Talk:Incest/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Incest (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 6 >>

Contents

Australia

The Australia bit is interesting. Coming from NZ, I know Australians frequently claim incest is common among aboriginal communities and wonder whether this has anything to do with their strict penalties. Can anyone comment on this. If it's true, perhaps this is worth mentioning along with the potential implication as a manifestation as part of the Australia anti-aboriginal sentiment. Nil Einne 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Encouraged?

In some instances, studies have found that among the small "village" mentality which promotes the culture of "individual privacy becomes everybody's business" under the guise of ignorance or lack of information, relations that have the appearance of inappropriateness are oftentimes encouraged if not enforceable. - Is that wording correct? If it appears inappropriate (I'm assuming that the standard in question is that of the village), why would it be encouraged? Should it read "tolerated" instead? Nik42 06:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That's funny, I was just coming here to complain about that text. It is confusing. I'm not sure what the author was trying to get at.
~ender 2005-11-09 21:11:MST

question

I have a question that i hope someone can answer with facts to back it up! me and my younger brother were discussing incest because of the show NIP TUCK one of the characters had a genetic deformite caused from Incest or so they claimed and I argued that when Incest occurs the child has a higher risk of having birth deformaities than people who weren't related at all. and of course he disagreed because he said his bio teacher who used to be a college professer said that the only way a birth defect can occur is if there is a defect in the family's genetic history .. now im 20 and he is 15 so neither of us have an extensive knowledge on this subject ... just so we are clear the question is, Does incest produce or cause a higer risk of birth defects than if two people from completely families had a child?? i hope that makes sence. well write back on this ill be checking it regularly.

It depends on the situation. Some animals can commit incest because there are less genetic detriments. One of the primary concerns is that the parents are more likely to be genetically related, and thus it's higher to have both recessive genes or alleles, thus triggering the recessive trait, as you need two, one from each parent. If one is genetically more diverse, than it is far less likely to be both carrying recessive alleles for the same trait. Recessive traits tend to contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities. However, it differs case by case. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I can clarify this answer somewhat. It isn't really accurate to say most recessive traits contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities IMHO. However most genetically linked deformities, abnormalities and diseases are recessive. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that frequently these abnormailities are caused by the abscence of a fully functioning protein of some sort(be it enzyme or whatever) so obviously this absence can only occur if both copies of the gene coding the fully functioning protein are missing. Another is that dominant linked traits that are detrimental, especially if strongly detrimental (i.e. abnormalities etc) are unlikely to last long because anyone with a copy of the gene is affected. Therefore, there are no carriers of the trait which are not affected. The ability of all people with this gene to have offspring (children) and care for them is effected and the gene quickly dies out (in many cases, it may simply arise sporadically in an individual and die out with that individual). You may be aware of Huntington's disease which is a dominant trait? One reason why this disease is believed to have survived despite being dominant is because the late age of onset means didn't have a significant effect on the ability of a person to have childrean and the survival of said children. Also, you may think if you don't have a family history of any genetic diseases you're safe, but remember there could still be more minor problems you're not aware of or maybe a major genetic disease you're not aware of or that only arose recently. Generally, I would say most human geneticists would agree that excessive homozygousity in humans is not a good thing. I should mention, this clarification is also a little on the simple side and perhaps somewhat misleading but I hope it helps. Nil Einne 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

The novel Wise Children by Angela Carter also features incest perhaps this could be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anus&oldid=14135345

More Fiction

Would someone mind adding information about Jeffrey Eugenide's book Middlesex? This book has a few incidences of insest and its resulting deformities.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312422156/qid=1138223591/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4097353-3616866?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Jeez, if to make full list of such books/songs/movies - we would need one more WikiPedia. LEt's start with Stephen King. Or let's talk of Karlsson-on-the-Roof, which beginning, if literally translate, sounds quite comic in russian.

"Scope of incest"/covert incest

The section "Scope of incest" needs some serious work IMO. Looking at the history page, there seems to be an ongoing debate about some aspect of this section, so I didn't want to just dive in and rewrite the section without opening it to discussion first.

What aspects specifically please?

First off, what the section is actually about might be more correctly (though awkwardly) phrased as "Scope of what is called incest in contemporary western society". That's a whole different thing from "scope of incest" which suggests "how wide is the occurrence of incest".

How about types of incest or forms of incest? I will note that incest is being researched by pyschologists on a worldwide basis including in rural Eastern societies so I am not sure the reference to Western Society covers this here.

I think the section should be retitled as "Covert incest" and rewritten to explain the distinction between covert and physical incest, and to describe covert incest as a form of emotional abuse. It's kinda-sorta written to cover these issues already, but it's not at all focused. One could read the section several times over and not be clear on the fact that "covert incest" is a term used by the psychological community to describe a type of parental emotional abuse which does not include (though it may accompany) physical incest, i.e. sexual acts. KarlBunker 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me consider this please.
I attempted to clean this section up following your basic concerns. Please comment. Also can anyone explain why there is so little study of the pshycological effects of incest on human beings in this article. I have listened to stories from around the world which have common themes of great damage be they in South East Asia, Europe or the US. This article is not yet reflective of those real people. (I notice in the rape article on the other hand, the opposite bias with NO attempt to get at the actual causes of rape.) Could someone fill me in on the intention here and what all the cultural/theoretical fights are about. Don't get me wrong...animals can teach us a lot but I thought this article was about humans for humans.Anacapa 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've made the changes I describe above. If you feel any changes or discussion is warranted, this is the place to discuss. KarlBunker 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In general I see where you are going and consider your changes helpful. Let me address each point above and add a few more. Please let me know how I can assist you. Anacapa 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Reply to Anacapa: I like your changes; good work. The only one I didn't care for was calling covert incest "psychological rape" rather than "emotional abuse." That sounds more like the language of a sensationalist self-help book than an encyclopedia. I can see how there's a certain technical accuracy to "psychological rape", it just doesn't sound professional to me.

I agree that the article could use a lot of expanding on the psychological effects of incest. As for non-western cultures, I don't think there's any attempt to exclude them; note that the large section of the article has "industrialized societies" in the section title. not "western society". This is just an attempt to distinguish between behaviors in "modern" cultures versus behaviors among Trobriand Islanders, for example. KarlBunker 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The real HUMAN effects of incest

Karl thanks for the assistance here. I used 'psychological rape' because I know of what I speak and because attorney Andrew Vachss (sp) uses these distinctions about contact incest. He asks, rightly I believe, how can we be so outraged when a stranger rapes a child yet look the other way when a parent, the child's closest relation does it. There is a huge double standard in definitions I hope to show here somehow. Susan Forward in Toxic Parents says incest 'is perhaps the cruelest most baffling of human experiences...Incest betrays the very heart of childhood its innocence.' This is the worst form of rape to me and many many others See The Last Secret by Bobbie Rosencrans in RAPE. I have spent 10,000 hours of trauma transformation to be able to contribute here. Incest includes emotional abuse but is far beyond mere emotional abuse. It is sexual, emotional, intellectual and/or psychic rape by a parent. Please assist me to get these effects shown here in at something similar to what is seen on the rape page. Incest has terrible consequences to children and it is a horrible crime. I become frustrated by all the academic debates in this article and I am person who enjoys academic debates except when we use them to hide from say genocide, rape and incest. I mean no offense here but to me real human issues associated with incest belong front and center in this article and then we need to debate biology and culture etc etc. Could we include an Effect of Incest Section here? Is the trauma of incest completely unknown outside the pyschological community. I see incest in horrorable, homicidal fiction films so I've gotta wander what's going on in this article. Please assist me to ensure that this article reflects the human realities of incest in balanced and unbiased way that does NOT demean the efforts of all those who do focus on the academic, cultural or animal sides of incest.

Anacapa 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to deny the human cost of incest. I can't speak for the rape article, not having read it (I will) or contributed to it. In an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a magazine article or a popular-press book, it's a rule that the language has to be pretty dispassionate. No matter how horrific the subject--murder, genocide, whatever--the language is supposed to be dispassionate. And in fact, that's how one can often make the most impact, especially in Wikipedia, where readers know that "anyone can edit". If the language gets too emotional, people will be more likely to disregard it than if it's professional-sounding and sticks to facts. KarlBunker 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Karl, I acknowledge your engagement and assistance here. Being new to this article, I can only guess from the content what people see as significant here. I see no denial from you or anyone else and you have been good to tighten things (I added) up. However, it is stunning to me to see so little emphasis given to the human cost of incest in this article. It might be lack of knowledge given how secret and taboo incest is, I don't know. I did do a quick google to add at least one story of each type of Parental Incest in the references along with some good books about the effects. I hope this helps people see what is missing here. I welcome suggestions and comments here and I thank you for your followups.

Now on to the 'rape' discussion. I hear your sound point about passion and can concur on this occasion. However, I have to have words that capture the full essence of what happens in incest so that people see how horrible it is. To me, this article needs to reflect the loathsome crime that incest is. Of all the terrible forms of child abuse Susan Forward sees, the only one she singles out for specific condemnation is incest. She says she believes that 'incest is a genuinely evil act' and explains why. When I glance at the rape article, I have no doubt that rape is wrong right away. When I glance at this article, that tone is missing to me. I want to see passion where passion is due here because for far too long this cruel crime has been denied with a wink and a nod by parents who hope to see no passion in these pages. So given a choice, I will begin with passion and precision. You are more than welcome to tone me down and I will be glad to listen to alternate words that capture the meanings well. I do ask that you and I discuss the meanings though, (in a pinch) so I can get the whole meaning into the less passionate term. Is that ok with you?

Note: The words used to describe Sister My Sister the English film about consensual adult sibling incest were 'beautiful' and 'horrible' (in the film reviews.) Would these words be innappropriate to describe that film here? If so, how would one capture the full essence of that film here with watered down words? Do you see my dilemma. Anacapa 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa -- I'll accept "psychological violation" to describe covert incest, though I still think "emotional abuse" is better. I think accurate words are always better. Because it's clinically accurate, the term emotional abuse is the best way to convey the evil behind the act, as well as being the best way of explaining this form of abuse to those who are unfamiliar with it.
And explaining facts is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be about. Except for some perpetrators who are trying to rationalize their own crimes (and perhaps you see a lot of those people in your work) I don't think much of anyone needs convincing that parent-child incest is an evil thing. KarlBunker 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, You may be right here about the best way to convey things. My issue here is that this form of incest involves (covert) violation, USE, and Abuse similar to rape. I am trying to capture that somehow. Violation may not be the best word. Do you have a better one that includes all these aspects? In the final analysis this is covert sexual abuse which is why we call it covert incest.

Would you mind discussing the issues above. Would you be willing to google child-abuse attorneys Andrew Vachss' Parade Magazine articles on this to see his take on how people see this? I don't want to be a pushy, but there is immense ignorance and denial in the US about incest and it's consequences to children. I need your assistance here to show this well. I don't think much of people who need convincing that P/C incest is evil either but you would be surprised by how many people/parents rationalize and deny this evil. Anacapa 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalina, I appreciate your wikifying because I am just learning how. The NPOV and topic statments help a lot. However, please dissuss with me before you change terms. These terms have precise pshycological meanings in this context. For example 'dissocation' is far from being 'reclusive', dissociation is what happens in rape or truama when the victim goes out their body and seems to be watching the whole thing happen to them, from say the ceiling. It is a trauma-related phenomenom that I did try to link too. Please comment and please suggest how we can cooperate to get the best of what you are trying to do here with the best of what I am trying say too. Anacapa 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Would incest have any effect if it were not for society? Plus I detest the fact that you group all incest into dominant/subordinate status. Brother/Sister that are 25 hardly applies--mboverload 07:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes (Jan. 2006)

In addition to the change mentioned in the section above, I've made a number of other edits, trying to get a logical flow to the article, trying to remove POV statements, unsupported statements, and even some (gasp) "original research".

Comments welcome. KarlBunker 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

effects of covert incest

The statement "Covert incest is known to cause damage similar to that associated with actual incest" seems nonintuitive to me, and it is worded as fact. I have trouble believing that treating one's child as too much of an equal is as damaging as having sex with one's child, or even that the results of the two actions would be qualitatively similar. Is this really a consensus view among psychologists? If so, does anyone have a reference? --Allen 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allen, This is indeed, counterintuitive but real nonetheless. The best book that shows the phenomenon and the damage it does is the little Silently Seduced by Ken Adams. Another good and bigger book is Emotional Incest Syndrome by Pat Love. Also, I suggest you google 'Emotional Incest'. Suite101.com has a title Emotional Incest=Sexuality Abuse. It is the 'specialness' of the relationship as well as the psuedo-equality that induces so much incestuous damage. A child is unwittingly used as (covert) lover, spouse and partner by the parent. I also suggest Toxic Parents' (Susan Forward) chapter on incest to see some of damage done. Let me know if you need more. Anacapa 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is more recent research that still needs more empirical evidence in order to cite it as a significant phenomenon, although they may be on to something. Besides, it's hard to distinguish between the lines sometimes (is it for example, just plain spoiling the child?) I replaced "disassociate" with "recluse" because "disassociate" links to a band. Recluse does not. The latter is therefore more suitable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:23, 4 February

2006 (UTC)

Men (fathers) tend to commit (contact or overt) incest with force or coercion which is visible. Women (mothers) tend to commit (covert, non-contact) incest with special psuedo-'praise', mental/emotional seduction, and psychological deception which is invisible. I say 'tend' to reflect the preferred tactics the genders use, not to make absolute gender distinctions here; some women commit contact incest, some men commit non-contact incest and some men and women commit both. Mothers who commit psychological incest call their sons 'special' as they would a lover. They use "unconditional" love to fuse the sons to them in pathological bonds. They (falsely) pretend to respect the son as man or as an equal. All these tactics are done to seduce, use, and abuse the son's emerging manhood to their satisfaction as they might with a real lover...only the son is still much to young to see how he is being raped...psychologically. By creating these, role reversals, the mother can manipulate the son into doing what her lover/husband/son's father should be doing at terrible cost to the son. I hope this help show how this is different from mere 'spoiling' and I hope this shows the sexual nature of this type of (psychological) incest. Covert incest includes mental/emotional use/abuse too but the tone is primarily sexual and the victims are usually opposite sex children not same-sex children.

More research is indeed needed here, and I am sure it is ongoing. However, there is enough out there now to at least introduce this topic here. It is a real phenomenom with real authors doing real systemic research on it. (Please read the books, they show real cases and explain it better than I do.) Because it is so well-concealed, so psychological, and so counterintuitive it is little known in the media. It needs to be known so others can do more research and so victims can see and cope with their parent-predators. If anyone needs me to dig into the scientific papers on this I will, however please be specific with concerns.

As to 'disassociate', thanks for catching that. I thought I could depend on Wikidictionary as a standard dictionary but I see not yet. Do you still want 'disassociate' and 'reclusive' now or can we simpify this sentence? Anacapa 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we split this into a new article? I think the article may be going off topic because there will be readers who will be wanting to be informed about the issues with non-parental incest (ie. cousins, brothers/sisters, etc.) and physical acts, not emotional ones. I mean, this is to avoid creating a new definition here.
I think reclusive also works best, since it explains most of the effects (depression, etc.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
(On 'reclusive') I am ok with both words. They describe two separate things, to me, both of which occur in incest and both of which are important effects. I have no problem adding new terms. I just wanted to make sure my original meaning about dissociation was captured. I would appreciate discussion before editing my psychological terms because I choose them with care to summarize complex issues as much as possible. I also welcome any other terms that flesh out things that I miss or fail to feature such as 'reclusive'.
(ON SPLIT) I don't see this as new definition at all. I see this as two types of incest both forms of sexual abuse, one a physical form and one a psychological form. The therapists call Covert Incest incest to reflect the psycho-sexual rape of children which is its key component. It is not merely a form of 'emotional' abuse, it is incest. I want to see both forms of incest introduced here...as all forms of trauma are introduced in the trauma article. To me, this introduction on Covert Incest is about done in the Main incest article. We could create a new article on Covert Incest as more research comes in, but for now I would like to just introduce it in the main article on incest. I, too, see much more content coming on other forms of overt (contact) incest here. I want to make sure we see it all, but covert incest deserves mention here as a real (covert) incest phenomenom that effects millions of people in single-parent homes to some degree or other. Please comment. Anacapa 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's less information about covert incest and it's of quite a different kind. For example, if you will permit my rough analogy, take matter and antimatter, though they are both different forms of the same thing (mass) we have more information about the first than the second, so in the article about mass we tend to deal more with matter-centrism, for example. This is especially since in some cultures this again isn't regarded as abuse (incest between adults in general, not counting children). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There are at least three solid books for lay people that describe covert incest and include it as type of incest along with the well-known type of incest (eq overt or contact incest). To me we have more than enough information available to describe it here and to balance it among all the other types of incest. It is not the opposite of incest it is just another type of incest. Please take look at all the other types I added and comment again. Is this reasonably balanced now?

Anacapa 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


I have questions about other cultures who see (some consensual, adult-adult contact??) incest as non-abusive. Can someone point me to credible sources so I can understand this better. I know some cultures in Africa see female circumcision as non-abusive too so I have no problem believing this but I just don't know which cultures condone incest and how many people we are talking about here. Please comment.

Anacapa 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

types of incest

I attempted to organize types as distinct from laws and mores. Please see the rape article for comparision. please comment. Anacapa 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Sibling incest

please see new external link I added for sources on this topic. Also please google other sources.

Anacapa 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Prohibitions on cousin marriage around the world

I deleted the paragraph "Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. All other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages." because it's wrong. Greece, for example, prohibits the marriage of first cousins (trust me, i'm a greek lawyer!), but i'm sure that most EU countries prohibit it also.

thanks a lot. I was concerned about that statement but had no basis for questioning it.Anacapa 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonobos

The following paragraph:

Incest between family members, including parents and children occurs; however, incest between a mother and immature sons, who are less than four years old, has not been observed.

Seems to suggest to me that incest between fathers and immature daugthers has been observed. Is this correct? Nil Einne 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the bonobo page and talk page, it appears this is correct, however the only source so far is some BBC documentary which is not exactly the best source. However, it's not clear what form of sexual contact occurs between mature males and immature females, possibly not penetrative... Nil Einne 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think referring to inbreeding among animals as "incest" is itself a problem. Incent implies socially defined relationships and has social meanings, none of which we can easily discern from observing animals. Even "sex" has a set of psychological and cultural meanings among humans that we do not yet know how to recognize in animals. Inbreeding is observable, as is and we can infer functions of inbreeding. There may be genital contact that does not lead to breeding too. But we will never know what it "means" to bonobos, at least not for some time. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Check with some biologists

Hello, I've just done a complete revise of the "genetics" section. Believe it or not, there is actually a rather massive body of literature dedicated to the biology of incest, which I've tried to provide a good introduction to. I was shocked that much of the discussion board is filled with arguments "My brother read this article about some dude who inbred rats and they were FINE". Check with the professionals, please!

Thank you for your work on this, and for leaving a comment on the talk page. The new version is closer to a neutral point of view than the last similar version was (the one before my previous edit). --Allen 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall from my undergraduate days in the early 1980s that there was a textbook called "Advanced Genetics" by Voorhees (I think). It had a rather extensive section on what we would call "in-breeding" here in the U.S. but which was considered normal for the particular cultures studied. I can't seem to find the text on Amazon or via a web search. Is anyone familiar with the book? One of his studies involved a people in Argentina (as I recall) where the prefered marriage relationship was between an Uncle and his sister's daughter. The one thing that struck me at the time, and has stayed with me, was his conclusion that particulary deleterious genes did not survive the third generation, after which, the life expectancy was comparable to "non-inbred" populations. I would like to revist the text and see how rigorus his scientific method was, or perhaps this was just a case of Dutch liberal thinking.

I added the Leavitt reference. The important things is to distinguish between inbreeding and incest. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Desire

I have a 1/2 sister that I did not grow up with. She is in her early 30's, remarried with two sons. Ever since the first time I saw her, I have been in love with her. She is a remarkably beautiful woman and I have longed for her for so long. I KNOW this is wrong on many levels, but she consumes my thoughts, desires and fantasies. All I think about is holding her in my arms and making love to her non-stop. Any ideas on how to discreetly get help to overcome this would be gretaly appreciated. Thanks, Texas.

Texas, first stop blaming yourself...what you feel is what you feel... and it is YOU right now, so as long as you do no deeds against her..your feelings are your feelings to feel as long as you need to. Next, stay away from her! Then go inside yourself and decide how to break the hold she has on you. There are many resources on this article (and on the web) to begin research on this. However, we men are truly f_____ because there are no male therapists I know of who handle male sexuality/female sexual aggression and we men are always, falsely, considered sexual monsters so you risk being blamed or shamed if you go for help and especially in Texas...despite all the goodhearted people there. I suggest you check out Men's Web, Kali Munro and Sexually Aggressive Women (see links here and on Rape). I will also note that in my experience it takes two to tango. In hunter-gatherer societies, young women at adolescence would be separated from men and young men because their emerging sexual power was so hard to resist and because they themselves had no idea what power they were playing with at that age. Your job is to separate your fantasies from her spell (she may or may not be attempting to seduce you but if she IS, she is being 'bad' too, some women use seduction/sex to predate against men and this is quite dangerous!) Remember exactly what she did that 'caught' you and try to determine whether she is seducing you or whether you are just being 'consuming' all by yourself. That's all I can do now. I am writing this back to you because I know how you feel but this page is not a page for therapy. It is a page for discussions on completing this article. (I wish someone would have been there for me when I had your questions.) I hope this helps but feel free to toss it away too. You are your own man and you have to decide what to do for you. I wish you the best. Anacapa 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I recommend that he just sleep with his half sister :-p--Frenchman113 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, me too, and tell us all about it here! :) Sweetie Petie 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I third the notion. ;) Unless, of course, he already is in a consumate relationship. Or she is. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect TEXAS was being a big man here. Wish I could say that about the other editors (in between) who came back with all this silliness. Now I could be all wrong about TEXAS too which would mean that I am the biggest fool in the world but nothing risked nothing gained. Anacapa 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The responce this person got was truely disgusting. You sound like a fricken cult leader Anacapa. And yes, I do know that was a personal attack. But please read what you said. It sounds more like a southern church sermon than any actual advice. --mboverload 07:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Anacapa, have i got the picture here? This "Texas" tells us (be it fiction or not, i don't care) that HE is in love with his half-sister, that HE has these feelings for her and HE doesn't know how to handle... And in your opinion, SHE is to blame for this? And SHE's probably/possibly being sexually agressive (he's never suggested that, so that must be your divine inference)? Oh, brilliant, man. Really. Do not hesitate to put a hijab on us women and cover us up with blankets, lest we go assault someone else any minute. Cheers, mate. - Eva

Oh well done Eva. Women are blaming men for every problem in society and when a man makes a harmless comment about perhaps thinking that it's NOT a man's fault, you freak-out on him? Nevermind the bollocks, Brad

Incest between two brothers

Is this illegal? Because it's not like they could ever have kids so theres no biological reason it would upset people

It's definitely illegal in the UK, I don't know about other countries. Silly, really. I mean, who hasn't done it with their brother? Sweetie Petie 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There are also serious psychological reasons why it might do damage to the two brothers. Incest is far more than just a biological phenomenom. I suggest a glance at the article.
This article is borderline POV and emotional to the point of melodrama. Looking at it won't help you understand anything. I mean, it has phrases like "but fails to show how the sister and mother covertly incested the brother and son this fatherless family" - is "incested" even a word? In fact, I think one particular user is pushing a certain family model as the only "healthy" one a little too much here and calling everything else "incest" with "psychological costs"
It also talks about "Incestuous abuse by non-related adults in responsible roles" and questions the existence of consensual adult "incest". I think the article fails to grasp what "incest" is.24.80.109.19
To the anonymous 'fails to grasp what "incest" is' editor, please be aware that you have no less a POV about what incest is than I do. From a quick glance at other encyclopedias and dictionaries this is to be expected as they ALL use different definitions. The only family model I have seen is well summarized in Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome from another researcher. I could care less about family models per say. Incest is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror" according to Britannica. That is indeed a POV. If there are other more positive POV's (as seen in the responses above to TEXAS) we need to see them and see their sources so they can be included here. I know incest personally. It has been no fun for me. Anacapa 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
To the editor(s) above. Incest is far more than just a biological or anthropological phemomenom. It is a social, sexual and psychological phenomenom too. I mean no offense here but I suggest a glance at the research on this from many diverse fields. Incest is far more than a topic for tiltillating intellectual curiosity. It is the cruelest violation of (childrens') human rights as stated by many unrelated authors. I welcome suggestions to make clear what can be a very confusing topic and one that most establishment encyclopedias seem to almost ignore. I can see why the phrase above could be confusing but there is no attempt to push any family model here. This content comes from many sources (see links). If you have issues with melodrama or borderline POV please be specific so that we can clean them up or at least discuss them. I will note that when I came aboard there was almost no mention of the human forms of incest much less their costs. Seems to me that this needs to shown here somehow with complete, balanced NPOV content. NO ONE even in the mainstream encyclopedias seems to grasp or explain what incest is with the exception of Britannica. A taboo and forbidden topic is going to be harder than most to come to consensus because NO ONE has a good grasp on this topic yet. Anacapa 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Incestuous abuse by adults in responsible roles has been well covered in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. It clearly is a huge problem with terrible consequences to the children abused. To include it here so people can see possible perps is reasonable to me. What is the issue with it to you? Anacapa 04:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


What does this mean: "Sexual predation by priests, nuns or other religious authorities against childhood parishioners, by teachers against students, by therapists against clients, and by a host of other authorities against people in dependent roles is seen by therapists as incestuous in nature, although not in form" - what is incestuous about molestation by non-relatives?

Nothing, naturally. Even if the effects are similar, they're not the same thing. This section does not belong here. Neither does the "covert incest" section.24.80.109.19

They are indeed the same thing but in different forms. To continue to take these nasty anonymous pot shots is indicative of a POV on your part too. Please be big enough to state who you are and what your POV is here so we can include all POV's.Anacapa 03:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And most of your "many" sources come from psychologists who for some reason define non-incestuous relations as incest. You need more diverse sources.24.80.109.19

What is means is that there is a huge difference between being raped by a complete stranger versus by your trusted priest, nun, teacher, doctor or whatever. Since you obviously haven't even bothered to glance at my sources I wonder why you are so hot about this here. If you have more 'diverse' sources I sure would love to see em. Right now psychologists and sex researchers seem to be doing the most research on the dynamics of incest. To discount these researchers out of hand is quite POV IMHO.Anacapa 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you obviously are busy pushing a very narrow view and so on, I'm going to assume bad faith on your part as long as you assume it on mine. And "what's in it to me?" - despite your continious insiuations, nothing more than intellectual titillation. And a severe disbelief at a Wiki article trying to push controversial ideas as non-arguable. And your intense PoV.
I should find you the studies where birds consistently prefer cousins to both brothers and total strangers. Obviously nobody here even bothered talking of outbreeding depression and why it happens rarely in humans and so on. You have got to rid yourself of thinking that incest = abuse and think of it as incest = sexual activity between realtives, and sometimes abuse. Even if incest = abuse in humans unequivocally (a thing very dubious in itself), abuse does NOT = incest. Including "non-related incest" with people who are not even adopted relatives is just stretching the general definiton too much.24.80.109.19
The so called 'narrow' POV I am pushing is the one shown in Britannica which says that incest is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror". That seems to be quite broad POV to me. As for 'bad faith' whatever that means I don't even know who you are so far from me to assume bad faith about you personally. I focus on the content here. I meant no personal offense to anyone HERE about 'mere intellectual tiltillation' as that is what sells movies about incest. As for stretching the general definition in this article, I suggest you glance at how other encyclopedias handle this that is those that handle it well at all. I am not here to argue about birds because birds and other animals have no HUMAN social conventions such as marriage, rape or even incest. I also have no problem with showing how animals inbreed as long as it closely relates to HUMAN incest somehow. What I do take issue with is that sexual relations between closely related animals or plants is being seen as incest here when it is really inbreeding...a separate idea.Anacapa 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Inbreeding, while not "incest", is at least, or more, relevant than family role reversals to the discussion of incest. Avoiding talking about inbreeding /behaviour/ in animals and why or not it does or doesn't happen in humans is sidestepping the biology and running straight to psychology. I don't find that informative at all. 24.80.109.19

"Covert Incest"

The thing I notice about "covert incest" is that it is not, in fact, incest. Let's quote the first sentence of this article: Incest is sexual activity between close family members. "Covert incest," in fact, is not sexual activity between close family members. It is a psychological term that is meant to indicate an analogy to incest, not incest itself. "Covert incest" ought to be discussed separately from the discussion of various forms of actual incest. john k 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe "Covert Incest" should be removed altogether from this article as it's a poorly supported theory AND not, in actuality, incest at all. I also think that this article has to be delisted as "good" until such time as the "covert" section is gone.

Cheers. 24.80.109.19 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

John, I respectfully disagree with your assessments above. Incest according to Britannica is "Sexual RELATIONS between PERSONS who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying". Now I don't know what the correct definition should be but I notice this article includes inbreeding between ANIMALS as incest so I think we have a way to go on consensus about what incest is and isn't here. Covert incest is indeed a form of NON-CONTACT sexual relations and therefore a form of incest. It is abuse that is sexual in nature rather than say violent in nature. I ask that you read the available literature on this topic and apply a single set of consensus criteria to address your concerns about this article. Incest has always been an emotionally loaded, forbidden and confusing topic. I ask that you work with me and others to understand what I mean before you make judgements about what you see should be included or excluded here. I have no problem with you delisting this as a good article because I think there are a lot of similar issues that need to be addressed here before this is a good article.
As for theories of incest, let me just say that I see no universal cause/effect theories about incest ITSELF in this whole article that tie incest together...a point that Britannica makes too. Psychological and sex research sciences seem to be in the classification and correlation stages of science in their research about incest (which is where Covert incest comes in.) There is no known theory that adequately explains rape much less incest as of today. What researchers of incest see is that Covert Incest has many of the same dynamics as Overt incest and that the two forms seem to be related to dysfunctional family systems where one parent is missing or missing in action. Anacapa 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it oughtn't be listed as an unproblematic type of incest. If nobody objects soon, I'm going to at least move it to a different part of the article, and probably drastically shorten it. john k 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to changes on this prior to discussion and referencing the relevant sources. I added this content from a number of good books on the subject. Although this type of incest is just beginning to be known it is no less serious to it's victims that the overt form. It is the use of pyschological sexual coercion and deception to commit covert incest. I see it as a highly problematic form so let's discuss how it is being represented here as 'unproblematic'.

Anacapa 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to this content even being here. First of all, it's not incest as there's no incestuous activity going on, second of all, it's just more POV pushing and trying to regulate appropriate family models. Even if making your kid your "confidante" ruins their "childhood innocence" it's still not incest.24.80.109.19
Who are you? Have you read any of the references about covert or psychological incest or are you just shooting from the hip with your own POV about this? There is no particular family model expoused here other than that spouses should 'spouse' spouses, parents should parent their children etc and adults should refrain from exploiting their children in adult roles. When a mother for example uses a son to fight her husband for her, be her little 'man', and parent her and her kids for her (including the son himself) by seducing the son with 'special' attention as if he were a spouse the son loses much more than his childhood innocence...he suffers long term trauma as he attempts to sort out these terrible role reversals and fill in the losses incurred. This is the psychological or covert form of incest. Those who know about sex know that the brain is the biggest and most important sex organ (please See arousal template)in Eroticized Rage and other Sexualized Feelings to imagine that contact sexual relations are the only form of sexual relations flies in the face of all we know about online sex abuses and other forms of NON-CONTACT sex crimes such as exhibitionism etc. Covert incest/incestuous abuse is a form of NON-Contact sexual relation by relatives or others in reponsible roles. If you have issues with this please at least inform yourself so we can discuss this with specifics. I suggest Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome for a quick outline of family model research (and extensive content on covert incest) and Ken Adams Silently Seduced for a good education on the differences and commonalities between OVERT/CONTACT and COVERT/NONCONTACT incest. Anacapa 02:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
At the very least this section needs to be severely shortened and clearly tagged as "(some) psychologists choose to define these non-incestuous activities as incest" and go from there.24.80.109.19
I agree with the anon. This material is highly questionable, and at the very least, it is not incest under the most common definition of the term. And, obviously, I'm not changing it without discussion. I put the initial post up weeks ago, and only just got a response. john k 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
John thanks for the consideration about waiting to change this and sorry for two week lag here. There is no single universal definition of the term as of yet according to Britannica (see discussion below). I would like to suggest that rather than being highly questionable this content is just not well-known as of yet...similar to the biases against victims of female-male or female-female rape. To address your questions I will add some content from clinical psychologist Ken Adams' Silently Seduced When Parents Make Their Children Partners Understanding Covert Incest. I ask that we discuss specific issues here before making wholesale changes. Anacapa 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Anacapa, when something is "not well known yet," that tends to mean that it should not be treated with disproportionate length in the article. I'm not sure I understand your point about Britannica - it says that incest consists of sexual relations between people who are related. "Covert incest" does not consist of sexual relations - which generally means intercourse, but at least has to mean some kind of actual sexual act, and not just emotional abuse. I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but as you yourself admit this does not yet feature in the mainstream understanding of incest. As such, it isn't really appropriate for more than a very brief mention in this article. john k 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

John, may I add a little content from clinical psychologist Ken Adams for discussion? He make these distinction better than I. I know from experience that this is quite confusing to most people so please be patient as we try to sort it out.

One distinction I can make, however, that might be helpful is the distinction between sexual and emotional abuse. Sexual abuse is the use of sexual offenses to abuse (which is what happens in both overt and covert forms of incest.) Emotional abuse may or may not include sexual abuse. For example when a parent seduces his or her child, overtly or covertly that is sexual abuse/incest but when a parent shames or ridicules his/her child with no sexual connotations that is 'pure' emotional abuse. Covert incest does indeed consist of sexual relations/abuse...it's just that as in many other forms of sexual relations that abuse is non-contact and covert. Now we can argue whether fellatio represents sexual 'relations' or not here as in Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" but we cannot argue that NON-CONTACT sex is not a form of sexual relationship because there are many known forms of child sexual abuse that do not depend of direct contact. Hope that begins to cut some confusion. I ask that you refrain from making appropriate/innappropriate calls until we have finished discussing the issues here. This is complicated stuff that most people here seem to feel quite strongly about for unstated (and in your case stated) reasons. Anacapa 03:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, DO make a distinction between all child abuse and sexual child abuse. I absolutely refuse to believe that just because I'm in a close emotional relationship, or even have sexual desire for another person I'm having "non-contact sex" with them. I'm not having sex with them. I have sex with them when we're sweaty and exchanging body fluids. You are redefining not only incest but sex itself, unless I'm profoudly misunderstanding everything. Here's your chance, tell me where I'mm dumb. 24.80.109.19
Sex is far more than just contact sex. People go to prison for non-contact online kiddy sex. Phone sex is a popular theme in movies. The mind is well known as the source of the arousal template that drives sex. What Adams and many romances show is that there can be sexual seduction with no contact at all. That's what happens in covert incest. Spare me this 'dumb' stuff. I am here to create some sort of a dialogue based on the facts rather than a POV shoutout. There is no right or wrong here just many loaded POV's about a highly loaded taboo topic. Can you sort out your POV and state it so I have some chance of working with you? Anacapa 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also welcome your attempts to tighten up definitions and consider proportion but please do not imply that this covert incest content should be removed for proportion reasons or well known/not well known reasons when there is so much other content in this article that fits the same criteria. I am beginning to feel a little singled out here and I wonder what is so hot button about covert incest as opposed to say animal inbreeding which leads this article..no offense to that editor. Anacapa 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, non-contact sexual abuse is not what we're talking about here. What Adams describes as "covert incest" is essentially emotional abuse by a parent with a supposedly sexual undertone. There are no sex acts of any kind involved. It is not incest by the commonly accepted definition of incest. It is something different, which one particular psychologist has labelled "covert incest." That is not sufficient for it to get a huge section in the incest article on wikipedia. john k 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

John, I just added some content from Adam's book below that I hope will clarify this. NON-Contact sexual abuse is what I am talking about here and I talk from decades of personal experience. I mean no offense to you nor do I wish to contradict you. I just ask that you try to understand what are quite subtle, covert and cunning sex acts before you cast judgement here. Covert incest victims fall in love with their parents because their parents do exactly what any lover does to induce those feelings. What Adams describes in his books is the 'seduction' of sons/(daughters) using covert sex acts well known to most women but barely known to most men. It is sexual and emotional in nature with immense sexual and emotional consequences. As one guy Adams quoted said "I had no idea my mother was SEDUCING me because she was lonely." There are about 2150 references to covert incest on google scholar and 190,000 on google so Adams is far from a single lonely single voice on this today. If you like I can go pull in newspapers articles worldwide too but I wonder about the intense interest on just a small section. We can discuss size and specific content but I insist that we include this form of incest here somehow.
So you "insist". Well, charming. Can we stick this section at the end with the "Incest as Metaphor" bits? It will fit there equaly charmingly. It's certainly a metaphor. I've never had sex in my brain, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have sex with my genitals. There's my PoV to you. You may find it's a common one. 24.80.109.19
Please spare me the sarcasm and go try to understand what I am talking about. I know what you are talking about. I agree that many men in the West seem to have sex with their genitals with little thought much less feeling. That said, some men still use their heads, hearts, hands, and genitals to have sex. Covert incest is no metaphor--incest in the Pentagon as described by John Boyd is a metaphor. Covert incest is the covert form of incest that occurs between 'relatives too closely related to marry'. I insist that you source other POV's before you summarily discount these Psychological POV's. I put this content where it is so readers could see the differences and commonalities between these two forms of incest and so I could tie to the sections below with no repetition. I still have no idea what you are so hot about. What is your POV about incest in general? Anacapa 03:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As for a 'commonly' accepted definition of incest what are you calling that? I notice many different definitions/handlings of incest as I search around other encyclopedias and dictionaries. The diversity is almost absurd. I also know from my work on rape that the 'official' definitions of rape are ridiculous. The FBI completely excludes male-male, female-male and female-female rape as a possibility in it's official crime reports. As the rape research comes in I can guarantee you the the WIKI rape article will be far more representative of rape than the traditional encyclopedia/dictionary entries are. That is the whole point of WIKIpedia to me. I expect the definition of incest or anything else to change as research comes in...as well. For now I would like to know what is a reasonable definition of incest that includes as many sources as possible and includes recent research. To ignore covert sexual acts is to let one half of the human species off scott free here. Women love to 'drive men crazy' with many non-contact sexual acts also known as 'mind games'. Young fatherless sons are quite helpless against this because they are cognitively unable to sort out incestuous seduction from proper parental love and attention. This is why I feel strongly about this. If you like I will call the authors of the books on this and have them weigh in here but I would prefer to see if we can decide on a common definition that makes sense and then conform the content to it.
I'll make you a deal, I'll find again the references from where my ideas were drawn over the next week or so. And I'll definitely try to make the definition match most definitions found out there. We aren't doing original research on Wiki. We aren't even re-defining things. I think you may well be trying to. 24.80.109.19
What ideas are we talking about here? I am not trying to take issue with your ideas. As for definitions I would be glad to have that discussion. Just don't try to imply that father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio or mother-daughter sexual molestation are not forms of incest. I am quite comfortable with definitions but I will insist that once we consense on some reasonable definitions that the content fit into that scope. The only original research being done here is well sourced from the original researchers themselves. Incest is getting quite a bit of research attention now. This research belongs here just as much as other research does. As for a deal what are you trying to trade here? I still have no idea what set you off. I have no reason to fight with you. Anacapa 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To call the covert incest section 'huge' is a bit of a stretch to me. I see three short PP's on covert incest while there are pages and pages of content on inbreeding, genetics and exogamy, history, fiction and religion that dwarf this content. I have refrained from taking issue with that content because I wanted to see how the article developed but I insist that if we begin to condense here that we have common consensus criteria for the whole article. That said I want to work with you on this with constructive changes.
I see a section longer than "parental incest", the both "inbreeding" sections put together, and about as long as the "mythology" section. This is just the "covert parental 'incest'" alone. The abuse by non-related individuals is yet another thing. In short, yes, it is disproportionately long.24.80.109.19
I also want to acknowledge the patience, tone, and consideration with which you have approached this. I am open to any reasonable change here but I am not willing to be bullied by a group of other anonymous editors who clearly have their POV's but are unwilling to state them specifically so please assist me to keep this respectful. I welcome your checks here and I welcome continued discussion until we have some resolution. I ask your patience when we are discussing new topics that are difficult to describe much less show here. Anacapa 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, anonimity is a great thing and Wiki supposedly lets you do that. I am posting all my comments and doing all my changes in good faith. Will signing my comments be enough? 24.80.109.19
Sure. Please keep the good faith though. Please be specific with what you insist on. Please stick to the issues and refrain from personal insults too.Anacapa 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)