Talk:Incest/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 6 >>

Contents

Incest loophole

The incest loophole claim seems specious to me. The issue, as far as I can tell, is that in many states there is a law on the books against incest. The penalties for incest are considerably less than the penalties for the crime of sexual abuse of a child. But this doesn't constitute a loophole, because it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether to charge an offender with incest or sexual abuse of a child (or both). If incestuous acts can be charged as the more serious crime at the prosecutor's discretion, then there's no loophole. There's just an option for the prosecutor to charge a less serious crime. It would only be a loophole if the prosecutor wasn't allowed to charge sexual abuse in cases where the victim is related to the accused. john k 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we bring in editors who are attorneys here. Attorneys seem to have eliminated a lot of nonsense earlier in Sex between cousins. My take on Vachss (who is a nationally known child abuse attorney) is that the loophole is encoded in the code itself. This provides the prosecutor possibilities to let the perp off by ironically charging them with the lesser crime of incest rather than a listed sexual offense. A reasonable law would IMHO resemble what the Australians have done with incest law which is a severe standard for a horrible crime. Vachss is stating a legal loophole big enough for prosecutors to drive a truck through IHMO. To Vachss it seems, these US legal absurdities while common are far from specious and show the double standard that occurs in US law vi a vi incest. I would like to hear some attorneys weigh in on how this plays out in practice however. There also may be a clearer way to state all this.Anacapa 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
An attorney here. Anacapa is correct in the above statement. In the states where incest loopholes exist, the discount given to related perpetrators is written into the penal code. I added a link to a new law review article on the incest loophole (["Child Abuse and the State"]) to the External Links section of this topic. The article is fully sourced and footnoted, and I hope it helps. It includes a section on the history of incest prohibitions as well. I see from the comments here that the topic itself is undergoing major changes, and as I don't wish to complicate things for you editors, I won't alter the body of the topic.70.177.34.18 06:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What the competition says about incest

I pulled in three encyclopedias in my public library to show how much variation there is vi a vi how the so-called professional encyclopedia editors handle this topic. I note the differences in definitions, significance and content. To me, this shows that incest is a topic that even the professionals have no single standard for showing but there is much food for thought here.Anacapa 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


  • The World Book Encyclopedia (2005)

Incest. See Marriage (Other laws and customs)

Marriage|Other laws and practices

"All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. However, different societies have different views on what constitutes incest. For example, some societies forbid cousins from marrying, while other permit such marriages."

"Some societies require a person to marry someone who belongs to his or her own tribe or group. This custom is called endogamy. In other societies, an individual must follow the rules of exogamy and marry a person from another tribe or village."


  • Encyclopedia Americana (2005)

INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection. Everywhere in the world sexual relations between father and daughter, mother and son, and brother and sister are forbidden. However, the brother-sister taboo was reversed for royalty in some instances, as in ancient Egypt, Peru, and Hawaii, where the ruler was required to marry his sister in order to keep their blood "pure".

Incest taboos beyond relationships within the immediate family show enormous variation. In some societies any sexual contact or marriage with any known blood relative, no matter how remote is forbidden. In societies with clans (unlineal descent systems), a person is required to choose a sexual mate or marriage partner from outside his own clan (exogamy). In cultures with castes, everyone is required to marry inside his own caste (endogamy). Penalties for incest vary from mere dissaproval to death.

The alleged functions of incest taboos include the stabilization of family and society by specifying sex and marriage boundaries, the establishment of alliances between distinct kinship groups through the exchange of brides, and the prevention of inbreeding and its harmful biological results. The last function has been increasingly been challenged. A study of inbreeding in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, suggested that the inbreeding occurring in the world today produces so few harmful effects that it may be ignored.

The origin of the incest taboo remains highly speculative. Many experts believe that early forms of man probably preferred less familiar women outside their own kinship groups, and that the probability of finding a mate within the small kinship groups produced by the high mortality rate was remote. Eventually such behavior patterns became fixed in law.

In the United States, state laws show considerable variation in the relatives one is forbidden to marry, and the penalties range from a small fine and a few months in jail to a $5,000 fine and life imprisonment.


  • The New Encyclopedia Brittanica Volume 6 Ready Reference (2005)

incest, sexual relations between persons who, because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or custom from intermarrying. Because, cross-culturally, incest is more an emotional than a legal issue, the term taboo is generally preferred over prohibition. The incest taboo is acknowledged in anthropology as universal, although it is imposed differently in different societies and knowledge of its breach provokes widely different reactions from society to society.

Generally speaking, the closer the genetic relationship between two people, the stronger and more highly charged is the taboo prohibiting or discouraging sexual relations between them. Thus, sexual intercourse between a father and a daughter, a mother and a son, or a brother and sister is almost universally forbidden. Sexual relations between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew are also generally taboo, and relations between first cousins are prohibited as well in some societies.

Incest taboos beyond immediate family members can vary enormously however. In matrilineal societies in Melanesia, for example, the taboo is extended from biological brothers and sisters to include all so-called classificator siblings who trace their descent through the same matriline. Thus in Melanesian societies, the incest taboo makes distinction among persons--all of whom would be called first cousins in American or European kinship systems--some being expressly forbidden as sexual partners, others considered ideal marital mates. A different type of cultural consideration is evident in Balinese tradition, which held the birth of opposite-sex twins to low-caste parents to be evidence of incest, based on the belief that the neonates had the opportunity to engage in sexual activity while in the womb. Twins of opposite-sex born into the caste of the ruling class, however were enjoined to marry. Beliefs such as these caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a universal definition.

Nonetheless, a few general statements can be made: (1) incest is almost universally condemned and is usually viewed with horror; (2) rare, culturally sanctioned abrogations of the incest taboo are known, one of the foremost being the mandatory marital union of royal siblins; (3) as the immediacy of the biological relationship decreases, sanctions against sexual intimacy may be relaxed or dissapear.

In anthropology, most research on incest consists of analysis and interpretation of the structure, function, and, to a lesser degree, origin of incest taboos. For sociobiologically oriented anthropologists, the question of incest, and the related questions of exogamous and endogamous marriage, are primarily a matter of genetics. Highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders.

In functional terms, some scholars view the incest taboo as preserving the nuclear family from the disharmony engendered by sexual jealousy, and this argument is extended in it's application to explain rules of exogamy. Evolutionary theorists argue that the prohibition on incest within a group and the corresponding rules of exogamy require males to seek sexual and marital partners outside the group, thereby establishing functional alliances with the men of other groups with whom they exchanged women.

Another theory, emphasizing socialization, argues that the taboo is an important method of regulating the erotic impulse in children, preparing them to function with mature restraint in adult society. The psychoanalytic explanation of Sigmund Freud speculated that the horror of incest derived from the combination of ambivalent emotions toward ones immediate family and repressed forbidden desires to commit sexual acts with family members of the opposite sex.

Contemporary scholars, in their attempts to account for either the origin or the perpetration of the incest taboo, have been careful to avoid monistic explanations, whether genetic, historical, or social. The question has also been raised whether a unitary phenomenom of incest exists, suggesting that brother-sister, mother-son, and father-daughter sexual unions might be better understood as theoretically distinct.

Defining the term

    1. Incest is sexual activity between close family members (this article)
    2. Sexual relations between persons who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying (latest Britannica)
    3. "All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. The World Book Encyclopedia (2005)
    4. INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection (Encyclopedia American 2005)
    5. in·cest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nsst) Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative. Middle English, from Latin incestum, from neuter of incestus, impure, unchaste  : in-, not; see in-1 + castus, pure, chaste; see kes- in Indo-European Roots. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    6. Main Entry: in·cest Pronunciation: 'in-"sest Function: noun Etymology: Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- not + castus pure: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the crime of engaging in such sexual intercourse Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I think one thing that's worth noting in definitions of the term is that it has distinct meanings in at least three separate fields - there is the legal definition of incest, which is a crime which is defined in varying ways in varying jurisdictions, but generally involves illegalizing sexual intercourse or marriage between close family members; there is the anthropological definition of incest, which is interested in incest taboos in different cultures, and on what a given culture defines as an incestuous union (for instance, in some cultures, some types of first cousin unions are considered incestuous, while other types are preferred types of marriage), and so forth; and finally, a psychological definition, which is generally concerned with incest as a source of trauma, and particularly with incest as child abuse. We should be careful about distinguishing these. We do a decent job already, I think, with the legal issues. But the current "types of incest" section mixes up psychological definitions with anthropological ones, and that seems like a bad idea. I think we should have first a section about incest as discussed by anthropologists, which can discuss things like the ways different cultures define incest, cultures where incestuous unions were explicitly encouraged (like among ancient Egyptian royalty, for instance), and so forth. Psychological issues relating to incest ought to be kept separate from this, and the issue of incest as abuse, and so forth, can be discussed there. john k 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


I see at least 10 separate disciplines/areas where incest seems to be a topic:
    1. History (see Foucault's The History of Sexuality and others)
    2. Sociology (exogamy vs endogamy etc)
    3. Anthropoly (cultural and traditional bases for the incest taboo or it's opposites)
    4. Biology (genetics, inbreeding/outbreeding, and evolution)
    5. Psychology (classifications, cause and effects and interpersonal dynamics of incest)
    6. Sexology (studies of sexual crimes/addictions/disorders)
    7. Law and Politics (see Bell's Interrogating Incest and others)
    8. Art and literature (See Marquise De Sade's Incest Or Anais Nin's House of Incest)
    9. Philosophy (Scruton's 'Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic and others)
    10. Religion and Morality (See Carmichael's Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18-20 and others)

Each of these areas overlaps as this is a complex topic. We do indeed need to make distinctions between them but we also need to show the relationships between them. However, first, we need a one-sentence definition of incest for the whole article within which to scope the content. Anacapa 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In terms of your fields, I'd suggest that sociological and anthropological definitions of incest are pretty much the same, and that psychological and sexological definitions are also essentially the same. I'd add that I don't think incest really is a topic in biology. Animals may inbreed, but they don't commit incest, because incest is a human phenomenon, and exists in the context of human society, not simply the biological process of reproduction. The appearance of incest in history, art and literature, and philosophy is essentially secondary. There is no specific historical definition of incest. The depiction of incest in history is a topic that ought to be discussed, as also it's depiction in art and literature, and discussion of it in philosophy, but none of these fields provides its own distinct definition. The religious/moral definition of adultery is, I think, closely related to the anthropological/sociological one, or, at least, any discussion of it in wikipedia would have to be. There are numerous religions in the world, and their views on incest ought to be discussed in the context of the overall societies they arise from. There is no possible way to have an NPOV discussion of the morality of incest.

I'd have to see the specific definitions from each discipline you are alluding to above to make a judgment on your assessment about what is the same/different..vi a vi sociology and anthropology. I know that psychology is coming at this from research on functional versus dysfunctional family systems/and the related interpersonal/intergenerational boundary violations but I am not sure how sex researchers see/define incest. These are interesting questions that I would like to see answered because they are quite relevant to some kind of univeral definition in the future. Your points about biology, art, history and literature seem sound to me. However, I believe philosophy, law and religion matter here as one can find some of the human rights/responsibility arguments there that show what is forbidden/illegal and why...thus this might influence how incest is defined as well. I differ with you on a NPOV discussion on the morality of incest. I believe we could show all 'moralities' here as long as they are sourced with complete, balanced NPOV as is done in the Religion arguments but I imagine that would make our little tempest in a teapot fade into insignificance so I have no need to go there now. Anacapa 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As to a brief definition, Incest is sexual relations or marriage between close family members, surely? It's traditionally been defined as only heterosexual relations, but I think it would be fair to add that in recent times, at least, its use has been expanded to cover sexual relations between close family members of the same sex. "Covert incest," whether or not it is accepted as a valid concept, definitely falls outside the normal definition of incest, although such relations may be appropriately described as "incestuous" (meanning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com). The word "incest" itself does not apparently contain a figurative meaning like its adjectival version, though. john k 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

John, let's set aside Covert incest for a minute and just attempt to consense on a single standard definition of the term incest which clearly has no normal definition, as of today, based on the wide differences in the professionals' definitions above. Britannica probably says it best "Beliefs such as these caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a universal definition". However Britannica, although probably the most NPOV and professional of the existing encyclopedias, is obviously way behind the explosion of recent research from the psychological/sex research/social worker disciplines. It is clear from a glance at the literature (see table below) that the psychiatric/psychology/sexology field dominates the recent research on incest and that anthropology/sociology is barely addressing it today. However since there is no single standard definition of the term, let's take your definition as a beginning and build from there.
I concur with you that the definition needs to be expanded beyond the traditional heterosexual limits to include same-sex (eg father-son, Mother-daughter, etc) incest as the psychological literature has busted many old myths about incest being just a father-daughter phenemomem.

However, do 'sexual relations' include father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio or mother-daughter molestation in your definition of incest? How do we handle the forbidden by custom and/or tradition and illegal by law aspects of the definition seen in the various professional definitions above?

As to 'incest' versus 'incestuous', I use the following distinctions I used in the article to prevent confusion. Forbidden sexual relations between relatives qualify as 'incest'...as in father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister or sister-brother. Forbidden relations committed against dependents by non-relatives in responsible roles qualify as 'incestuous' (as they are being "improperly (and usually illegally too!) intimate and interconnected"...as in stepparent-stepchild, Father (priest)-child parishioner, Sister(nun)-child-parishioner, psychiatrist/psychologist-patient, doctor-patient, teacher-student sexual relations to name a few. Since these types of forbidden/illegal violations are directly related to 'incest', since incestuous perps use the same methods as incest perps, and since these incestuous violations often cause consequences identical to incest consequences, I see no need to create a separate article called 'incestuous' to show 'incestuous' sexual relations as some kind of separate phenomenom. In my opinion, 'garden variety' child sexual abuse (where there is no responsible/dependent relationship) belongs in other articles because it is more akin to regular rape than incestous rape. I placed incestuous acts in this article because incestuous is a direct use of the root word 'incest'. On what specific basis do you have problems with the use of the word 'incestuous' in the artice? Is 'incestuous' unclear here, is 'incestuous' a touchy POV issue or is this something else altogether?
I think one thing we should be clear on here is that incest is not always sexual abuse. The sibling marriages of Egyptian pharaohs, or Byron's incestuous relationship with his half-sister (whom he didn't grow up with and only really got to know as an adult), don't really qualify as abuse at all, so I'm not sure how they can be compared to a priest sexually abusing a child in their care. The latter doesn't really seem to be "incest" to me, and to refer to it as "incestuous" strikes me as highly misleading (why exactly?) - much more so than referring to "covert incest" as "incestuous." The latter usage is clearly entirely appropriate (covert incest can be 'incest' (blood relations) or incestuous (non-blood relations) so I use incest for covert incest here following the research) When a son has a relationship with his mother that is considered closer than normal, it can be described as "incestuous" (Covert incest IS instead being described by the psych/sex research professions as 'incest' so on what basis would we change their classifications?) without necessarily involving any sexual acts. But I'm not sure that one would describe, say, a teacher sexually molesting a student as "incestuous", even if the activity is rather close to the way an uncle might sexually molest a nephew or niece, which would be incest. But what makes the latter activity incestuous (incest?) (in the literal sense of the term) is not that it involves sexual abuse of the minor, or the same kind of betrayal of trust. The latter activity is incest simply because the two people involved are related. (and because IMHO the activity is taboo, forbidden and/or illegal too) I do think that stepparent/stepchild would count, (Let's check the law/literature here) because step-parents are traditionally seen as parents of their stepchildren. In terms of "forbidden by custom/tradition" and "illegal by law," I'd suggest that father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, grandparent/grandchild sexual relations are going to count as incest whether or not they are forbidden in a specific tradition or illegal(In the literature they seem to all be taboo, forbidden and illegal so I concur here) Obviously Egyptian sibling marriage among royalty was not forbidden by custom or illegal, but it's hard to say that it's not incest (I suggest it might be mere inbreeding marriage instead of taboo incest) For more distant degrees of relation, the role of custom and law is much more important. In some traditions first cousin marriage is considered (actual incest?) incestuous, in others it's encouraged and normal. In the medieval Catholic church, marriage with anyone who is a seventh cousin or nearer was technically forbidden by canon law. But dispensations were readily available, and marriages among as close relations as uncle/niece occurred with a fair degree of regularity among the upper classes (How were these marriages seen by other Catholics?) So consanguinity laws don't necessarily make for incest. And also I think there's a certain essential quality to the most basic kinds of incest - parent/child and brother/sister - in that they are so nearly universally taboo that even in those tiny number of societies (where? please show me sources so I can take a look at these exceptions) where they are accepted, the term incest is still normally used. I think that the basicc definition remains "sexual relations or marriage between close family members." The definition of "sexual relations" and "close family members" can be flexible, and what the latter means can be defined differently depending on the traditional and legal customs of different societies. john k 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I can concur that incest may not always be sexual abuse expecially when it happens in consensual relationships between adults who are knowledgeable about its possible consequences and where it is legal and welcomed by the culture. I also concur on the definition you have proposed as a beginning. Putting 'incestuous' aside for a minute, I am fine with "sexual relations relations between close family members" for the first part of the definition as long as the definition of "sexual relations" includes all sexual relations forbidden by law, custom or culture (in the stated societies). "Marriage" seems like a moot point because where marriage is forbidden there would be NO marriage (except with special historical exceptions against the taboo) and where marriage between relatives is considered fine there would be NO incest so I would vote for taking "marriage" out of the definition and covering these special cases in the article as Britannica does. However, I still believe we must state that incest means "forbidden" sexual relations between close family members and state the common bases for these taboos...as it is clear from all the definitions above that the forbidden or taboo nature of the phemomenom is what makes it incest rather than merely the sexual relations themselves. I see something like "Sexual relations between people (family members might include stepparents etc so we have to be careful here) who are so closely related that the sexual acts between them are illegal, forbidden by custom, or considered culturally taboo." Is this definition something you (and other editors) could live with? If not, how do we address the (taboo, forbidden, illegal by law, custom, or culture) issues that the other definitions deal with and also stay within the historical roots of the term as 'impure' or 'unchaste'? Anacapa 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As to your concerns above about "incestuous sexual abuse (and sex crimes I might add)". I made no such claims in any sections that all incest is always sexual abuse. Clearly there is a section on incest between adults that these RARE cases (sibling marriages of Egyptian pharaohs, or Byron's incestuous relationship with his half-sister (whom he didn't grow up with and only really got to know as an adult)), could be included in with no loss to the article and no inconsistency between sections. I am quite able to make the distinction between consensual (and also it seems criminal incest) and the kinds of criminal incest/incestuous acts committed against kids...if two ADULT sisters get off on sex with each other far be it from me call that consensual choice abuse even if the law calls it a crime. (However, I do try to judge for myself how much fun they had and I have never seen a case that I would want to follow myself.) Thus there was no intent in my content to compare these RARE cases of historical incest with with the far more widespread, well-known and recent incestous priest or other contemporary incestuous sex crimes AT ALL. If Byron's sexual relations with his half-sister were forbidden or taboo at that time by law, custom or culture they would be considered actual incest, IMHO, as they were HALF-related. As for 'incestuous', I am trying to make sure there is NO confusion between 'incest' and 'incestuous' by using incest for sex between BLOOD relations and using 'incestuous' for incestuous acts between Fathers (priests) and other adults/professionals who exercise parental type roles but WHO HAVE NO BLOOD bonds or legal relations with their dependents. (The lawyers could help us on stepparents I suspect) I am aiming all content I add about 'incestuous' sexual relations at your definition (meaning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com,) which says nothing about relatives. I am using incest to define all forbidden, taboo and/or illegal sexual relations between BLOOD relatives...so that all we have to know about Byron's half-sister sex and the paroah's sibling marriages is whether they were taboo/forbidden/illegal or not to decide whether they were incest or not...and so we do not confuse related 'incest' with 'incestuous' sexual crimes or abuse between NON-Related people. Can you concur with these usages of 'incest' vs 'incestous' or do you have other usages that make more sense, or tighter distinctions and that are based on firm sourced foundations rather than our personal opinions?Anacapa 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding questions/comments to your last paragraph above as there are so many issues in it. I intend these as clarifications/comments/questions recognising that this is a terribly complex topic. I also want to make distinctions between your (and my personal) opinions about this topics versus how they are handled by the literature/law or other researchers so that we keep going back to professional sources to decide key issues. Please address any of these issues that you feel are unaddressed by my last discussions. I want to try to come to some sort of consensus on the definition of 'incest' and the usages of 'incest' vs 'incestous' so we can scope the whole article's content with a single standard that is professional, balanced, complete and NPOV rather than with our personal opinions. We seem to be getting a little closer to some common language. Let's keep trying.Anacapa 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The sociological and anthropological definitions above are in substance identical. That (sociological/anthropological) definition begs the question as to what constituted "sexual" (in some societies, for example, fellatio does not) and what constitutes family (in some societies, a father's sister is not). I agree that the discussion of this body of literature should be distinguished from research within a particular culture, whether by psychologists, medical doctors, or lawyers, and add that it doesn't surprise me that each group would have its own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that some societies do not consider fellatio to be 'sexual'? Could you provide some sources for how those societies handle the term 'sexual' so I/we can see what you mean here? As for 'family', I suggest we replace 'family' in the definition with 'people' as shown below to eliminate this possible source of confusion. Science, and medicine, and often law are somewhat culture independent so I am confused about what you mean by 'distinguished from research within a particular culture'. Could you be specific about how you see how we should handle what, how, here? Anacapa 03:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Below is the most recent proposal for a definition of incest based on editor JohnK's and my discussions above. Is it sufficiently specific yet universal enough to include all known forms of incest in the world? If there are cases of incest that fall outside this definition how do we modify the definition to include them?

"Sexual relations between people who are so closely related that the sexual acts between them are illegal, forbidden by custom, and/or considered culturally taboo"

I imagine we can show all the key distinctions and differences between societies in the article but IMO we need a complete definition to 'begin' the article with. Is this definition complete, balanced and NPOV enough for all editors to use? Anacapa 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey of the literature on incest

I did a quick count of the first 250 titles on Amazon that came up on "incest" search. There were a few repetitions and I did a quick classification so this survey is in no way perfect. However, it did show that the vast preponderance of literature on this subject is from the counseling professions and the survivors themselves. This suggests that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, sex researchers and the survivors themselves are most responsible for the recent explosion of titles on this taboo topic. The titles themselves also suggest that these authors might (by facing the incest horror head on) have many things to say about incest that other disciplines are unable or unwilling to say. I was surprised to see so few titles from anthropology or sociology and there were no titles by biologists. However, incest does seem to be a fascinating topic in literature, religion, history and law. Here is the breakdown of the first 250 titles which Amazon seems to rank by sales:

    1. 90 titles or 36%---Psychology/Sex Research/Counseling
    2. 53 titles or 21%---Survivors or Survivors's Relatives' Stories
    3. 35 titles or 14%---Literature
    4. 17 titles or 7%---Religion
    5. 10 titles or 4%---Law
    6. _8 titles or 3%---History
    7. _6 titles or 2%---General
    8. _5 titles or 2%---Antrophology
    9. _4 titles or 2%---Politics
    10. _1 title or .4%---Sociology
    11. 15 titles or 6%---Others

Anacapa 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Scientologist? --mboverload 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Not no but HELL NO! Anacapa 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incestuous sexual relations by non-related adults in responsible roles

This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. Sexual predation by priests, nuns, rabbis 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.[citation needed] As a host of media stories on the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, show, the consequences to children are similar to those associated with parent-child incest (see Effects of Incest below.)

In the interest of maintaining the peace, I am going to hold back on replacing this section into the article until we have some consensus on the article's definition and other scope issues. To those editors that pulled this because it 'isn't incest' I ask that they use a single standard for this whole article as applying this standard to the whole article would mean that much other content associated with but far more clearly NOT actually incest would be deleted too. I will go pull in the sources and discuss this before putting in back but I insist on a reasonable discussion before future reverts so these reverts are not done on a PERSONAL POV basis. I am quite aware of the politically loaded nature of this ugly, well-known, and taboo topic so I question wholesale deletions on the basis that this is somehow unrelated to incestuous conduct...expecially when there is so much other content here that seems to be even much less related to incest itself. I insist that those editors who have a problem with this section at least be decent enough to discuss their concerns in a fair-minded, balanced NPOV way. I also insist that consensus standards be used that apply to the whole article rather than a few so-called 'problem' POV sections. I am willing to toss whole sections on the basis of some reasonable criteria but hate being bullied because some editors MIGHT have a personal problem with some content that hits a little to close to home, here and now. Anacapa 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychological POV about incest

Many editors seem to have personal opinions about how psychologists approach incest and especially as to how psychologists relate incest to family roles. I am no psychologist but I have read hundreds of psychological tracts on the topic. From what I have seen, just as biologists come at incest from inbreeding or evolution, many research psychologists come at it from family systems theory, trauma theory, interpersonal choice theory, and various theories about sexual relations. It is important to distinguish these approaches from those of gender-politics, philosophy (or morality), anthropology, sociology, law, religion or whatever. When I glance at the almost absurd attempts by all the various disciplines to define, classify and establish cause and effect theories on rape it is clear to me that incest research faces even more quandaries as it is much more socially taboo than even rape. Like rape research the cutting edge in incest research seems to be classifying all the heretofore hidden forms of incest such as father-son, mother-son, and mother daughter and covert incest. There have been many books on the traumas incest cause with a few that begin to systematically describe the systems/context within which incest occurs. Those researchers I have read who focus on the systemic aspects of incest usually pull in research on family systems that show distinctions between functional and disfunctional families as the basis for defining what is incest/incestous and what it is not, as basis for showing the effects of incest and as a foundation for suggesting the root causes of incest. Salvador Minuchin is one example of a family systems theorist that some incest authors use to make their cases with. As Pat Love states in Emotional Incest Syndrome "One of his key observations is that in healthy families there is a clear separation between adults and children. ....the adults and children are kept apart by an invisible boundary (in overt incest they would be kept apart by a VISIBLE boundary too, I imagine). This boundary can be likened to a one-way valve. It allows the adults to meet the needs of the children, but prevents the children from meeting the needs of the adults." The distinction between those family systems that seem to establish respectful, loving, and supportive boundaries and those that seem to induce boundary violations, enmeshments and incest is key to understanding the family systems approach to incest. I hope this clarifies some of the concerns some editors had with the 'family role' POV I came from when I added the Types content. Anacapa 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Types section cleanup

I added sources to the Covert Incest subsection and attempted to address a number of concerns about who classified this as covert incest (and when) with specifics. I also added some social-cultural context so that it makes more sense to those unfamiliar with covert incest and so flows well with what happens in Overt incest. I also moved effects content down where it belongs in the Effects section. Finally I added statements on the law so that covert incest is shown as a new and different form of incest that has not yet become illegal as the law has yet to weigh in here.

In Overt incest, I moved Effects content down to effects and moved Definitional type content up from effects. I also made a number of other minor changes and cleanup for flow or clarification.

All these cleanups were to address previous editors concerns and to surface remaining areas of dispute or POV. There were NOT intended to make a statement about the continuing issues some editors have about the Covert incest definition/section ITSELF. That is an ongoing issue that still has to be resolved. Please refrain from major reverts of this content until we have some consenses on the definition of 'incest', the usage of 'incestuous' and the term 'covert incest'. I welcome comments/suggestions on all these changes however. Anacapa 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Adams/incestuous debate

I'm suprised at the amount of discussion over use of the word incestuous. Wouldn't it be simpler to avoid this word with regards to those relationships that are clearly not defined as incest?

I am simply struggling for clarity here. I am familiar with 'incestuous' activities in business, political and military settings the involve no sexual connotations. I am trying to separate incest (as defined by law, custom or culture) from all OTHER kinds of 'incestuous' activities related to but not actually defined as incest. To me, incest is incest rather than 'incestous' and 'incestuous' is incestuous rather than incest. Given how many types of incest or incestuous acts there are to describe I see these distinctions as essential to prevent enormous confusion about what is defined as what. That is why I am discussing this, observing other POVs about this usage and attempting to find some consensus. To me this 'incestous' definition/usage discussion has much more to do with Incestuous sexual abuse by people in other Responsible Roles than it does with a debate over how the professional decided to define covert incest.Anacapa 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ken Adams uses the word incestuous to mean "like incest". He is implying similarities between RC child abuse and parent-child incest; therefore the context is clear (and unacceptable). On the other hand, if Ken Adams means incestuous as in "improperly intimate or interconnected" then it is a simple matter to use alternative adjectives and avoid the controversy completely.

I am holding a copy of Adams' Silently Seduced in my hand right now. As far as I can see Adams does not use 'incestuous' at all. He uses 'incest' to define both overt and covert incest. He is defining a NEW TYPE of incest which he, Pat Love and other professionals call covert, or emotional or psychological incest. To me incestuous is either overt or covert conduct that would be (overt or covert) incest between relatives but that involve no relatives and therefore cannot be directly defined as actual incest. Does this clear things up at all?

If you refer to the edits I made at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases I believe you will find they are not the end of the world. The link to similar situations (this article) can be pointed out without causing such controversy.

Look, this is far from the end of the world to me. I am not Catholic, I have no special emnity toward Catholics and my people do far worse things than the Catholics were caught doing. I used the Catholic sex cases because this scandal is so well-known is all. I wish I could use my people and other groups here, as well, but they have been more successful than the Catholics were about silencing these criminal controversies. I will point out though that the perpetrators of these crimes and those authorities (cardinals and bishops etc) who cover up such crimes are the people who commit the crimes and indeed cause the controversies. To accuse me of 'causing such a controversy' when all I did is point to what is well known as a HUGE and ONGOING controversy in the press seems false to me.
If we are unable to use such widespread examples here, what example(s) CAN we use to show this type of incestuous conduct in human scale? I know a father who was Catholic and who had a son raped by a priest, who successfully fights this kind of silencing every day in the press. When we silence such terrible crimes to make a few criminals comfortable we do terrible damage to the victims of these crimes. However, thanks for stating your POV here. I will be glad to work with you to make sure this is fair to all groups. However, IMHO encyclopedias need to show all such controversies well so I ask that you put aside what seems (from these comments only) to be a personal POV need to censor this controversy...in the interest of complete, balanced NPOV content here. Can you do that? Anacapa 02:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be understood that definitions both generalize and limit their usage. If incest were absurdly defined as "improper relations between relatives who have blue eyes" then as a consequence relatives who did not have blue eyes would be excluded. It would not matter that the definition were useless or absurd; only that it be properly interpreted for use in Wikipedia. Pendragon39 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I, for one, understand this. It is quite clear from a glance at the dictionary/encyclopedia attempts at a definition and Brittanica's comments is that incest is a particularly difficult topic to define clearly. However, IMHO no single editor gets to define what is HIS or HER so-called 'proper' or what is an opposite so-called 'absurd' definition. When in doubt, I ask that we go to the professional sources and state their definitions along with any professional challenges to those definitions. This is not an topic where personal opinions can be allowed to rule because it is so loaded, taboo and politically incorrect to even discuss in public. Your points above explain exactly why I want to attain some sort of complete, balanced and NPOV consenses on definitions and usages of 'incest' and 'incestuous' in this article. I want to prevent endless edit wars over terminology, have a basis from which to scope the article well and by all means give WIKIPEDIA readers a more professional take on it than some other very sloppy encyclopedias do. I do respect Brittannica but it is clear that even Brittanica is way behind the times on this TABOO topic. What is indeed, absurd to me is a comparision of the other encyclopedias' articles. I hope we can do better here. Anacapa 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Anacapa, I think it will be simpler for me to just go ahead and edit what I believe is wrong, when the missing section is returned. Pendragon39 00:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. All I ask is that you be specific about what you believe is wrong versus what you see as a 'cause of controversy'. I can handle the 'wrong' stuff but the POV stuff needs to be stated as POV stuff please so we keep things straight here.Anacapa 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide news articles on incest from Proquest database

I don't think it's lawful to quote such large sections of articles word for word.--Anchoress 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I wondered about that too. However since this is a discussion page and since some of these articles from Southeast Asia would probably be hard for other editors to access I added the full content. There is no intention here to use this content verbatim in the article itself. I do plan to add some of the titles to the reference section though with full attribution. If there is a WIKI policy against such use of mass media articles in the discussion pages please point me to it. I will be glad to delete anything that is actually illegal once I know it is indeed illegal. Anacapa 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but from what I understand of copyright law, it's not so much whether or not it's wiki policy, it's just the law. I don't think it makes a difference whether it's on an article or talk page, it's an unauthorised publication. But I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I understand of the law.--Anchoress 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I know it is wiki policy to abide by copyright law on the content pages. I have no idea what the law has to say about using these articles for discussions this way. If it is illegal and therefore out of WIKI policy to use these articles for discussions here, I'd ask editors who know more than we do to weigh in here. Anacapa 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyvios are not acceptable anywhere. The original article can be found here.Geni 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Geni. I was pretty sure I knew the law but I didn't want to step on another editor's feet.--Anchoress 06:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both editors above for this lesson. Thanks to Geni for linking one of the original articles. I will go see whether it is possible to link the others to as they seem to create a NPOV context for discussion of this taboo and quite loaded topic.Anacapa 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Semantic guidelines

Definitions of "incestuous" from Dictionary.com [[1]]Anacapa 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "incestuous" from Merriam-Webster [[2]] Pendragon39 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Pentdragon39's guidelines:

1. Avoid describing non-incest relationships as incestuous. Describe them as similar and provide a link to the related article, if there is one.

2. Avoid definiton 3 from Dictionary.com that defines "improperly intimate or inter-connected" as incestuous. Adultery would be incestuous (according to definition 3), but not according to definitions 1 and 2. As this is an article based upon what is/is not defined as incest, the use of 'incestuous' in the context of definition 3 only serves to confuse the issue.

3. If Covert Parental Incest is an accepted term, then:

- it is a form of incest, so incestuous can be used to describe it.

- it implies that Incest is either (Overt) Incest; or an inclusive term containing all specified forms of incest.

I will edit out inappropriate usage as best I can. Wikipedians can then decide if those edits should be kept. Pendragon39 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Are these imposed semantic guidelines or proposed guidelines? If they are proposed, I suggest the following counterproposals:
    1. Keep both incest and incestuous conduct in one article (this one) as is being done with the the content in Incest as a metaphor. To create a separate article on incestuous conduct seems repetitive, redundant and ridiculous to me after a glance at the definitions of "incestuous" above. Move content closely related to incest or content on what is called 'incestuous' but that is not defined as actual incest down to that section and describe it there as 'incestuous'.
    2. Define Covert incest as 'incest' unless the professional sources define it otherwise.
    3. Describe what is defined as incest as "incest". Refrain, as much as possible, from using 'incestuous' in this article to describe what is indeed incest... to prevent confusion between the usages of 'incest' versus 'incestuous'.
    4. Use "incestuous" in this article to describe things 'suggestive of incest', or 'relating to incest as by excessive intimacy' such as Father (priest) sexual abuse of young parishioners etc.
    5. Also use "incestuous" in this article to describe relations that are 'improperly intimate or interconnected' as in Pentagon/CIA relations and make the proper distinctions between sexual and non-sexual forms of incestuous 'intimacies'.
    6. Be very careful to make distinctions between actual incest and incestuous conduct when faced with cases such as stepparent-stepchild sexual relations. Check with the lawyers as we did with sex between cousins to see what actually constitutes incest in the law before calling this incest.
    7. Be very careful not to call cousin-cousin intermarriage/inbreeding incest or incestuous unless it is considered illegal/forbidden or taboo by the culture. The Bedoin have a 65% rate of cousin-cousin inbreeding that seems to be fine to them except for the genetic disorders it causes. This would be inbreeding but not incest to me.
I will wait before making counteredits until I see where you and other editors are on this. I ask that you come to some sort of consensus before deciding what is 'appropriate' for us all. Anacapa 04:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As stated earlier, I believe it will be simpler to just make the edits if and when the 'non-relatives' section is returned. The semantic guidelines I wrote are the ones I intend to follow.
Meanwhile, I'm making edits with regard to legibility and style. Hope they will be acceptable to all concerned... Pendragon39 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not as bad as they say

You will read a lot about incest causing severe emotional trauma in boys when they grow up. I for one haven't experienced this. I come from a somewhat broken home where my father wasn't home half the time. My mother and I started having a relationship when I was about 16. To this day it is the best sex I have ever had in my life. We used to lie in the bathtub for hours and make love to each other. This was about 15 years ago and I have no emotional problems at all nor do I hate my mom. We still fool around every once in a while but not as much as we used to. I'm just glad I had the courage to go through with it and take a chance for two reasons. 1) I would still be thinking about what could have been to this day and 2) my mom is unbelievable in the bedroom. Mothers have unbelievable passion for their sons and it comes out in a big way during sex.

That's hot --mboverload 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
To all those editors who come from a POV similar to the boy/man above...I welcome all points of view here. Could such a 'positive' or 'hot' POV (about mother-son) incest be sourced in the professional literature somewhere so we can show this POV in this article on the basis of facts. If incest indeed does create 'happy-ever-after' situations (on a long term basis) we need to show this here too. Anacapa 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a book a couple of years ago by a woman who had a long-term consentual relationship with her father. I'm too lazy to look it up, but it might make a good addition here. It's not exactly "professional literature", but at least it's verifiable. :-) What we really need is for Peter Singer to start looking into this....

Questions and comment

Questions: 1. At what point is it appropriate to archive a talk page? 2. Parent-child friendship as Covert incest? 3. What is your source material for the claim that incest is legal in france (under the heading consentual adult incest)? Covert incest violates the child with demands to be a spouse, a covert lover, a parent, an intimate confidant and/or a friend, or to fulfill other roles that are obligations of the parent or the parent's spouse. Please clarify why friendship is included.

Comment: I'm not happy with the format of Wiki's talk pages. I don't like having to scour an entire talk page to locate a reply to a previous posting :( Pendragon39 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incest as a topic in fiction

I propose this part be merged with the Fiction section. There is also some duplication when mentioning examples of Japanese anime/hentai. Pendragon39 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely should be. Repetitious, and doesn't belong under laws/mores anyway. Goldfritha 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, did some rearranging and merging. All references to fiction now in the same sub-section. I thought there were sufficient anime references so I removed a few: Oldboy(Korean), Marmalade Boy, Super Taboo / Super Taboo Extreme Pendragon39 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed sub-section

Effects of similar forms of child abuse

There is a scientific consensus that abuse from adults in parental roles carry the same psychological consequences as abuse from blood relatives. This includes abuse from step-parents and foster parents as well as from persons in positions of authority or long-term care. See 'Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals' Pendragon39 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Persia/Zoroastrianism?

Anyone know anything about incest in ancient Persia or as part of Zoroastrianism? I've read scattered references in a few places to incest as a sacred rite under some forms of Zoroastrianism, but have had no luck tracking down reliable information on the subject. One website refers to it as "hvaźtvōdatha", but it's the only site to do so, so I have no idea whether this is at all accurate. (I have vague recollections of another impossible-to-spell word's being used in one of the other sources I've read, possibly one which started with "xv", but have been unable to find any trace of it online.) Anyway, if this is true, it would make an interesting addition to the history section.

Jolie

Angelina and her brother passionatly kissed. Did they commit further incest? Did anyone say? Or is that a mystery.

A random question

Ok, so this article talks about incest and how damaging it is and how it can be seen as abuse. But what if, like in the Virginia Andrews book Flowers in the Attic, and the sequels, a brother and sister or something just fall in love and have a loving relationship. And stay that way? And what if they arent emotionally damaged? Because the characters in that book were messed up, granted, but they didnt seem as messed up as a direct result of their incest thing. (and they had children and they were perfect. But that's because it's Virginia Andrews). Is it possible to have an incestuous relationship and not be totally screwed up? I mean you must have something not right to want to do that in the first place but...oh im not making any sense. I need to stop reading Virginia Andrews books.