Maybe, but he wouldn’t be considered a pedophile. Just a statutory rapist. So there goes that argument. And no, he wouldn’t be branded a sexual predator for just one incident under normal circumstances.
Well to be fair, many psychiatrists of the 1950s and 60s said the same thing about homosexuality. Could you cite some unbiased research? By unbiased I mean research done in a random sampling of incestuous relationships whose members were not in counseling for anything at the time. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t want us falling into the same trap of claiming emotional or psychological disorder because the sample population is being pulled from those currently seeing a shrink.
I’m having a hard time finding anything through Google that doesn’t deal mainly with incest in the context of child sexual abuse. I don’t know if many studies have been done on adult consensual incest.
I would guess that most incest involves child sexual abuse and that incest which begins when both parties are adults is an exception rather than a rule. It may also be that such cases do not reflect the psychological damage that is inherent in families in which children are abused. I have to to work now, so I don’t have time to do any more searching. I’ll try to find some info on adult consensual incest later tonight.
Anybody notice the increasing frequency with which this question appears?
Let’s take the question to the extreme: assume you have two directly genetically related individuals…oh, for the sake of the hypo, a genetic mother who gave her child up for adoption years before. They meet 20 years later (to minimize any confusion, let’s say she had him at 18, and still looks good at 38). They have no idea they’re related (thus eliminating any psychological problem–at best, they might be weirded out that they look a little like each other). They fall in love and plan marriage.
The blood tests come back: hey, you’re both prefectly fine, except it turns out the bride is also the mother of the groom. Interestingly enough, the blood tests also show that the two will never have any genetic incompatibility issues: their offspring will be perfectly fine.
Now, assuming that we’re working from the argument that all sexual relationships are acceptable as long as they’re consensual, can anyone present an argument as to why these two should not be married? Speak now or forever leave us perplexed.
Does this mean we should ban all relationships that may be “emotionally harmful,” or involve a “dominant/submissive thing,” or in which one person is “a lot older than the other”? A whole lot of non-incestual relationships fall into these categories. (How many of us have **never **been in an “emotionally harmful” relationship?"
The only problem I have with incest is the potential offspring, if any. Otherwise it’s their business.
Bingo:)
I’m not sure if I should swell with pride for my insighful parsing of the OP, or if I should shudder that my fears about the OP were confirmed.
I think I will stick with shuddering.
I had a feeling, as I was posting that I wasn’t being clear enough. I got nothing against S&M or relationships where there is a large age difference (I must, however, object on principal to “emotionally harmful” relationships; yeah, most of us have been in them, but would be better off if we had not). What I was referring to is the idea that, if you grow up thinking of a person as an authority figure (like you most likely would a parent or much older sibling), then on some level, the relationship might not really be consensual, even if it seems to be on the surface. On some level, the younger person may well be going along with it just because the older person is an “authority figure”. However, in ResIpsaLoquitor’s example (where the two are unaware that they are directly related) this wouldn’t apply. If both people involved are truly consenting adults, I don’t see where the problem is.
…ah, crud.
I’d like to take this opportunity to publicly disavow my support for incestuous relationships. Me, I was doing one of those “Devil’s Advocate” things. I’d still like the question answered…for all I know, I’m going to be an Attorney General someday and I’ll have to answer a constitutional challenge to incest laws.
Why are some people repulsed ?
Personally, I’d rather get it on with a hot looking female cousin, than have gaysex, if forced to do one or the other.
And no, I’m not anti-gay or nothing, I’m just straight.
The ban against incest may be more or less universal, but what relationships count as proscribed is not.
I believe, for example, that there are several cultures in which there’s a rule something like “cousins on the paternal side would be incest; cousins on the maternal side are preferred mates”. Some, such as the Hebraic code, seem to have more to do with generational hierarchy rather than bloodkin (one cannot partner with one’s father’s wife, even if she’s not one’s mother). And so on.
I wish I could remember the cite – hang on, I may be able to remember where I saw it – bah, it was just someone anecdotally reporting stuff – okay. I’ll try this paragraph again.
There’s a theory that going through puberty with one’s siblings is what may be responsible for the aversion to sexual contact with siblings as an adult. Apparently, broken families that reunite later have a higher incidence of re-union incest, because the kinship often leads to attraction, and the guess is that the missing the puberty toggle means that there isn’t a gut-level reason to avoid following through on the attraction.
The psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done research on related topics. He presented his subjects with various scenarios that don’t harm anyone but invoked some sense of moral dumbfounding, and then he proceeded to ask them why it’s wrong. Generally the subjects couldn’t answer why, they simply refer to some gut feeling as justification.
His scenario regarding incest went like this:
Here are two more of his examples to illustrate my point:
It’s this moral outrage we feel that stops us from committing great atrocities in general. If we didn’t have some form of instinctive morality, we would then be able to rely on sheer economic rationalism and then we can justify eugenics and so forth. Which I think we all agree is not good at all.
I think most people liberal in philosophy wouldn’t mind the flag example, unless they experience some kind of great patriotic outrage. The chicken and incest examples would probably start to touch a nerve though. While it’s possible that someone could engage in such acts with no adverse implications, you only need to look at the sheer amount of qualifiers in the incest example to see why even liberals can sometimes cringe at the incest example. The amount of cases where that positive kind of incest occurs seems to be massively outweighed by the amount of times it is reported in either a non-consensual context, or one that causes future problems and thus it is natural to worry about the people involved. The same goes for the chicken, while Wang-Ka’s friend may be able to handle a similar kind of thing, one would in general be skeptical of such a person’s well-being.
With regard to homosexuality as opposed to incest, in this case the majority of experiences are positive. I could be wrong here, but liberal thinkers seem to me to often draw a line at self-destructive behavioural patterns. One is perfectly entitled to find what is generally a self-destructive behaviour “icky” and find what is a positive behaviour not a worry, without being hypocritical.
As an aside, I’d be interested to know how many liberals find consensual incest with no adverse effects “icky”. I don’t think many liberals hold this position, but I may be wrong of course.
And finally, for those interested in the anthropology of the situation, prevention or avoidance of incest is on Donald E. Brown’s List of Human Universals.
If you can think of a way to codify such a situation in a way that will continue to exclude incestuous relationships that are emotionally manipulative in some manner or likely to result in birth defects, possibly also providing legally sound means of confirming that neither party was previously aware of the familial relationship , I would be willing to consider it. However, one extreme exception is hardly reason to disregard the legal and ethical strictures which apply to all the other cases.
From Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works
Evolutionary theory and anthropological evidence present a strong case for incest aversion being an evolved defence mechanism. But while this explains why some liberals may find incest “icky” but not homosexuality, it does not address the issue the OP presents which is whether it is hypocritical to find one icky and not the other.
And Gyrate brings home the point that I made with the Jonathan Haidt example. A ridiculous amount of qualifiers have to be made to make incest acceptable, so it’s usually safe to generalise and say no.
So we’ve established that there are social and biological mechanisms or conventions in place that make incest unappealing. If you eliminate those factors (separate the siblings during puberty; remove knowledge of the relation), the “ick” factor is removed.
The question remains: can an argument be made that incest is a moral wrong? I’m under the impression that the opposing mechanisms still only create an aversion, but not a prohibition.
You’ve got plenty of examples of this on the Jerry Springer show. Such an impeccable source, eh? 
Well, for what it‘s worth, you‘ve got mothers sleeping with sons, sisters sleeping with each other, uncles sleeping with nieces.
JZ
If it’s done in the right circumstances and thus has no adverse effects, then there’s no argument against it.
But to take a quick reductio of that argument, I could argue that there’s nothing against, say, masturbation in public. Sure, as long as people clean up after themselves and don’t harm anyone else, why should we stop them?? But the fact of the matter is that in situations that can promote sexual deviance we have to tread very carefully and make a ridiculous amount of qualifiers before we can allow it. If we go around proclaiming that as such emancipated individuals we can see the joys of consensual incest, you create a whole load of problems with the fuzzy lines you create. Just like with a lot of political ideologies that look great on paper, you won’t be able to create a system that works in practice. Modern day law regarding sexual assault is hard enough to enforce and with incest there are a lot more potential difficulties.
Basically, I believe it’s acceptable to deny those very select few their nookie for the sake of the majority. The legal code is full of such trade-offs where things could be used in a positive manner but for sake of the majority are prohibited.
The OP is suggestin that liberals (or a liberal) are pro gay sex, but anti incestual sex. Cite?
That’s sounds an awful lot like saying, “I’ll just say that incest is wrong, even though I can’t provide an adequate defense of that claim.”
FTR, I’m not defending incest. Not by a long shot. I’m just saying that the aforementioned argument rings hollow.
Except you can’t remove the biological factors. We are prisoners to millions of years of evolution that time and again has discouraged breeding between close relatives, and for good reason. These things don’t just happen, it’s the rule because it makes the best sense for our biology. So any discussion that supposes differently is a bit pointless.
Of course not. There are no moral absolutes. The morals are a result of the biology, but unless something can be done that makes sex with your siblings fatal, it can never be an absolute law.
Personally, if they can be absolutely 100% assured of a sterile union, a brother and sister can do anything they want in private as far as I’m concerned. That wouldn’t stop me thinking it’s “icky”, but I offer no moral justification for my opinion.