Incest. Then and Now. What Attitude Is Correct?

Great Debates
41

Well, rest assured Kabbes, I agree with you too. :wink:

Let’s play the Devil’s Advocate here:
The same logic aynrandlover applies to family members, I could apply to my cats. I love my cats. I love cuddling with my cats. They are soft, fuzzy and warm. I love it when my cat Misty curls up with me and purrs, and when she licks my face. It is pleasurable to snuggle with a cat.

So, by that, aynrandlover, is it then okay to have SEX with my cat?*

Well? Is it?

*note-to the new people, or the clueless, this is TONGUE IN CHEEK. Please. Don’t. Even. Think. It. ICKY!!!

42

Several people have touched on these topics, but I’m going to expand on them slightly.

First of all - it seems to me that when discussing incest the spectre of pedophilia and sexual abuse rears its ugly head.
Obiously no person should force or try to encourage sex with someone who is under their authority. The genetic relationship does not matter. You could be a foster parent or a genetic parent or an older sibling or an older adopted sibling, it’s the same problem.

Genetic argument - Is sex between two unrelated people both carrying the gene for hemophilia (see explanation above) then also “icky” and/or morally reprehensible? If not, why not?

Incest between consenting adults is the issue IMHO.
Three hypothetical cases:
[ol]
[li]Genetic brother and sister of the same age, raised together, both decide to have sex after age of consent. Reprehensible or no?[/li][li]Adopted brother and sister of the same age (both adopted at birth and raised in same family, but not genetically related) decide to have sex after age of consent. Reprehensible or no?[/li][li]Genetic brother and sister of the same age both given for adoption at birth and raised without knowledge of each other. They meet after age of consent and decide to have sex. Reprehensible or no? Does your decision depend on whether or not the siblings learn of their genetic relationship prior to the sex act?[/li][/ol]

Of course, you can easily obtain three more hypothetical cases by assuming a “same-sex” scenario (two brothers or two sisters).

My POV - incest between consenting adults with no coercion is not morally reprehensible and should not be rendered illegal by law. In the case of parent/child, the issue of “coercion” may be difficult to determine, but I think age of consent or adulthood and coercion should be the determining factors

For those of you that say “I would never be tempted to have sex with my sibling” - is it really necessary for me to point out that I’m not asking you to? But just because you don’t like the idea, why do you want to prevent others from having that relationship? (insert obligatory comparison with gay rights)

43

Guinastasia says (paraphrasing): incest equivalent to bestiality. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, in discussions about gay rights.

Guinastasia, this is obviously a situation where “informed consent” comes into play. Or shall I say to you - “hamburgers equivalent to cannibalism”? After all, if I can kill a cow to eat it, why not a human?

44

Two things I’d like to toss into the mix.
One is a curious little biological fact. In an experiment done a while back (cannot give you a link, IIRC I read about it in Discover about 8 years ago), women were asked to sniff sweat-stained shirts of men and report which ones they found pleasant. What people do for science. Anyways, the result was that non-pregnant women found sweat that was different then their own to be more pleasant. The key factor was the Major Histocompatibility complex (MHC) in the sweat. Women didn’t like the smell of sweat with similar MHC’s (like those your family will have). It was extrapolated that this was an indication that the incest taboo has a biological basis - the female’s body it set up that she avoids intimate contact with relatives.
Pregnant women were different. Pregnant women found sweat with a similar MHC to be pleasant, and different MHC’s to be unpleasant. This was explained by saying that women would want to find being with relatives pleasant, so they could get protection from the family whilst pregnant. It’s also possible to say that biologically it’s OK to engage in incest so long as you can’t get pregnant.
(Little side note - to simplify, the Pill works because in some ways it tricks the woman’s body into thinking it is pregnant. In the experiment, women on the Pill found sweat with similar MHC’s to be pleasant. So women on the Pill are attracted to (biologically) the wrong guys! :oops: Explains why some of the women I dated went out with me :D)

Okies, onto to laws/taboos about incest. The prohibition of sexual relations with a minor relative is a classic “overinclusive” law - it achieves its goal, the protection of minors from physical/sexual abuse by barring it completely. It does not take into account that there may be circumstances where incest is not physical or sexual abuse. (Personally, I don’t think such circumstances exist due to power relationships, maturity, etc., but that’s not my point here). The law’s refusal to look at each case individually and ascertain whether the incest in question is abusive or not is perfectly acceptable. Arbitrary laws are fine if there is a rational reason behind them. For example, the driving age of 16 assumes that most people under that age aren’t physically or mentally mature enough to safely operate a car. I’m quite sure there are plenty of 14 and 15 year olds mature enough to drive, but a law that sets a reasonable arbitrary standard is fine. Since most, if not all, cases of minor incest are abusive, banning all cases is reasonable.

Sua

45

Actually Arnold, I was restricting my arguments to situations involving minors, because that’s where the debate seems to lie. When it comes to adults, I think that if [ul][li]both parties are both financially and emotionally independent of eachother (by which I mean, neither party is responsible for the other’s well-being and development in any way)[/li][li]both parties have passed the age of consent[/li][li]both parties are fully consensual (which to me includes having the maturity necessary to decide on the issue - something which precludes the 15 year old girl with her father)[/li][li]All initiations took place after the above criteria were already fulfilled[/ul][/li]then it’s not really the role of the state to decide whether the relationship is right or wrong. Society is bound to be a touch suspicious however as to the upbringing of the children, if they subsequently see their family as potential sexual partners.

As for whether the child is genetically unrelated to their sibling/parent - I don’t think that there is any reason at all why this should change my arguments in previous posts one jot. A parent is a parent and a sibling a sibling whether there are blood ties or not.

regards,

pan

ps Guina - I knew you weren’t totally ignoring me really. Call me silly, call me attention-seeking, but sometimes it’s nice to hear your name - even when you have to dig to get it :wink:

46

I am very pleased to find my arguments battered. This is what discussion is all about!

It seems to be implied, kabbes, that were I to have a sister I would not feel these things. I refer you to the word, incest. I refer you to the links posted way above. Obviously, it is conceivable (Thank you AW!), though you may not want to think so.

However, the main issue at hand is incestuous relationships where one party is a minor (legality for morality?) and I did have parents, remember? Though I felt no outward sexual attraction to my mother, that can simply be because I do not find her attractive and so sex never crossed my mind. That does not imply that I am merely speaking from a box. I have attractive cousins, and you may draw your conclusions from that.

Yes, G, go ahead and have sex with your cat, realizing that such an experience is well documented (though dogs are more common). That is another post, and your are also speaking of something that, barring PETA, has next to no cognative abilities and should not be compared with a child.

I think the thing that bothered me the most was

Excuse me, but I do not like the idea of punishing persons for crimes not committed. What that statement implies is that it is inconceivable for you to think incestuous sex can ever be ok. Please tell me we have not become so caught up in our own pretensiousness [sp?] that we will ban things because of their potential to be bad? We’ve already done it with drugs, with large guns, with explosives, with numerous other things that I don’t want to clog this post with. It reminds me of London, where cameras are abound like the Thought Police…“Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong then its no big deal, is it?” Yes, it is a big deal, because it implies that you cannot be trusted to function on your own. Clearly, innocent until proven guilty needs to at least be considered.

AW, your comment #3 was one I have been wanting to bring into the fray for some time. Nice.

The main issue here, I feel, still revolves around children being helpless. Though they may not have as complete a world-view as someone older, kids are pretty damn smart, they amaze me all the time. What amazes me most about them is their complete lack of programming (or vrey little of it) which some may call gullibility. They say the darndest things, don’t they?

47

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabbes *
[ul]
[li]both parties have passed the age of consent[/li][li]both parties are fully consensual (which to me includes having the maturity necessary to decide on the issue - something which precludes the 15 year old girl with her father)[/li][li]All initiations took place after the above criteria were already fulfilled[/ul][/li][/quote]

Now we’ve finally gotten down to it! Sex, as I said, is an animal act which humans impose seriousness on. Ooo, oo, do we get to take the fun out of it next? When can we start wearing chastity belts to prevent rape? How long before doctors can abolish the orgasm(courtesy of Geoge Orwell)? We are really getting somewhere now! I think our first move, however, is to just remove all children from their homes and put them into state housing. After all, the government knows better than I.

Not a member of the junior anti-sex league

48

Dammit - kids can be as smart as you want - it doesn’t mean that they are mature. When a five year old comes out with something that sounds like it comes from an adults mouth, it doesn’t mean that they really grasp the subtle nuances of what they are saying.

And as Sua said - the potential for harm is just too great here. If you don’t have a blanket ban then it would be just too easy for perverted old fucks to rape their daughters and then get them to play along with it later. It’s difficult enough to prevent kids from abusive parents as it is!

I’m not sure I can say anything new about this though. I think I’ve addressed power inequality adequately enough already. We don’t live in a nice world, where everybody can be trusted to play nicey nicey. And I still see no reason why a father should be looking at his daughter as something sexual, rather than his little angel who he’s gonna do his damndest to protect from the horrors of the world. But this is just gonna take us back round the loop again.

pan

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabbes *
When it comes to adults, I think that if [ul][li]both parties are both financially and emotionally independent of eachother (by which I mean, neither party is responsible for the other’s well-being and development in any way)[/li][li]both parties have passed the age of consent[/li][li]both parties are fully consensual (which to me includes having the maturity necessary to decide on the issue - something which precludes the 15 year old girl with her father)[/li][li]All initiations took place after the above criteria were already fulfilled[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

Agreed kabbes, but how does your list apply in particular to incest? It seems to me that this rules should apply to any sexual relationship, and so bringing in incest in relation to the discussion of those rules is of only slightly more relevance than bringing in, e.g., the teacher-student relationship, or the warden-prisoner relationship.

aynrandlover - we agree on some things! Though I personally wouldn’t extend my arguments on incest to some of the issues you mention (drugs, guns, etc…) for various reasons which I don’t want to bring up now lest this turn into another debate on libertarian issues.

50

For an excellent fictional treatment of this hypothetical situation, see the 1996 (USA) movie “Lone Star” by John Sayles

51

So is murder. So is all morality (and around the loop we go - just please don’t misunderstand me to the extent of accusing me of equating sex and murder).

Society has certain taboos. Some are pointless, some have a reason. The incest taboo is there for a bloody good reason.

pan

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
**

It doesn’t just apply to incest - that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Maybe I just haven’t made myself clear, although I did relate it to sexual harassment legislation at one point, if you recall. The problem with incest - all incest that involves a minor - is that these criteria are not fulfilled. That’s it. Period, as you Americans are so fond of saying.

Aynrandlover however still disagrees with incest involving minors because he/she doesn’t attach any significance to sex, thinking that these criteria are either irrelevant or will always be observed if we just break the taboo. To which I can just say: feh.

pan

53

Sure, but the point I’m trying to make is that since your guidelines would be just as valid if you apply them to sexual relations IMHO, you could rephrase your sentence to say:
«The problem with sexual relations - all sexual relations that involve a minor - is that these criteria are not fulfilled.»

So your post is not evidence of valid reasons to oppose incest per se, in the same way that it is not evidence of valid reasons to oppose sexual relations.

54

Arnold, I thought it was funny we agreed, too!

Kabbes, maturity is not a legally definable concept, even if you can get a majority to back you up. I know 45 year olds who are just as immature as twelve-year olds, but that does not mean they can’t have consentual sex.

I lost my virginity when I was 14 with another 14 year old and neither of us, even to this day, feel like we didn’t understand what we wanted to do.

the power issue is truly the only thing relevant to incestuous relationships, and the teacher-student comparison is particularly apropos. This is definitely giving me some pause now…though it does remind me of when I had a crush on a teacher. I really DID want sex! hahaha. And I don’t think it would have been an abuse of her power to have done that if that’s what she wanted, but I still see a large potential for abuse.

Nonetheless, I remain firm: relationships with minors is not inherently immorral nor should it be completely banned.

As far as murder goes you might not find it suprising that I am a supporter of euthanasia [sp], aka consentual murder. It is, after all, your life. far be it for me to tell you what to do with it.

55

A few observations…

Boundaries defining incest can vary widely but generally they exist to keep social roles distinct. Humans are intensely social critters, even in very small groups, and the most basic group is the family.

Look, incest was taboo even in times when the male role in reproduction wasn’t clear. Yeah, they could count to 9 but not every sex act resulted in a pregnancy. Cause, so to speak, was pretty far removed from effect. Sophisticated reasoning about inbreeding and genetics simply didn’t exist.

But the cohesion of the family–the social unit–was crucial for survival, and lines set to define available sexual partners. Those partners were most definitely not immediate family members.

BTW, “family” and taboo relationships definitions are pretty variable. For example, entire clans can be forbidden as potential mates even though they’re not blood relatives. Even among blood kin, how close is too close? Marriage is usually forbidden between first cousins, but what about second cousins?

But I’m not aware of any group that encouraged incest among close family members. The Pharonic example in ancient Egypt carries a crucial twist: the Pharoh and his family were gods on earth. Who else would a god mate with but another god? (Though there’s pretty good evidence that some of 'em managed to get in some walking deity/mortal boinking anyway.)

Look, sex does muddle things for people in a small, interdependent group. (Hell, it’s kept Ally McBeal on the air for enough seasons!) Facetiousness aside, sex can’t just be “if it feels good, do it” in a family because of the complex, interconnected roles. Father-daughter incest? What impact on the mother and the marriage bond? Sibling incest? What impact does the pseudo-marriage have on other sibs? Etc. etc.

I understand the legitimacy of debating even tough topics, and maybe my distaste for this thread just underscores the strength of the incest taboo. But in the end, I think Coldfire hit it dead center: families exist to be safe zones for people to live together. Incest, no matter the rationale, eats at the heart.

Veb

56

I disagree with the reasoning. Why is there not then a similarly strong taboo to prevent me from having sex with my sister-in-law? If I want to have sex with my sister-in-law, there is no law to prevent me from doing so (except perhaps some obsolete laws against adultery) and most people’s reactions would not be nearly so vehement as if I told them “I slept with my sister” or “I slept with my mother”.
Another example: What about large households where the family son sleeps with the maid? Or the slave owner slept with the slave? Those would also be a violation of the “safe zone” of the family, but those are not nearly as condemned as incest.

I understand why there might be a genetic or societal basis for the ancient human taboo against incest. What I’m saying is that in today’s society, with birth control being widely available (and pre-natal screening coming into play also) there is no valid reason to keep on maintaining that taboo.

57

There have been instances of small, cut off population groups like on small islands in the South Pacific, most notably, Easter Island. It stands to reason that within a few generations, everyone on the island would be cousins.

I’m not versed well enough in history to know whether or not incest as we know it was ever even locally accepted in general, but considering that in past times, a person rarely went over 5 miles away from his village and due to conditions, populations were small, I would think that it happened regularly.

It must have dawned on someone that incest promoted inbreeding which eventually weakened the stock, which is why such acts are forbidden legally and usually morally. There must be some form of draw to it, because just type in Incest sex in a search engine and you’ll get a whole bunch of porn sites concerning it. Then again, on a related topic, punch in Teens and get swamped with porn sites using actresses 18 and older dressed to look much younger.

Urges must be there, right or wrong, because there are sites for the subject. It has been years since I’ve heard any verifiable incest stories, but with the fanatical morality of today, I figure people are just not talking. I’ve traveled through some pretty isolated, tiny little poor towns in the ‘deep south,’ especially mountain communities and all one needs to do is stop, look at the folks and often you suspect that their family tree did not branch much at all. (Ever notice how Texan Politicians all look alike - fat, white, same hair style, same facial features, same attitudes, similar glasses, and similar dress? Makes you think, doesn’t it?)

58

Hey GTO, I’m not sure I see the point of your last post. What do unsupported vague impressions, mentioning of porn sites and mockery of fat people have to do with the debate on whether or not incest is moral and/or should be legal?

59

Kabbes-I like seeing MY name too, vain little bitch that I am…

Arnold, I was not necessarily comparing incest to beastialty, per se, I was merely countering aynrandlover’s argument that sex with a family member is okay because it’s another form of pleasure-he compared it to hugging or kissing a family member-you like to hug your siblings, why not have sex with them?

By THAT logic, I could say that some people like to cuddle with pets, so why not have sex with said pet?

60

::tiptoeing in quitely::

I think the point of view that aynrandlover is coming from is that there may not really be that much of a difference. Absent orgasm, just what is the fundamental difference between sex and cuddling (and no, I’m not talking about pregnancy, diseases, etc. Just the act itself)? They are both pleasurable contact for the enjoyment of (one would hope) all the parties involved, so perhaps the distinction between them is [horrible pun alert] overblown [/horrible pun alert]. When looked at from that standpoint, maybe cuddling is sex (or near enough) with said pet. I doubt if the cat is worrying too much about it.

This has been bounced around some in my creepy thread, which has outcreeped the V.V.C. threads by a mile (or at least I have, it would seem). If sexual contact (not necessarily coitus, which carries its own host of consequences) were simply viewed as very advanced “cuddling”, then it wouldn’t make sense to call it fundamentally different than something like a backrub (except it feels better). That being said, I wouldn’t dream of imposing my attentions on anyone; but I can’t quite wrap my brain around the thinking that a child can give consent to a backrub, but is unable to give consent to a (um…er) frontrub, as if that fondle is somehow inherently different. It seems a mostly arbitrary distinction to me, with the only difference being the degree of pleasure derived.

FTR, I was never remotely attracted to any of my female relatives…but I don’t believe that obligates others to feel the same. Morality of incest? shrug I don’t engage in it. What others do is up to them, not me. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, though.