Talk:Incest/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 6 >>

Contents

Kelly's Diary

I am not so certain this is an appropriate external link. Although it may very well be documenting actual cases of "positive" incest, the writing style is very sensationalized and erotic. Moreover, there is more than just incest documented. It openly advocates promiscuity, zoophilia, sex with minors, and possibly other paraphilias that I may have missed in a cursory overview of the site. I certainly don't intend to be the morality police here, I am speaking more to the link's relevance to the scope of this article, as well as the ability to verify whether or not the true stories are, indeed, true.

I figured it would be more polite to voice my concern here than to delete the link outright. --cogpsy 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an erotica site, and inappropriate. --Orange Mike 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just as I had suspected, thanks. --cogpsy 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Vachss Quote

Can anybody give me a citation to the Andrew Vachss quote about incest laws give privileged treatment to child rapists who grow their own victim? I would like to see what he has to say on this more specifically. --Cardigan 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source I pulled it in from [1]. It is linked to this article as well. Anacapa 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's sick

It's sick and the article should clearly state that, saying "incest is a sick act" somewhere in the first paragraph. This isn't opinion it's fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.168.185 (talk)

  • Can you cite that fact? If you can't and you made it up, then it's opinion. Psychade 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, since its very often rape, yeah, lets go with sick. If it makes you feel better we could phrase it as "abnormal".
      • "Very often" doesn't mean "all of the time." And you would also have to find out statistics which say that most of the time incest is rape, not consentual. But, the term "sick" is an opinionated adjective. It has no factual basis. This phrase - "incest is a sick act" should be left out. REscano 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The term "It's sick" is completely POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I personally DO think it's disgusting, but the article does not need to have bias in it. Wildthing61476 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's only as sick as you want it to be. : ) ChaosAkita 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Some people find it the complete opposite of sick. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, if we reverse the birth process arent' all human beings the product of incest? Despite what one believes (creation or evolution), at some point someone had to be screwing 1) their family members to make a the large populations in teh first place and 2) bestiality if you have interspecies sex.

The incest avoidance between siblings probably only occurs in large populations, it doesn't make any sense that incest is wrong or disgusting since all human beings are the result of incest at some level.

Birth abnormalities are caused by this. It's just that the possibility of having birth abnormalities is extremely reduced in a large population, as everyone is a distant relative; only it isn't zero, so that's why abnormalities occur.--Orthologist 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Different people define incest differently. Muslims find that marrying first cousins as not an illegal thing but getting married to half-siblings, step-siblings and step-parents (other than our full-blood related family members). I'm not sure about how this would relate to Christians and Jews. After years of marriage, Adam and Eve's children grew up to be adults. Surely, there were not many humans around at that time - so they had no choice but to marry one another.

[My discusion starts here]It isn't sick at all if both sides are in love with each other. I have no siblings and would never do anything like this, but I have no problem with thoes who do. MJN SEIFER

i can see how in cases of rape you wold call it sick when in most states it isn't even illegal .... i mean yes the idea may be frowned upon you can say that but i dont think it is objective to call it sick in all cases calling it sick should apply to cases of rape but not to consenting married adults

incest is a very beautiful and meaningful event in a child's life. It strengthens the familial bond, as I can personally attest, my sister and I have never been closer. -Louis Maisel 31 McAlister Dr. New Orleans, LA 70118 lmaisel@tulane.edu


      • ...Theres comes a point when bias is needed, your delusional if you think wikipedia was ever an encyclopedia. With all the lobbying and constant ,uninformed change its either a how-to manual or a piece of fan fiction, depending on the object of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2007 February 22

And incest is sick, no matter how you dress up the terms, nothing good comes of fucking your sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2007 February 22

Who are you to judge myself and my family's activities? -Louis Maisel 31 McAlister Dr. New Orleans, LA 70118 lmaisel@tulane.edu

you know you have lost an argument when you have to resort to the statement of unfounded theories as fact... saying incest is sick over and over again won't make you right Shaggy AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

non-contact Sexual activities

When the intro speaks of "sexual activity between close family members", does that include situations where two brothers or two sisters are masturbating at the same time in their shared bedroom but no sexual contact occurs. I can't recall ever seeing such a situation being referred as incestuous. I think if the siblings where brother and sister then that would be considered different. When the intro uses word "between" that seems to clearly imply contact or interaction beyond simply being in the same room. --Cab88 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to sexual activity, it can be defined as any intimate act involving sexual gratification. I'm sure one could argue that dirty talk could be a form of incest, if done for sexual gratification by at least one partner. Superwad 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Abuse-Box

I just wanted to post this on Template talk:Abuse, when I realized, that this page is properly watched by more people:

Does the link to Incest really belong in the Abuse-Box, and vice versa, does the box belong on this article? I really do not want to start a discussion on the topic in general, as the four (!) archived talk pages clearly indicate that it is a touchy subject. Neither do I want to make any statement on the morality, but my point is: Putting it in the box, directly under a heading and combined with Child sexual abuse none the less does exactly that. After taking only a short look at the sheer length of this article, one understands that it is a multi-layered subject, and putting it under the very clear headline of "Abuse" makes a statement, which I fear is far too bold for Wikipedia. I am not saying, Incest cannot be a part of abuse, or lead to abuse, but calling it abuse per se–and I feel Template:Abuse does just that—constitutes a gross oversimplification of a complex subject.

Therefore I suggest that the link to Incest be removed from Template:Abuse and the template from the article. I would welcome any thoughts on the idea. — Mütze 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could move it to By Offender and change the name of the link to Parental Incest. The majority of reported instances of incest are damaging and leave victims. Doesn't seem too bold to me to include it in this box. Pendragon39 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
reported cases do not make all cases. Wikipedia should be neutral, hence should not say Incest is abusive in all cases as it would imply.
so change it to Parental Incest and move it to By Offender. Pendragon39 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Overt vs covert

I think the article doesn't really explain covert vs overt incest very well. From a Google, it appears covert incest is e.g. when a parent relies on a child for emotional support that one would normally obtain from a partner. Whereas over incest I assume is sexual abuse? Someone with more understanding should improve it. How well accepted is the term covert incest? I've always thought of incest as involving sexual activity. Covert incest to me just doesn't sound like incest (I'm not saying it's not wrong, just that it doesn't fit my view of incest). Nil Einne 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of this article had more on Covert Incest. A lot of it was removed and I presume this was because the information could not be properly sourced. Pendragon39 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The covert incest stuff seems generally dubious for inclusion here. As I mentioned way back when whoever it was was all big on putting covert incest in this article, the most notable thing one can say about covert incest is that it encompasses acts which are not actually incestuous. The term "Covert incest" seems to be used enough to warrant an article, but it shouldn't warrant more than a very brief mention in this article. john k 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>Thee is a huge literature on parents seeking inappropriate emotional fulfilliment from children / debates within and around Freudian theory is full of it. I have never seen the term covert incest but if some people call it that, okay / however, I am sure that many people who do discuss this phenomenon do not call it covert incest. The point is simple / whatever the semantics, this is an entirely different topic from that of this article and discussion of it belongs in another article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It was User:Anacapa who added content regarding covert incest.Pendragon39 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The "covert incest" stuff should have never been allowed into the article in the first place. An encyclopedia article on such a topic as incest is not the place to advertise fringe theories from the areas of pop-psychology and the self-help community. Serpent-A 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Nor should it be included for personal reasons, as the archives will attest.Pendragon39 10:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I added this when I was pretty outraged about the topic and ran up against several editors who have no clue about covert sex acts...despite many movies about non-contact sex acts (such as phone sex or online sex) they seem to believe that sex has to always involve contact to be 'real' sex. To claim that the covert incest content is unsourced or irrelevant to this article is just plain POV. This was well sourced content in an article full of original research. I just found a new website on this topic [2] for people with NPOV minds. I believe covert incest should be included here with distinct distinctions between overt and covert so no one is confused about which is which and so that this ugly, well hidden, and all too common form of parent-child sexual predation sees the light here.

As for the so-called controveries about covert incest I suspect that is all original research added here by other editors who have their own strong opinions about the topic. I read a lot of psychological literature but I have yet to find professionals or others who have weighed in about covert incest from opposing POV's. Please fact check these so-called controversies so we can see who is asserting what about covert incest. Anacapa 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do and POV check

The article seems to be illiterate, poorly worded and ethnocentric.

Some time ago, I neutralised some of the language (removing the perp - victim speak from the 'parental' section under 'forms of incest'). Objectively, incest is a sexual interaction. A victimological model would have to be presented as a theory, not as the basis of the main text.

A felony criminal offense which is what parent child incest is deserves the use of perpetrator so I would ask that you check your POV here. Anacapa 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still a lot of work to do, in both clearup, neutrality and also representing a sociological take on the revulsion occasionally caused by incest, right through to the parent - child level.

It takes little effort to complain about an article. If you're willing to improve this article, then please do so. Regarding revulsion, do you believe the Westermarck effect is ethnocentric? Pendragon39 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I do. I believe that it's brought on by social conditioning. 68.184.85.78 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Anyone else think it might be helpful to link to the rotten.com article about this subject? They actually explain the motives very well.

Happens in every family on the planet

Husbands and wives commit incest all the time, yet no one is charged. The Wookieepedian 06:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Incest, from both a legal and biological standpoint, only occurs when the parties involved are blood-relations or within certain 'prohibited degrees of kinship'. Husbands and wives are typically not siblings or blood-related, biologically or by adoption. 207.216.10.130 10:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing his point, all human beings are related by common descent and ancestry, at some point we are ALL family and related. You can tell this just by looking at the shape of the human body it is fractal and the same throughout the entire human species.

For a better example of my own point, try the following: take a piece of paper and draw two circles (Mom and Dad). Color one blue and one green. Now draw another circle (This is you). Since every child recieves (roughly) half their genes from either parent, color this circle teal (blue-green). Now draw three more circles in the same way for your hypothetical 'wife' and her parents (Color her 'parental circle, oh...(abitrary choice) black and white, which would make your 'wife's circle grey) Now connect your wife's grey circle with your teal one, and draw a 'child' circle for them using the appropriate color.

Do you see what's happening? Each time you go further down through the 'generations' of this tree, your genetic connection becomes weaker and weaker, until it ceases to connect at all. Genetically, Shakespeare and I are about as related as a potato is to a mouse.

As for fractal shapes, fractals are a common mathematical occurance in almost everything (persisting, in some cases, to the molecular level), and are not reliable evidence of any kind of connection. 'Commonality of shape' is the result of evolutionary adaptation to a specific environment. For example: a tall, thin creature in a high-gravity environment likely wouldn't be able to support itself due to the center of gravity. Thusly, evolution would accomodate for this by producing stouter, stronger beings (quoted from http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-198794.html).

I will end my diatribe here. :P Sorry it's so long. 207.216.14.202 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there wasn't any single one first human.....

so your logic is flawed...
  • Our ancestors developed in around the nile delta, they expanded outward from there, there was a brief genetic bottleneck during the last ice age, when the human population is thought to have thinned to as few as fifty thousand. ...this is kind of basic stuff here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2007 February 22

Covert Incest

I have created a covert incest article. I do not know much about it, but I saw something written on this talk page and created it in case anyone who knows about it wants to expand upon it.

Great. Where is it? This seems to lead back to the main incest article. Anacapa 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chance of deformity

I have been looking throught the article yet this does not seem to be here. In a single generation of offspring bred through incest, by how much does the chance of deformity rise? This article did seem to be quite vague with this.

Krystel 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This article deals primarily with the sexual act of incest. The information you inquire about belongs more on the inbreeding article. Anyway, deformity, defined as "a major difference in the shape of the body or a body part compared to the average shape for the area in question", would happen very little in the case of children born of incest. The danger lies more with inhereting negative recessive genes, resulting in reduced fertility, lower birth weight, slower growth rate, ect... And even then it's very much dependant on the consanguinity of the people involved and for how many generations the inbreeding has been going on. The kind of deformity you're probably thinking of - extra limbs sprouting all over the place, ect - is mainly the province of cheesy horror films and has little connection to reality. Serpent-A 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see more on the science of genetic deformation. After all unless another abnormal behavior was involved (rape, sexual assault, etc.) this is the only consequence of incest. 1Shaggy1 AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adult incest

I believe fictional references in this section ought to be moved to Fiction. There is one instance of duplication that I can see, Song of Fire and Ice. Pendragon39 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve incest

Perhaps that is why humanity is so messed up? The Wookieepedian 07:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is theorised by some that in those days incest were not dangerous due to the genetic composition of those days. --Adriaan90 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes no sense. If you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then in the beginning there were no genes other than those which came from Adam (since Eve was formed from his rib). The only difference would be the XY vs. YY sex determination gene pair shaped by G_d to make Eve a woman.--Orange Mike 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I think this is a subject of belief rather than science. No one of us have been to the beginning so no one can say for sure how it was. We can however make speculations and theories. --Adriaan90 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as demonstrated in the Bible, Torah and Koran, Adam and Eve were not born to the same parents. God created them as adults. So, how can you say that Adam and Eve have an incestual relationship? There was no where in the three previously mentioned holy books that Adam and Eve were siblings, but as a man and woman. Adam saw that their other animals in heaven came in pairs - so God created him Eve - the first woman.
i think the idea behind adam and eve incest is that once adam and eve give birth to their children, who do their children have relations with? since there is no other parents to give birth to children, the only way for the population to increase would be incest.
This is about as constructive a point as we are going to get in this discussion. Nevertheless, it is just a dopey example - many people do not believe that the bible is to be taken literally or is a historically accurate text; some people who think it is have pointed out that while it does say that God created Adam and Eve nowhere does it say God didn't create other people; the text itself does not bring up the issue of incest until Noah where it is clearly a bad thing ... in short, this discussion can follow many different paths, but they will all lead to the same place: original research. Given our NOR policy, can we just drop this? Please? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Some consider Adam, Eve and other such names to be names of TRIBES of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.157.255 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Random trivia

I've removed [[3]] some anime-related random trivia from the article. Though being an avid anime fan myself, I find this trivia to be redundant and not notable in the article's context.

Browsing through the article, I also have reservations against the "Incest in popular music" section. I believe it to be just a collection of random statements not adding into the article's quality or subject coverage. However, my proposed change would mean deleting a whole section. Being a new wikipedian, I'd like to ask the consensus for an opinion: does it really belong here? nullie 09:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Incest in music is, I believe, notable enough to warrant inclusion, but as per many other lists of songs, I think the proper place for this would be something like List of songs about incest. The move would also be a good opportunity to do some copy-editing, as some of the music section is very messy, difficult to read (because not in list format), doesn't include wikilinks and... shows no form of grammar I can recognize. I also think the Wagner character should be on this list; isn't Siegfried an opera? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved all popular culture references to a separate article. Feel free to contribute to it. nullie 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Adult incest Incest between adults occurs where there is no dependence on the adults as parent-child or sibling-sibling dependence precludes independent consent."

This doesnt make any sense. It seems to be saying that incest cant be consensual between adults due to power imbalances between the individuals concerned. A defendable hypothesis, perhaps, but POV, and I had to read it four times to work that out. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more matter of fact. e.g "Adult incest occurs between individuals who are close blood relations who have exceded their sociey's legal or cultural age of consent."

I've added your sentence in place of the problematic one. Other editors can tweak it if they like. Serpent-A 11:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Age of consent doesn't apply to adults. I would finish the sentence with ...legal or cultural norm. Pendragon39 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cousin Marriage Laws

Apparently in Texas, since September 1st, 2005, cousin marriages are no longer allowed and is treated as a felony. Or something like that.

More info can be found here: http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=texas

As well as on the forums of that website. -MP, November 2006

Sibling Marriage Laws

Is sibling marriage legal anywhere in the world? Not necessary referring to marrying your siblings from your parents, but also half-siblings and stepsiblings.

Just writing a paper about it. In Poland half-siblings are under law siblings, but step-siblings (i.e. siblings which does not share mutual genetic parents – children from previous marriages) are not treated as siblings but as totally non-related people. So marriages between step-siblings (unless adoption occurred) are perfectly legal in Poland. Przepla 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, Przepla and I respect your views. It's logical to say that half-siblings cannot marry one another since that they share mutual genetic parents. The feeling of marrying half-siblings is like marrying your full-blooded sibling - the genetic pool is too close and their children could go deformed (as you can see with the features of some of the ancient Egyptian royal families). However, I'm not sure these children can contract any diseases - do you know any? Although step-sibling marriage is legal in a nation like Poland, in my opinion, I still think it's inappropriate because if my step-sibling is being raised by my parent as their own child. It's just strange for my child to hear that their mother is also their step-auntie and that their grandfather is their dad's step-father. It sounds kind of messed up to me since that step-siblings and step-parent have "immediate family" relationships with me (although we're not blood-related). --Fantastic4boy 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Kind of messed" up really isn't a very admirable way to say something is wrong. I don't mean to say you're dumb, but I always feel angry when I see people using arguments that include "its just wrong" without providing a reason beyond personal religious or philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, this topic itself is one of the greatest sources of such foolish arguments, and it may not change any time soon. This is an objective encyclopedia after all, not someone's soap box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.110.8 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Just as a sidenote, I also hate the "it's just wrong" arguement. Three worst words to hear in a discussion or debate. Probably because it strongly implies ignorant prejudice of the speaker. I also don't mean to call you dumb, just trying to advise I suppose that one should probably try at all costs to avoid saying that. If you find yourself on the verge of saying it, you should probably reflect on your own feelings on the subject...which is actually how I ended up on this page. After an arguement with my younger sister over pedophiles and their rights (we have strange and often random discussions), I ended up saying something along those lines late in the arguement, and (me being known quite widely among peers, friends, and family as a strong verbal supporter of gay rights) my sister immidietly jumped on me, saying that I was resorting to the the exact same argument that extremist homophobes use, and it wasn't a fair reason. She won that particular debate. Irish♣Pearl
While we're on the subject of siblings, just as an observation, both the "Incest betweeen cousins" and "incest between adults" sections of the article have areas and laws listed under them as to where the act is illegal and the punishment for it--but the incest between siblings section is noticably absent of such information. Is there any specific law prohibiting (consensual) incest between (blood-related) siblings? (I may have skipped over it if the information listed elsewhere in the article, I've got a feeling that I may have, so I apologize for asking if that's the case). Both the link and the majority of the article and external links seem to focus on parent-child incest, and maybe I'm ignorant of the fact that the majority of incest cases (not just reported) is that relationship, but is it just that there is a lack of information out there on sibling cases or is it just the article is focusing on the one (more often occuring?) situation? I don't mean to sound sarcastic or start an arguement or anything, I'm seriously asking the question. Irish♣Pearl 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on child sex abusers who commit incestous abuse

For the vast majority of child victimizers in State prison, the victim was someone they knew before the crime. 1/3 had committed their crime against their own child, about 1/2 had a relationship with the victim as a friend, acquaintance, or relative other than offspring, about 1 in 7 reported the victim to have been a stranger to them.

BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

unfortunately this says nothing about what percentage of incest cases are abuse. only about what percentage of abuse cases are incest. there is no correlation. 1Shaggy1 AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Incest worse than bank robbery

Survey by evolutionary psychologist. Shawnc 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV of treatment specialists

Please in the future avoid muddying up the article by strewing it with POV from professionals (psychologists, etc) who treated individuals for depression "due to incest" or the treated individuals themselves and have an obvious bias due to an emotional connection. I suggest making a section to discuss treatment and try not to fluff it up with POV. It's indisputable that at least some people have needed treatment either directly (physical scarring, rape, etc) or indirectly (guilt, social pressure, etc) as a result of incest, but those treatment specialists are prone to making sweeping judgments about incest in general. Plenty of blind studies have shown that there are cases where incest caused no trauma. A red flag for POV should go up when you see words like "all", "every", "victim", "known", statements that don't qualify their information with discussing the scope of research and paragraphs of information based on studies of those in treatment for depression, etc. Please don't let this happen again, it wastes everyone's time trying to clean it up and I doubt I've even scratched the surface of what needs to be done. 68.184.85.78 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to be a victim of incest. It doesn't become "rape", "molestation" or otherwise "not incest" if it wasn't consensual. Are you trying to sanitize the term "incest" to only mean "consensual sex between relatives"? That would not be accurate. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole argument is unnecessary. The article speaks about incest NOT pedophilia, nor child sexual abuse. The only subject this addresses is incest and different cultural aspects of incest. Why are people trying to derail the discussion about incest with irrelevant arguments? Admittedly their are awful instances of children being sexually abused by parents or other relatives. But that is not the focus of this article. I despise pseudointellectual bullies.

--65.0.134.100 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be best if the term 'incest' were primarily used to mean consensual sex. Doing so is not 'sanitising' anything but attempting to be more clear with language. The current situation allows people to argure against both by only actually arguing against abuse. I believe that is what the above editor objects to. The way, the truth, and the light 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Incest"

Incest according to Wiktionary is:

1. Sexual relations between people who may not legally marry, especially between close relatives
2. The crime of having such a relationship

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of incest is:

1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Just thought I'd comment since Joie de Vivre seemed to slightly (and probably accidentally) imply the same kind of single-definition assumption of "incest" as the original commenter (only with the second version of the word). It's both possible to both be and not be a victim by engaging in incest, which should be kept in mind while editing the article. Irish♣Pearl 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that that an individual who is involved in incest may both be and not be a victim, at the same time? Or do you mean that some incidents of incest involve a perpetrater and a victim, and some do not?
I personally make a distinction between such a circumstance where an adult male rapes a child relative, and a circumstance where two adult cousins consent to sex with each other. I feel moved to state that I find both terribly unsavory, but that there may not be a victim in the latter circumstance. Joie de Vivre 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the different situations create different results. The adult male raping the child relative makes the child a victim and the adult the criminal. However, when it is two cousins, or even a brother and sister, where both are adults and both can and are consenting to the act, neither can be considered a "victim" even if both are by law considered criminals for doing so.
I did assume you made the distinction in the two different situations, but because your argument focused on the fact that there are situations with victims (which I don't blame you for since the previous poster had argued the opposite), I just wanted to make it clear to anyone reading that (because your arguement was more compelling than the initial commenter's) the ultimate conclusion to draw was different situations create different results.
There isn't a victim necessarily everytime the act of incest is commited, and sometimes it can be a very victimless "crime" with both people consenting, but just the same there are absolutely situations where a definate victim exists, and the crime can create horrible, traumatic results on the innocent person having been betrayed by a family member. Different situations, different results. That was all I was trying to make clear from your initial arguments (^_^;; although I must not have, and if so, I apologize for increasing the confusion!). Sorry if I made things even more difficult to understand! Irish♣Pearl 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition we use in this article is far from complete as you show above and as earlier controversies about the definition in archived discussion show. I am tired of fighting semantics with editors who seem to see no need to define this term using common definitions from other dictionaries and other encyclopedias. However, I urge anyone else who cares about the all too common rape of the language for POV purposes to tackle this because incest is a complex concept that needs a complete and comprehensive definition to introduce it. 128.111.95.138 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Going Crazy

Am I going out of my mind or this article is an advertisement for incestuous activities? 1st point. Let the children be children. 2nd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, start in childhood. 3rd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, are initiated by adults, or older family members. And, as two and two makes four, this is how we know it’s wrong. 4th point. Don’t confuse people by including scientific terms such as endogamy, or alleles. Those terms belong in botany and zoology. 5th point. According to whomever wrote this article, parental incest is inconclusive?? –meaning that it hasn’t been proven to be damaging to the child?? But “childhood sibling incest can cause serious psychological damage to the younger or less capable sibling according to researcher Richard Niolon.” 6th point. Incestuous activities that result from abuses of power are called CHILD SEXUAL ABUSES -and it is DEVASTATING TO THE VICTIM. The current article on incest needs to be replaced by a real one. Anakaren1 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to refer to the topic above this one for a related discussion. The short story is that some acts involve a victim and a perpetrator, but those that involve two consenting adults, while unsettling to many, may not. Joie de Vivre 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
However, most incest between consenting adults remains a crime in most jurisdictions. Incest between two consenting adults may or may not have consequences that affect other people such as inbred children who suffer deadly birth defects chosen in full knowledge by the adults. I suggest we go beyond the easy direct level of consent to consider ALL the possible consequences here so we can make distinctions between what is merely unsettling and what is truly criminal. 128.111.95.240 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Covert Incest content: Original research or sourced content?

Content at issue:

Many survivors of incest and others argue that a situation which does not involve physical, sexual contact should not be labeled incest.
However, the concept has been criticized as trivializing the acts which are traditionally known as incest. It has also been criticized as demonizing parents who, while they may have some emotional issues in their relationship with their children, do not engage in any of the acts which most people would label "incest". Critics charge that "covert incest" is not a concept associated with serious academic research; rather, it is a creation of pop-psychology.


This content uses what appears to be original research to make claims that seem to have no NPOV sources. This content closely resembles the personal opinions of a number of editors in controversial earlier discussions on this discussion page rather than well-sourced NPOV critics or controversies. This content is unsourced original research as far as I can determine. Therefore, I pulled it intact and clarified the remaining content.

Before anyone gets too hot under the collar about this, please be nice enough to provide the NPOV basis for this content. There might indeed by critics of and controversies about covert incest but we need to source them well otherwise this content merely reflects the personal prejudices of those editors who are uncomfortable with including covert incest in this article. Please response with NPOV sources that we can use to replace weasel-worded statements like "many survivors and others argue", please show us all where the concept is being criticized and who is doing the criticisms, and please show us who calls this a "creation of pop psychology"...that is other than editors on this discussion page. I personally have seen no articles or books showing these so-called criticisms or controversies so I've got to wonder about this content. Do those editors who feel so strongly about this content have NPOV sources to back this content with genuine research or is the usual wiki shoutout where Jimmy Wales' Maoist mob rules (see the lastest issue of Fast Company with Jimmy on the cover)? 128.111.95.138 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of that content is unsourced. I've added the "unreferenced-section" template. Joie de Vivre 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Joie de Vivre 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar content was present in this article last year until someone removed it. Looks like things have come full circle with regards to 'covert incest'. As I recall there was one psychologist who used this term. Pendragon39 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
To all those editors who seem to have a perpetual problem with Covert Incest as a topic, there are now three books (Silently Seduced, Emotional Incest Syndrome and Married to his MOm) published on the topic from credible therapists. These therapists are far from 'pop psychologists'. They explain the topic using reasonable ideas in books that describe many aspects of the phenomenom. There may indeed be critics of Covert Incest but I have yet to see any other editors provide sources for the critical content on Covert Incest in the article so I am going to remove the unsourced critical content until someone offers sources. This critical content looks like original research that closely matches unsourced editors' opinions about CI on this discussion page. Where are the published sources that contain critical content about CI? Please bring in good critical/'controversial' NPOV sources or please allow this section to stand alone minus original research about 'controversies', 'pop psychology' or whatever. 'Many survivors of incest' may indeed 'argue' about covert incest but we need to use NPOV sources that show these arguments before we make weasel-worded claims about 'many' incest survivors.128.111.95.240 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now at least 8 sources that show covert forms of incest from many disparate authors. I have been able to find NO published critics of the concept so please spare us original research on the critical content. If other editors do indeed have critical content about covert incest please provide sources so that we can create some sort of SOURCED NPOV balance here. A few controversies among us is far from enough cause to suggest that this issue is highly controversial to anyone else in the general public.

    1. Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners-Understanding Covert Incest, Adams
    2. The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life, Love
    3. Incest: Origins of the Taboo, Turner and Maryanski (table listing 18 covert versus 10 overt mother-son incest behaviors from Miletski)
    4. The Creative Mystique: From Red Shoes Frenzy to Love and Creativity, Kavaler-Adler, (many references to father-daughter psychic incest)
    5. The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers, Rosencrans, (shows covert and overt incest behaviors by mothers against daughters)
    6. When He's Married to His Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed men Open their Hearts to True Love and Commitment, Adams
    7. The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, and Vulnerability, Kipnis (apologetic references to both mother-child role reversals and incestuous (LOLITA-like) overt abuse of young men by so-called "kindly, older women")
    8. Iron John: A Book About Men, Bly (see psychic incest discussion below)

128.111.95.138 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical Emergency

Okay, is this supposed to be in the category of 'medical emergencies', or is this somebody's idea of vandalism? Thomasiscool 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked under the page list of medical emergencies and incest is not listed there, and there is no mention of it in the Wiktionary definition. Can somebody just clarify that this is indeed a mistake or vandalism. Thomasiscool 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that (with the exception of incest as forcible rape where violence occurs) that the incest survivor suffers severe psychological traumas that are unrelated to standard physiological emergencies and thus are not medical emergencies as such. Incest-related trauma often takes decades to surface because the betrayals of dependent children by adult caregivers are rarely reported during the time of the crime. Hope that helps but you might ask an ER doctor for a more authoritative take on this.128.111.95.240 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Twincest

There's a twincest article on Wikipedia. Should it be merged with this one? Nargrakhan 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Not under that name; but, yeah. The separate article looks a little fetishistic to me, but of course we must assume good faith. --Orange Mike 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge - Twincest is a fetishist term, which is why it should have its own article. Anchoress 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be merged to Incest in popular culture (formerly Incest in fiction) if anything, which is already a long list of these examples. By the way Twincest has been moved to Incest between twins and rewritten so that in has a similar format, so that merger would probably be a good idea. I added tags for it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Covert incest and emotional incest - section is unsourced

This entire section is unsourced. I have added the "unreferenced-section" template. The section should be removed if attributable sources are not found. Joie de Vivre 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


From http://www.covertincest.org/index.html it appears that covert incest is a new term not yet widely known. The site does list three books. Pendragon39 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I added all the known sources. These are credible and attributal professional sources. I know of no known 'controversy' within the counseling community or elsewhere in NPOV pubs about this topic or I would have pulled it in. 'New but not yet widely known' seems to be a good and reasonable preamble to this section but there is no justification to delete this content out of hand. 128.111.95.240 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What is completely unsourced is the critical content about CI in article. I pulled that out for discussion as shown above. Please source that critical content from NPOV sources before you pull it back in. thanks 128.111.95.240 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


There are now at least 8 sources that show covert forms of incest from many disparate authors. I have been able to find NO published critics of the concept so please spare us original research on the critical content. If other editors do indeed have critical content about covert incest please provide sources so that we can create some sort of SOURCED NPOV balance here. A few controversies among us is far from enough cause to suggest that this issue is highly controversial to anyone else in the general public.

    1. Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners-Understanding Covert Incest, Adams
    2. The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life, Love
    3. Incest: Origins of the Taboo, Turner and Maryanski (table listing 18 covert versus 10 overt mother-son incest behaviors from Miletski)
    4. The Creative Mystique: From Red Shoes Frenzy to Love and Creativity, Kavaler-Adler, (many references to father-daughter psychic incest)
    5. The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers, Rosencrans, (shows covert and overt incest behaviors by mothers against daughters)
    6. When He's Married to His Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed men Open their Hearts to True Love and Commitment, Adams
    7. The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, and Vulnerability, Kipnis (apologetic references to both mother-child role reversals and incestuous (LOLITA-like) overt abuse of young men by so-called "kindly, older women")
    8. Iron John: A Book About Men, Bly (see psychic incest discussion below)

128.111.95.138 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

POV issues: Censoring content about incest as a crime against children

Parent-child incest is widely considered to be one of the cruelest forms of child abuse if not the cruelest form of child abuse known. There are many credible sources that show how incest causes terrible damage to children. However, content from psychologists and others who deal with the survivors of incest first-hand seems to be being censored from this article for unknown reasons in favor of long abstractions about the science of incest and or inbreeding (which belongs in 'inbreeding' instead). To be NPOV, this article needs to reflect the ongoing research being done on incest by psychologists, sexologists, and even say Ev. Psych. biologists. I added the POV template to reflect this blatant bias against the science of how real PEOPLE relate to incest. Please consider content that brings the human story to this article so that NPOV balance is in fact the standard here. We need to show all aspects of incest in this article and especially those that have direct relationships to human beings because incest is first and foremost SOCIAL, CULTURAL, and LEGAL in nature. It is also an vile violation of the human rights of those who suffer of the crime. This needs to shown here to make this article NPOV and representative. To those editors who believe in an anything goes worldview about incest, I 'say fine show your stuff/sources but please refrain from censoring well-known sources that show the terrible sides of incest in the name of 'tolerance' for those who believe 'consenting' people (however immature) can do anything they damn well please' to or 'with' someone else. Please allow the facts about incest room to breathe here so all sides are presented in some sort of proportional (like global warming where no naysayer gets 50/50 space now) fashion that reflects known realities about incest now.

I took a moment and did some updating to the Parent-child section as a for instance. These sources show how much is missing on the human, and moral issues related to incest in this article. I ask all NPOV editors to take a look at this section and assist us to build a balanced article that represents the known research well. 128.111.95.240 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Incest perpetrated by parents of either sex against children of either sex is a crime as well as being considered a horror by most people in Western nations. Although rarely reported or acknowleged as a common crime, parent-child incest is considered one of the cruelest forms of child abuse by therapists who work with children [4],[5]. While father-daughter[6] incest is well-known in nations where women's rights are respected, father-son [7], mother-son[8] and mother-daughter [9] incest is rarely researched or reported. However, research is beginning to be done on these forms of incest which were heretofore seen as unthinkable, impossible or unbelieveable by most people. 128.111.95.240 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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.