Thoughts on Incest -- Part 2 of 2 · 9:07pm Nov 24th, 2015
I was linked to one more pro-incest blog last week(-ish), here:
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2011/11/frequently-asked-question-why-is-incest.html?m=1
While it touched on some of the reasons anti-incest laws seems to persist today, what I found more interesting was another blog it linked to near the end:
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html
There are a lot of thoughtful points here and, I mean no offense, a lot of non sequiturs. I visited looking for some insight into whether or not incest and polyamory ought to be legally approved across the board, and, though nothing quite addressed my specific questions, I did come out with a much better understanding of my own beliefs to the point that my questions were answered at least partly by myself. For this, I'm grateful to the author(s) for their list of arguments and counterarguments.
My original questions about incest revolved around the potential for abuse and the eventual re-formation of tyrannical political factions. My main concerns for polyamory are regarding the increased risk of a leader or group oppressing those in close connection with their group (as with the lost boys and unwilling women within the FLDS faith). I've no doubt that, as the blogger here states, there are many good examples of incestuous and polyamorous relationships whose participants shouldn't be denied marriage to one another. The blogger is quick to point out that bad examples obviously exist within what's legally and culturally accepted as well, but there's unfortunately no scholarly peer-reviewed information here to convince me that the risks of legalizing incest and polyamory across the board are worth the relatively few known good examples of these kinds of relationships.
I do believe that potentially healthy, incestuous and polyamorous relationships are more common than we see in the media, and the law ought to hold no prohibition against the genuine love of incestuous or polyamorous individuals who wish to marry, but to say that incest and polyamory ought to be legalized without some safeguard against the pitfalls of each is like using an acetylene torch to make a grilled cheese sandwich: both excessive and dangerous. The arguments in the blog (and others I've seen) point repeatedly to the justified dangers of heterosexual monogamy. A stove-top, even at the right temperature, can burn your sandwich, yes, and it also might not handle tasks that require the heat of an oven. Current laws poorly handle spousal rape cases, for instance, like a stove-top burner might handle a Thanksgiving turkey.
Forgive the food analogies, please. I'm a little hungry.
I don't think it was the blogger's intention to justify abusive relationships in order to allow the good ones. The writer argues points, rather, that oppose abuse, insisting that, with decriminalization, individuals in abusive incest or other relationships might be more likely to seek help from the authorities. Still, I'm disappointed there's not at least one evidentiary, peer-reviewed, journal article provided for such a claim. I can understand such literature may be hard to come by.
Without any scholarly material to show the risks are equal to non-consanguinous, heterosexual monogamy, the most I can support, personally, is what I've already supported. Individuals in polyamorous and incestuous relationships that wish to be married should be allowed to do so only after careful and impartial investigation by a forensic social worker. The same ought to be the case for those who, with parental support, wish to engage in willing pedophilic relationships. When there's enough data, perhaps such investigation and/or close monitoring might become unnecessary for future groups and couples, but, after careful consideration, I'm convinced it would be a worthwhile precaution given the present culture and seeming lack of reliable research.
Thanks for reading this far! Have a cool quote:
But there are promptings of wisdom from the penetralia of human nature, which a people can hear though, the wisest of their practical Statesmen be deaf towards them.
- Woodsworth
When it comes to Parent-child incestuous relations this should be thoroughly investigated because if the relation existed around an age where the child is still a minor, he/she might be manipulated in doing so. There might be abuse involved. If it happens after maturity, then it's in the clear. Sibling relationships are okay if the age gap is small enough.
This is where I draw the line. No self-respecting parent should ever accept this whatsoever. It's just plain wrong. The child is often not mature enough to handle the emotions it's going through and can lead to long-term damage.
3566449
I agree with your first point.
As for the second, I think it matters here what definition we're using for "child". Are we talking under 18 but sexually mature, or pre-pubescent? In every other species, and for most of our species' history, sexual maturity and adulthood were considered synonymous. Our own history tells us that sexually mature individuals are perfectly capable of bearing and raising children without becoming psychologically traumatized. Hell, up until the last couple of centuries, whole families shared the same sleeping space (shared bed included), so young children saw adults having sex on a regular basis. Humanity (obviously) survived that.
Now, that isn't to say that our current society is prepared to deal with such things, nor that "sex at any age" is OK. There are most certainly wrong ways to do things, and coercion or involving people who really are too young to understand certainly does mess them up. It's just that, while the law is very black-and-white, the other aspects of the issue are not.
3566449 I think that the investigation would necessarily go into greater depth where there is a distinct power differential between incestuous partners.
Though I'd never risk breaking the law, I'm not against legalized "grooming" to carefully and lovingly prepare a child for prepubescent sex.
I broke down a meta-analysis concerning the purported negative impact of child sexual relationships that you're welcome to peruse here. I form my opinions based on substantial evidence.
3566912 I've seen no evidence that children can't safely enjoy non-penetrative sexual play from birth. I might draw the line at whenever they begin to communicate. Babies typically have the coordination to sign by 8 months old and can often understand even younger.
Was definitely interesting to read but my brain keeps locking up every time I consider any of these topics in terms of the real world due to conditioning, but I will concede there is not that much of a body of evidence on either side for most of the topics excluding these few occurrences that make media headlines for the against side.
3588339 Thanks for taking the time. I enjoyed blogging about incest. There are few things I take interest in enough to research and write about them in my spare time.