There is an exception, we are told, to every rule. The rule I most commonly espouse on this blog is to be accepting of other people's ways of life, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. In thinking about a possible exception - for me at least - I have found a possible contender: incest.
To begin the discussion, I'd like to clear up that this is only a question when it involves consenting adults that bear no children. The risk is so much higher for genetic defects when close relatives have children that I'm never okay with that.
But, in the case of consenting adults that never have kids, what is one to do? It doesn't come up as often as other sexual irregularities due to the Westermarck effect, in which children do not become sexually attracted to the people around whom they grew up. This was documented in jewish kibbutzes, where children live with many other families. Even though they were not blood-related to many of the children with whom they grew up, they would never marry inside their kibbutz. So we know that we have an ingrained aversion, but that it is not due to blood-relations. What, then, of separated children or siblings? This mother had her son when she was 14 and gave him up for adoption. 27 years later they met up, and are now in a happy, loving, sexual relationship with each other. Again, they're happy, not having children, and not hurting anyone else. What is there to disagree about?
Typical brother and sister in their natural habitat.
And yet it still irks me. I'm fairly sure this is still just because of a base reflex, and not due to a further logical reason. However, that doesn't mean that gut reactions are entirely invalid. Because virtually our entire society is against incest, it takes a particular type of person to still go through with the arrangement, knowing what sort of opposition is faced. This is of course not to say one should be wary of iconoclasts, but it is easy to imagine situations in which many of these relationships are quite unhealthy. For instance, in the case of parent-child relationships, there is always a power dynamic at play, even if they didn't grow up together. A parent has a lot of emotional leverage over a child, and this makes, if not the issue of consent, the issue of health and strength of relationship, a pressing matter.
In the case of this couple, the father met his daughter at the age of fifteen, but didn't really stay in her life. The mother had to say about them, "We used to joke he would turn up once every two years to spend a day with her." This sets up some seriously fucked up dynamics in the relationship, and believing that their relationship is healthy is really difficult. They've also had two children, one of whom died at a young age of congenital heart failure. This is something I absolutely cannot abide. But even if children weren't involved, I'm still not convinced I'd be okay with it.
Loving brother and sister? Or loving devious hellspawn sodomy?
There is still the issue of reunited brothers and sisters. There was a BBC documentary titled Brothers And Sisters In Love a few years back that deals with that exact issue. Unfortunately I was unable to procure a copy, but this shows that it is at least somewhat prevalent. The power dynamic is of course no longer in play, but it still makes one wonder if there is not some deeper psychological trauma going on to completely dismiss any sort of cultural norm - as well as the laws against it - to be with a sibling.
What do you think? Two consenting adults not hurting anyone is always okay? Is there an exception? I'm really interested in what other people think about this.
Images via branagcompendium.com, artistregister.com
I think that the reason most people have such a strong, gut reaction against incest (especially in the cases described above where each participating party was aware of their relative status) lies in our basic nature. Despite our ability to think and do things that are unheard of in other species, our main goal in life is to produce offspring. It's very difficult and rare to produce healthy, strong offspring that will further our species with someone with whom we are related. I would be willing to suggest that there's has been a lot of trauma experienced by both parties involved in order to not only consent to such a relationship, but also to continue with it for many years.
ReplyDeleteNow, when it comes to brothers and sisters who have never met before becoming romantically involved, that's much more forgivable, since neither party was aware of the familial relationship before the romantic/sexual relationship began.
At this juncture, I think I would argue with you (honestly this time) that it's not necessary for us to be completely agreeable with all others sexual preferences. To look at someone else's choice and say, "Well, if that's what works for them, then fine," does not require me to stop being grossed out by golden showers. I don't like it, therefore I would never do it. I think it's icky, to be precise, and I don't think that feeling makes me a bad person. Being accepting and agreeing do not have to be the same thing.
(By the way, I love reading your blog. Way to make people think about things that usually make us uncomfortable.)
I completely agree with every part of that. There's a real clear-cut reason that we have an immediate aversion to it: because it won't produce the best offspring possible.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I don't expect you to not be grossed out by golden showers. I get grossed out by sex things, too. I'm accepting, but not agreeing, as you put it. However, the gross-out I feel about incest feels different. It doesn't feel like a "I mean, I don't want to fuck my sister, but if you want to, that's cool!", it feels like a "No, you can't do that, it's bad." which is something I don't get from other sexual practices.
Regarding the above comment, I think what is interesting as a general focus for sexual study is the point where "agreeable with" and "tolerant of" diverge. And beyond just socially tolerant, legally tolerant, as well... incest is an interesting topic because it is generally legally rejected, and I think, for good reason. (It's important to be critical of legality-- hello, anti-sodomy laws-- but in this case, there is some biological reasoning that I find compelling.) So many other sexual practices, however, even practices that make people violently and viscerally uncomfortable, are not legally examined in all places.
ReplyDeleteI don't have anything close to a point here, except that I appreciate, like the author of the above comment, your confrontation of difficult issues and evaluation in terms of different lenses of tolerance or acceptance. It's always positive to ask of a practice, "do we allow it? do we support it? do we like it? do we reject it? in what ways, consciously or unconsciously, do we do any or all of these things?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"but it still makes one wonder if there is not some deeper psychological trauma going on to completely dismiss any sort of cultural norm - as well as the laws against it - to be with a sibling."
ReplyDeleteare we just dismissing being in love as the obvious answer here?
I suppose this could be a quite arguable point, but I feel like there are a whole bunch of places along the road from attraction to sexual relationship in which one could decide it's a bad idea and drop it. I'm infamous for sort of resigning myself to my emotions, but I think when you know something is a bad call from the get-go, you have some control over the emotions and thoughts that run through your body. So while simple love could come into play, one finds plenty of couples that love each other deeply but decided they couldn't be together for other reasons. I don't really see incest being different.
ReplyDelete@ [c]'s comment: I think that I would find myself arguing that emotions, including love, are far more mental and controllable than we like to believe. While some people have no control whatsoever on their desires, there are a great many number of people who do things every day despite our preferences (you know, going to work or school, taking out the trash, cleaning the bathroom, etc, etc). Simply claiming that we have an emotion, therefore we must act on it, isn't a reasonable argument.
ReplyDelete@ Zach: at least from the first interview video i watched it, sounded like there wasn't any progression for the mother and son. they met, and they were instantly in love (or some weird mutation of love). i argue that the couples who decide that it isn't in their best interest to be together do /not/ feel as strongly about each other as these people do.
ReplyDelete@ what's the word: so then the answer is yes, we are dismissing the possibility of love in the princess bride, frida kahlo and diego rivera, the-only-thing-that-matters-to-you-even-though-it's-destroying-you kind of way. the whole idea of, say, romeo and juliet is that they were compelled beyond reason to pursue their love for each other despite the insurmountable obstacles placed in their way, including death. and i don't think that that is too unrealistic. i'm not sure whether it's the romantic or the rationalist in me, but i think that it is possible for an emotion/emotional force like love to compel people to abandon reason in pursuit of fulfilling what i think is a /need/, not desire, for the fulfillment of these feelings.
i feel like you're both talking about these relationships like these are rational, sane people. they're not. they're _in love_.
@ [c]: I suppose that if you can take "in love" as a perfectly logical reason for illegal actions such as incest and call that okay, then you could just as easily turn around and say, "Yeah, she killed her husband's lover, but it's because she was so 'in love' with her husband that she couldn't take it."
ReplyDeleteI do believe that love is a very compelling emotion, the most compelling emotion that we are capable of feeling. But I do not believe that love (outside of fictional realities) is capable of turning us into drooling idiots who no longer have any control over ourselves. We say that it does because it's a really easy excuse that everyone wants to believe. And I think that's my true point -- everyone wants to believe it, so we bounce around believing it.