Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Savage Love Savage Love Letter of the Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM
In honor of MacKenzie Phillips, a recent email exchange with a highly dissatisfied reader:
Your previous comments on incest were illogical and full of bigotry. Have you wised up yet?J.H.
Nope.D.S.
Continue with your epithets, fag!J.H.
Um... sure thing... uh... motherfucker? sisterfucker? brotherfucker?D.S.
The fun continues—fun for the whole family (fun for the family hole?)—after the jump.
Don't forget cousinfucker. Let's break it down though: firstcousinfucker, secondcousinfucker, thirdcousinfucker... mitochondrial-eve fucker. I guess you need to draw the line somewhere in between. It's so much easier to draw the line between homos and heteros. It's analog versus digital.J.H.
Wait, wait: I've written in support of first-cousin coupling. Perhaps you missed this column:I am a young female currently in a relationship and I want to be honest with my boyfriend. A few years before I met my boyfriend, I met someone in my family. I guess he would be my second cousin. His mother is my father's first cousin. Anyway, we met one Christmas at a family get-together and ended up having sex. Would it be dishonest not to tell my current or any future lovers this detail about my sex life?—One Shameful Secret
You're not going to make the cut for the U.S. Incest Olympic Team doing your father's cousin's son, OSS. But don't take my word for it. "They are second cousins," says K. C. "And second cousins can marry in every state of the U.S." K. C. is one of the editors of CousinCouples.com, a website that aims to destigmatize cousin couples whenever and wherever they're getting their three-headed-baby freak on. At CousinCouples.com you'll learn that your kind can have single-headed babies like everyone else —and that first cousins can marry in 26 states, Mexico, Canada, and all of Europe. Seeing as first-cousin marriage is largely legal and second-cousin marriage is barely taboo, OSS, having a one-night stand with a second cousin isn't anything to be ashamed of.
Ta-da!
D.S.
So now the definition of right and wrong is whether or not something is legal. Oh wait—smoking marijuana, sodomy, gay marriage aren't legal in many states. Shame!J.H.
Well, as the incest-supporter in this conversation, why don't you to set the parameters. Where do you draw the line?D.S.
As with many things I don't believe there is an absolute line to be drawn. It's circumstantial. To say that all close relatives who want to get it on are vile and should hide is close-minded. I understand the fear that a person could take advantage of their younger, inexperienced relative. But the same is true in all relationships. A dominant gay male can certainly "take advantage" of a submissive, naive young boy. A dominant straight male can certainly "take advantage" of a young, naive girl. A strong-willed female can certainly "take advantage" of a young, naive boy. It has little to do with sexual orientation. The fact that incest of any sort is looked down upon in general society may add some degree of "dirtiness" to the mix, sure. But it doesn't make it inherently wrong. Sure, I have skepticism that most incestual relationships are "on the level" but you cannot say that all of them are wrong.I agree with you that certain incestual relationships are wrong. A father who rapes his daughter, of course this is wrong. A mother who fondles her son, of course this is wrong. Two consenting relatives, though? Why should this be wrong? Two consenting men, two consenting women, why should this be wrong? Tell me, what is the difference? Is it too dirty? Is someone taking advantage of the other? Is the disapproval of other family members too great? And why do they disapprove?
J.H.
The power dynamics—the enormous power imbalances—inherent in a parent/child relationship do not expire when the child reaches the age of consent. Or young adulthood. Or middle age. Or AARP membership. As I said to an incest fan in a column several years ago...Yes, yes: The incest taboo is so much social conditioning. But just because we're conditioned to view some things as disgusting and immoral doesn't mean that some things aren't, in actual point of fact, disgusting and immoral. Human sacrifice, for instance. Or cannibalism. Or Ann Coulter.
What you don't seem to understand, SAY, is that the incest taboo is all about protecting people from the abuse of trust and power. All families—even the healthiest families—are swept by swirling crosscurrents of obligation, guilt, mind games, and emotional blackmail. How can children—even adult children—freely consent to sex with their parents? Likewise, older or more domineering siblings can hold enormous power over their brothers and sisters. How does one divine consent when one sibling is having sex with another, or a son is having sex with his mother, or a father is having sex with his daughter? In those situations it's simply impossible to define where "family life" ends and "consent" begins.
For that reason alone—to protect children—the home should be a no-fire zone and near relatives should be off limits. Two consenting adult relatives, nearer than cousins, are free to do pretty much whatever they like, legally speaking. States don't prosecute people for incest unless a minor is involved, and then the older partner is prosecuted for child sexual abuse, not incest. But maintaining the taboo against incest—which frankly doesn't require much more than routine maintenance (very few people question have an issue with it)—draws boundaries that protect children from sexual exploitation.
And it's telling that the people who take an issue with the incest taboo—the people who decry it, the people who defend incestuous relationships—all seem to be male and most are discuss incest as a hypothetical. I never hear from guys who fell in romantic love with their mothers or sisters and then began to question the taboo. No, it's always men who fetishize incest that write. Which strikes me as ironic, J.H., as an incest fetish is a reaction to and a product of the incest taboo these men rail against.
D.S.
Share via
1
"Incest" by Parker Brothers! The new family game coming this fall! Stuff your daughter after you stuff the turkey!
2
Do you think Jed Clampett and Ellie Mae ever got it on?
I mean, he seemed a might self-satisfied for a rich geezer...and she never left the house.
It was only Jethro that was climbing the walls...
Do you think Jed Clampett and Ellie Mae ever got it on?
I mean, he seemed a might self-satisfied for a rich geezer...and she never left the house.
It was only Jethro that was climbing the walls...
4
The fucked-up power dynamic is a good reason to maintain *a* taboo against incest, but not *the* particular taboo that we do have. That is, it's strange to use the reason you give to shame the "sub" in an incest relationship.
Think about other cases of taboo power dynamics -- a 40-year-old boss fucking an 18-year-old underling. The stigma in that case rightly attaches mainly to the one in power -- the one who is in a position to be doing the exploiting.
But in the incest case, the exploited one is also shares a heavy part of the stigma. If I'm 18 and I willingly fuck my mother, then maybe -- *maybe* my mother is more heavily stigmatized than I am, but I am certainly viewed as sick and shameful, etc. Contrast with the boss/underling case -- there, it's mostly the boss is seen as creepy and shameful and wrong, the underling's actions seen as maybe wanton or slutty but certainly not as sick or creepy in the same way.
tl;dr: If Dan is right about the reason we should have an incest taboo, then the taboo should put most of the shame on the one in the position of power, and not on both participants equally as is currently the case.
Think about other cases of taboo power dynamics -- a 40-year-old boss fucking an 18-year-old underling. The stigma in that case rightly attaches mainly to the one in power -- the one who is in a position to be doing the exploiting.
But in the incest case, the exploited one is also shares a heavy part of the stigma. If I'm 18 and I willingly fuck my mother, then maybe -- *maybe* my mother is more heavily stigmatized than I am, but I am certainly viewed as sick and shameful, etc. Contrast with the boss/underling case -- there, it's mostly the boss is seen as creepy and shameful and wrong, the underling's actions seen as maybe wanton or slutty but certainly not as sick or creepy in the same way.
tl;dr: If Dan is right about the reason we should have an incest taboo, then the taboo should put most of the shame on the one in the position of power, and not on both participants equally as is currently the case.
5
I'd been wondering about this for a long time. I had heard an old podcast where Dan's reaction boiled down to "eww! incest is gross!" I reacted almost exactly like Fuck and Let Fuck in the linked 2002 column. I thought about it a little more and came to the conclusion that jettisoning that cultural taboo would make all family relationships unnecessarily complicated. While I disagree with Dan's point that there can never be true consent, there is a real and profound cost to introducing a possibility that a father could be grooming a daughter to replace her mom or that siblings had a real possibility of romantic entanglement.
I feel badly for the star crossed consenting adults that are denied love, but I don't imagine that there are that many of them without better options than their immediate family.
Thanks for the post!
I feel badly for the star crossed consenting adults that are denied love, but I don't imagine that there are that many of them without better options than their immediate family.
Thanks for the post!
6
These people defending close relative incest creep me out. I'm not for jailing legal adults for ANYTHING they consensually do together. But incest, even mutually consented to, indicates a deep psychological problem. If it produces offspring, the offspring are frequently sick (unlike homosexuality which doesn't produce biological offspring so I wish people would really stop comparing). Incest is not healthy. If my adult brother and my adult sister informed me they were having a sexual relationship with each other, I would stage an intervention right there. If my dad expressed a sexual interest in me, I would tell him he needed serious therapy.
And if I were a gay man, which I'm not, I would be outrageously offended to be compared to someone practicing incest. And homosexuality is not the "gateway sex" to anything goes in sexual relationships in America. It sounds to me like a lot of hysterical Republicans and creepy pedophiles wanting to piggyback a legitimate civil rights struggle, working each other up.
And if I were a gay man, which I'm not, I would be outrageously offended to be compared to someone practicing incest. And homosexuality is not the "gateway sex" to anything goes in sexual relationships in America. It sounds to me like a lot of hysterical Republicans and creepy pedophiles wanting to piggyback a legitimate civil rights struggle, working each other up.
8
I thought the whole point behind incest taboos - for every species, not just people - is to avoid mucking up the gene pool with three-headed babies.
9
No, no thank you. I'm so glad that I don't have your job, Dan. To bad you couldn't pass this one to Propecia.
10
Holy crap. How naive am I? There are incest supporters? WTF? I can't believe someone would write in defending incest? And to use homosexuality as an analogy is not only utterly inapposite, it's pretty insulting. It's as illogical as anti-gay bigots using bestiality as an analogy for homosexuality. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
11
incest is taboo because couplings between two closely related people are more likely to bring out genetic defects expressed in recessive genes.
12
"But incest, even mutually consented to, indicates a deep psychological problem. "
Not necessarily. Much of the non-appeal of incest to most people comes from something called the Westermarck effect, in which people you have extensive exposure to during a stage of childhood won't be seen as potential sex partners to you later.
But ... this only happens if you see the person when you're young. There's this odd phenomenon some researchers have seen when siblings are separated early on - they don't get this kind of imprinting, and there have been cases where they found themselves attracted to each other when reunited. They're not psychologically damaged; they just didn't get that imprinting.
Not necessarily. Much of the non-appeal of incest to most people comes from something called the Westermarck effect, in which people you have extensive exposure to during a stage of childhood won't be seen as potential sex partners to you later.
But ... this only happens if you see the person when you're young. There's this odd phenomenon some researchers have seen when siblings are separated early on - they don't get this kind of imprinting, and there have been cases where they found themselves attracted to each other when reunited. They're not psychologically damaged; they just didn't get that imprinting.
14
the extensive incest taboo is fairly recent and more of a western thing... folks marry their cousins in mass quantities in other countries (and end up with an increase in Funny Looking Kids or actual genetic abnormalities.
further back in europe, it was much more common to marry your parents siblings kid to keep property in the family. and if a 3 headed kid came aobut, well, it was God's will, or the mother looked at a dwarf accidentally or the mother was a witch... whatevs.
further back in europe, it was much more common to marry your parents siblings kid to keep property in the family. and if a 3 headed kid came aobut, well, it was God's will, or the mother looked at a dwarf accidentally or the mother was a witch... whatevs.
15
European marriage practices, among other incest structures were used partially to keep women as property (right along with dowry) and were not indicative of sexual preferences. We can keep going with Egyptian, Roman and Hawaiian royalty which were playing incest on mythologies of sibling gods and goddesses in sexual union. HOWEVER, in those cases partners frequently had many other sexual partners, were expected to produce a divine, incestuous heir (and it's highly questionable with promiscuity whether the heir was in fact the product of incest) and in Egyptian and Roman practices like, medieval European marriage, largely meant to keep women in line aka, secure the territory and wealth of her father. Pre-colonial Hawaiians however were matriarichal and report mutual romantic love between paired royal siblings, who grew up with each other (not Westermarck). This is a highly unique historical example of incest but it should be noted: Land wasn't property and a woman's marriage didn't bring more property, Children were respected and not used for sexual exploitation (sex with children was considered a huge taboo as was rape), and the high promiscuity rate of the royalty made it likely that the offspring weren't the product of incest.
Westermarck is contingent on Freudian psychology which regarded women as ruled by the body (specifically the uterus), homosexuality as perversely underdeveloped sexual preferences, and Oedipal complexes as the outstanding contribution to sexual identity. Have I mentioned most of Freudian theory has been thrown out by contemporary psychology? There are major, public cases of Westermarck where the dilemma of suddenly meeting an estranged close family member POST-PUBERTY and being confronted by sudden existential validation as well as a love as intense as erotic love (which parents and children do feel for each other) that can develop into a sexual affair. Contemporary psychology still holds estranged genetic family members who engage in sexual relationships to be unhealthy. Take this example, that it was later known threw both partners into a major, unnecessary (if adoptions weren't closed) Oedipal conflict, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe….
The more interesting thing about Westermarck is that separated genetically related individuals seem to be able to intuitively seek each other and the emotional contraction of suddenly finding a long lost other gets confused with sexual attraction. Not a fetish, not an identity. A psychological problem WHICH if you read Foucault, could be argued is politically, ethically harmless if there are not unwilling, manipulated third parties involved. Which history shows is very rare in incest.
In cases like the Philips book, it is a clear case of a parent dominating and victimizing a child. It's also a clear case of a victim being really honest about her family life. She's not the only one to write a book on it.
Speaking of Foucault (and Bataille), he interrogated the incest taboo and said that when these things come out, people who say "oh how interesting," are expressing public voyeurism, intrigued by the sexually out-of-bounds and that culture subconsciously rallies for the "freak show" as entertainment.
Blah, blah. But anyone who compares incest to homosexuality is way off base. And if Westermarck somehow can be taken as healthy, typical sexual behavior, the very description of how it operates as "learned preferences" shows it is nothing like gay orientation. Westermarck = learned behavior. Gay = innate. You can't learn gay. There's even "reverse Westermarck." You can't unlearn gay either.
Interestingly enough in Westermarck cases, you can unlearn incest. Hmmm.
More...
Westermarck is contingent on Freudian psychology which regarded women as ruled by the body (specifically the uterus), homosexuality as perversely underdeveloped sexual preferences, and Oedipal complexes as the outstanding contribution to sexual identity. Have I mentioned most of Freudian theory has been thrown out by contemporary psychology? There are major, public cases of Westermarck where the dilemma of suddenly meeting an estranged close family member POST-PUBERTY and being confronted by sudden existential validation as well as a love as intense as erotic love (which parents and children do feel for each other) that can develop into a sexual affair. Contemporary psychology still holds estranged genetic family members who engage in sexual relationships to be unhealthy. Take this example, that it was later known threw both partners into a major, unnecessary (if adoptions weren't closed) Oedipal conflict, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe….
The more interesting thing about Westermarck is that separated genetically related individuals seem to be able to intuitively seek each other and the emotional contraction of suddenly finding a long lost other gets confused with sexual attraction. Not a fetish, not an identity. A psychological problem WHICH if you read Foucault, could be argued is politically, ethically harmless if there are not unwilling, manipulated third parties involved. Which history shows is very rare in incest.
In cases like the Philips book, it is a clear case of a parent dominating and victimizing a child. It's also a clear case of a victim being really honest about her family life. She's not the only one to write a book on it.
Speaking of Foucault (and Bataille), he interrogated the incest taboo and said that when these things come out, people who say "oh how interesting," are expressing public voyeurism, intrigued by the sexually out-of-bounds and that culture subconsciously rallies for the "freak show" as entertainment.
Blah, blah. But anyone who compares incest to homosexuality is way off base. And if Westermarck somehow can be taken as healthy, typical sexual behavior, the very description of how it operates as "learned preferences" shows it is nothing like gay orientation. Westermarck = learned behavior. Gay = innate. You can't learn gay. There's even "reverse Westermarck." You can't unlearn gay either.
Interestingly enough in Westermarck cases, you can unlearn incest. Hmmm.
16
There's some consensus that the problems with incest are:
1) the power dynamic; and
2) three-headed babies.
So what about sisters adopted out at birth and raised separately with no knowledge of one another's existence? If they meet each other as adults and fall in love, is there any reason they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
1) the power dynamic; and
2) three-headed babies.
So what about sisters adopted out at birth and raised separately with no knowledge of one another's existence? If they meet each other as adults and fall in love, is there any reason they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
17
So now the definition of right and wrong is whether or not something is legal. Oh wait—smoking marijuana, sodomy, gay marriage aren't legal in many states. Shame!
J.H.
Sodomy is legal throughout the United States, gay, straight or in between.
Bestiality s legal in Florida.
Charlie Crist is governor.
All's right with the world, unless you don't like really big pythons and dirty drinking and swimming water.
J.H.
Sodomy is legal throughout the United States, gay, straight or in between.
Bestiality s legal in Florida.
Charlie Crist is governor.
All's right with the world, unless you don't like really big pythons and dirty drinking and swimming water.
18
image search "hapsburg jaw" if you seek a compelling reason to look to other bloodlines.
Charles II of Spain was a doozie produced by that family.
Charles II of Spain was a doozie produced by that family.
20
@19: The twins in your post were male and female, so don't overcome the potential three-headed baby objection. Is there anything wrong with gay siblings raised separately getting together? Or is it just that such cases will be so rare that a blanket policy against incest does less harm than an incest law with wacky exceptions?
21
This reminds me of the time my high school U.S. History teacher (in Montana mind you) related gay marriage rights to slavery and incest. Needless to say I learned nothing in that class.
22
I would have to disagree with with your assumption that incest, even mutually consented to, automatically indicates a deep psychological problem, NotABrotherFucker @6. I would agree that it would take a lot of stressors to overcome the Westermarck Effect, but that doesn't pertain to all biological incest circumstances, and also includes non-bio incest, such as step siblings or other relationships that are formed through indirect marital connections.
This means that any biological family members that separated during the formative years would not only not be affected by Westermarck negative imprinting, but may actually be inclined towards their own relatives due to other imprinting factors. When it comes to parent/child incest, there's the additional factor of age difference (which is a mild indicator in itself of dysfunction), but other than that, related folks can, under some circumstances, be attracted to each other within a reasonable spectrum of psychological health.
That said, the importance of personal responsibility when it comes to breeding needs to be mentioned, but not stressed. The recent news of the New Zealand father/daughter couple that had a first child with pronounced birth-defects and then is intentionally having a second child serves as a first order example. At the same time, there are countless parents who are having kids while fully aware of their own high-risk hereditary illnesses. A middle-eastern king is having himself cloned with imperfect technology in hopes for a survivable heir, and countless parents have kids without proper preparation or genetic review all the time, so the few incidents that do occur in which incestuous relationships result in progeny with birth defects are not a major concern.
Incidentally, the Westermarck Effect is also the reason we can dismiss the anti-gay arguments that suggest that if we allow gays to marry, we'll also have to allow family members to marry; there just are too few that would actually want to do so for it to be a national-level problem.
Yes, as an adult only child and ex-latchkey kid, I am an incest fetishist, and am fully aware that much of this comes from an underlying desire for siblings or at least consistent peers throughout my childhood. Interestingly, when I fantasize about fucking mom, I don't imagine her to look like my real-world Mom. (This despite the fact that she and her siblings were Scandinavian-goddess late-1960s Playboy Centerfold material.)
So, yes, I'm a sick fuck.
PS: Wrote this up before I saw @12, etc. But work is done, so here.
More...
This means that any biological family members that separated during the formative years would not only not be affected by Westermarck negative imprinting, but may actually be inclined towards their own relatives due to other imprinting factors. When it comes to parent/child incest, there's the additional factor of age difference (which is a mild indicator in itself of dysfunction), but other than that, related folks can, under some circumstances, be attracted to each other within a reasonable spectrum of psychological health.
That said, the importance of personal responsibility when it comes to breeding needs to be mentioned, but not stressed. The recent news of the New Zealand father/daughter couple that had a first child with pronounced birth-defects and then is intentionally having a second child serves as a first order example. At the same time, there are countless parents who are having kids while fully aware of their own high-risk hereditary illnesses. A middle-eastern king is having himself cloned with imperfect technology in hopes for a survivable heir, and countless parents have kids without proper preparation or genetic review all the time, so the few incidents that do occur in which incestuous relationships result in progeny with birth defects are not a major concern.
Incidentally, the Westermarck Effect is also the reason we can dismiss the anti-gay arguments that suggest that if we allow gays to marry, we'll also have to allow family members to marry; there just are too few that would actually want to do so for it to be a national-level problem.
Yes, as an adult only child and ex-latchkey kid, I am an incest fetishist, and am fully aware that much of this comes from an underlying desire for siblings or at least consistent peers throughout my childhood. Interestingly, when I fantasize about fucking mom, I don't imagine her to look like my real-world Mom. (This despite the fact that she and her siblings were Scandinavian-goddess late-1960s Playboy Centerfold material.)
So, yes, I'm a sick fuck.
PS: Wrote this up before I saw @12, etc. But work is done, so here.
25
@18 - thanks. I was thoroughly entertained just now reading Charles II's wikipedia entry. Wow.
It's clearly a blessing that he was impotent and that genetic mess died with him.
It's clearly a blessing that he was impotent and that genetic mess died with him.
26
The incest taboo is partly social conditioning (the taboo with regards to cousins usually is, since cousins don't usually grow up together particularly in the modern US).
But it's also partly a psychological phenomena. You don't need to actually be related to someone to have an aversion to having sex with someone that works in the same way. If you have an adopted sibling, you will feel the same way, because it's a result of growing up together.
The reason for that is probably to protect against genetic defects (altho note that unless you have a serious worry of carrying a genetic disease in your family, it's *repeated* generations of incest, not single instances of it, that lead to deformities). So, I would at least say that the cultural origin of the incest taboo (which varies significantly in its specifics across cultures) is in a naturally occurring psychological phenomena, not a concern for power dynamics. Especially considering that there are plenty of problematic family power dynamics that are accepted in many cultures (including within the US).
That said, I think that independent adults have enough agency to be able to consent to sex with their parents, if they really want to. I mean, imagine your dad seriously propositioned you for sex: you'd tell him to fuck off and it would probably seriously damage your relationship. If you have a dynamic with your parents where this is a seriously problematic proposition (you might feel compelled to agree even tho you don't really want to), you probably already have a dysfunctional family.
I think the general notion of this as "gross" is enough. I don't see that there's any need to go out of the way on it tho. If some woman and her dad want to fuck each other, I feel the way I do towards many kinks that turn me off. If you're into getting fisted and felching, that's your business, I don't find it appealing at all (painful and gross, respectively). I'm not going to do anything about it tho.
Well, the one difference is that I would be weirded out socializing with such a couple, whereas I wouldn't be weirded out socializing with a couple that enjoyed fisting. Maybe it's more like someone who wants a dom/sub relationship that's on almost all the time. I would feel almost as weird socializing with someone who had their spouse walking around on all fours with a collar while I was at their house.
More...
But it's also partly a psychological phenomena. You don't need to actually be related to someone to have an aversion to having sex with someone that works in the same way. If you have an adopted sibling, you will feel the same way, because it's a result of growing up together.
The reason for that is probably to protect against genetic defects (altho note that unless you have a serious worry of carrying a genetic disease in your family, it's *repeated* generations of incest, not single instances of it, that lead to deformities). So, I would at least say that the cultural origin of the incest taboo (which varies significantly in its specifics across cultures) is in a naturally occurring psychological phenomena, not a concern for power dynamics. Especially considering that there are plenty of problematic family power dynamics that are accepted in many cultures (including within the US).
That said, I think that independent adults have enough agency to be able to consent to sex with their parents, if they really want to. I mean, imagine your dad seriously propositioned you for sex: you'd tell him to fuck off and it would probably seriously damage your relationship. If you have a dynamic with your parents where this is a seriously problematic proposition (you might feel compelled to agree even tho you don't really want to), you probably already have a dysfunctional family.
I think the general notion of this as "gross" is enough. I don't see that there's any need to go out of the way on it tho. If some woman and her dad want to fuck each other, I feel the way I do towards many kinks that turn me off. If you're into getting fisted and felching, that's your business, I don't find it appealing at all (painful and gross, respectively). I'm not going to do anything about it tho.
Well, the one difference is that I would be weirded out socializing with such a couple, whereas I wouldn't be weirded out socializing with a couple that enjoyed fisting. Maybe it's more like someone who wants a dom/sub relationship that's on almost all the time. I would feel almost as weird socializing with someone who had their spouse walking around on all fours with a collar while I was at their house.
27
It's interesting that despite the compounded genetic issues implicit in long-term incest and inbreeding, crazy mutations actually end up in much larger genetic diversity in a population -- counter to intuition. Yes, you'd end up with a lot of three-headed babies that aren't viable, but every once in a while, you'd end up with with a viable offspring that is somehow genetically superior to its ancestors. Mutation is a two-edged sword.
Incest is dirty and hot in stories. Consenting adults can do what they like. It's probably still a bad idea. I don't think those things are in any particular conflict.
Incest is dirty and hot in stories. Consenting adults can do what they like. It's probably still a bad idea. I don't think those things are in any particular conflict.
28
#12 brought up what I think is the most valid point here. We humans have a rule of thumb that tells us you don't fuck the people you grow up with. This was exposed early on in children raised in Israeli kibbutz environments: even though most of the children were unrelated, they very rarely formed romantic relationships with one another as they matured. Researchers chalked this up to their over-familiarity: they had grown up so close to one another, the hard-wired parts of their brains said, "this is a sibling, do not touch."
What evolution does is strengthen rules of thumb that preserve genes. While one instance of brother/sister breeding might not lead to mutant children, several generations of that behavior certainly will (see the royal lineages of the Egyptian empire, for one). Humans (and most other species) are hard-wired to seek mates outside of the family unit, because it gives our genes the best chance of being passed on. To breed with a sibling is, and I say this from a strictly biological standpoint, unnatural.
As something of a side note, a lot of cultures treat intermarriage of first cousins as completely normal, and have done so for ages. They have not had any obvious negative genetic results. First cousins only share 1/8th of their genetic information, while siblings have 1/2 their genetic information in common with each other and with their parents. That is a highly substantial difference.
What evolution does is strengthen rules of thumb that preserve genes. While one instance of brother/sister breeding might not lead to mutant children, several generations of that behavior certainly will (see the royal lineages of the Egyptian empire, for one). Humans (and most other species) are hard-wired to seek mates outside of the family unit, because it gives our genes the best chance of being passed on. To breed with a sibling is, and I say this from a strictly biological standpoint, unnatural.
As something of a side note, a lot of cultures treat intermarriage of first cousins as completely normal, and have done so for ages. They have not had any obvious negative genetic results. First cousins only share 1/8th of their genetic information, while siblings have 1/2 their genetic information in common with each other and with their parents. That is a highly substantial difference.
29
Personally, I take the position that, as long as they're willfully consenting, reasonably informed people above the legal age of majority, whatever two or more people get up to in bed is their own damn business, no matter how icky I may find it. As long as it makes them happy, whatever. I can even see some of the theoretical appeal on the part of the incest fetishist; Dan mentions the power imbalances inherent to most incestuous relationships, and anyone who's been paying attention knows that power imbalances are key to many kinks. This could be construed as taking 'Call me Daddy' to the next illogical step. Fortunately all of my immediate relatives are about the complete opposite of what I find attractive, so I've never had any inclinations in that direction myself.
However, while I wish anyone who finds that they *are* mutually inclined to that sort of a relationship all the happiness their depraved and twisted kink can bring them, dependent on their being kind enough not to tell me about it, the ethical question raised when the parties involved are fertile heterosexuals remains inescapable. There was just such a case a couple years ago in Australia, where a father and his adult daughter found themselves uncontrollably drawn to bone the fuck out of each other and produced a child who died within days from massive congenital heart defects... And then had a *second* child after that obvious warning sign. Whatever gets your freak on is your own business, but not taking all measures against producing children in an incestuous relationship, when you know and *have already seen* that it can inflict severe health problems upon said children, strikes me as staggeringly irresponsible.
Then again, irresponsibly popping out brats is one of those things humanity does all the time, and try to convince anyone that they shouldn't.
More...
However, while I wish anyone who finds that they *are* mutually inclined to that sort of a relationship all the happiness their depraved and twisted kink can bring them, dependent on their being kind enough not to tell me about it, the ethical question raised when the parties involved are fertile heterosexuals remains inescapable. There was just such a case a couple years ago in Australia, where a father and his adult daughter found themselves uncontrollably drawn to bone the fuck out of each other and produced a child who died within days from massive congenital heart defects... And then had a *second* child after that obvious warning sign. Whatever gets your freak on is your own business, but not taking all measures against producing children in an incestuous relationship, when you know and *have already seen* that it can inflict severe health problems upon said children, strikes me as staggeringly irresponsible.
Then again, irresponsibly popping out brats is one of those things humanity does all the time, and try to convince anyone that they shouldn't.
30
First cousin fucking does mess up the gene pool, at least if they were ever to start happening routinely (basically if a family starts just marrying itself, it can add up over generations.)
So its good that society shuns it. Its bad for society in the long term even if its not in the short term. I'm not sure it should be illegal, but I'm glad its a major taboo.
So its good that society shuns it. Its bad for society in the long term even if its not in the short term. I'm not sure it should be illegal, but I'm glad its a major taboo.
31
@ 27, uh, inbreeding doesn't increase the de novo mutation rate (the rate at which a new mutation occurs in DNA). But inbreeding does pull a population away from Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium, increasing the likelihood for homozygous genotype. As you sorta said, some alleles are extremely deleterious when they are homozygous, but neutral or even beneficial when they are heterogeneous. In the future, you might want to be at least slightly informed on a topic before you make claims about it.
32
IanM @30, we don't shun it as much as you think. More states allow for first-cousin marriage than don't. Still, there it may be that it's not a high risk based on current behavior, few families consistently pair up with the house down the lane.
At the same time, the effects of long-term cousin pairing is becoming evident in our Amish communities, so we are seeing the visible effects when it does happen on the long term.
I certainly would clarify that the problem is first cousin breeding, not merely fucking. As squicky as it may be for some, I see no reason to preclude sterile incestuous pairings.
At the same time, the effects of long-term cousin pairing is becoming evident in our Amish communities, so we are seeing the visible effects when it does happen on the long term.
I certainly would clarify that the problem is first cousin breeding, not merely fucking. As squicky as it may be for some, I see no reason to preclude sterile incestuous pairings.
33
Keekee @23, I wasn't sure whether or not you were being sarcastic. Indeed most folk I've known were squicked about doing their own moms (even though plenty of neighborhood moms would be categorized as MILFs).
In my case, there's a really hot wickedness in the thought of obtaining Mom's approval and pride in such a primal fashion, especially since neither was particularly forthcoming through the usual vectors afforded children. Indeed, my fantasies involving mom feature my being adolescent, not adult.
Freud insisted we all have secret yearnings for our parents, though I've not often seen that often manifest or confessed. Interestingly, the insult Motherfucker very likely does not refer to incest, but to GIs getting cheap sex from German widows nearing the end of WWII. I.e. a bloke getting some when he doesn't really deserve it by taking foul advantage of circumstances.
In my case, there's a really hot wickedness in the thought of obtaining Mom's approval and pride in such a primal fashion, especially since neither was particularly forthcoming through the usual vectors afforded children. Indeed, my fantasies involving mom feature my being adolescent, not adult.
Freud insisted we all have secret yearnings for our parents, though I've not often seen that often manifest or confessed. Interestingly, the insult Motherfucker very likely does not refer to incest, but to GIs getting cheap sex from German widows nearing the end of WWII. I.e. a bloke getting some when he doesn't really deserve it by taking foul advantage of circumstances.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Privatizing WA Liquor Carries a High Cost, Says Opponent by Cienna Madrid
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS