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.