The Case Against Incest

Via Rod, I think this British essay making the case for incest being no big deal (the title, "I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty," more or less tells it) inadvertently makes a pretty good case for why incest is, in fact, a really bad idea - because it corrupts not only the siblings involved, but the lives of the people around them:

Over the next few years we had sexual encounters every six months or so, each time going farther and farther until I was 17, when we had full sex for the first time. We both went out with other people and there was never any jealousy, although I found it hard to be physically intimate with anyone else. Part of that was because sex with Daniel was so amazing that I had no patience for all the fumbling that seemed to happen with other boys ...

By the time he met Alison he was working and I was a student, and I knew that this relationship was different, but it still came as a shock when he told me he wanted to marry her. However, I was more shocked when he said: “You only have to say and I won't marry her, but then I want us to stay together and not see anyone else. We could be the old boring brother and sister who never got married, but ended up sharing a house because no one else would have them! I know this is meant to be wrong but I've never felt anything so right.” This echoed everything that I've thought about our incestuous relationship over the years. After hours of discussion we agreed that it was time to stop the sexual side of our relationship and also decided that telling anyone else was a bad idea, parting in tears afterwards.

I know Daniel loves Alison, but she's very wary of me. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't see me as a sexual threat, but she thinks of me as an emotional rival and I suppose she's right. It's not unusual - there are countless people dealing with all the emotions that result from partners becoming officially family. ....

Three months ago I met Derek and I think this is going to be a lasting relationship. The sex is certainly amazing and he's a warm and lovely man, so I have high hopes for this. The trouble with having someone like Daniel in your life is that it leaves you with very high expectations, but it's hard knowing that the one person you love above everything is out of bounds. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that you can't tell anyone, as his or her disgust would ruin everything.

Memo to Alison and Derek: Run as fast as you can.

Comments

Daniel and Alison are now married.

Are you advocating divorce?

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 8:03 AM

I'm not sure where you get this corrupting the lives of others around them exactly - you've taken something which the vast majority of people (including me, to preempt the wingnut brigade) disagrees with and thinks is a mistake, and then added things which don't exist in the text.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 8:07 AM

Uh oh... quick GNP there are consenting adults somewhere doing something you disagree with. Attack attack legislate!

Posted by TDE | July 17, 2008 8:36 AM

Ross,

I'm afraid you're going to have to do a little more work than that. From the excerpts you've provided, it sounds like incest is bad because it corrupts those involved . . . because the sex is so good that nothing else can measure up! Is that really what you meant to imply?

Posted by Damon Linker | July 17, 2008 8:45 AM

Incest taboos are a human-cultural universal (the outliers being special cases like royalty). As a personal aversion, it develops naturally between young children who "share the potty" (to use the famous study of Kibbutzim children).

To say it develops naturally is to say it developed naturally, which means evolution, which means drift or selection. Since its been proven that incest increases the likelihood of genetic malformation, the consensus is on selection.

Of course, society is environment; as soon as a threshold of anti-incest bias was reached in the population, that fact would also tend to select against individuals who were not so inhibited. The result would be an autocatalysis toward universality.

That's where we are today, minus the random anomalies. No social-awareness campaign is going to change that.

Of course, that leaves us with the consequentialist's argument that, if no children arise, and the siblings are happy, and their family isn't harmed socially or psychologically, then what's the big deal? The answer is that, situationally, there wouldn't be anything wrong with such an arrangement. That's because the only thing left to appeal to is the metaphysical Wrong, which doesn't exist.

Posted by JA | July 17, 2008 9:00 AM

Even bother to intellectually confront this on a level beyond "this is f***** up" is a bad case of defining decency down

Posted by am | July 17, 2008 9:23 AM

JA:

The potential for abusive relationships in households where there is no taboo is real strong. The seventeen year old boy with more hormones than sense, who can't get his fondest wishes answered by his girlfriend, might well turn to the fifteen year old sister.

I think your consequentialists are lacking in imagination when it comes to consequences.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 9:24 AM

And as usual, the thread goes off on an abstract discussion, completely ignoring the specific post with the specific text.

Ross is advocating divorce - Heretic! - and breaking the other relationship, which is more likely to push the brother and sister back together than anything else, and then is saying it 'corrupts' the other lives where it's nowhere in the text.

Does anyone actually read him?

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 9:30 AM

I think your consequentialists are lacking in imagination when it comes to consequences.

Not at all. An "abusive relationship" is, by definition, a bad consequence. A high probability that an abusive relationship will occur is justification for a rule.

My point: if, looking back on a particular situation, no bad consequences actually happened (for instance, a desert island situation where no information about the siblings leaves the island), then there is no further standard of right and wrong to which to appeal. What you're left with is your own personal aversion, projected as an "ick".

Posted by JA | July 17, 2008 9:33 AM

Though at least we haven't yet had someone 'prove' that black people are far more like to commit incest than whites.

probably by the next ten posts though.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 9:34 AM

Deserted island, natch. The climate is irrelevant.

And gosh, James, sorry to get all intellectual and civil on you. I promise to be petty next time.

Posted by JA | July 17, 2008 9:38 AM

James:

When our host tells Allison to "run", he's not advocating divorce. Under the circumstances, it's likely she could get an annulment under Catholic doctrine. In any event, Allison is not obliged to live with guy she married.

If you are going to complain about commenters being precise and addressing the words of the post, consider addressing what's said, rather than what you assume was said.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 9:39 AM

AM,

Yes, of course, he's saying run as fast as you can, but stay in a loving and committed marriage with the intention of bearing children etc.

Annulment under what grounds? They stopped their incestuous relationship because he was in love and wanted to marry. According to the text, he's been faithful ever since.

Or are we going into 'having lustful thoughts is the same as the act' nonsense from a month or so back?

tosh.

And yes JA, it's very petty to discuss a specific text about specific people in a specific situation, rather than wander off in abstractland.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 9:48 AM

JA:

This approximates a "if a tree in the forest falls, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound". Because, if nobody really knows about the situation, and those who engage in the situation are not silly enough to gab about it (either in print, or lockerroom chatter), that's what you really have.

But the minute people "know", and the situation is seen as benign, then you have the lowering of taboos among the community that knows, and an increase in the possibility of abusive relationships.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 9:52 AM

JA:

This approximates a "if a tree in the forest falls, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound". Because, if nobody really knows about the situation, and those who engage in the situation are not silly enough to gab about it (either in print, or lockerroom chatter), that's what you really have.

But the minute people "know", and the situation is seen as benign, then you have the lowering of taboos among the community that knows, and an increase in the possibility of abusive relationships.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 9:53 AM

And AM,

I thought i'd reread the article to be sure - nowhere does it say that they are Catholic, so where this annulment comes from beats me.

Back to actually reading the article and the text perhaps.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 9:59 AM

James:

The argument would be that Brother was not capable of forming the requisite intent to b married, because of his irregular relationship with his sister. The statement to his sister seems evidence of it.

Also, frankly, the priest would be influenced by the YETCH factor.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 10:02 AM

Ross -

I don't see anything in the quoted text that supports your contention of everyone being corrupted. Pls explain.

Posted by cramer | July 17, 2008 10:03 AM

James:

Ah. But our host is Catholic, and his understanding of divorce is the Catholic one, not the secular one. And, he nowhere used the word "divorce". You assumed it.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 10:06 AM

Rod Dreher is one of my least favorite people.

Posted by Jeff | July 17, 2008 10:07 AM

JA, you're too thoughtful a person to rely on, "What's the big deal?"

Thank you for clearing up the absence of a metaphysical Wrong, that one's been perplexing me for a while.

Posted by Ferrell | July 17, 2008 10:09 AM

Sounds like literotica.

Posted by Mike | July 17, 2008 10:11 AM

Yes I assumed it because there is no other reasonable conclusion to come to.

'Run away. As fast as you can'

But stay in the marriage? You can't have it both ways.

It's irrelevant what Ross is, it's what the individuals are. And they are not to our knowledge Catholic, nor even religious.

Are you saying marriage only matters if it's religious? I really don't get your point.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 10:15 AM

I was assuming an observer. Let's say 100 years go by, and you find the girl's diary -- no names, just autobiography. To what do you appeal to say it's wrong? (Not wrong in general, but wrong in that particular.)

The only thing left is some metaphysical standard of right and wrong which doesn't exist outside the human mind.

Posted by AM | July 17, 2008 10:26 AM

AM: I was assuming an observer. Let's say 100 years go by, and you find the girl's diary -- no names, just autobiography. To what do you appeal to say it's wrong? (Not wrong in general, but wrong in that particular.)

The only thing left is some metaphysical standard of right and wrong which doesn't exist outside the human mind.

Posted by JA | July 17, 2008 10:27 AM

JA:

In the situation you postulate, I, the observer, simply am not going to have all the facts. I will not know how the incest affected her life an her future relationships. I won't know what happened in the community at large. I won't have much of an appeal, because I don't know anything about the victims.

But that does not mean the victims aren't there, or the mtaphysical fluttering of a butterfly's wings did not somewhere cause a hurricane elsewhere.

The wrong here comes from a carelessness regarding the likely consequences of actions.

James:

People separate without getting a divorce. They maintain the separation for years. It's not that uncommon.

Posted by Appalled Moderate | July 17, 2008 10:53 AM

Is this really a problem? JA had it right when he noted that in the vast majority of cases, humans have evolved in such a way that siblings are not physically attracted to each other. No government action is required to keep the rate of sibling incest low and no government action is likely to stop the very small incidence of consensual sibling incest.

To be clear, incest involving a parent or other adult and a minor is another case entirely. However, there are already laws against rape so there is little need to add specifically for incest.

Posted by Colonel Danite | July 17, 2008 10:54 AM

AM,

"Run as fast as you can"

But maintain a separation for years.

That's pretty weak.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Didn't overrated consequentialist Pinker pen a "thought" experiment along these lines? Eh, what do you expect from people who view sex has just another activity, no different than taking a dump, taking out the garbage, or killing a fetus? Hey, Damon Linker, given Ross' post, I think you can now write ANOTHER book about THE SINISTER CATHOLIC THEOCRACY CONSPIRACY??!!! DUH DUH DUH!!! Keep fighting that good fight, guys, we MUST protect the right of brothers and sisters to shtup one another!

Posted by Philip Marlowe | July 17, 2008 11:11 AM

If Ross were as vociferous in denouncing, oh, say, extraordinary rendition, torture, denial of habeas corpus, etc., his views on consensual sibling relations might be worth commenting on.

Posted by Henderstock | July 17, 2008 11:14 AM

Aside from the yuck factor, isn't one of the biggest problems with their relationship the fact that it threatens to leave them emotionally unavailable to other people? I mean, sure, Daniel marries Alison in the end, but he gives his sister full veto power over his relationships and love life. If her selfishness had won in the end (as it threatened too), he would have happily forsaken the larger community to spend his days with her. That's clearly not only an untenable situation for society to continue to function (as we'd all just pair off with our own sibs), but perhaps equally as importantly prevents him from emotionally maturing in any significant way. His sister was the first chick that came along; though he may love her, surely there are others out there who would make better companions. Their proximity in both age and geographical location do not make them each other's "one."

Posted by J. | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM

Word up, Philip Marlowe.

Utilitarians should be seen and not heard. Their inbred libertarian offspring should receive no more than 3% of the vote in any election.

Posted by Ferrell | July 17, 2008 11:42 AM

There are some very obvious good reasons for maintaining a taboo against incest (it's usually coercive and abusive, inbreeding is a very bad idea, etc.)

What interests me about this thread, however, is that most of the arguments against this couple simply assume the existence of the taboo (i.e. it's icky, it's screwing up their normal relationships, it's forcing them to lie to their partners, etc.) Well, sure. The same would be true if they were unrelated and shared a fetish for stuffed animals.

I don't buy AM's slippery slope argument, either. There are few cultural taboos more powerful and universal than this one. The taboo is sufficiently strong that I'm skeptical about the validity of this story... she wouldn't be the first fabulist to get published in the British press. If it is a true story, I really don't think we need to be too worried about them corrupting the rest of Britain into shagging their siblings. They aren't abused children who need protection. Arresting them and putting them on trial would be potentially more harmful and embarrassing to their friends and family than the behavior itself.

I know many readers of this blog won't accept a godless utilitarian rationale for anything, but perhaps a market analogy will fare better -- the incest taboo seems to generate sufficient dividends without state intervention.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 17, 2008 12:02 PM

Where's Jerry Springer when you need him?

Posted by matt foley | July 17, 2008 1:00 PM

He's taking over Yglesia's blog in Aug.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 1:06 PM

wait...so this is a real story. i thought it was saterical. wow.

Posted by thehova | July 17, 2008 1:31 PM

JA, are you still reading?

I think that in the hypothetical diary case, we can still condemn the players for engaging in an unreasonable risk of harm to the people around them.

If I found out that David got his kicks by playing with matches in his sister's room while she was asleep, I would condemn that even if nothing bad happened in that specific case.

Similarly, a 17-year-old boy who enters his 15-year-old sister's room and starts feeling her up is exposing his sister and the rest of the family to an unreasonable risk of harm, even assuming that the harm doesn't occur.

Maybe a pure consequentialist would argue that a kid who played with matches and got away with it was not "wrong", but one who accidentally burned down the family house was, but I would be comfortable rejecting that reasoning.

Posted by J Mann | July 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Divorce is required in this case.

The marriage is not valid to begin with. For reasons of consanguinity.

Posted by Rick | July 17, 2008 2:33 PM

I'm not sure how accusing ferrell of moronitude violates any terms any more than accusing bush of same.

Posted by James | July 17, 2008 3:01 PM

It's a bit sad that we have to have a discussion about why incest is wrong, and it bears out the argument of Schumacher and others about the basic intellectual (as opposed to moral) decadence of late-capitalist civilization. Be that as it may, here is a simple argument as for the wrongness of incest. It's not the only argument, but it is one, that makes little reference to God or religion. (It does proceed along somewhat neo-Scholastic lines though so if you're not a fan of medieval philosophy you can stop reading now.)

My argument would proceed along the lines that it's important, for both individual people and society to flourish, that human beings have a range of affections and relationships for various persons and things in their lives, and that the highest and purest type of affection is charity. At best, our _ideal_ of a perfect human life should encompass the idea of a person who displays charity, and who relates to any human being as if they were his brothers and sisters. Of course this isn't the way most of us actually live, but society and the individuals within it will flourish best when this kind of other-directed love is treated as the ultimate earthly good.

Now the way we learn what charity is is by generalizing the feelings that we have for our brothers and sisters growing up. This is true both ontogenetically and historically- it's how individual children learn about morality and also how our ideas of morality advanced historically. The family is the first place that we get experience with other-directed love, which is not corrupted by any personal desire or gain.

For this to be true it's important that the family be a locus of a particular type of sexless affection. We love our brothers and sisters not because we are trying to get anything out of them, but because of who they are. And in doing this we learn how to love other people with the same kind of disinterested, self-denying love as well, and this is how social morality can thrive.

Now, if sexual feelings are allowed to enter the relationship of brother and sister then the basic grammar school of virtue is now corrupted. A normal and healthy sexual relationship combines the four basic kinds of love- affection, filial loyalty, sexual love and charitable love. However this is only the case because we have an example, in the family, of what purely sexless and affective love can be. If that example was gone there would be no more storge, and no more filia, and no more agape, there would be merely eros. Which is a good thing in its place but it would be a terrible thing if we were ever to forget that there are kinds of love beyond the merely sexual.

This is the basic case against incest, and why it is such a serious and unnatural crime. By its existence it threatens the very idea of the family, and in so doing it threatens the ideas morality, charity, and fraternity. Someone who commits incest is essentially expressing, through their actions, the idea that charity and fraternity should not exist. That is why incest is so evil, and perhaps in a vague and primitive way this is part of the reason why virtually every society has had a horror of the act- such a great horror that it typically cannot even be named and must be referred to only by implication.

Posted by Hector | July 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Hector:

Putting aside the question of whether the classical quadrichotomy of love is actually correct - your reasoning would only apply if the entire family (and friends!) practised group sex. In the story we're discussing, it seems Daniel and her sister weren't lacking for experience in non-erotic forms of love; they didn't miss anything that hundreds of millions of well-adjusted only children miss every generation.

Posted by Nihil Credo | July 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Nihil Credo,

In order for a healthy and balanced life to thrive in which individuals can experience the four kinds of love, it is necessary that the distinction between the different kinds of love be acknowledged and valued by society. As it has been said, we can be evil individually but we can be good only collectively. For this purpose it is necessary that society have a shared understanding of what the standard of each type of love is. Sexless, familial, fraternal love draws its identity from the prototype which is the love of brother and sister. If society permits this relationship ever to become sexualized, then the shared understanding of 'filia' is lost, and society cannot point to this relationship as a standard for moral teaching. Therefore, the incestuary's actions threaten the moral basis of society at its very root.

Mr. Henderstock's comparison of incest to torture seems odd. Without getting into the morality of torture, that's a separate debate. There should be no doubt that incest is inherently evil.

Posted by Hector | July 17, 2008 8:43 PM

"It's a bit sad that we have to have a discussion about why incest is wrong," Hector

TR: I don't think we have to, I don't see much pro-incest sentiment anywhere.

Still I can see some value in questioning even basic assumptions.

Posted by Thomas R | July 17, 2008 9:25 PM

Here's a more practical argument for maintenance of this part of the incest taboo: It's a bad idea to have sex or romantic relations with your siblings because you can't dump them when things go sour. The vast majority of sexual and romantic relationships do not end with blissful matrimony. Often, the end is accompanied by very negative feelings. When this happens between unrelated people, the negative feelings can be ameliorated by the former partners distancing themselves from each other.

With siblings, such distancing is extremely difficult without inflicting damage on the whole family. They're your sibling no matter what. You can't dump your brother into un-brotherness. And it puts the rest of the family in an extremely difficult situation, much as a divorce does: who do they "side" with? If the formerly incestuous couple can't be together at family functions, who gets to be there? etc.

Another reason to avoid becoming entangled with your siblings in this way is that even if somehow you do manage to make the relationship "work", children would be at enormously increased risk of birth defects. Often, you want to have babies with the person you're in love with. This drive can be extremely powerful. Having that person be your sibling makes that drive very perilous to succumb to.

So one needn't resort to esoteric theological arguments to find a justification for the incest taboo. It has enormous practical benefits that become obvious if one thinks ahead to the likely consequences of the incest.

Posted by Zachary Drake | July 18, 2008 1:07 AM

No mention of Biblical injunctions against incest in any of the remarks. Quite disappointing. Judaism was a reaction against human sacrifice of the pagan tribes. Was also a reaction to bizarre pagan practices such as brother sister marriage and pederasty. Judaism imposed lots of boundaries on free wheeling pagan behavior

I submit that many posters on the thread are dining off the moral ethical capital of 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian civilization without recycling much back. I guarantee you, you have enough residual Judeo-Christian morals instilled in you that you would be very unhappy living in a place where incest ran rampant. Not to mention other pagan practices

You don't have to be a Bible thumper to appreciate the moral ethical teachings in the Bible. Men much wiser than you wrote it

Posted by dennis | July 18, 2008 5:17 AM

Dennis,

Levitical injunctions would be somewhat superfluous, would they not? The horror of incest predated the law of Moses, and is close to a cultural universal, and good arguments can be made for why it's wrong. Furthermore in a society where many of us are non-Christian we can't appeal to scripture as the basis of our common moral undesrtanding (I would argue that we can, and should, appeal to natural moral intuition, which is what I tried to do above).

Actually even from a Christian point of view a simple appeal to the Levitical code isn't enough. Simply quoting Leviticus leaves it unclear whether is the prohobition "moral" (and thus binding on Christians) or "ceremonial" (like the Jewish purity laws which are not binding on Christians). To show that the prohibition on incest is a moral one we need to make a moral argument as I tried to do above. (Actually I think that Paul does mention incest in his letter to the Corinthians, so you could probably rely on the New Testament in this case.)

Posted by Hector | July 18, 2008 7:53 AM

I think Zachery's practical point (the first one) misses the point of the "taboo" part of the incest taboo. A taboo does more than embody the sound dating advice you might find in Glamour magazine about why you shouldn't date people at work or who live in your apartment building. It's my understanding that the deep thinkers at those magazines have found a way around those vexing problems and, by the same logic, could likely assuage your concerns about incest.

Nor does Zack's second point, or Hector's pious homilies and sun-shinny faith in the ability to explain these things, capture the horror of a taboo. The whole point of a taboo is that it represents a profound transgression against one's humanity -- a descent into sub-bestial depravity or an attempt to arrogate god-like powers or privileges.

It's no easy thing to come up with an argument that is commensurate with the sensation of a taboo. There may be a reason for that, and it might say something about the limits of reason.

Literature (or the stories in the Bible) does a far better job of representing the sorts of moral experiences that defy categorization or easy explanation.

On incest, I don't know that you can do much better than Oedipus Tyrannos. There is in incest an excess of self-love (or love of one's own) and self-sufficiency that is, like Oedipus, tyrannical.

To engage in incest is, in a sense, to try like Oedipus to be one's own father by usurping his bed and fathering children with one's own mother. This represents, writ large, man's desire to exercise a degree of control over things like birth, identity, and fate that embodies both the best and worst in man but the tragic interconnection of the two. So too does the fact that it is both kings and perverts who have had recourse to incest.

Posted by roryweed | July 18, 2008 10:19 AM

Roryweed,

That was an excellent point and expressed the case against incest much better than I could. Thank you for your input.

Posted by Hector | July 18, 2008 12:16 PM

"The potential for abusive relationships in households where there is no taboo is real strong. The seventeen year old boy with more hormones than sense, who can't get his fondest wishes answered by his girlfriend, might well turn to the fifteen year old sister."

Appalled Moderate makes an awfully good point. Back in the real world incest takes away something very valuable - home as a place where adolescents can sort out their sexuality, and replaces it with home as a place where you might be pressured to have sex. Furthermore, we all know that sex has a way of permanently screwing up relationships. Do we really want a world where sister and brother (mother & son?) divorce? It is a recipe for heartbreak on a wholesale level.

The price of a taboo is that taboo-breakers must lead lives of secrecy. Alison and Derek will have their personal lives compromised (insecurity, incomplete intimacy) and possibly destroyed (sorry, sis is better) because of this dark secret.

Incest warrants a good solid taboo. Suggesting Alison run from her marriage was, to use Obama's word, inartful, but Ross' reaction is sound. The story of this particular brother and sister is best understood as a cautionary tale.

Posted by tomtom | July 18, 2008 6:07 PM

It's interesting that the comments in this thread provide many independent arguments against the moral liceity of incest. To wit:

1) That incest threatens our ability to comprehend and practice non-erotic forms of love.
2) That incest is a form of sexual narcissism and self-love.
3) That incest carries a high risk of severe genetic defects.
4) That incest threatens the normal process of psychological and sexual development.
5) That incest threatens our ability to relate to others outside our family.
6) That incestuous relationships tend to be abusive.
7) That incest leads to social divisions between inbred kin groups.

All of these arguments are correct, although I would think some are more important than others. Surely there are some moral principles that we can mostly all agree on and that we agree on in our hearts, and this thread constitutes proof.

Posted by Hector | July 19, 2008 9:26 AM

"Three months ago I met Derek and I think this is going to be a lasting relationship. The sex is certainly amazing and he's a warm and lovely man, so I have high hopes for this. The trouble with having someone like Daniel in your life is that it leaves you with very high expectations, but it's hard knowing that the one person you love above everything is out of bounds. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that you can't tell anyone, as his or her disgust would ruin everything."

The nice irony of this is that through its very shallowness it manages to make an insightful point about incest.

What's notably missing from the writer's statement of her hopes and disappointments for love is any desire to have a family (ie, kids). The wisdom behind exogamy is that it supports families of future oriented lines of generations as opposed to ones characterized by inward collapse and confusion. The prohibition against incest promotes this by keeping parentage clear, and distinguishing between children and parents and family and non-family. This also promotes the domestic harmony and uncluttered sense of identity needed for child rearing.

The intense self-absorption of incest, and its limits, are nicely expressed in the quoted paragraph and the rest of the posted quotation. An additional irony is how well the contemporary language of "relationships" harmonizes with, and would seemingly find its greatest fulfillment in, an incestuous relationship.

Posted by alexander | July 20, 2008 2:05 PM

I think maybe some readers should try imagining themselves Derek or Allison. I suspect some may think to themselves, "No way, I'd never end up with some incestuous partner." But if you did, I think you'd prefer that your partner's family upbringing included a strong taboo against incest, all other things being equal.

Posted by Contributor X | July 28, 2008 12:50 AM

I think maybe some readers should try imagining themselves Derek or Allison. I suspect some may think to themselves, "No way, I'd never end up with some incestuous partner." But if you did, I think you'd prefer that your partner's family upbringing included a strong taboo against incest, all other things being equal.

Posted by Contributor X | July 28, 2008 6:56 AM

OK religion and incest , well read your genesis , if the biblical creation myth is true then all humans are decended from incestuous relationships, after all in the beginning god created adam and from him took his thirteenth rib and created woman , genetic engineering? .. adam and eve had cain and able , but i see no mention of any other people or daughters or sons , so adam begot cain and able , cain killed able , leaving adam eve and cain who was banished , no mention of adam and eve having more kids , but i guess seeing as there are 6 billion of us and climbing that we are all decended from inces, if you believe your bible to be true then incest is why your all here .. or are we decended from cain after his banishment ? who did he mate with ? the birds? the bees ? the animals in the fields ?

To use religion to say incest is wrong is hypocracy in action ..
Now personally i think that if two consenting adults wish to sleep with each other then so what if they do , parent and child on the other hand is a different kettle of fish entirely

Posted by Platoneek | August 3, 2008 6:53 AM