Humans aren’t animals - humans are self-aware beings with highly complex societal relationships. Any comparison with animals on a subject like this is ridiculous.
I’m afraid that it’s unequivical in my mind - incest is wrong. Even aside from the huge potential for abuse, it’s a question of trust.
Home should be a place where children feel safe, secure and can bring their problems without worrying about the consequences. Sex muddles things horribly. Girls should feel free to do their growing up without worrying about any “signals” that they might be sending their brothers. Boys should feel free to do their growing up without needing to portray any kind of image to their sisters. People need relationships in their lives which are under no circumstances sexual and family should be it. If not then who else can a 15 year old girl trust in? Her friend Brad?
Thank you, Coldfire. I’ve been avoiding this thread on purpose - it seems unpleasent to the touch, as if it’s covered with a clear layer of slime and mucus.
There are certain taboos ingrained into society. The incest taboo. The cannibalism taboo. The murder taboo. And you know what? That’s a good thing. I like those taboos, and I want to keep them.
I’ve said what I wanted to say. I’m going to leave this thread now, and I see no reason to come back.
Perhaps sex muddles things for YOU. I find sex to be very unmuddled. It is a point blank animalistic thing to do, like eating. If you want to confuse table manners with eating, then you may also confuse seriousness with sex. I shall do nothing of the kind.
Humans ARE different from animals, I will be the first, as my namesake implies, to argue that. However, “Incest is wrong because I say so” isn’t going to get anywhere with me. So long as no pregnancies occur I do not see a reason against incest. You feel the act of sex betrays trust? I hope you aren’t married.
It is illegal because much of our laws focus on biblical laws. It is a sin because of the complications which arise from interfamily pregnancies. However, I am not convinced that sex is a bad thing in any way, especially with people you trust.
As I maintain, the situation has also never presented itself to me and I do not know what I would do in such a position. But from an outside standpoint, I find it better than playing chess or watching TV. I think that anyone else who doesn’t feel guilty about sex in general can see this specific instance should be no different.
Confusing love and lust? Perhaps you are confusing me…the sex instinct will occurr regardless of whether or not it is vented. Families love each other already (in a tight family, anyway). The act of sex is a pleasure act, like a back rub or a warm bath. If you have any other hang-ups on it, I am sorry, but I don’t see why.
Did anyone bother to look at my link? I’d love to read this guy’s book. He claims there is a connection between the prosperity of a culture and the way it nurtures it’s children. The link provided is only an essay and does not go into any detail as to his theory of why. He does however briefly address the fact that incest is much older and more culturally widespread than we would like to believe. The taboo against incest and child abuse is relatively new in the history of man.
Enjoy the link. It’s food for thought at least.
As for me I will not address this subject except to say that anything, any practice that can be potentially damaging to the well being of the child should not be condoned. We have moved beyond behaving like our cave dwelling ancestors, or at least we should have.
Thank you Coldfire. What is sadder still is that children who are the victims of incest themselves frequently grow up with similarly confused and disturbed views about sex. Many become extremely (and dangerously) promiscuous because they are unable to conceive of a loving relationship without sex and may even believe that no one could possibly care for them at all without sex. This is not unlike children who were physically abused getting themselves involved with abusive partners because they are unable seperate love and violence. I think that anyone who would damn an innocent child to a lifetime of unhealthy and dangerous relationships is a sicko, pure and simple.
If there is one thing I’m absolutely sure of, the taboos against cannibalism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, and many others aren’t going away anytime soon. The fact is that not many people, even those who drop by to post on these threads, would ever want them to go away. I can talk all day about the merits and faults of making Grandma stew without ever actually having the slightest desire to munch out on the dearly departed. Likewise, I can say that I am against the death penalty and yet feel perfectly justified in killing the sonuvabitch who murdered my wife. (Hypothetically of course. My wife is alive and well.)
It’s kind of amusing to see how even a semi-anonymous discussion of certain issues provoke such strong reactions of horror and disgust. If there is any doubt about the impact of social taboos, you’ve got some evidence right there. While there are perfectly rational reasons to oppose incestuous relationships, the “Eww! Icky! Run away!” attitude doesn’t qualify, nor does blanket condemnation with neither fact nor reasoned opinion to back it up.
FWIW, I cannot see any reason to say that incest is, in itself, inherently wrong in every case. I can’t see why incest must necessarily cause harm. We certainly have a lot of cases where it does cause harm, but others will point out that the only cases we ever hear of are the abusive ones. I am dubious as to the prevalence of harmless incestuous relationships, especially given the overwhelming condemnation of such, but I will at least listen if people want to talk about it.
I fail to see this analogy. I am stressing that love and sex should not be confused. As stated by other posters, children who grow up should be able to do so without being subject to -potentially harmful- horny siblings. This pretty much rules out incest among or with minors. The arguments against incest among adults are of a different kind, but I’ll get to that.
Although I am not married, I am in a long-term relationship. And you are twisting my words around. Sex does not betray trust in a consentuous relationship. But young children should be able to have trust in a safe home environment where they are not a sex object of any kind. There’s your connection between sex and trust, as it applies to family situations.
One could very succesfully argue that it is illegal because only thus the sexual safety of minors can be adequately preserved by law.
True, but it does become a problem if one or more of the parties involved have not reached the age of conscent - minors need to be protected from unvoluntary sex. While it may theoretically be possible that a father and his 14 year old daughter (e.g.) both want to have sex together (I gotta tell ya, my stomach is turning just typing this), there is also a very real possibility that the 14 year old daughter does NOT want to have sex, but isn’t really capable to denie her fathers choice. Children must be shielded from such situations, and that’s why most countries outlaw incestuous relationships involving minors.
And all this is assuming that incest among adults is “none of our business”.
I prefer sex over chess as well. But would you prefer sex with your sister (assuming you’re male) over a game of chess (absurd as the comparison is)?
Never in my life have I felt guilty about sex.
I have explained my stance on minors above. As said, things are different when it comes to incest among adults, or people of conscent by defnition of law.
One could argue that grown-ups can do whatever they want. And legally, there are countries aplenty where no laws against “adult incest” exist. Even then, there is still a moral judgement call to be made. Of course, this is very personal, and I’m not going to try to convince you of my point of view. Suffice it to say that I consider incest, even among adults, to be morally wrong.
Absolutely. That is why children should be taught about sex before these instincts occur. They should also be taught, if necessary, that their siblings are no potential sexual targets.
Bear in mind, though, that I was only speaking for myself. I was not trying to present a logical argument, only to express my emotions concerning the OP. I did not ask for the thread to be closed, or for the OPer to be banned (kind of unnecessary by this point, BTW), not did I insult any poster who does not share my views.
Still, I apologize for not bringing anything to this discussion. It is a Great Debate, and should debatedin a mature and dispassionate matter, no matter how distasteful I may find it.
Well, of course I will always have that mild rebuke waiting for someone to dredge up when I post something from an emotional standpoint.
I really do understand why people react the way they do to the subject-- I was raised with all the same cultural attitudes, and although I can discuss it abstractly, I quite frankly find the idea sickening when I contemplate it personally. It just seems harsh to identify my internal shudder with the people or ideas in this thread without trying to consider what they are saying.
Perhaps history does not bear this out, and I am glad, Coldfire, to finally have someone say something honest about it, but to my knowledge 14 was already-married age not to long ago.
I don’t want to hear about child-mortality-rates-causing-early-marriage-necessity. The truth is, kids have sex as soon as they can. If this is with a friend, fine. If this is with a family member, fine. I don’t believe children are fully aware of the choices involved in sex, but then again, I don’t think half of my dissenters are, either. Truly, sex can be a complicated issue in a heavily regulated society of any kind. But that doesn’t mean that when a kid would WANT to have sex he or she wouldn’t mean it. Hey, I WANT steak for dinner every night even though I would die from congestive heart failure next year (exagerration, I know). And if I could afford it, I would probably eat much more steak; I am not, however, about to ban cows and go vegan. This is the illegal incest solution.
Children are expected to choose all sorts of things that affect their lives, the lives of their families, and people they don’t know. 15 to take driver’s ed? 16 to get a license? They are old enough to take their lives into their own hands and place blind trust in other drivers. By 7th grade (at least when I went to school) they start picking classes they will take which will affect their grades, potential college carreer, and so on. They know what they want for dinner. They masterbate. They get jobs. So 14 is too young but fifteen is ok? Infants are too young? What if infants get an erection while tickling them, should the parent be arrested?
Oh, I know, I know, I’m just being silly, right? I am, but too a point. I note an arbitrary age at which different people feel it is “ok” to have sex. If they can choose to have sex at 16 with another 16 year old they hardly know, why should it be WORSE to have sex with someone they know better? That is incest.
As far as confusing love and sex, who did anything of the kind? They are very close. What do you do for people you love? You please them. They please you. Sex is the ultimate expression of mutual pleasure. I…I can’t help but wonder why it is yucky to french kiss but not kiss relatives, why it is ok to share bathtowels but not see the naked bodies they dry. Why is is ok to do each other’s laundry and see those personals, but not the body they cover. In case you didn’t notice, our society as a whole is very hung up on sex being dirty outside of marriage. Oops! that’s acceptable now. I mean outside of relationships. Oops! That’s getting more mainstream too. I mean when kids are too young. Oops! That’s been going on with 13 year olds (and younger?) for recorded history. So what is the last taboo?
Sex with family members. Listen to it, say it to yourself, its soooo dirty. I mean, these are the people I live with, I love, I trust, I worry about…what on earth would we want to have sex for?
[end rant]
[breathes deeply and composes a zen state to accept the attack sure to follow]
I’m only addressing incest that involves at least one minor here. Incest between adults is a whole other kettle o’ fish, but seems to be away from the spirit of the OP anyway.
All of the following was *Originally posted by aynrandlover *
Yes, it does. The love I have for my SO is very different to the love I have for my sister, or mother ::shudder::
Ah, but the above is somewhat of a statement that goes nowhere, no? If humans are different to animals then what animals choose to do or not do to eachother is irrelevant. Biting your enemies is a pretty common animal trait, but I don’t do that when I’m in a heated meeting at work.
I submit that there is an emotional attachment that comes with having sex with someone. But actually this totally misses the point of what I was saying. The argument is not about emotional attachment. Read on.
Excuse me? So my previous post can be summarised as that can it? I’m talking about a safe haven for children, where they know that they will not be objectified and lusted after. That’s not an “I say so” argument by a long shot.
Can anyone say “strawman”? Viewing that which should be non-sexual as sexual betrays trust. I hope you don’t have a sibling.
Humbug - I couldn’t be less biblical if I painted myself red and attached a pointy tail. It’s illegal because children need to be protected from being forced to enter the adult world too soon. It’s illegal because the home is supposed to be a haven, a place to get away from the pressures of the outside world. When you’re an adolescent, sex is part of those pressures.
Hmm. We’re back to whether there is truly such a thing as “casual sex” again here. As I said, this is a red herring. This isn’t about whether sex is fun or not - this is about the difference between the relationship between lovers and that between siblings or parent and child. If you can’t see that one, then… well. I guess I might as well join the exodus from this thread. I’m hoping we can get some common ground here though.
I feel no guilt whatsoever about sex with those who are emotionally mature and on an equal power basis with me. I don’t think that incest with a minor falls into either of those two categories.
No! Do you have a sister/brother? Have you ever fancied your mother/father? I have a sister. I have never given her a sexual thought. I just haven’t! She’s programmed into my brain as someone off-limits - and I’m very pleased about this. When she falls out with her SO she can come to me, confident that it won’t even cross my mind that I could take advantage. We can be incredibly close simply because there never can be any sexual tension between us.
I give my family back rubs. I can assure you that they are entirely non-sexual. I give my girlfriend back-rubs. I can assure you that they are entirely sexual. A qualititive difference. Pleasure and sex are not the same thing. This assumption seems to be at the heart of your argument. I couldn’t disagree more.
The things that society determines as sexual are indeed arbitrary and subject to change. Ultimately, only physical contact which causes sexual pleasure is unequivically sexual.
However, society has determined that some arbitrary acts have sexual overtones. We live in that society. We avoid those arbitrary acts if we don’t want the other party to consider that we are making advances. This is reality and we have to deal with it.
Is this stupid? Not really - just custom. Body language always was more important than verbal language anyway - just ask any management guru. The above is simply some kind of formalisation of the body language.
You have not made my case for me, but you have confirmed what I did not want to say because it would be an outright attack to say so.
This admits that it is society which dictates morailty. I do not agree with that, but that might just belong to another post. Again, you point out
I am not a robot. I will not apologize for dealing with an issue personally and not taking legality to imply morality. I hope most SDers would do the same.
I do not doubt that the relationship between parent and child or older sibling and younger sibling (sticking with the lone minor issue) is different than other relationships. I also find that the relationship between previous lovers and current lovers are different (and not because one is in the past).
No, I do not have a sibling. As I've said, I have never found myself in the situation.
Anyway.
No, that is not the case. I stated that the taboos around sex are a human invention on top of the animal act of sex itself. Similarly, I used the analogy of eating. Eating is an animal act of survival; table manners are an imposition of humanity. I am not saying we should be more like animals. I am saying that we should not assume that societally imposed traditions are correct automatically. Obviously, incest happens. We have a word for it. We ridicule entire states for it. To *some* people, it is not taboo.
This is the robot talking, as you admitted. I am not about to go on a crusade for "Mothers who want their Sons" or some similar thing, I am merely presenting the fact that incest is considered negative as a rationalization of societally programmed behavior and really isn't the terrible thing many consider it to be. And I fail to see how the sex act objectifies anything or anyone, unless you mean in the sense that our society has such a hang up about sex in the first place.
And your safe haven for children hypothesis is rather silly, forgive me for saying so. We can teach our children about bloody wars, deified men crucified for their actions, and lie to them about Santa Claus. And sex is *bad*? We can teach them about sex, but not by example? Sex is about love, but not that kind of love? To say the same back rub given to your sister or your girlfriend means different things is to avoid the issue. The back rub is for pleasure, regardless of what *you want it to mean to whom you give it to*. Sex, similarly, is a pleasure act, reagrdless of what meaning you want to place in it. If the person agrees with the meaning you are putting in it, fine, but that does not put meaning into the act itself.
I can't put it more clearly than that.
I believe that the incest taboo (regardless of age) is universal to all human cultures. (Cannibalism is not, although someone was comparing to the two a while back).
Also, the incest taboo extends to at least one of our closer primate relatives (baboons).
FWIW, that is what Carl Sagan reported in his book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.
How do you figure? Do you mean to say that love and sex are inseperable? I mean if you don’t believe in romantic love then I suppose I can’t fault you for hypocracy, otherwise is an oral foot extraction germaine?
As for myself?
Hmm, well I know that the thought of incest disturbs me but I know it’s because society tells me it’s a bad and icky thing. But because I know that societal constructs are artificial then I can also recognize that it is possible for incest to occur without being an evil and abusive act of predation.
As society stands right now I can’t picture an act of incest without thinking immidiately of abuse because it is 99% probable that if an adult is involved then this adult is doing something that he or she believes to be wrong. Therefore it is not a natural act, it is an act of violence agains the child.
However, if our society had never come up with the belief that child/parent sensuality were evil then I wouln not feel this way. The reason you, I, and everyone else thinks of it as a bad thing is because we are taught this. If this lesson were not taught we simply would not think this way. After all, doing things that are pleasurable is a natural instinct. Look up incidents of mothers who experience sexual arousal during breastfeeding and think about how that is a survival trait (after all, you think its’ natural to allow some creatur to bite your chest like that and chew on you? The pleasureable sensation came about because we evolved that way. The reason your ladyfriend or wife likes it when you do it is a sideral benefit that you owe to infant feeding.).
Maybe I am too much a grandchild of Lazarus Long but I try not to judge “what if’s” based on my own teachings or lessons learned. If you are still in doubt about what is “right” or “natural” I will advise you to check out two Heinlein books as he is much more eloquent than i could ever be: Stranger In A Strange Land as well as Time Enough For Love (or most any of the books dealing with Lazarus Long).
Note that I do not include the kind of “playing doctor” that happens between siblings at a young age. Such conduct is IMHO completely natural and beyond moral questioning.
I mean to say that the love for a sibling or child is, or at least should be, very different from love for a partner. One does not involve sex, the other does.
Above, I explained in detail when this particular conviction of mine is caused by legality (prompted by the apparent need to protect those who are incapable of making choices in this regard), and when it is caused by a moral judgement (prompted, indeed, partially by society’s emphasis on incest = yuck).
Love and sex are indeed seperable. And they should be within family relations, for the reasons I mentioned above.
You may disagree with me, but my point of view really isn’t that hard to comprehend.
I remember when I was 12, I read a story about a girl raped by her father…and I couldn’t be alone around my dad for a month-because the idea was so ICKY…I just kept thinking ew! Now, my father has NEVER ever done anything like that to me-the only thing even REMOTELY close was when he was in the bath when I was a year old and I’d run in with him, or when I was six and the heater was out and I had to sleep in my parent’s bed-and my mom was in the hospital having my sister. That’s not even the same fucking THING!
The idea of doing it with a parent is WRONG. I’m sorry-they are your PARENTS. Hugs and kisses and things like that are not always sexual. Even now, I like to sit on the couch with my mom, or sometimes when we’re in the store she’ll squeeze my hand-that is a feeling of LOVE and SECURITY…not sex.
In other cultures, like in Russia-people tend to be much more physically affectionate-it is not unusual for grown men to kiss on the lips if they are friends-and they see nothing sexual about it. We, on the other hand, seem to equate all touch and pleasure with sex.
My mom brushing my hair when I was a kid was pleasant. My dad rocking me to sleep was pleasant. But it wasn’t sex.
Thank you Zen101. That was all I was trying to say. Some people cannot look beyond societal conditioning and feel children are helpless little angels. Perhaps Mao Tse Tung could convince them otherwise, but I’m glad to see someone can find the idea conversable.
The convenience of simply defining parental love to be romantic love without sex, or vice versa, is not a valid argument.
I am not a supporter of incest, just a guy who feels that society’s hang-ups need some revamping. This was as good of a target as any.
I think I would like to say that I know of two women who told me, in years past, that they had consensual sex with their brothers before reaching the age of 17, and had it repeatedly because they liked it. Both are normal people today, in fact both have kids that are well disciplined. They do not talk back to their folks like some I have met, nor are they allowed to wear that rotten baggy clothing so many dress in.
One said she initiated it, as she was 4 years older than her brother and curious, while the other was 5 years younger and he initiated it. One admits that she was pretty lucky because they did not learn about rubbers for several times. Both women said they had always been close to their brothers and had gotten along quite well with them before and after sex started.
Their folks never found out. One admitted that occasional sex continued with her brother until well into her 20s, usually when neither had a significant other and did not want to risk getting any diseases.
There is a story about the early city of Carlsbad (Carlsbad Caverns) where incest was known to be common, the people married siblings, and first cousins. I guess no one cared but then Carlsbad was a very rural community at the time with a population of maybe 2000 and it was before the caverns were even used to produce guano as fertilizer.
Any reasonable talk of underaged sex is going to start a fire storm in the public view, ignited by fanatics and the news media. People are afraid to talk about something as normal as young kids willingly experimenting with each other as normal and nothing to go screaming to the cops or shrink about.
Ah. Well, there you go. You can’t possibly know how it feels. You’re talking in your purely logical little box about how people ought to see sex with their sister as the same thing as sex with another, but you have no direct experience as to how love for a sister is totally different to the love for another.
As for the rest - I must say that I take affront to your ignoring my actual argument and picking a few choice phrases totally out of context to try to score some kind of point. Let’s try it again shall we?
**
Sex has the potential to be an invasive, aggressive, unwelcome thing. Advances are not always desired or wanted. One place an adolescent should be free of these pressures is in their own home. Once you free society from the taboo of incest you are removing this release.
As for “society dictates morality” - well duh! Without society, there is no morality. I’m arguing that this particular human-defined piece of taboo has a useful function beyond that of simply avoiding genetically-deficient descendants.
To whit:
Yes. I think that this taboo has a useful place. I’m nowhere arguing that it is a “natural” function. I’m saying that human society is so far removed from an animalistic one that this argument is specious. Who cares that the taboo is a human invention? We need morals in society to prevent anarchy. Or are you going to examine the taboo surrounding murder as well? Or are we going into an argument about whether there is any such thing as useful morality? In which case I’d say forget God - Nietzsche is dead too you know.
Murder happens. To some people, it is not taboo.
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
The sex act objectifies noone. Seeing a person as a potential sexual partner however is fraught with more possibilities. Especially (and again this is the key that you are choosing to ignore again and again), when there is a power inequity between the potential partners. It’s fundamentally the same reason why there is sexual harassment legislation. People should have the right to not be seen as a sexual being by certain other people. Those people include (amongst others) those upon whom they are still emotionally and financially dependent.
**
Forgive? You’ve totally forgone the formality of actually attacking it point by point, to provide an ad hom attack instead. But I forgive you. I’m magnaminous like that.
**
Feh. Sex is good. Love is good. Sex with those who you don’t want to have sex with is bad. Sex with someone just to try to please them is bad. Thinking that the only worth you have is as a sexual object is bad. This subject is much more complex than you are making it out to be.
**
No That is the issue! But - you don’t have a sister.
**
Can you not see the danger in this argument? It takes two to tango you know - and it does matter what both of them think. It matters what they both feel about the exchange too. If you think that sex is purely an act of physical pleasure then that’s bully for you - but what if your partner doesn’t agree? Is that fine too? What happens when one of you is emotionally immature and incapable of making that kind of decision rationally? Is that fine too?
**
**
Can’t you please try?
Guinastasia put it well, following up from Coldfire’s excellent posts (even if Guina was only “agree[ing] with Coldfire” and not with me too ;)) Have a read of that and this post and see what you can do about responding to the actual points being made rather than a few irrelevancies that you think you can argue against.
