Thoughts on Incest -- Part 1 · 7:16pm Nov 16th, 2015
I was referred to this article and a number of others by an acquaintance who engaged in an incestuous relationship with his older brother. I see no social or psychological wrong in his relationship (moral, on the other hand, maybe). His relationship was consensual, mutually enjoyed, and seems to have led to no damaging social or psychological manipulation. Based purely on what I've read from the linked article, I think what happened to the brother and sister referred to there is a tragedy. I came to this article and read it as well as the first several comments only hoping that my own perception of incest might become better informed.
Though my understanding clicked with most of the points made, I did find certain parts lacked thorough explanation or, perhaps, thorough understanding on the part of Mr. Moosa.
Let me start with the term, "violation through ... paedophilia." Of other bloggers, even researchers, I'd have expected this kind of phrasing, but, of someone who claims from the beginning to be open-minded and an educator (at a university), I'm irked by the apparent ignorance or egotism of the lumping together of paedophilia with sexual violence. Not all paedophilia is violent, nor even a crime or sin in some countries and cultures. While he seems willing to tear down arguments against incest, he certainly seems quick to imply that arguments against non-violent, socially-accepted paedophilia hold weight. This hurts Mr. Moosa's credibility already for me. Of course, by this very paragraph, perhaps I'm guilty of the same mistake. If some violence is alright, who's to say that all sexual violence or rape ought to be considered socially and psychologically objectionable?
Another oversight that caught my attention was that the meaning and merit of the term "natural" seems to have been at least partly overlooked by Mr. Moosa. He was quick to dismiss it as simply meaning "occurring naturally," but, in reality, when people use the term "not natural" they usually don't mean that it doesn't occur naturally. Bonobos practice non-taboo incest (and pedophilia except between mother and son). What I find more interesting is that chimps actually have sexual taboos against incest like we do. Both are part of nature. Mr. Moosa is absolutely correct that natural events and urges may be both good and bad for an individual or society, but, what he fails to acknowledge, is that "nature" would appear to have guided us to where we are today.
Even if, as I do, someone believes that humankind must struggle against its own nature in order to progress, really, that struggle against nature is, itself, a part of nature. Sometimes we take that struggle to the extreme, as with persecution against the incestuous brother and sister. What if such extreme reactions prevent us from getting too close to the "bad" effects of nature? What bad effects could there be for incest, one might ask? I'd hoped that Mr. Moosa might write about that, but I was disappointed not to see at least one argument against incest that I feel holds weight discussed here. I'll explain why I hold reservations about incest becoming altogether legal despite the fallacies of the western world later.
Let me say, I felt that the writer's arguments about the risks of birth defects and procreation were spot-on. The most common argument against incest that I've seen among incest fetishists themselves has actually been tied to genetics. In reality, one generation of incest holds a rather low risk of genetic deformity.
"The average risk of birth defects in the general population is slightly more than 2 percent. For the child of siblings, which is as close as you can get genetically, other than direct clones, the odds are between 7 and 9 percent higher than normal. That means that nearly 90 percent would be fine. Of the remainder, most birth defects are easily treated by modern science.
"Many groups have much worse odds of having children with birth defects, such as smokers, drinkers, women over 40, people with a family history of cancer, workers in risky industries, hemophiliacs, drug users, etc. but no other group is barred from having children based on their risk of birth defects, nor should they be. In this country we do not practice eugenics."
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117132142AAd21Za
Even if the risk were high, I feel it's an invalid argument against incest, since it's not the fault of those in love that such a risk exists.
Like the writer's unfortunate statement about paedophilia, I cringed a little at this statement as well: "This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes)."
If what scientists have discovered about non-human primates also applies to humans, homosexuality comes neither purely by nature nor purely by nurture, yet he implies here in the parenthetical that it's as genetically predetermined as eye color. To the outrage of those who believe otherwise, science indicates that this is not the case. Furthermore, why should nature vs. nurture even be mentioned parenthetically if we've already determined that nature isn't always good to individuals or to humanity as a whole? Maybe my blue eyes are a burden in sunny climates, just for example.
The statement immediately following the one above also leaves me unsatisfied. "It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent)." This argument was tired the very first time I heard it back in middle school. I can breathe half a sigh of relief that Mr. Moosa remembered to stipulate that there be consent, but I'll reserve my other half-sigh to say this: Relationships are the business of all who are impacted by them to the extent that they are, in fact, impacted. Family, friends, community, and country are each impacted by every relationship of which they are comprised, including the profound influence of any sexual relationship between two willing individuals of any age, gender, or relation. Yes, others' relationships (legal and socially accepted or not) are our business, even if they're completely consensual. Should we be allowed to bar them from sex? That's a slightly different matter.
As promised, the reason I hold reservations about consensual, adult incest being legalized -- note that I don't say I think they shouldn't be legalized; I'm uncertain still -- is the potential that exists for abuse of sexual freedom between family members.
Is all incest abusive? Of course not. Do some incestuous relationships surpass the love of many non-incestuous ones? Absolutely. It's easy for me to say that there should be limited allowance for incest in the law, specifically between family that can be shown to have an objectively healthy relationship. However, what I think we might (just maybe) do well to outlaw is (consensual) incest used purely for selfish ends that actively harm any individual close to the relationship.
There are (consensual) non-incestuous relationships that harm, yes, but, the "nature" of incest intensifies that harm and appears to hold a much higher risk for abuse than non-incest. What's more, defining "consent" becomes so much more difficult when two people are entrenched in familial influence. I'm not positive I'm right about this, or I might not have said "maybe" earlier. If Mr. Moosa had addressed historical or other-culture examples of how incest was abused and how that abuse could be prevented or rectified, then I'd have been very grateful and a lot more informed by his article. Lastly, I don't mean to be pretentious, but, as a writer myself, I like to be informed when I make mistakes in writing, and there were a couple of typos I found here in an otherwise very well written blog. "Spot, on" contains a misplaced comma, and "more closer" stuck out to me.
To the author, thanks for the read, and keep up the good work.
I intend to review a handful more articles later, so keep an eye open.
99.9% of hatred towards incestuous relationships seems to stem from cultural influences. Specifically, religion.
As for the medical side of the coin, while the percentages you gave are true, it seems that the majority of people believe that ALL offspring from such relationships will come out looking like the banjo player from Deliverance.
3545792 *considers* hmm...
snopes.com/movies/graphics/banjoboy.gif
3545792
Not just religion. The US, Canada and Western Europe are very similar religiously, but many US states ban cousin marriage, while Canada and Western Europe (along with most of the rest of the world) are just fine with it. I don't know what aspect of US culture caused the stigmatization of cousin marriage, but (as with your banjo example) the stigma itself has become a significant part of the culture now.
3545794 Don't forget about the The Westermarck Effect.
3546258 I lump that together with nature. Of course, there's genetic sexual attraction that counters that.
3546567 I wouldn't just lump it in with nature. My honest opinion is that incest is wrong. Hot in a fictional story, but wrong. Yes, I will crank it to a hot incest fic because the wrongness of it arouses me. On the other hand, I have incestual thoughts about my younger sister. But I don't act on them because I know it in my heart to be wrong. Yes, my sister is much younger than me, ten years younger than me in fact. (I'm 21). I don't act on my desires because that would hurt my younger sister. Not physically insomuch as psychologically, but I would hurt my sister.
In this day and age, incest is frowned upon because it can and will hurt everyone involved. Humans evolved with the Westermarck Effect written in their genome for a reason. The social outliers who practice incest are while not genetically inferior, because the moment I start spouting on about genetic inferiority, I get pegged as a neo-nazi and a racist. But, they are genetically unsound, as the Westermarck Effect had no, well, effect on them, and Darwin's Theory of Evolution will evolve past them and leave them in the genetic dust.
I know that many will read this and think, "oh, this guy is a douchebag for attacking this other person's personal thoughts." I'm not attacking, I am offering a differing and opposite opinion in an intellectual manner. I say to those who will read this and downvote, at least give a reason other than"oh, he's just attacking this guy bluh bluh bluh." *click*
I am no saint judging you from my pedestal on high. I am just as human with my own faults and fetishes (varied as they may be). I just personally believe that incest as a practise is wrong.