The Social Stigma Argument Against Some Couples

The BBQ Pit
61

No.

All that has been established is that the child died from a congenital heart disease. This was mentioned by the judge during sentencing. As has been pointed out numerous times in the other thread, a congenital condition need not be genetic.

Also, the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health web site notes:

So, genetics can play a part, but there are plenty of other things that can contribute.

The only further reference i’ve seen to this is the mother specifically denying that it was a genetic condition. She might be lying, of course, but unless you can provide evidence that the child’s problem was genetic, we still don’t know one way or the other.

62

The first part is right. I’d have liked this to be GD, but I figured it would end up in the pit anyway. I may start another thread in GD on more general terms to hopefully avoid the “OMG Incest!” response. I’ll let my ratio of threads started to posts stand as a response to the second part. :rolleyes:

And I was hoping that this wouldn’t just be another “why incest is bad” thread, which it seems to have turned out to be. I know I can’t direct a Pit thread, but I’m still hoping someone will respond to my point more directly.

If you think that incest is, in and of itself, evil or wrong, then this doesn’t apply to you. I think I disagree with you, but your position is reasonable. I think Malthus makes a good case for it upthread. But he doesn’t fall into the trap of saying “Hey, whatever two consenting people want to do is A-OK, but once they have kids, they’re evil bastards because society will treat those kids like shit”, which is what I was so annoyed at.

63

I think that case she mentioned was uncle/niece
To be fair, the really severe genetic abnormalities and problems mostly occur when inbreeding is practiced for generations.

64

My mistake: I read “My husband’s uncle and sister” as meaning the husband’s uncle and the uncle’s (own) sister. On reread, you are obviously correct.

Damn, incest is confusing. :smiley:

65

Uh…yeah, maybe, maybe not–I guess it depends on what they’re working with from the parents. I knew a girl years ago who was half Japanese and half Irish, and [Southern thing]Bless Her Heart[/Southern thing], she was bucktoothed and (wildly) frizzy-haired. :stuck_out_tongue: Still one of the nicest people I know, though. Oh, and smart. Whooped my butt in certain subjects. :cool:

66

I honestly don’t care whether such a child grows up thinking parent/child sexual relationships are ok. If his parents model a consensual, respectful, and happy relationship, then what have we to worry? He won’t find himself in a parent/child sexual relationship if his daughter or mother is unwilling. He’ll go out and have a nice, normal, socially-acceptable relationship with someone who was once a total stranger.

If he has kids and then starts molesting his 6 or 16-year-old daughter, then he’s guilty of sexual assault. But that won’t be something he learned was ok from his parents, because that’s not what they did. It would be what he twisted in his mind what they modeled.

If he rejects his parents’ choice, then he does. He’s free to form his own opinion and react however he feels appropriate. Kids grow up with parents who are gay, uneducated, liberal, conservative, or hippies, and though they may have fundamental disagreements with them over it, they don’t always shun them over it. People are more than just their choice of mates. Why worry about how a child will react to one facet of his parents’ lives when there could be so much more to get upset about, or negate that?

67

I thought I did. Perhaps you simply didn’t like my response, or maybe you missed it. Here it is again: Nothing, not time, not tolerance education, not endless kumbaya is ever, ever going to make this situation okay with the community at large. Neither will the 24/7 sex slave SAHM ever, ever get the embrace of her community for showing bravery in the face of adversity during those dark times when no one supported her choice to act out her sexual fantasies full time – in front of her kids. When you compare these situations to homosexual and interracial coupling you reveal something about yourself that maybe you didn’t intend to. Your comparison is flawed on the above basis alone but further flawed in your thinking that a homosexual or interracial union in any way twists the fabric of society like parent/child incest or full-blown out of control sex addiction. Seriously. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you really lack the basic cultural context to get the difference between these situations?

Further, responsible couples who choose to buck societal norms and raise kids in a non-traditional family organization recognize the risks involved and seek to minimize or at the very least prepare their children for the shitstorm they are likely to weather. They don’t give interviews to tabloids talking about how much they enjoyed fucking their own spawn. They don’t attention-whore on the interwebs to dribble out an adoring puddle of head-in-their-asses supporters who don’t have the sense to say, ‘dude, that’s fucked up.’

You want to know why people keep bringing up the chiiiiillllldrennnnn!!1! in these threads? It’s because once you squeeze one out you’re supposed to be able to put its need before yours.

68

Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that no one had. It just seemed like the course of discussion was going over the same ground again. I’ll respond directly.

I didn’t read the full SAHM sex slave thread. My impression was that she claimed to not act in a distinctly sexual manner in front of the children. If that’s not the case, then I agree with you. Her relationship is unhealthy and her actions immoral because she’s providing a twisted view of sexuality to her children. But it’s not immoral for her to have children and a kinky sex life.

Gosh, thanks for the ad hominem, but I’m a pretty vanilla heterosexual. I’m just a social libertarian.

Do you really lack the basic historical context to see that those exact arguments were used against interracial couples only a few decades ago, and that they’re currently used against homosexual couples. They’ll tear the fabric of society asunder! It’s a mortal sin! It’ll warp the children! Did you miss the Pit thread, just a week or so ago, about the Oklahoma State legislator, Sally Kern, who claimed that homosexuals were a bigger threat to this country than terrorism?

For those remarks, she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republican legislators.

I agree in this case that the couple are potentially drawing unkind attention to their child by making themselves a media spectacle.

But, tell me: how do you feel about the folks (some of whom must be parents) who marched in Moscow’s Gay Pride Parade. Impassioned people fighting for their rights, or evil bastards for exposing their children to potential dangers? How long do the gay parents in Russia have to remain underground for the sake of their children? Is it OK for gay parents in the US to march, but not for those in Russia?

69

I happen to also be social libertarian, but I don’t think that gives me, or anyone, the right to raise kids as if we live in a social vacuum. We don’t. The welfare of our offspring very much hinges on the decision we make: Missionaries may put their children’s health at greater risk by taking them to live in remote villages without great water or sanitation. Hippies in my area may expose their kids to a host of social and health hazards by engaging the family in eco-friendly dumpster diving. NASCAR watching, beer swilling rednecks may choose to let their kids drink koolaid from an old tire in the front lawn while the schoolbus pulls up in front of the trailer. And some selfish old geezer and his middle-aged daughter may tie one on one night, get laid then find themselves and her two adolescent children a family on the run from the law.

While I don’t agree with the law from which they are running, I feel completely justified selling them up the river of community outrage.

As far as the folks in Russia, I’m behind them 100% as long as they don’t honestly think their decision to march isn’t going to affect their children’s lives. Then I’m behind them 100% but think they’re shitty parents. Get it now?

70

I’ve been sorta thinking about this issue for a while, so I wanted to post my thoughts. I have been questioning why my reactions are pretty stereotypical to the relationships you’ve mentioned in this thread, and here’s what I’ve come up with. Please take in the spirit I intend, as I’m trying not to be offensive:

Is it possible that all the ire against the 24/7 slave and the father/daughter incest couple stem from concerns about the mental health of the people involved? We don’t know these people personally and aren’t psychiatric professionals, so we can’t say for sure, but the basic reaction to relationships based on the extremity of the “deviant” sexual practices is that the people who are doing it are mentally ill or damaged in some way. Whether they actually are is unknowable, but it’s not completely out of left field to speculate.

Of course, the same thing was said about gays in years past, that they had something wrong with them psychologically, which was supposedly why they were gay. A lot of people still think so. I think that’s bigoted bullshit. But I’m not so quick to dismiss the idea out of hand for the 24/7 slave or the incest couple, just because I’ve know a lot of gay people who were, at least in my not-professional opinion, as sane as anyone else. I’ve never known anyone who was in an incestuous relationship or who chose enslavement who didn’t have some serious psychological issue, either because of the relationship or causing it. And yes, I’ve known a couple of other people who called themselves slaves. They were not sterling examples of psychological health IMO.

Of course, my sample size of gays is much, much bigger than people in long-term BSDM and incest situations, and I would guess the same is true for most people. Thus, the revulsion and judgment come easier. I quote Chris Rock when I tell you, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying, I understand. People can protest to the skies that these choices are 100% consensual, healthy, and A-OK, and I would never try to interfere in other people’s adult decisions, but inwardly, I do think there could very likely be some pathology at work in them. I imagine what it would take for me to be in such a relationship, and it would require a major, and more importantly, a violent breakdown of my selfhood, and I think that’s true for a lot of people. So, I can’t help it, it makes me uncomfortable. And since I can’t know for sure what’s going on to make these people choose what they choose, I’ll always sort of wonder about them.

But I agree that it’s hard to parse, because I realize the same arguments are made about gays, and I totally disagree with them. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with being gay but I do think father/daughter incest is revolting. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. Probably. But that’s how I feel. Social conditioning on this particular topic worked on me like gangbusters. I can’t even feel that’s wrong, probably because every case of father/daughter incest I’ve seen has been non-consensual, so my opinion has been colored. There’s also a consent issue in the BDSM relationship, because things are done to the slaves that they “hate” and that hurt them. I think that’s the root of it for me. Maybe I don’t believe consent CAN be given for certain things. Which I realize is patronizing and again probably just my judgmental side showing.

71

deleted doubt post

72

I missed this, but… IME I cannot agree with this statement. It might be true for kids in the single digit ages, but I think this is definitely false for middle school students. Overheard in the hallway:

(To kid being raised by grandparents): Oh poor you, sucks that your parents are dead!
(Response, to a kid who is known to be adopted): Well, at least my parents didn’t give me away!

Believe me, the adult guardians of each of these kids are probably unaware of the other child’s personal history (700 kids in the school). The kids found this shit out on their own and used it against each other mercilessly entirely on their own. Can’t imagine what would be said about a child of incest.

73

I think I understand the historical context better than you, as these arguments were (are) used in the first instance to promote a racist agenda against an already wide-spread practice (interracial unions bearing children) and in the second place to curb another wide-spread and historically chronicled sexual preference. Since parent/child incest is neither wide-spread, nor a well-chronicled and legitimate sexual preference, but rather the stuff of horror and tragic drama and forced unions to perpetuate dynasties, I’m not sure where you’re going with the whole historical context argument.

74

WTF is a “doubt post”? Double post. Whatever, I think I’ve said more than enough in this thread… my apologies for incoherence.

75

I’m not sure how many other ways I can phrase this. I’m not saying that incest is morally the same as interracial or gay marriage. I’m saying that the following argument against it is invalid.

The argument is: “The parents are doing something immoral because they are exposing their children to the hatred of society”

This same argument was used against interracial couples and against gay couples. Now, I guess you can argue that exposing children to righteous hatred is somehow different from exposing children to injust anger, but I don’t see how that is. Plus, it’s begging the question: “Having children in an incestual relationship is immoral because society will justifiably torment the children for the immoral actions of their parents.” vs “Having children in a gay relationship (in a society that is opposed to homosexuality) is not immoral because society will unreasonably torment the children for the reasonable actions of their parents.”

76

I am 100% behind iamthewalrus.

Putting aside the ick factor and emotional reaction we all have about incest the problem is really to come up with rational, non-emotional reasons why incest is wrong.

The one argument used is that society will judge the children and they will be tormented and scarred for life. This argument clearly falls flat when measured against everything else that society is intollerant of.

I would argue that a gay or inter racial couple with children will stand a greater chance of being subjected to the torments of society at large. The reason is simply that a gay couple or an interracial couple can be seen from the outside - you do not need to know the family history as with incest.

The problem with using the children’s welfare as a guideline on whether the parents are acting immorally is that it is totally subjective. I can just as easily make a case that parents who smoke in the car with their children are immoral and bad parents and should not be allowed to have children. In fact the dangers of second hand smoking are well documented and I would venture to guess more likely to have a direct physical impact on the child than possible genetic problems with incest.

This really also adresses the second argument which is the welfare of the children. Many actions by parents in “acceptable” relationships can be considered harmful to children. I would say that children of non-traditional relationships often are better adjusted than parents of “traditional” relationships. Gay couples, interracial couples and couples like the one in the 24/7 slave story are often more aware of the impact on the children and therefore have a higher awareness of their actions. “Normal” parents often just do whatever has been done in the past without any real awareness of the impact on their children.

I often wonder at parents who say things in front of or to their children without realising how they are affecting them.

77

I’m saying The parents in both the threads you reference are doing something immoral because they don’t seem to give a flying fuck about the welfare of their children. I’m also saying you insult interracial and gay parents when you put these freaks in the same argument.

The ‘let them do whatever they like as long as it’s not hurting me’ argument falls flat once the couple starts carelessly swinging its kids around the public forum so they can justify selfish behavior. Jenny Deaves said (and I’m paraphrasing here) she got drunk one night, fucked the old guy she knew was her father, and then when her adolescent daughter told granny that mommy’s fucking grandpa :eek: she had pack up her kids and run off to avoid arrest. Now we’re supposed to believe this happy family in the Sears studio portrait is healthy and capable of making sound decisions regarding the welfare of the children? This is not one of those love stories that stirs the heart, in fact, it makes my social libertarian self want to ignore the fact that I feel the law against incest is unjust. BTW, social libertarian does not, in any way, mean “No Opinion”.

jesus christ. This feels eerily like the South Park episode The Death Camp of Tolerance

78

I’m with the OP as well.

The argument that a child who might be the victim of social ridicule because of some cultural responses to that child’s domestic environment somehow has been done wrong by his/her parents, or shouldn’t have been had by his/her parents, just doesn’t hold any water.

It’s impossible to mitigate adversity completely, and pointing the finger at one obvious ‘reason’ why a kid will be fucked up and claiming that the parents are bad is short-sighted and ignorant.

(classic example: a kid raised in a loving and caring same-sex marriage is likely going to be more well-adjusted than a kid raised in a heterosexual marriage where one parent is, say, emotionally distant or abusive).