elements in Ptolemaic Egypt mostly stayed separated, however I do not know if the royal household remained Greek in mores or not…
Additionally, several of the crazier Roman emperors, such as Caligula, seemed interested in adopting this custom of the ruler marrying a close relative to avoid “contamination” of the royal bloodline. Of course they were crazy, so they can’t exactly be taken as the best examples of well-adjusted people adopting incest consensually. What I’m getting at, though, is that although raised in cultures which did not have an approved tradition of incest as the native Egyptians had, these folks seem to have “converted” fairly quickly.
