Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Makes for a great Maury Povitch episode!
Steve Wilcos had an episode on the subject 2 days ago.
The topic: Father having a sexual relationship with his daughter.
The response: No one in the audience had anything good to say about the relationship, and were completely against the act.
Coincidence? Unlikely.
Originally posted by Stoic
Steve Wilcos had an episode on the subject 2 days ago.The topic: Father having a sexual relationship with his daughter.
The response: No one in the audience had anything good to say about the relationship, and were completely against the act.
Coincidence? Unlikely.
Probably not a coincidence. Likely a reflection of the morals of the society these people were brought up in.
I've yet to see an argument for incest being immoral that doesn't appeal to some kind of religious authority or to 'because its icky'
Originally posted by Stoic
Steve Wilcos had an episode on the subject 2 days ago.The topic: Father having a sexual relationship with his daughter.
The response: No one in the audience had anything good to say about the relationship, and were completely against the act.
Coincidence? Unlikely.
There was an issue of the Sandman involving a convention for serial killers. Of dozens of them only one thought what he was doing was wrong and he wasn't vocal about it. The point being that morality shouldn't be consensus based.
Originally posted by StoicYou're absolutely right. The people drawn to and picked to be members of the audience for Steve Wilcos' show all agreeing to condemn what they don't understand isn't remotely coincidental.
Steve Wilcos had an episode on the subject 2 days ago.The topic: Father having a sexual relationship with his daughter.
The response: No one in the audience had anything good to say about the relationship, and were completely against the act.
Coincidence? Unlikely.
This is why I base all my conclusions and beliefs off of those television shows. There's no coincidence, and they all agree. Must be correct then. mmm
Probably the biggest issue about consensual incest is that it normally stems from an inability to hold socially acceptable relationships with people close to you, which is on and by itself a psychological problem.
It is not worse than having two socially handicapped people together and stopping each other from being less socially handicapped.
Even then, it's a generalization, I admit not being very well informed on how incest works in a case-by-case basis.
Originally posted by Bentley
Probably the biggest issue about consensual incest is that it normally stems from an inability to hold socially acceptable relationships with people close to you, which is on and by itself a psychological problem.It is not worse than having two socially handicapped people together and stopping each other from being less socially handicapped.
Even then, it's a generalization, I admit not being very well informed on how incest works in a case-by-case basis.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Where?
Past pages of the thread. I'll summarize them here again.
First there is the birth issue. Where incestuous relationships pose potential damage to any children that may be spawned from them. A study found that 20 out of 29 children born from parent child incest relationships had birth defects.
The second being the possible psychological damage that can be done to the people involved. Admittedly, I do not have any hard statistical data on this one at the moment, but I did have a cut out from an article that seemed to support it.
"Although one of the key aspects of incest is the difference in power between the perpetrator and the victim, sexual behavior between two siblings of equal power, where touching, looking, and exploring are mutual decisions, can still pose problems for the participants and/or parents. What Diana Russell (1986) calls the myth of mutuality in relation to sibling incest may put the victim in a psychologically and physically vulnerable position."
Not everything in the article is relevant, but I thought this part was.
Read more: Incest - Effects On Victims - Gender, Family, Development, Sexual, and Experience - JRank Articles http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html#ixzz1ek35cGmA
Originally posted by Omega Vision
But that doesn't make it morally wrong.
The innability to have all varieties of relationships can be explained and summarized as "wrong" from an adaptative standpoint.
I don't know if "morally" wrong is the right term to define it. Simply because morality either comes from religious past and iuckiness, the two premises you already discarded.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Past pages of the thread. I'll summarize them here again.First there is the birth issue. Where incestuous relationships pose potential damage to any children that may be spawned from them. A study found that 20 out of 29 children born from parent child incest relationships had birth defects.
The second being the possible psychological damage that can be done to the people involved. Admittedly, I do not have any hard statistical data on this one at the moment, but I did have a cut out from an article that seemed to support it.
"Although one of the key aspects of incest is the difference in power between the perpetrator and the victim, sexual behavior between two siblings of equal power, where touching, looking, and exploring are mutual decisions, can still pose problems for the participants and/or parents. What Diana Russell (1986) calls the myth of mutuality in relation to sibling incest may put the victim in a psychologically and physically vulnerable position."
Not everything in the article is relevant, but I thought this part was.
The two main problems with applying this argument to a comprehensive prohibition on incest are as follows:
(1) If the incest does not produce malformed children and/or is done with protection where is the harm in it? Is incest only bad insofar as inbreeding might lead to deformed/invalid children?
(2) There are scientific studies that show that the most viable couples for producing healthy children and the couples with the best fertility rates on average are third cousin couples, something you'd probably consider incest.
The second issue isn't really even morally relevant. It's a psychological discussion about some cases. It doesn't apply to all cases and doesn't make incest "wrong", just purportedly psychologically damaging in some cases.
Originally posted by Bentley
The innability to have all varieties of relationships can be explained and summarized as "wrong" from an adaptative standpoint.I don't know if "morally" wrong is the right term to define it. Simply because morality either comes from religious past and iuckiness, the two premises you already discarded.
Sitting on office chairs is a great example.
It depends, while I agree that adaptation in general is losely defined, you could also argue that people with lousy jobs have some troubles engaging in functional relationships with others, because having good contacts and a great social interaction remains as the best way to get a good quality of life. Possessing good people skills is kind of a big deal to "succeed" in modern systems.
Which again is not "moral", I don't even think incest itself is a problem of any kind, but more like a coincidence among many that can be caused by "negative factors" in the person's upbringing. A psychologist can probably argue that incest is a regressive form of love, which means you won't get to "progress" into mature life experiences/relationships by "clinging" into early-life affections. The notion of progress and regress supposes already a notion of morality that is hardly clear through psychology itself without heavily factoring the social function I already pointed out.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think a psychologist of any value would make such sweeping generalizations about a topic that seems to range from child abuse to social taboo.
Didn't I say a post ago that I don't consider the generalizations I'm saying valid because I don't know much about actual cases of incest? Geez, way to jump in with half-cooked information there scientist.
biscuits
But seriously, the question itself is a gross generalization stating ill-defined concepts about a number of entirely different situations just by naming them all "incest". Under those considerations answers are going to be sketchy or very partial.
And to address your concern psychology books -often writen by psychologists- tend to use sweeping generalizations, not in the light of taking them in face value, but considering general notions in the understanding of widely different behaviours. According to your argument psychologists such as Lacan aren't worth a dime.
Originally posted by Bentley
But seriously, the question itself is a gross generalization stating ill-defined concepts about a number of entirely different situations just by naming them all "incest". Under those considerations answers are going to be sketchy or very partial.
sure
Originally posted by Bentley
And to address your concern psychology books -often writen by psychologists- tend to use sweeping generalizations, not in the light of taking them in face value, but considering general notions in the understanding of widely different behaviours.
yes, and often young psychologists make their entire career by running experiments showing how limited those generalizations are
Originally posted by Bentley
According to your argument psychologists such as Lacan aren't worth a dime.
indeed, though I would credit that to psycho-analysis being ridiculous rather than any criticism of his writing style