posted
A posed a question on my site a few months back, and did not receive a satisfactory response at all. I hope to get better from Hatrack.
quote:Without religious reasons, why is non-procreational sex between two consenting adults who happen to be related considered morally wrong and perverted?
That is to say, given the conditions of any other legal, consensual sexual act, why is incest wrong?
Religious reasons are not acceptable; they don't require any thought and the purpose of this question is to encourage questioning of our indoctrined views.
Also, the "ick factor" is not an acceptable response.
1. Biology, natural selection, and the incest meme. Incest create birth defects and any society that broadly encourages incest probably didn't survive for long. That is why incest has become taboo. Just because you are using a condom doesn't mean you can turn back thousands of years of natural selection.
2. Child abuse. For me, this is the biggest moral objection against incest. If two cousins of the same age want to go at each other, that's fine with me. But incest between an older family member (parents, uncle/aunt, etc) and a younger member (children, nieces/nephew, etc) is wrong because it encourages sexual abuse of children.
Even if the younger member is already an adult, I still don't like it. Does that mean a parent can lust after their child for the entire teenage years, and the minute they turn 18 they can start having sex?
I'm not making a lot of sense, but I just saw the Bourne Supremacy and it gave me a terrible headache.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren One Hand has some very good points. But I still think the "ick factor" is a perfectly good reason in and of itself.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Biology, natural selection, and the incest meme. Incest create birth defects and any society that broadly encourages incest probably didn't survive for long. That is why incest has become taboo. Just because you are using a condom doesn't mean you can turn back thousands of years of natural selection.
I do think that this is a large, large part of it. Especially your last sentence.
quote: 2. Child abuse. For me, this is the biggest moral objection against incest. If two cousins of the same age want to go at each other, that's fine with me. But incest between an older family member (parents, uncle/aunt, etc) and a younger member (children, nieces/nephew, etc) is wrong because it encourages sexual abuse of children.
And I agree entirely on this. But this is covered under Statutory Rape laws, is it not?
quote: But I still think the "ick factor" is a perfectly good reason in and of itself.
But can you deem it to be morally wrong simply because it does not sit well with you?
quote: I'm not sure how one grows as a person by questioning this belief.
One grows as a person by questioning any belief. To realize which thoughts are the product of your own mind and which are the product of indoctrination is to open the doorway to free thought.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we assume that statutory rape laws will prevent child abuse, incest among a parent and their adult children will still distort the parent-child relationship.
What would family life be like if mom knows that when her daughter turns 18 she can legally have sex with dad? We're going to have Oedipus and Electra complexes breaking out all over the place.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
HRE & BRH: Yes, the first reason is the best - from my point of view - to 'ban' incest. I'll try to give a more detailed explanation for those who don't know what BRH was saying by "Incest create birth defects":
There are recessive alleles (series of genes) and dominant ones. In the presence of a dominant allele in the same pair, the recessive allele isn't activated. But if a child is born from an incest, there's a big probability that he receives recessive alleles from both parents at the same place of the chromosome, and thus the recessive trait is activated. These recessive traits may be the cause of a genetic disease, so the child is prone to having one.
The "ick factor" has no consistency for me. Think for a second here: in the case of two cousins for example, they can know each other VERY well. Because of the trust we automaticly put in our family, we tend to share more about ourselves with someone who's family than with 'outsiders'. So why not become attracted to a person you know so well ?! Because he/she is your cousin ?! Not a valid argument. But since no method of contraception is 100% safe, do you want to live in a society that allows incest ? Would anyone want to perform an abortion because of an incest ? That is why, I think, incest is taught as moraly wrong in most societies.
For me, there's an "ick factor" about homosexuality. But that's not enough reason to condemn it alltogether.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Beren's statement about natural selection is a dead on accurate explanation for the morality/taboo question.
If you want to read some fiction that gilds the lilly (so to speak) try Farnham's Freehold by Heinlein.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The family is full of relationships built on certain kinds of trust. For example, a parent has authority over a child. Older brothers and sisters have a sense of authority (whether real or imagined) over younger siblings. This is not a healthy basis for a romantic relationship. It's emotionally unhealthy for one person in a romantic relationship to have authority over the other. For a teacher and student that's bad enough, but family relationships are established from birth and stay till we die. I'm in my 30s and my mother treats me as a adult, but she still sees me as her child. As she should. The family relationship can't change in the same way that friendship can turn to romance. If it does, it loses what makes it a family relationship.
Part of the security that exists in family relationships comes from the certain knowledge that this relationship is NOT romantic, NOT sexual. A consenting brother and sister could have a romantic relationship, but they would never again be brother and sister except in name alone, even if they tried to be. We preserve, protect, our familial ties by never crossing the line. We establish relationships that, unlike romances, won't be tossed aside when they don't work out.
*Well, not wrong in the sense that it should be illegal, but probably still wrong in the sense that adultery is.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
enjeeo, you have a very good point there. Thanks for stating it as I, while being all 'scientific' about it, kind of forgot about the 'human' factor. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin: I rather stressed non-reproductive sex, didn't I?
Birth defects explains a social stigma, and perhaps an evolutionary one, but with the reach of Birth Control available now, defects that are purely the result of incest are not an enormous concern, no more than defects which occur in an un-related couple.
Fallow: My thumb is overall a pinkish-tan right now, from my perspective. It varies from a blue or red in extreme cold to black when working in the soil. It is blistered and callused, throwing some more variety into the color.
To add another variable, it depends what light I'm in; under direct light it appears a vibrant crimson, where in the dark it is black. There are small particles of metal dust imbedded in the grooves, causing it glimmer like the night sky.
I label it as a pinkish-tan because society has told me that when I receive that particular pattern of light waves, it is called pinkish-tan. Is that your point? If so, it is a good one, but one I have considered in its many possibilities before.
Is my pink the same as the other fellows pink? Perhaps his eyes perceive the light waves differentley, and if I could look through his eyes I would call my thumb emeral green. It is not strange to him, however, because he knows the color that I call "emerald green" as "pinkish-tan".
I believe that I have totally jumped ahead of your point, fallow. You now have a description of my perception of my thumb, a fairly diverse one at that. Continue, please, I want to see where this goes.
[ August 07, 2004, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
HRE, you're right, you talked about non-procreational sex. The problem is: can we be sure it's non-procreational ? And even if we did, there's always enjeeo's argument. What's your take on that one ?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It is fairly logical, and it makes sense. However, if anyone has a refutation to that argument, my mind is still and always will be open to hear and learn more.
[ August 07, 2004, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, if anyone has a refutation to that argument, my mind is still and always will be open to hear and learn more.
Well let me give you one that is likely and refute it at the same time.
Some people would say that consenting adults should be able to do anything they want, and that if a person wants to destroy their family relationship in order to have a romance with their father, so be it.
I don't agree. The very reason we have laws regarding abuse of authority that focus on unethical romantic relationships is that we recognise that people are, in many situations, not objective enough to truly consent or to act objectively; that their consent is based on reliance. So a lawyer should not be involved with a client, etc. It's the same with families, only moreso. There is a lack of objectivity and a balance of power that leads to a lack of true consent.
You know, HRE, I agree that it is healthy and right to question why we do things and be sure that we are not merely doing something (or not doing something) because that is our societal norm, but some taboos are actually sound and built on centuries of experience throughout many and various communities and cultures. Incest is one of them. I guess my point is that to try as gleefully as you seem to be to tear down a societal norm just because it's a societal norm is just as foolish as never questioning it for the same reason.
The 'ick factor' is also not necessarily to be disregarded. Sometimes we simply know, feel too deeply and sharply to deny it, that something is wrong, even before we can articulate why.
I happened to catch an episode of Jerry Springer one day when I was home from work. A girl was trying to defend the fact that she was involved with her father. She said, "why shouldn't I be with him. He loves me, he protects me, he's kind to me." As she had teeth missing, I'm assuming that others haven't been so kind. But as the show went on it became so apparent that if they ended this romance, she would likely have to leave home. And it just struck me how terribly sad it all was. And there was just this sense of wrongness about it that I was trying to describe above. Her father should have loved her and protected her and been kind to her because he's her father. And the disparity in the way they felt was so obvious. She spoke like a little girl looking up to her hero-daddy, and he spoke like a man enjoying the young body he got to go home to each night, even when he was claiming to love her. All those things she values so highly in their father-daughter relationship are gone. His love and protection are now conditional, they rely on her being his lover. And she clearly didn't know this yet. She was still under the impression that he would be there for her forever, because he's her father. But he isn't her father any more, he's her lover. And they are not the same thing. They can't be.
posted
I think there are two different issues here:
1. Father-child In this scenario, the parent or parent-figure is abusing his or her authority and taking advantage of a child or someone vulnerable and within their field of control.
2. Peer-to-peer, blood-relation Ok, there's just an ick factor here. I have the same ick issues with homosexuality, but I don't condemn consenting adults for doing things I don't necessarily agree with.
But in Case 2, it is an issue of consenting adults. In Cast 1, it's an abuse of power and trust where one party doesn't have the capacity to understand or reject the situation. In my humble opinion.
posted
*dances* Glad to see you enjeeo! You stated the case well, and I have nothing much to add.
This thread reminds me of a novel called The Kiss , by some woman who obviously never heard the term 'over-sharing'. I didn't read it, but it was all about her having an affair with her father. Admittedly this was well into her adulthood, but still. That thing inside me that goes *squick* when I read about stuff like that is something that I believe goes deeper than rational thought. The parent-child incest taboo is, I think, largely a hard-wired one. Still, what the woman and her father did isn't illegal.
On the other hand, first cousins can legally marry in several states in the U.S. There is some increased risk of birth defects, but those are generally minimal unless both families spring from the same fairly shallow gene pool. I have seen very many birth defects in some isolated mountain communities, where none of the couples are closely related. Failure ro introduce new blood every now and then can produce an entire section of people with genetic disease. Look at the royal families of Europe, who intermarried fairly closely for many generations, with hemophilia being one pervasive result. One would almost be grateful for the adulterous ones.
That said, I do know one person (very, very well) who is the product of a marriage of first cousins. She is intelligent, attractive and has a solid marriage of her own (not to a relative of any sort) and a happy home.
I think cousins should be allowed to marry, though genetic counselling should be an obvious choice before they do.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the home is the one place where you should always feel safe. Incest would take away from this. Just think if you were always thinking about your brother/mother/sister/cousin as a sexual option. Life inside the home would be chaotic, and the child would never feel safe from pressures of the outside world. Just think how uncomfortable a child would be if their brother was always hitting on them.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One, I'm not in school yet. This is what I spend my summer thinking about. Pathetic, huh? I start on Monday, though, so you can assume the worst from then on.
As to my site(s): My site on religion is TheInquistion. There is an entry on the morality of incest close to the top, but the conversation has since moved on.
Lot49 is my general site, with a mix of politics, social discussion, and satirical humor.
Note that these are updated purely on a when-I-feel-like-it basis.
[ August 07, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent discussion. Some very good points being brought in here. I especially like enjeeo's explaination, it seems to address the most important of the issues here.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Promethius-- Most Cousins don't live in your home, though, and are frequently fairly close in age. And, I'm thinking of adults here. Childhood cousin hanky-panky is still roughly equivalent of childhood friend hanky-panky. That is, not something to be encouraged.
quote: n : sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child)
Whether cousins even meet that definition even varies from state-to-state in the U.S. since some states allow first cousins to marry.
I'm just saying that the issues of 'feeling secure in your home' and 'imbalance of power because of age differences and familial hierarchy' don't necessarily apply to cousins.
That said, I'd probably freak right the hell out if Liam and Caitlin (his cousin of the same age- daughter of my half-brother) wanted to get married. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to add to what everyone else has said, incest also brings up a lot of issues in terms of one's identity. Say I'm the child of a man and his daughter. In terms of the man, I am both his child and his grandchild. In terms of the woman, I am both her child and her sibling. Confusing, no?
It's especially so when you consider that there are widely differing, well-defined sets of norms and values perscribed to each of the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, and sibling-sibling relationships. These differences raise some very large issues, such as who will be responsible for disciplining the child, etc. For instance, Imagine your grandfather punishing you for staying out past curfew; or your mother being your childhood playmate. The roles just don't mix.
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" A girl...involved with her father...said, "why shouldn't I be with him. He loves me, he protects me, he's kind to me." As she had teeth missing, I'm assuming that others haven't been so kind.
I'd guess her father had knocked out her teeth. Abusers are very effective at convincing their victims that no one else would put up with them.
posted
Joking about having sex with the girl hanging on your arm is pretty tacky. Making the same joke when that girl is your SISTER is outrageously tacky, and would probably have resulted in a serious butt-kicking had someone pulled it at my high school.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of Chinatown, have any of you heard the Snopes-confirmed story that during the filming of Chinatown, Jack Nicholson actually found out that his sister was really his mother? He was the product of an embarassing teen pregnancy, and was raised by his grandmother, who taught him to call her "mother" and his mother "sister". He didn't know the truth until he was an adult.
Or so I read on Snopes. Weird coincidence if it's true, but Snopes is usually reliable.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Father-child [shouldn't that be parent-child?] 2. Peer-to-peer, blood-relation ...in Case 2, it is an issue of consenting adults. In Cast 1, it's an abuse of power and trust
Don't you remember back in high school when two years age difference meant a lot? For me that feeling stays when it comes to siblings. Though we are adults now, my brother will always be my big brother, and my sister will always be my little sister. These are the nature of our roles in the family. If he and I were to get involved (okay serious ick factor just typing that ) there would be a whole history there of him being 'the big brother', sometimes in charge of me, certainly able to exert authority over me.
But seriously, the biological reasons alone are reason enough for society not to condone incest (by the way, I agree on the cousins, Olivetta. My argument is more about immediate family, and probably aunts and uncles).
quote: Yeah right. You tape that show, admit it.
I DO NOT!!! I don't even think I made it all the way through that one episode, let alone watching it every week.
Thanks for the welcome back, guys. I feel all special. Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
