Talk:Incest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
This is not a forum for general discussion of incest.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Covert incest

I moved this to its own article. If it is notable enough to be in Wikipedia it can certainly be expanded. Since it's not a type of incest, it really doesn't need to be here. The way, the truth, and the light 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exotics and inbreed

It's often heard, that the appearance of incest and inbreading is extremely high in circles of Asian and African immigrants in (Northern-)European countries. One of the, if not the, reason for this is, that the racial and cultural gap between Europeans and these immigrants is unnaturally big. In case other users know (scientifical) sources concerning this matter, after mentioning them, this item might be added to the article. James Blond 10:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Asians and africans are not exotic! How are they exotic you racist bastard! Punkymonkey987 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause(s) of incest/inbreed

In this article the conclusion is mentioned, that with animals inbreed only occurs in extremely unnatural situations, such as having to live together in the same cage for years. This can be regarded as an indication, that it's about the same thing, that brings people to inbreeding incest. If they would live their natural live, which implicates, that they would stay in their own kind of biotope and use only natural food, they wouldn't come to such a perversion; on the contrary, they would be as averse of it, as (other) animals are in principle. [1].

Here as well goes, that if there are more scientific sources known, this item might be added to the article. James Blond 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Checked all the references. Removed three: one dead link, one link to an essay without author/source information, one link to an unpublished and very short essay on a therapist's website. Reformatted the remaining references, including four published articles and a statistical study. ZeroZ 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Forms of incest" section, sub section "Sibling incest between children," there is a quote that "10-15% of college students had childhood sexual experiences with a brother or sister." I found this really, really hard to believe, so I checked out the referenced website. Despite my concerns, the site seemed legit, and I found the source of the information without trouble. However, this cited quote is followed by an uncited: "only 5-10% of those included intercourse; and therefore most probably represent a form of child sexuality.[citation needed]" Now, I have no evidence that any of this is not true other than my personal misgivings, but I move that we should remove that second quote until we can get a proper citation. I just am in disbelief that the percentages are this high. Nothing to do with religion, politics, etc. I just assumed that this was far more rare than these quotes claim, and I'd especially like cited evidence on the second claim. Am I just being silly here? Thoughts? Clemenjo 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, That's not very surprising....children are experimentalistic....so they might have-for lack of a better word-"inappropriately touched" without any sexual motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknote (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support Organizations

I was not the one who removed links to support organizations (they had already been removed, and the "enough of this" comment was already up). In fact, unless deleting them was a consensus decision, my vote is to keep such links, after checking to ensure the validity of each. ZeroZ 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's why I did it. People kept adding links to support organisations, and I feared that the list would become a mere directory, or used for spamming one's own organisation. I have no objection to having a few links to large and important organizations, but I think they should be discussed first. The way, the truth, and the light 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The links in question

I don't see why these shouldn't be here. I could understand if it were a list of links about party favors or something, but this issue is so serious and so devatating to so many people that I think that they should all stay. We should at the very least keep those that serve specific communities or survivors of a certain type. Joie de Vivre 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network National, toll-free hotline for victims of sexual assault: 1-800-656-HOPE
  • VOICES in Action Victims Of Incest Can Emerge Survivors, an international organization providing assistance to adult and adolescent victims of child sexual abuse and trauma.
  • The Awareness Center, Inc. The Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA)
  • Making Daughters Safe Again Online resources for mother-daughter incest survivors.
  • SASIAN Sibling Abuse Survivors Information and Advocacy Network
  • SIA Survivors of Incest Anonymous World Service Office, Inc. links many independent SIA 12-step support groups around the world.
  • Pandora's Aquarium An online support group, message board, and chat room for survivors of sexual violence, including incest, and their supporters.
  • After Silence, A non-profit organization, message board, and chat room designed to support survivors of incest, rape, and molestation.

RAINN - national network. VOICES, another large organization. JCASA is specifically Jewish. MDSA - mother-daughter abuse. SASIAN - sibling abuse. Pandora's and After Silence, both are active message boards. I suppose we could trim the last two but as they are both non-commercial resources I don't see a reason to. Joie de Vivre 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think people needing this kind of service will be looking somewhere other than Wikipedia. Nonetheless, per your explanation, I restored all but the last two (which were also the two that I suspected of being spamming.). The way, the truth, and the light 01:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's true that lots of people will just search on Google. But here's something to think about: incest makes people feel ashamed. Really ashamed. It makes people feel like their deepest, darkest secrets were published on the front page of the New York Times this morning... every single day. They feel like everyone knows, they feel vile and exposed and filthy. So a survivor seeking information might feel too ashamed to just out-and-out type in "incest resources" into Google. However, they might not feel too ashamed to approach "academic research" on incest. They might be able to avoid the shame by considering it a research topic, and what better resource supply helpful links than our great encyclopedia? Joie de Vivre 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and trying to learn from more unexperienced editors. This is my first comment on a discussion page and I hope it will be of some value. Wikipedia is not a directory and its true identity should be preserved. However, the incest article has replaced RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network as the #1 Google hit for "incest" (and rape), so victims do and will stumble across this article when trying to find support and someone to talk with. I'm familiar with the subject we are discussing, which is why I try to monitor articles related to sex crimes, add information to them and revert vandalism as quickly as possible.
As Joie de Vivre pointed out, we should at the very least keep one or two resources that serve specific communities or survivors and that offer different information and services, while trying to avoid recourses with duplicate content. For example, RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network covers pretty much the same topics that the The Awareness Center, Inc. and VOICES in Action do, but more extensively. If we were to delete a resource or two, perhaps it should be a resource covering the same topics of one previously added. Instead, the exclusion of the last two links (which happen to be the two largest and most active support groups for victims of sexual violence on the internet) leaves the article with a number of resources offering the very same information but without a single resource for victims seeking to talk and reach out (as soon as they have finished reading the article, if they wish).
As way to prevent merely self promoting intentions, I suggest checking the profiles and contributions of these adding new links. Spamming intentions can be unmasked quite easily by looking at profiles (or lack of) and contributions. Has the person contributed to other articles on Wikipedia, has he or she taken the time to revert vandalism and add information, or has she/he merely added a link? In good faith, I re-added an active (non-profit, non-spamming) support group, After Silence,, where victims can find immediate help and support. Searching for Orion 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand your argument. It didn't occure to me that people find us through Google, but I guess they do. Perhaps we should distinguish the two types of support links in separate sections? The way, the truth, and the light 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Support Organizations for Survivors" is a description that seems appropriate for resources like RAINN as well as support groups like After Silence. Perhaps we could distinguish them by placing RAINN (and similar resources) under National organizations for survivors and After Silence (and similar) under Support organizations for survivors? Searching for Orion 06:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to rearrange them according to whether they are national. The only one I recognized as national was RAINN. Joie de Vivre 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that I think it is important to have some abuse resources on here. I understand that Wikipedia tries to stay neutral, so this shouldn't be either pro-incest or anti-incest, it should just mention the relevant issues and facts. However, some people who are involved in incest are abused so I think it is important to list these types of resouces.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. We are not here to provide links to support sites, we are here to provide information. I pared out some of the more specific groups focus on subsets of activities and also removed ones that were explicitly listed as forumns/communities and ones that seemed more like advertising vanity. I would actually receommend eventually yanking most of them and providing a link to one major site that links to others or, if that can;t be found, the Open Directory's support links section, assuming they have one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have a problem with a couple pertinent links but as you say, WP is not a web directory and WP is not here to provide help to survivors of non-consensual incest (devastating or not), but to provide information. The problem that arises with these links is that as other people come along they want to help others who have been molested/raped and add their own favorite help sites. Pretty soon, you end up with a massive, spammy, ever-growing list of external links that do nothing to help the article. This is not what WP is for. People looking to help themselves overcome trauma can easily hop on Google and find far more help than we could ever provide. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
DMOZ doesn't have a page on incest unfortunately [2], though the blind search does turn up a variety of links including RAINN. I'll trim and see what comes up. WLU (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed links and replaced with two DMOZ - the first is to incest as a crime, the second to child sexual abuse in general. Many support sites are featured in the DMOZ links, including some of the above. I also removed the news stories that were external links - news stories make good sources but poor external links. They're generally short, focus on a specific allegation, and rarely have a broad overview of the subject that's useful throughout the world. WLU (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badly organized

This article is very badly organized. Incest#Genetics is passable, but Incest#Endogamy and exogamy wanders through cultural traditions into Bible stories (which should be in the religion section), the awkwardly named Incest#Sexual relations between cousins and other distant relatives wanders into legal issues (which should be in the law section), while the Incest#Laws regarding incest section is too short. This article needs a serious overhaul. Joie de Vivre 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Support Orgs section looks much better after your work, Joie de Vivre. I have rewritten the Intro section to remove all weasel words and unsourced material. The Intro is now completely sourced to non-encyclopedic texts including studies by Durkheim and Levi-Strauss. Onwards! ZeroZ 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment! In regards to your changes -- excellent work! The writing style is now cleaner and more straightforward. The intro stays on topic, and it provides reliable sources. Good job, ZeroZ!
I plan to restructure the Incest article according to my suggestions above, soon. I would be fine with it if you, ZeroZ, or anyone else felt inspired to make these changes before I get a chance to. Onwards, indeed! Joie de Vivre 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A general comment. It seems that this article in its present form is concerns mainly with the study of incest as a marital or consensual relationship. You seem to desire to talk about incest as a kind of abuse. That information should be in the article, since it is commonly called 'incest', but to include both while maintaining clarity and NPOV, could we start a new section titled 'Incest as abuse' or something?
I agree that somewhat more legal information would be welcome, but remember that we must not talk about any specific laws without a reference. The way, the truth, and the light 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the summary states: Incest is sexual activity between two persons related by close kinship. In some societies this is enforced with the legal or social prohibition to marry." So, is this trying to say that some societies force sexual relations to exist between close kin by prohibiting them from marrying ?-) Or does it perhaps mean that they use such prohibition to enforce the definition of the word "incest" - perhaps by forbidding anyone who doesn't use the official definition to marry ?-) Joking aside, this really needs to be fixed. 88.115.34.156 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laws regarding incest section

The way, the truth, and the light -- you changed the language in a direct quotation from a published article. I restored the original quotation.[3] ZeroZ 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize while editing that it was a quotation. The way, the truth, and the light 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sibling incest between children

I don't see the relevance of listing the infamous German siblings in this part. It is repetitive because it also appears in the adult section. If I understand correctly they did not even meet until they were adults and genetic sexual attraction is the likely cause for their relationship.

You're right, they don't need to be in that section. The way, the truth, and the light 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condoned Bible Incest

There's nothing about the incident with Lot and his daughters that suggests that God "condoned," what happened except for his inaction. I don't think that "silence gives consent" is an argument style fitting for an encyclopedia and would strongly reccomend removing the statement from the article. Abyssal leviathin 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Presumably however, adam and eve's children were incestual since they were the first humans and no others were mentioned. If other people were especially created by god it seems they would be mentioned. Since assuming silence means something is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, then it seems that adam and eve's children reproduced incestually. User: Brazen Irish Hussy 06:44, 26 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.170.232 (talk)

[edit] Introduction

The first two paragraphs as they currently are appear to contradict each other. Are we defining incest as a general concept (as in the first) or as purely a cultural one (as in the second)? The way, the truth, and the light 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of incestuous acts

This article is completely void of images actually pertaining to the act of incest. So, in order to rectify this blatant error in the formatting of the article, I suggest pictures of obvious incest be placed in the article for improvement purposes. There are likely to be many sites on the web that have free-use incest images and if not, I, myself, will be willing to shoot some of my own (only if others can't be found of course). Thanks --GoatSmoke 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the people who view this article will already know what sex looks like, so it really isn't necessary to give an image of brother/sister sex. It's not going to look any different than the regular stuff. Besides, there's no real way to prove that the people depicted are related anyway, even if we do add an image. Maybe you could find an old painting depicting an incestuous relationship from mythology or something. I dunno, I just don't think the Incest article needs an illustrated how-to guide. :P -Abyssal leviathin 20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite right Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This person is clearly trolling (look at some of his other edits). I suggest we ignore him.
I agree, though, that a work of art might be appropriate, or at least not inappropriate, for this page. The way, the truth, and the light 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
An obvious troll, certainly. There's a Lucas Cranach painting of Lot and his daughters that might be good. [4]. john k 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll cast a vote for definitely inappropriate!!!!!!! Are you all trolling?
64.174.68.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Of Briton

"When Julius Caesar invaded Britain for the second time in 54 BC, he noted the customs of the Britons, remarking, 'Wives are shared between groups of ten or twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons; but the offspring of these unions are counted as the children of the man with whom a particular woman cohabited first."

As far as I'm aware when Caesar made this assertion he was speaking specifically of the men of Kent, not all of Briton. 70.187.156.140 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same thing as incest, anyway. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is historically inaccurate, in that it speaks of all of Briton rather then just the territory around Kent and since that as Slrubenstein said, the alleged cultural phenomena isn't actually incest I'm removing the text. Bloody Sacha 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden/ France

In the article it says Sweden is the only European country allowing marriage between siblings sharing a parent, while under France it says adult incest is allowed. I presume the Swedish part is wrong, but if someone wants to clear that upInterpretivechaos 02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not. You see there is a difference between marriage and just intercourse. ;) France allows them to engage in incest but not to marry, Sweden allows them to marry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.72.172 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article lead

"When the activity is non-consensual, it is considered a form of sexual abuse". Surely this is true of any sexual activity, and therefore irrelevant to the article lead? Oli Filth(talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems appropriate for the lead, because most incest is non-consensual, with a significant majority of cases being father-daughter incest. The article will need some references about this, but it's so common, it will not be hard to find the sources. Here's one example:
National Center for Victims of Crime:

Research indicates that 46 percent (46%) of children who are raped are victims of family members. (Langan and Harlow, 1994.) The majority of American rape victims (61%) are raped before the age of 18; furthermore, an astounding 29 percent (29%) of all forcible rapes occurred when the victim was less than 11 years old. Eleven percent (11%) of rape victims are raped by their fathers or step-fathers, and another 16 percent (16%) are raped by other relatives. (National Center for Victims of Crime and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992.)

This incest part of the information can be integrated into the article when someone has the time... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That tells you how many people are the subject of unconsenting incest. It doesn't tell you that most incest is non-consensual. I also agree that these sentences are completely irrelevant to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Jack-A-Roe on this...and feel that the above addressed sentence should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done an edit replacing the sentence Oli Filth mentioned, and adding Jack's statistics to the second paragraph.
Jack is right: the fact that most incest is violent, either physically or emotionally, and does devastating emotional harm, should be prominent in the introduction and the article as a whole. But that sentence was wrong and incoherent on so many levels you had to think about it for awhile to see all of them.
First of all its incorrect. Non-consensual intercourse between adults is rape, not sexual abuse. Second of all, Oli is right, the sentence says nothing about incest. But it sends the message that rape is just another form of sexual abuse. Even worse, it subtly implies that even defining non-consensual sex as sexual abuse might just be a matter of opinion (... is considered a form of sexual abuse ...)
Well, I may be reading too much into the last one. But, as I've noted below, I was really shocked, and even angered, by the fact that an article about rape barely mentions the important and uncontroversial reality about the profoundly traumatizing and emotionally devastating effects of parent-child incest, and in general, incest's association with violence, victimization,and mental illness. Why else would it be in the medical and psychological categories?
Fixing the introduction is the first step. The next is to start to put together what should be relatively large section on this topic, and make it the most prominent section in the article. IMHO SeattleJoe (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incest in Islam (more information needed)

Islam: The Quran mentions incest which prohibits a man from having sexual relationships with his mother, daughter, sister, paternal aunt, maternal aunt or niece. However, Islam allows for marriage with cousins and other more distant relatives. Only in case of marriage does Islam allow sexual relations between cousins and other distant relatives.

The paragraph has some missing information. It is also eternally prohibited to a muslim man to marry his 1- wetnurse (as she becomes his mother by breastfeeding), 2- milk sister, 3- mother-in-law, 4- stepdaughter (in this case the eternal prohibition is not active before a sexual intercourse occures between the mother and the father-in-law after their marriage), 5- daughter-in-law and 6- Stepmother.

These six mentioned females are considered as Mahrams =>(see link below at the bottom) in Islam and having sexual relationship with them can also be defined as incest in islamic religion.

The evidence is that Allah says in Quran (interpretation of the meaning):

Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters, your sisters, your aunts paternal and maternal, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your mothers who have given suck to you, your suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters who are in your care being born of your wives you have been in to -- but if you have not yet been in to them it is no fault in you -- and the spouses of your sons who are of your loins... (Quran, 4:23)

Also Allah says in Quran (interpretation of the meaning):And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper.( Quran, 24:31)

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=5538&ln=eng

  • PS. the page of the link shows a hadith by prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) where he says: “...the same relationships of mahram are created by radaa’ah =>(this means breastfeeding) as by blood ties.”. This concludes that to a muslim man his wetnurse's mother and sister, both respectively turn into his grandmother and aunt.

[edit] Royal/noble incest

shouldn't something be mentioned about how royal families used to have to marry within their family they still kinda do but it's not considered family anymore but i mean back when they would marry their cousins i have no idea where to put it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal situation of incest in Germany

I have removed the following paragraph from said subsection:

"Contemporary newspapers (March of 2008) report that in the downwash of the Constitutional Court decision lawyers claim penalization a reminder to antiquated eugenics tradition of past centuries. With the bad experience of dispute on eugenics by lawyers in legislation during the Nazi regime just lawyers should keep their minds out of revision of such traditions. Noteworthy, a ratio of 2:2 of severe genetic deficiencies with offsprings in the reported case of 2007/2008 does not advocate for neglecting the eugenics aspect. Which society shall take the burden from such misleading legal evolution."

This is blatant POV and in no way encyclopedic, not mentioning the fact that no sources whatsoever were provided. In case this paragraph was a direct quotation of a notable personality (either the judges of the BVG or a spokesperson for a lawyers organisation, or a politician or religious leader etc.), please provide references and rephrase it accordingly. For now, it will stay out. Vargher (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How is it possible that there is no section on the devastating psychological effects of parental incest?

There is absolutely no discussion of the extremely serious psychological harm inflicted on a child by parent-child incest. This is not controversial, and the fact that there isn't a section on it in the article sticks out like a very sore thumb. Just noting that sex with daddy or mommy is "considered child abuse" isn't enough.

For one thing it isn't considered child abuse. It is child abuse. And, in fact, sex between any adult and a child, and especially with an adult who has authority over the child, and especially with the child's parents, is "considered", by many people and in many jurisdictions, rape.

It is as if we are trying to be so objective and neutral that we are afraid to state the obvious fact that parental incest is really, really bad for kids. Really bad.

OK, only a few will disagree that it is really really bad. However, how encyclopedic is to make value judgments on make an article a social commentary, rather than giving importance to defining the term 'incest'. In fact, most important thing I expect from an encyclopedia article is the definition of the term. Any peripheral information is valuble but secondary. I would even argue that ‘incest is bad’ is POV, although I personally believe that incest involving minors is really really bad. Then again, I do believe any sexual activity which involves a minor and an adult is bad. Then the problem is not really with incest per se but sex between a adult guardian and a minor which I am afraid is only one aspect of incest. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is an odd hesitancy to even use the term "rape", as in this very strange passage in the first paragraph:

When incest is non-consensual, whether because of the threat of or use of physical force or because of emotional pressure, it is considered a form of sexual abuse, and when one of the family members involved is a minor, incestuous activity is known as intrafamilial child sexual abuse.[1]

will work on something short to add fairly soon, or, preferably, someone better qualified might do it, but the article needs a real overhaul. A discussion of the psychological harm caused by parent-child incest -- psychological devastation, in fact -- as well as forms of treatment and recovery,should be central to the article.

As opposed to entirely absent.

Sorry to get all huffy. But Jesus! SeattleJoe (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. You're welcome to upgrade the article and I look forward to reading your contributions. One comment - I'm not sure how the definition of "rape" applies when the incest does not involve intercourse, that might need some differentiation based on references (legal or medical). Also, we need to separately mention the concept of consensual incest, though I think we'll find inthe references that that's much more rare than child sexual abuse within the family. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're totally right about the definition or rape. I looked it up. The differentiation is simple and clear. You saved me some embarrassment.
As for consensual incest between adults, i think you're right that is rarer than parent-child rape, and is also far less problematic. But any form of sexual activity between an adult and a child is sexual abuse, and if it involves intercourse it is rape, by most definitions and in most jurisdictions. And imho. Even if the child "consents." SeattleJoe (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Statutory rape is a whole 'nother discussion, but I disagree with classifying incest, child sexual abuse, and statutory rape as essentially the same. For one thing, incest can be sex between brothers and sisters, not just parental rape of a child. Secondly, statutory rape can be a simple case of a girl with an older boyfriend, such as a 15 yr old with an 18 yr old... which in some US states is still considered statutory rape. I have no problem with mentioning rape in an article about incest, but you should make it more clear that not all incest is rape. And there should be clearer definitons of the different types of incest. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi ErgoSum88. Are you talking about the two paragraphs I added after the first two existing paragraphs in the article? I think they deal with all your criticisms, except that I'm just calling adult/child sexual intercourse 'rape" without any discussion, and saying it is "usually called' statutory rape. I should say that it is a legal term. And there are some typos, so I will do it now.
I've never seen the definition of adult/child ses as controversial, so i just stated it as if it were an agreed upon fact. The unavoidable grey area is alway defining who is and is not a child, and there is no avoiding some arbitrariness in making that decision, which will be different in different cultures and different jurisdiction.
The simplest reason it is rape, I would say, is that children do not have full power of consent,and adults have too much power over children, necessarily, for intercourse not to be either a simple matter of coercion or a form of emotional manipulation that further diminishes the child's power of consent. If this is controversial, i guess we should make it a topic down here and discuss it.
And thanks whoever provided the footnote! I was worrying about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleJoe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did the edit. Identified "statutory rape" as legal term, fixed some typos. Also, an anonymous user changed 'child' to "minor" in one place, and i changed it back to "child". "Minor" is a legal term, but in this case it was a discussion about psychology. SeattleJoe (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to your edit. All I was saying, is that the introduction should have a wider view of the subject rather than simply stating "incest is rape." Clearly, there are types of incest that are not rape, such a adult siblings. The point of an encyclopedia is not to take sides, but to present a balanced, unbiased view.
The intro states: "When incest is non-consensual, whether because of the threat of or use of physical force or because of emotional pressure, it is a form of sexual abuse, and if involves intercourse, it is a form of rape." I think this is unnecessary... all non-consensual sex is rape, and I think everyone knows that. Perhaps a better statement would be: "In X% of cases, incest involves the parental sexual abuse (or rape) of children. And X% of incest cases involve the rape of siblings." Having some statistics and references to back up your claims will help in proving these statements. You shouldn't just add new information without backing it up.
It also says: "When it involves intercourse it is also a form of rape, as is all sexual intercourse between an adult and a child. The legal term for this form of rape is statutory rape." Which I do not agree with... sexual intercourse between an adult and a child is child sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse between an adult and an adolescent is usually referred to as "statutory rape" because minors are not allowed to give consent. A 5 yr old child cannot consent to sex because they are not sexually mature and hardly even knows what sex is... a 14 yr old adolescent is sexually mature and fully aware of sex but is legally restricted from giving consent to sex with adults on moral grounds. Calling child sexual abuse "statutory rape" is misleading, because they are two completely different things. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the use of the terms rape and statutory rape when it comes to children. Just ignorance on my part.
But I didn't say or imply that all incest is rape. I identified very specifically when incest is also rape. I think you should read those two very short paragraphs again. (I just removed the stuff about children and rape.)
As for brother sister incest, which you have mentioned a few times,the relative frequency and psychic impact of different types of incest is an interesting topic, and should be discussed in the article. But we are just beginning to talk about the psychological implications of incest in the article, and I don't see how that is nearly as important as a discussion of parent child incest.
A 'balanced view' does not mean giving equal weight to all possible points of view, or equal importance to all facts. That incest between brother and sisters (which can also be sexual abuse or rape) exists and is generally not as psychologically harmful as is sex between parent and child, is an interesting detail. It is precisely because parent/child sexual abuse has such a devastating impact, and because it is a huge and controversial social problem, that it has to hold the most prominent place in an article about incest.
It is the reality that is "unbalanced," and an encyclopedia article should reflect the reality. It is important in an article about incest to prominently address the fact that many, and perhaps all, forms of incest are not merely taboo but cause harm, and frequently devastating harm. It is not controversial, and it is the fact about incest that has the greatest impact in the contemporary world. It is not an "unbalanced view."
That is why I mention rape when and where I do. And when i do i am simply stating facts (except when I get it wrong!) because i think those facts are important.
In my very strong opinion, it is the current article that presents an extremely unbalanced view. It barely mentions the psychological consequences of incest. Which, aside from anything else, is kind of weird.
It's as if the previous authors were afraid that incest might be offended and sue. 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I really really want to thank ergosum for challenging me. I finally figured out what he was saying about my placement of rape in the first paragraph. I didn't see it because I put it there to try and fix the sentence before it, and didn't see that that sentence I was fixing was also in the wrong place. I've done a new edit to the first paragraph, and we'll see if that passes muster. SeattleJoe (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article does not currently conform to NPOV. What much of this article covers is actually illegal pedophilia, in which adults take advantage of children (who in this case happen to be related to them). And then it discusses the legal status of incest in various locations. It provides no coverage of incest between consenting adults, which behavior is much more significant to the topic as a whole. As written, the article is pretty much a bunch of POV and weasel words implying that incest is just a variation of child rape which is utterly preposterous (and then goes on to substantiate this claim by providing a bunch of links to self help programs). Nobody argues that child rape/molestation isn't horrible but incest does not = child rape. This article violates the NPOV policy wholesale and needs a great deal of work. 75.3.150.12 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article recently was more like you propose. But Wikipedia is ruled by the pedophilia-hysteria fanatics, so don't even think of trying to change it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith, that you did not intend your use of the term "fanatics" to apply to the people currently working to improve this page.
Regarding incest between consenting adults or consenting post-puberty adolescents, it's not the most prevalent form of incest, but no-one is trying to keep it out of the article. If either of you have information on that area of the topic that is supported by references, you are welcome to add it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
75.3.150.12 I tried to say the same thing, as you can see above. Its seems someone (namely SeattleJoe, no offense) recently have taken it upon themselves to change the the focus of this article from incest to child rape. I had no problem with the inclusion of child rape, I just didn't think it belonged so prominently in the introduction. We already have articles about pedophilia and child rape so I don't see why an article about incest can't be focused on sex between adult siblings. I watched as he changed the introduction from neutal to POV... but seeing as how I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on this article (I have other, less-controversial projects) I did not interfere. As a rule I stay out of hot-button issues because it seems to be a waste of time to try to keep those articles neutral... everybody and their mother wants to put their two cents in and make little tweaks here and there. So anyway.... good luck with that. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Disappointing to hear that the article was less POV once upon a time. When I have a few free minutes I'll log in with my account and get to work and hopefully we can all create something NPOV and informative. The large tracts of text about child rape don't really belong in the into, but would work perfectly fine in their own section within the article itself. Additionally, I'll add more about incest between consenting adults (which can include everything from siblings, cousins, etc.) Update: Here is my account in case someone needs to discuss on my talk page. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid issue for discussion, and the article can be improved. But simply removing referenced information as someone did today is not an acceptable way to address this issue. I've restored that information, and have moved it to a separate section so it is not providing undue emphasis in the intro now.

In reply to ErgoSum88 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC): "We already have articles about pedophilia and child rape so I don't see why an article about incest can't be focused on sex between adult siblings." - pedophilia and child sexual abuse don't specifically address the aspects of abuse that occur in the context of incest. Incest can be mentioned in those articles, but likewise, those aspects of incest can't be omitted from the incest article.

That said, I have no disagreement at all with expanding this article to include discussions of consensual incest between adult siblings or other family relations.

I've added a section heading for adult sibling incest, though I had no content for that section, so for now it's empty. You're welcome to proceed with adding that info when you find the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I never said it should be omitted. Anyway, the only reason I have this page on my watchlist is because I created the navbox you see at the bottom of the page (Template:Sexual ethics). Nice eh? Do you think I left out anything? Hmmm, well other than that, I really have no interest in editing this page, although it is fun to (attempt to) participate in keeping it NPOV and such. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries - I think someone else removed that information, I did not mean to imply that was you. About the navbox, yes I noticed it - good work! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is looking much better already. The only question I have right now is about the "Parental incest" heading. I changed it to "Adult and child incest" because the former seemed too narrow for that subtopic. I was hoping to create a heading that would include not just parental but uncle/aunt/other-adult-relative non-consensual incest as well. Thoughts? The Quiet Man (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that for a while before changing it back, and concluded that "parental incest" is an important heading because while it's not the only form of adult-child incest, it's by far the most prevalent, the most reported, the most researched and the most damaging to the child. It's so much more common that I've had a hard time even finding solid references about other kinds of adult-child incest. I'm sure we can find those other references eventually, and when we do we could add another section for incest abuse involving non-immediate family as you suggested. The same concern comes with regard to "childhood sibling incest". There are cases of cousins abusing younger cousins, but it's far less prevalent than within the nuclear family, and harder to find references about it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds fine. I've begun adding to the consensual section, and included a reference for the small bit I've added so far. I'm not gonna throw the templates back up on the page, but that doesn't mean the page isn't still a work in progress. :-) The Quiet Man (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freud reference

There are several problems with the following statement that had been removed and was then restored with

this diff:

Sigmund Freud believed that incestuous desires were an innate part of the human psychological makeup, and that the social taboo was based in a desire to conceal subconscious desires. He stated that
Groups only prohibit what individuals really desire. Behind the laws that structure human society is the horror of incest, and behind that horror are the desire for incest and the murderous capacity to act on that desire.[1]
  • The text presented as a quote from Freud is not a direct quotation. It is a paraphrased interpretation from someone at the Library of Congress who wrote the description for their web page. The LOC in general is a reliable source, but to use the interpretation, the text would need to be rewritten to show it's not a quote from Freud, rather the interpretation of an unindentified Museum curator.
In Totem and Taboo, Freud (1912) set out to give an account of taboos and of prohibitions in general. He was guided by the idea that groups only prohibit what individuals really desire. Behind the laws that structure human society, he said, is the horror, and behind the horror is desire and the murderous capacity to act on desire.

However, the word incest does not appear on this page by Dr. Arthur Blue, therefore the connection of the idea of incest to Dr. Blue's intepretation of Freud's comments was added by the unnamed author of the other web page.

  • Dr. Blue also gives us the original reference to Freud that generated the paraphrase in question: Totem and Taboo, Freud (1912) The link here is to Google Books, that has the full text of Freud's book.

The focus of the book is not incest, but rather "taboo". That's what Dr. Blue's paraphrase is addressing, such as for example, the text on pages 53-55, where Freud discusses the desire to transgress taboos - but in general - not specifically about incest. Incest taboo is discussed in the book in depth, but not the action of "incest" itself, but rather the taboo and its effects specifically in what Freud calls "savage" societies.

It's possible that there might be some information about incest in Fred's 1912 book that could be useful in this article, but to find it would require further study of the book. The paraphrase listed above is an inaccurate interpretation by an unknown author, of the work of a second author who did not mention incest in his paraphrase of the Freud material, so it does not provide reliable information about Freud's comments on incest.

And, aside from all that, the topic of Freud's book is not incest, it's about the phenomenon of "taboo" and generally off-topic for this article. It may be of use in the incest taboo article. If a specific quote is found in the book that clearly applies to actual incest, the topic of this article, then that quote could be used here; but so far, we don't have that.

Based on the above, I've removed the statement misattributed to Freud. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incest laws

This article is probably going to get pretty long. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to create a separate article for the Incest laws section and provide a paragraph with a "see main article" here? The Quiet Man (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, there certainly is enough meat there to fill an entire article. Just be sure to leave a short (referenced) summary of the laws before removing the entire section to another article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay will do eventually. For now I think I'll leave it here so we can work on improving all of it, then as the article becomes huge I'll move it. The Quiet Man (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reference moved from article for discussion

This text moved here from the article for discussion:

  • "Incestuous desire is a very old phenomenon, as is the societal taboo that surrounds it."

I question the use of this text for the following reasons:

  • The source is unreliable and imprecise for scientific use. It's a newspaper article about a legal controversy. The author states: "The phenomenon of incestuous desire is ages old, as is the taboo surrounding it." - however: we do not know the qualifications of the author and the author supports his statement with no footnotes or references, so it appears to be simply his opinion or his understanding, but he's not a recognized authority so the source is not reliable for this use. It would be reliable to use for reporting about the legal debate in Germany, in that section of the topic page.
  • Lack of clarity - there is no context for what is meant by "very old". It's a vague unscientific statement that's not of much value to the article, and not supported by scientific references.
  • relation to consensual/non-consensual incest: though the article is worded imprecisely, it can be seen that the sentence quoted is referring to consensual incest because the author stated that point following a section in his article with the heading "consensual Incest", he wrapped up his paragraph with this sentence: "It's impossible, or at least very hard to prove that consensual incest does such damage."; and, the entire article is about legal issues regarding consensual incest, not about child abuse or forced incest. The only mention in the reference of non-consensual incest is to state that such incest is treated legally under sexual abuse laws, not under incest laws, thereby emphasizing that the reference is specifically exploring only consensual incest.

Since the source is unreliable for scientific use, it should be used only for reporting on the news issue, the German laws. If it's used at all, it should only be used with regard to consensual incest, since that is what the news article is about. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this analysis. The statement is not vague: it is what it is and I've applied it accurately as it appeared in the periodical. We don't require hard numbers in each and every case and in this particular case, nobody can possibly know how long incestuous desire and the related societal taboo have been around, so the sentence is truthful. Der Spiegel clearly fulfills the requirements of WP:RS. It's one of the most widely distributed and well-known periodicals in all of Europe. Reliable Sources don't have to be from scholarly sources. The introduction is currently heavily POV in favor of the non-consensual variation of the topic and it must be balanced to provide a correct overview of the article, which covers two very distinct forms of incest. This sentence is a small step towards that NPOV goal. The Quiet Man (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In the periodical it was used regarding consensual incest only. That much is clear, so even if the reference is used, that needs to be reflected in the text. The rest is vague though - what does "old" mean? Does it mean a couple hundred years, or does it mean thousands of years? The periodical is reliable, as regards reporting events. But as an interpreter of science, would need references to support. Since your concern is that the intro is not balanced, that it is tilted towards non-consensual incest, why insist on using a passing statement by a newspaper reporter? Surely there must be many scientific sources you can bring. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(Note: when I moved the reference here for discussion, I didn't see that it was also used in other sections of the article. I've restored the reference for those other statements, regarding laws and the court cases, for which the reference is reliable as noted above). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Jack, reliable sources don't require additional verification... good journalists do their homework and if something is considered a reliable source it just is. As stated, old means old. Nobody knows how long it has been around so that's the hardest figure anyone can come up with. For now, I'm going to bed though. The Quiet Man (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Non-consensual sex" vs. "child sexual abuse"

I get that people want to make the case for "consensual" adult-adult incest. Fine. Wonderful. This is the internet.

But it is far, far, far more important not to dilute the significance of the fact that nearly all incest is between an adult and a child, and, therefore, nearly all incest is a particularly nasty form of child abuse. And, not entirely parenthetically, a large proportion of rape is incestuous.

The line that cannot be allowed to be crossed here, or fudged at all, is the one that separates consensual, adult/adult whatever from any advocacy of, or even any apology for, sex between adults and children -- including "consensual" sex, and especially "consensual" incest, between an adult and a non-adult.

The word "non-consensual" gets used in this article in a very misleading way. I guess this is to help make the case that there is a thing called "consensual incest" which grown-ups should be allowed to engage in. Fine, but the problem is that the words "between adults" are left out, and, simultaneously, child sex abuse is defined in terms of being "non-consensual." This definitely crosses the line.

"Non-consensual sex," "child sexual abuse," and "rape" have distinct definitions, and in a discussion of incest it is important that the distinctions be strictly maintained.

- Any sexual activity which an adult performs with a child is "child sexual abuse." I.e., "consensual" sex between an adult and a child is still, very definitely, "child sexual abuse."

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." American Psychological Association (from Wikipedia article Child Sexual Abuse)

- Non-consensual sex between adults is rape. Non-consensual sex between an adult and a child is one particular form of child sexual abuse. (I always assumed it was rape by definition, but I was corrected.)

(This is less important, but the section on "child-child incest" is the one case where the notion of of consent is actually pertinent)

- sexual contact between children is generally considered non-problematic

- sexual contact between children becomes abusive when it is "without consent, without equality, or as a result of coercion." (from the wikipedia article Child-on-child sexual abuse

All I am interested in here is that the difference between adult/child sex and consensual adult/adult sex be clear and sharp; and that the real-life facts about incest (mostly adults abusing children; mostly men abusing girls;etc.) not be whitewashed. SeattleJoe (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think thats all any of us wanted. The issue here is the difference between parent/child rape and incest between adult siblings. While the former may be more common than the latter, they both are incest... and the difference between them is immense. I applaud your efforts to keep this article balanced in favor of the more weighty side of the issue. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with you here, just trying to keep this from becoming an article focused solely on child rape. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, ErgoSum88.
It's not just that it's the more "weighty" side of the issue, it is that, as everyone seems to admit, "consensual incest" is rare, incest between adults and children (which, i will repeat, can NOT fall under the category "consensual incest") is what most incest consists of. To make consensual incest between adults the focus of the article is a distortion of the reality.
And it is a distortion that constitutes a form of advocacy, and Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy.
So I will continue to be a pain in the ass. SeattleJoe (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe, nobody here wants to dilute the fact that child abuse is awful. The article already pretty well covers that. Indeed, all I (and it seems a few others) are interested in is a clear distinction between what is consensual and what is non-consensual (i.e., child rape). What we want to avoid is simply ending up with a sub article to the child sexual abuse article. We can do this by drawing these clear distinctions between what is consensual behavior between two adults and what is child abuse. The Quiet Man (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it seems to me that some people here do not accept that there is no such thing as "consensual" sex of any kind between adults and children, and that all sex, and especially incest, between adults and children is a form of child abuse that is, and ought to be, criminal; that is always pathological; and that is always a vicious and damaging attack on the well-being of the child.
To repeat that reference from the APA:
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." American Psychological Association (from Wikipedia article Child Sexual Abuse)
If anyone's got a problem with that, if anyone thinks that "consensual sex" between adults and children is OK and only "child rape" is harmful, then, I'm afraid, that makes them utterly contemptible and pathological sexual predators who should go fuck themselves, rather than their, or anybody else's children.
If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops.
And I don't mean the Wikipedia cops, I mean actual, real life, law-enforcement.
That's what they're there for. To protect children from those who prey on them, sexually or in any other way.
SeattleJoe (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very shrill post. You're not getting it. NOBODY is here to advocate for sex with children. I can quote a whole pile of WP policies that apply here to your post, including WP:THERAPY, WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, not to mention you're making legal threats, which I'm in the process of reporting you for. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I stumbled across this article through some links. I think some people are giving knee-jerk reactions here. This article already seems to overly indulge in child abuse by relatives. There is also a lot of information (stats) on such matters that are borderline relevant here. Some of the contributors are assuming that parent-children relationship always involves a minor. This is NOT true in general. In both sibling-sibling and parent-child incest, it is possible for both (or all) parties may, in general, be consenting adults.
There are also some unreferenced claims that "the most overwhelming form of incest is adult parent with minor child". This may not be true. Because of the very nature of incest, consentual incest between adults (siblings or parents-offsprings) may not be known in public, but that does not allow us to make such claims without references. Make no mistake: I am all against child abuse, but that is hardly the issue here. This is an article and needs to be less biased.
Overall this article spends a LOT of time discussing child abuse and creates a very POV image. Little mention is made of real-world practice of incest (contemporary or historical). It's like the article was written with the mental note that "incest=evil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.162.10 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We're working on that. We recently moved the laws into a separate article, so it shrunk a bit. We also rewrote the lead. I was planning on adding more about anthropology and various royal families. I don't think of it some much as evil (when between adults) so much as it has some...side-effects. "Yes, hello! Who are you? You're a plumber. What on earth is that?" Legitimus (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this text belong in the intro of this article?

I would like to get some input from other editors on whether or not the following text should be in the intro of this article:

Adults who who were incestuously victimized by adults in their childhood tend to suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction; and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.(Trepper, Terry S. (1989). Systemic Treatment of Incest: A Therapeutic Handbook. Psychology Press. ISBN 0876305605. )(Kluft, Richard P. (1990). Incest-Related Syndromes of Adult Psychopathology. American Psychiatric Pub , Inc., p83,89. ISBN 0880481609. )

Although the word "incest" does appear in the reference titles (as Jack-A-Roe pointed out in his edit summaries), the text itself does not directly deal with the topic of incest, which should be the focus of this article. This material would be quite appropriate for the "Child sexual abuse" article, but looks out-of-place here. The passage talks about "adults who who were incestuously victimized by adults in their childhood," not people victimized by their relatives during childhood. Thus, this text should, at the every least, be removed from this article, and possibly be added to the CSA piece.

What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Good in what sense? As in this text belongs in this article, or that the objection stated above makes sense to you? Clarification would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Good in the sense of belonging in the article. This is because it is both ref'd and highly relevant to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But how is this text relevant to this particular article - an article that focuses on the topic of incest, and not on child sexual abuse? ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, its relevant in the sense that most incest is, in fact, child sexual abuse. Therefore, discussions of child sexual abuse should feature prominently in the article. As it stands, it is "consensual incest", which is quite rare, that seems to be being emphasized in this article, which is inappropriate and, in fact, not acceptable.
Perhaps you fellas who want to talk so much about "consensual incest" should start a separate article.
SeattleJoe (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The information should remain in this article and be expanded with the addition of a full section exploring effects of incest abuse on children. There is of course overlap with CSA, but overlap between related topics is not unusual. The reason this needs to be covered in this article is that the effects of forced incest on a child are more damaging and wider ranging than effects of sexual abuse by strangers or by adult acquaintances who are not close relatives. The amplification of the damage is even more extreme when the abuse is perpetrated by the parents, where not only does the child suffer from the abuse, but the suffering is multiplied by the breaking of the most basic trust in the dependency relationship. (All of this can be sourced to solid references). It might be good to add a paragraph about that in the CSA article as well, and link it to this article for the expanded section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this should be in the article (which I'm still not convinced is the case), this info should be in the body of the text, and not in the intro - seeing as this is getting somewhat off-topic, and the material is not directly related to the narrower subject of adult-child incest. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Homologeo. I'm not 100% convinced this information is pertinent to the topic. We have a great deal of information here that shows the negative effects of child sexual abuse as it relates to non-consensual incest, but as I've stated several times, the article heavily covers the non-consensual form already and we don't need to keep bloating it with more. I don't think anyone really debates that child rape doesn't have a terrible affect on its victims. Personally, I think that if that information DOES stay, it should be taken out of the lead and moved to the body someplace. The lead shoud be a NPOV summary of the complete topic. The Quiet Man (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear me, I'm afraid I cannot concur. Most incest is child sexual abuse, and this should be discussed extensively in both the introduction and in the body of the text. Personally, I would say that "consensual incest between adults" is so exceedingly rare that it should not even be mentioned in the introduction.
But I won't insist.
Live and let live, that's my motto.
SeattleJoe (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Quiet Man (talk • contribs)

Ok, let me start by saying this information belongs in this article. However, it does not belong in the introduction. The Manual Of Style states that an introduction should be a summary of the information contained in the article.... and that the introduction should not cover any information that is not already in the article itself. This information is too specific to be discussed right off the bat. Therefore, it does not belong in the introduction. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, agreed. This is good info, but it belongs in the body of the article. The best thing we can do here is follow MOS and WP guidelines. This can only result in a good article. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape statistics returned to introduction

I have moved the rape statistics back to the introduction. If anyone removes it, I will move it back. If anybody doesn't like it, tough.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you do not own this article, and your actions are pretty darn uncivil. As I mentioned above, the Manual of Style guidelines pretty much say that the introduction should be kept clear of any specific stats or information, and it should be a general summary of the article itself. Perhaps you should cool down a little and discuss any changes you make before making any more edits. I understand your passion for this subject but it seems your goals are to conform this article to your point of view which is not how it works. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ErgoSum88. As stated about a billion times now, WP articles must follow the guidelines. It's not a billboard for advocacy groups or a public service announcement and nobody anywhere with any decency thinks that this article is advocating sex with children. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensual incest' changed to "Incest between consenting adults"

I have changed "Consensual Incest" to "Incest between consenting adults" throughout. If anyone changes this, I will change it back. If anyone doesn't like it, tough.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, as stated above you are violating WP:OWN and you are probably also violating WP:SOAP. There is no consensus for that change and it's going back. Nobody here is advocating for sex with minors and your insistence that we are is absurd. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
While the original at the time before SeattleJoe's edit (if I recall correctly) felt a bit misleading, I think the current revision, namely "Consensual incest is sexual behavior between adult blood relatives" is acceptable. Legitimus (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do too, children cannot consent, obviously, so incest between an adult and a child is per se child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The more precise statement is "Incest between consenting adults" and I see no reason not to use that. "Consensual" or "consenting" is of no matter, either is OK with me. But it is necessary to include "between adults" in the phrase to be clear that no child is involved. The reason this is important is that most people, and in fact, most professionals working in the field, when the word "incest" is used assume that it describes abusive incest between an adult and a child or young adolescent. That's the crux of the problem we've been discussing about the article; there is no match in prevalence between abusive incest and non-abusive adult consensual incest. One is prevalent and the other is rare, so the terminology needs to be very precise to avoid confusing the two. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As I posted on Jack's talk page, I'm completely fine with that heading change and it can stay. The entire section is meant to made a clear distinction between child abuse and behavior between consenting adults, as anyone reading the section should be able to determine. What I wasn't fine with were the other section moves and assorted sneaks that Joe had stuck in there that kept getting put back wholesale and made the article look terrible. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your agreement on this. I haven't review those other changes yet so don't have comments on those at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual, usage should follow sources. While I personally agree that children in my own country are not capable of consent, this is not a universally held view. Also, people in different societies disagree as to when childhood ends and when adulthood begins. Also, people in different societies (just to finish out the point) disagree as to the boundaries that define appropriate sexual behavior, and "sex" period. In each of these areas there are likely to be more than one view. As always we need to distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority, and fringe views, and attribute the view to the person or group of people holding the view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be getting beyond the point of that section. We say "between adults" and leave it at that, so that the reader can formulate in their own mind what an adult is, based on their background. We also don't bother defining "sexual behavior" for this purpose, as a definition outright would be difficult to agree on. Legitimus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't have a problem with going into greater detail about individual societies laws (if we can find references), but I actually think it's better in this case to have a more general lead. We may have to change the wording somehow, but it's best to let individuals determine what constitutes a legal adult in their jurisdiction (seriously, we could write an entire article on individual jurisdictional legal consent/adulthood that would be many times the size of this article). The Quiet Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stay calm in collaboration

I've seen some harsh words start to appear on this talk page today by several people. This is a general comment, not to any one person.

Please keep the discussion calm and collaborative.

This appears to be a difficult and charged topic. We all need to be extra careful to work with mutual respect so this page does not become a battleground like some of the other pages related to child sexual abuse have become.

If you disagree with someone, certainly, express your arguments and your debate points. But please re-read posts before hitting the save button and choose to omit any comments that could be seen as antagonistic.

Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The legality of incest as is applies to the article

I will go on record as saying that I do NOT advocate for sex with minors and my edits to this article have NOTHING to do with trying to say that there can be "consensual sex between minors and adults." Legally, children are incapable of consenting. Therefore, consensual sex between children and adults is impossible: it is always punishable child abuse. What I've tried to do is improve the article by adding a new section about behavior between CONSENTING ADULTS, and then I tried to improve the overall style of the article to conform to WP style guidelines. I just want to improve the article. I'm here to help create a balanced, informative encyclopedia. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I never thought you were advocating anything like that, so no worries at all on my end.
As I see it, we have a few differences about undue weight on some aspects of the topic - but that's just editing and not personal in any way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phobic avoidance reactions

Is anyone here knowledgeable about psychological terminology? Phobic avoidance reactions is currently redlinked in the intro but we must have something on WP that relates to it and is just under a different title. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the reference "Healing the Incest Wound"; here's some wikilinks that contain related info:
--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make it link to something in Wikipedia. I figured we would already have an article that is about that topic but just under a different title and it's not redirected. Maybe the anxiety disorders would be okay for our purposes. Like this Phobic avoidance reactions. The Quiet Man (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty good with vocabulary. However, the psych world is rife with strange terms that more or less mean the same thing (i.e. "Psychic Dependence" being used for the concept of "Addiction"). That term is an odd one though, because it mixes a few concepts together (avoidance, phobia, and defense mechanism). It may even refer to what is known as a "fugue" state, where something triggers the mind to "withdraw." Do you have some context for it? Legitimus (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to the reference, does someone else? Maybe we'll have to write an article. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lead

I just modified the first sentence. I am not satisfied with the edit i made, but given the rest of the paragraph it seemed like the best solution, as the first sentence was flawed. The article began defining incest as any sexual behavior between close relatives. The problem is, there are societies where some forms of sexual behavior between close relatives (as they understand "close relatives") is not considered wrong and not considered incest. Therefore, for the first sentence to comply with NPOV, we either have to cut "any form of sexual behavior" or we have to add that it is sexual behavior that is considered inappropriate. As I said, I chose the second option because it seemed to fit better with the rest of the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you are getting at. The trouble is even formal definitions are little hazy in whether "incest" automatically implies "inappropriate." For example, Random House Unabridged Dictionary has "sexual intercourse between closely related persons." That's it, which technically makes it all incest whether it's ok or not. However, the American Heritage Dictionary has, "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." Maybe we could work alone those lines Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AHD def. sounds reasonable but perhaps still too a little too vague or broad. A society can consider one form of sexual behavior to ve incest and violation of custom, and another form of sexual behavior appropriate. I am just saying, we need to be careful about over-generalizing here. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to avoid undue weight regarding unusual customs of nations or societies that we have not specifically identified and sourced. Yes, perspectives and views of all peoples on this are valid and should be covered in the article - if we have references about it. We should use the definition from the mainstream references as the main lead; then if there are references showing exceptions to that definition in some cultures, we can call that out as a special case and address it with appropriate weight according to the sources.
At this point, this is vague. What countries or societies are we considering who have definitions of incest that differ from the basic definition (ie, the AHD version)? What sources support the inclusion of that information? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Slrubenstein may have missed the "persons who so closely related" part. To be incest under this definition, it requires both: Blood relation, and violation of law/custom. I will offer an example though, in fairness, where custom does not quite jive with Western values: in a region of Pakistan, marriage between first cousins is not against custom, and is common. However, this area is also plagued by certain autosomal birth defects, like microcephaly.[5] This is a pretty small population though, and likely shrinking due to the medical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I suggested creating a separate article for the legal information on this topic. I think it would be beneficial to have broad coverage, but doing so here would bloat this article beyond recognition. I do think the lead is better if we use more general terms and it looks like we do have a sentence there that mentions how different locations have different rules. But that's just me. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of literature on societies where it is considered proper childrearing for a mother to fondle the penis of her male infant (which by their and our standard is a close relative) to the point of arousal, and stop. Well-known examples are the Balinese, as described in an essay in Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind, and an Inuit group, described by Jean Briggs in Never in Anger - both books have reamined in print for a very long time and are considered anthropological classics, so the views are by no means fringe. They are also about societies that are really unconnected and in different environments, i.e. quite different from one another. Childrearing practices are not my specialty so I did not go out looking for these cases; they happen to be in books that are of more general interest. I bet that a search specifically of literature on childrearing practices would show a variety of similar practices in other societies. So we either get rid of "any form of sexual behavior," or modify it to "sexual behavior considered inappropriate by that society," or limit the article to incest in the US and Europe or something like that.

The phrase "undue weight regarding unusual customs of nations or societies" is infelicitous. We should not give undue weight to a particular view. But there is no universal or objective standard for "unusual" customs, the word has meaning only in a subjective and relative sense - a custom in one society is quite likely to be unusual in another societies. Once you acknowledge that not all societies are the same, you are acknowledging that you will find many customs unusual. But that is your own point of view and should not enter into the shaping of this article. The customs I have described are not at all unusual to the people who practice them. If this article specified, incest in the United States and Europe, this would not be an issue. But if it makes universal or general claims about incest, as the previous first sentence (or the AHD def.) did, then it has to apply to societies unlike the United States and Europe. Otherwise we are indeed giving undue weight to a particular view.

To be crystal clear, I am not advocating that we mention specific examples in the introduction, or have several specific definitions; I have no opposition to a general definition. But it must be worded to comply with NPOV and if we wish the definition to be general, it must be worded so that it applies to such a wide variety of cases. The definition befor my edit sounded very specific and absolute. It didn't mention any specific locations, yet seemed tailored to the US and I imagine several European countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the trouble is we are crossing disciplines here. Is the word meant as a legal term (example: barratry), the name of a taboo in general (example: adultery), or simply a descriptive scientific term (example: consanguineous intercourse)? Maybe it will be better if we start vague and then break it down. Here's an idea:
“ Incest is defined as sexual relations between closely related persons such that it is either illegal or socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons varies by culture, and by jurisdiction. ”

Legitimus (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, I like the new wording by Legitimus. In the meantime, it would be really good to include these two instances you've mentioned (maybe we need an entire new "Anthropological" or "social" section?). The Quiet Man (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The wording suggested by Legitimus is OK with me as a starting point for improved focus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Jack reverted the changes to the lead. Ok, but I don't see any other way around this worldwide view issue other than renaming this article "Incest in the USA and Europe" or something like that. In my view, the lead (and the article and topic) should be broad in coverage and not place the US legal and moral viewpoint above all. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not intend a blanket reversion of your work. And I didn't revert your first change to the initial definition as had been agreed on the talk page. I reverted the remaining changes because at least one of them changed a statement directly based on a reference and it was combined with others so couldn't be reverted separately. Also, other changes were not supported by sources and seemed controversial, so we need to discuss them. I've started a new section below.
As far as "US legal and moral viewpoint", that's not where I'm coming from. I coming from reading the science. It's not our job to re-interpret science and say that we believe it only applies in the west; we have to report what the sources state. If you have references that show sex between close relatives is considered normal in other cultures, sure, that can be included. But there's a big difference between a traditional child rearing practice of some genital rubbing of infants and a father having intercourse with his 6 year old daughter. If you have references that show the latter is something practiced in any society and not considered harmful, that would be surprising, but if it's a reliable source, it could be included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think Legitimus's proposal for a new first sentence is good. I agree that incest may be defined differently not only from society to society, but also by the state (and legislatures, lawyers, etc); social workers; and social scientists. I think Legitimus's proposed first sentence handles this well. I certainly agree that there is a difference between a father having intercourse with his six-year-old daughter and a mother rubbing the penis of her infant son, and from what I know both the Inuit and Balinese would agree. But some people may not, and the originl (meaning, two days ago) wording of the first sentence was worded so broadly (any kind of sexual behavior) that one might reasonably believe the definition included both.
Apropos Jack-A-Roe's comment above, here is an interesting little tidbit, well-known among anthropologists: according to Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the fathers of modern social anthropology, the Trobrianders (islands near Australia) have a clear concept of incest, the word for this is suvasova and it describes sex or marriage between anyone one might call "blood relatives" (e.g. between a mother and her child). However, they do not (or did not) consider the father to be a blood relative, therefore sex between a father and his six year old daughter would not be considered suvasova (The Sexual Life of Savages 1929 page 533). Now, this does not mean that the Trobrianders considered sex between a father and daughter okay; indeed, according to Malinowski it too is forbidden and considered morally repugnant - it simply is not forbidden on the grounds that they are close relatives (Malinowski provides two different explanations for the moral repugnance: (1) there is a general sense tht people belonging to the same household should not have sex with one another, although obviously this does not apply to husband and wife ... and (2) the father is related through his marriage to the mother, and thereby becomes identified with her; since sex with one's mother is suvasova, a more general taboo extends to him). Anyway, this shows us that, beyond incest, non-Western peoples may have categories for inappropriate sexual relationships or behaviors that we don't have. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a change to the lead again (towards the end). I'm not sure if I'm getting it though... it's late and I'm tired. Revert if you disagree with my change. I do think it would be interesting and informative to discuss some of these additional behaviors in the body someplace. It just goes to show that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and wrong is all. The Quiet Man (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal fork

I heard a suggestion that there be a separate article specifically for the legal aspect of incest. It seems like an OK idea, and I'm willing to do the job of getting it started. Is this appropriate based on other articles on wikipedia? Is there a precedent? Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure this is done all the time. Look at some of the articles about major countries, like the UK, USA, etc. and you'll have all kinds of subarticles about law, culture, etc. I was going to do it myself eventually, but as most can see, I'm not here especially often lately (busy at work). So go for it. Maybe keep a small section here with a summary and then a "main article" interlink. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with separating the legal section to a new article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lots of lead changes at once

There were a lot of changes to the lead at once today. It's hard to tell how much of the changes were appropriate, but there was at least one that mischaracterized a reference and needed to be reverted: [6]. The edit stated this: "The majority of non-consensual incest cases reported in the mainstream media are between adults and prepubescent or adolescent children, and particularly between fathers or other male relatives, and girls. " - however, the reference is about scientific reports, not media reports, so the text needs to follow the content of the reference.

There has been much study of incestual child abuse; it is a prevalent and significant problem. There has been very little study of incest between consenting adults, because, it hardly ever happens. As others have stated here on the talk page, in some societies, perhaps mothers rub their infant child's genitals as part of child rearing; whether or not that would be considered incest is unknown at this time and needs to be sourced to solid references. By the definition of incest that includes " that it is either illegal or socially taboo." - it would not be incest if it's not taboo and is part of child rearing, so it would not apply in this article; maybe that definition needs further adjustment.

Since there appears to be differences among editors on this page about how to present the information, we're going to need to carefully follow WP:V and WP:NPOV - including WP:UNDUE - and in particular that means that controversial statements will need to have reliable sources to remain in the article.

In developed nations sexual use of children by adults is defined legally-medically-socially as child abuse. This is easily sourced. Countless scientific references show that the most common forms of incest are child sexual abuse, and that most child sexual abuse occurs within the family, making it incest. The two topics overlap.

While we will - of course - follow NPOV and include information in this article about forms of incest that are not child abuse, and incest in non-developed nations or tribal areas, the article must not give a false impression of balance between different forms of incest that is not supported by references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim values

Can anyone corroborate the edit added about Muslim countries and incest not being taboo if they are married? I know Pakistan has something like that, where some marry their first cousins by tradition (hence that area holds the world record for microcephaly) but I have no idea if this has anything to do with being Muslim.Legitimus (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incest in Austria

I have the news that a father imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years and had 7 children through her. This is a repeat of Oedipus Rex and it's considered incest. And it happened in Austria. You should add that to the article, because here's the story: Man imprisoned daughter, fathered her 7 kids --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's incest, yes. It's also kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, child abuse, neglect, and unfathomable mental illness. I don't think it is of much use here. This almost belongs under serial killers and related, or even it's own article.Legitimus (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian quote edit

I have changed the quote format due to undue weight. I have also added more of the article to the quote to attempt to more accurately represent the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This was incorrect and I have reverted it. There is no undue weight in the quote or in that section. The quote was from the person being interviewed in the article, not from the article in general. Adding more from the article made it appear as if the person interviewed was saying more than he said, which is misleading and incorrect. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the quote, clarifying the source of the rest of the quote. It is undue weight to pull one quote from an article to represent the entire article. IMO, a cquote definitely gives one person undue weight. I agree with user Ed Fitzgerald making both quotes in the article blockquotes. The section also does not represent the view of incest from the majority view and more references are needed to do this. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I support this change and concur with both points, ie, that cquotes give undue weight by graphic emphasis, and that the Guardian article includes more than one perspective and must not be cherry-picked to show only one aspect.
Even after the above edits, the quotes are still too long and give too much weight to the one Guardian story; they should be further pruned, or better yet, paraphrased as a summary. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is ludicrous. It does not represent the article, it represents the person quoted. The "Undue" policy does not apply because no undue weight is being given to anything there. You're using Undue as a club to push your own version of the article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. The Guardian article has far too many lines in the Incest article as a whole. The Guardian article itself presents a variety of points of view, which should be shown to not give one undue weight. The idea that incest in our culture is acceptable is at best a minority view, if not a tiny minority view. It may be undue weight to even leave the first quote in the article itself. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] minor accuracy revert

Most of the recent changes were good. I reverted two short parts for accuracy.ResearchEditor (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claim removed

I've removed the claim that abusive incest is the most common kind reported in scientific studies. A quote from p. 9 of "Effects of Child Sexual Abuse," a 2007 master's thesis by Rana Hawileh: "The most discussed type of incest is between father and daughter (Herman & Hirschman, 1981). In actuality, the most frequently occuring type of incest is between brother and sister." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)