Talk:Incest/Archive 1

message: I understand that this  kmkis a hot-button topic for many discussing it, but the NPOV of this article seems severely at risk.  
*Where is this idea that the incest taboo is purely an invention of modern society coming from? That is simply untrue. Not only many (most?I have no numbers immediately available) human societies frown on incestual sex, many animal societies structure their mating in such a way as to diminish the risk.  Additionally, it is a well-researched fact (by actual scientists, not Internet people with a high speed connection and an axe to grind)  that, among humans, sexual attraction to those one spends certain formative years in close contact with diminishes very severely, regardless of level of blood relation.  Several posters seem to be advocating the view that the incest taboo is some kind of cultural imposition. That is patent nonsense.
The cultural imposition point are true, and are patent nonsense in themselves, there is no documented side effects to incest, unless you inbreed for CENTURIES, as the trials with inbreeding mice and rats have shown. I, personally, know of a brother and sister that married, had children, and the children are perfectly normal.
The only time you get bad side effects is when one or both partners have genetic abnormalities, and then, they are likely to have problem with ANYONE they choose to marry.
Look at the Tay-Sachs problem, they are now finding that some non-Jewish people have the gene for Tay-Sachs, when they thought it was confined to only those of Jewish ancestry. -Christopher
I mean no offense,  but I have the distinct impression that people with no real knowledge in this area are playing fast and loose with the facts.
The bonobo chimps, very, if not, more closer related as regular chimps, regularily mate with all family members.  The only taboo, as far as I know, with this species is son/mother after the son reaches puberty. --ShaunMacPherson 07:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibition old/new

message: This page needs some work on it asides from the NPOV concerns.  Maybe if we address these, it'll help with the other.  I see it needing:
* Sections: articles are much easier to read if they're broken up into topics or themes with headers.  
* Sources: there's a few of them at the end, but where things are stated like facts ("incest is taboo in most societies") we should quote a reference.
--zandperl 23:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Work needed

message: The topic of Inbreeding should be compiled into one spot in the article, and if an inbreeding article does not exist make one.  The topic of inbreeding is an important one, and seperate from incest in so far as sexual intercourse seems to be recreational instead of for procreation.
The problem of inbreeding for people, and other species in general, is that an indivduals are carriers for 'defective' genes (genes that would likely be detramental to the functioning of the animal).  When one individual breeds with another unrelated individual, it is far less likely that both are carriers for the same defective gene.  However, if both are related both are much more likely to be carriers for the same genes as they share many genes though being releated.
Male A, Female A (Related)
:AA, AA -> Mating unproblematic
:Bb, Bb -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
:CC, Cc -> Some children will be carriers
:Dd, Dd -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
:Ee, EE -> Some children will be carriers
:Ff, Ff -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
:GG, gg -> All children will be carriers
:hh, hh -> All children will be carriers, and affected
For animals that people breed, inbreeding becomes less of a problem since over time animals that express or carry defective genes are culled so the population as a whole cannot be affected any longer. --ShaunMacPherson 07:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is that the very idea of Mental health itself is controversial. See that article's section named: Controversy over the nature of mental illness. Specifically, as described in the article, the definition of incest varies through the societies. In case of first cousins, that would mean that definition of mental health varies between different US states, as some of them permits such relations, and some not. You must remember, that incest is discussed here in broad sense, so any generalisation is difficult. Przepla 23:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inbreeding Here 

message: Historically, the most important forms of incest were maternal incest (see also Oedipus complex). And while surveys do not indicate a high rate of maternal incest, this can be seen as a reflection of the difficulty of collecting information about illegal sexual acts with children rather than its rare occurrence. 
Err...the fact that Freud made up something called the Oedipus complex is hardly evidence of anything.  So what's the basis for this statement? john k 05:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me.  I am suspicious of the word "historically" without evidence or parameters, and "most important" begs the questions, in what way and according to whom.  Maternal incest is not quite the same thing as the Oedipal complex, also -- to link the two suggests a serious misunderstanding of both.  Can we just cut this passage? Slrubenstein
Speaking of lack of factual basis, I have slaughtered the following passage: 
What the vast majority of the population fails to realize, is that incest is an intrinsically natural phenomenon, having first occurred many  millenia before the first notions of "morality" or "law" ever entered the public psyche. Indeed, in the time of our most distant ancestors, whose subsistance lifestyle dynamic we commonly refer to as "hunter-gather", the notion of sexual relations outside one's own familial unit would be as foreign as any social abberation in modern occurance. To that end, it could be positted that in fact non-incestuous sexual relations are the orginal "perversion" or socio-sexual deviance. 	
Unquestionably, a vast segment of today's population world-wide is repulsed by the thought of engaging in sexual relations with non-family members. Through the centuries, there have been numerous proponants of de-criminalizing incest, though exact data regarding the names and or numbers of said proponents is impossible to come by, due the the constant threat of persecution to those who would dare to voice their opinions openly. This statement is supported by the proliferation of incestually explicit subject matter in the media of the time, most notably books, films, and in today's "on-line" world, the Internet.	 
In the final analysis, the notion of what is "right" or "wrong" comes down to a consensus of opinion. As such, there can be no hard and absolute evidence to support either claim, as opinion is simply that, and is therefore beyond dispute. Thus, the opinion that incest is as natural and beautiful as non-incestuous sex is disgusting and sickening, is as valid and irrefutable as any other.
I am sorry if that is perhaps nearly defacing a web page, but I do NOT consider this passage to bear any value whatsoever. It is a sloppy and relativistic argument; 
* True, incest is a natural fact, but so are non-incestuous relations also. The fact that one of the two is being rejected by society (i.e. "marginalized") does not create a voucher for an inherent superior moral value. The first paragraph is suggesting that, after all, what is posited as "natural" is not so natural, because what is posited as "unnatural" isn't that much unnatural. Non sequitur. 
* What does "a vast segment of today's population" represent? 10%? 20%? 90%? Even 0.1% of the world population could count as a "vast segement"; 7000 people is still a lot of people by some standards. Nevertheless, this argument is also misleading because it tries to mix "presence of people not disgusted by incest" with "there is a significant amount of people behind de-criminalization of incest to make it a viable life choice" by using the presence of child porn on the net as a supporting evidence. Hello? The mere presence of something does not entail its ethical value. Murder exists. Is it right or wrong? Its mere presence is not a sufficient condition to validate our ethical judgements about it. Love exists: same question.
* Finally, the shifting of the notions of right/wrong is absolutely irresponsible. Perhaps there could be no final justification for either position, but we have nonetheless the duty and the ability to take one of either side, and not have to consider either opionion as being of identical value. Provided that the divide between right and wrong "comes down to a consensus of opinion", this would mean that the author of the above lines could not argue against me, because, anyway, what I am saying is as good as s/he/it said. My removing of these three paragraphs is therefore as irrefutable as him/her/its writing of it. So that means that whatever I do, I will always be justified. If I kill somebody, I am justified, because there is no way one could put his/her opinion to be stronger than mine, and imprison me. Every situation that creates a conflict must utlitmately bring on some norms. That those norms may not rest on absolute principles of Truth does not undermines the fact that we need some norms, of some sort to function. The nature of those norms is a question of debate; in the case of incest, one could perhaps distinguish between
** Incest between two  consensual adults, able-minded to bear the weight of responsibility and
**Incest between a parent and a children 
and create distinct sets of norms. Or one could not distinguish between the two; but in the end, what counts is that there is a decision that determines a specific set of normative rules. (sorry, forgot to sign: Michel Hardy 00:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An odd claim made with no factual basis whatever... 

message: copied from Template talk:FamilyLaw where no one will ever read it probably
I'm not sure the framing of Incest on this template is entirely NPOV. While I appreciate the effort to organise matters, incest isn't considered a crime (or even wrong) in all cultures, so having a big "family law - crimes" template at the top of the page isn't entirely neutral. Perhaps we could split out the incest-with-childeren-in-modern-cultures section and only put the template on that? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

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

message: I have a question that i hope someone can answer with facts to back it up! me and my younger brother were discussing incest because of the show NIP TUCK one of the characters had a genetic deformite caused from Incest or so they claimed and I argued that when Incest occurs the child has a higher risk of having birth deformaities than people who weren't related at all. and of course he disagreed because he said his bio teacher who used to be a college professer said that the only way a birth defect can occur is if there is a defect in the family's genetic history .. now im 20 and he is 15 so neither of us have an extensive knowledge on this subject ... just so we are clear the question is, Does incest produce or cause a higer risk of birth defects than if two people from completely families had a child?? i hope that makes sence. well write back on this ill be checking it regularly.
It depends on the situation. Some animals can commit incest because there are less genetic detriments. One of the primary concerns is that the parents are more likely to be genetically related, and thus it's higher to have both recessive genes or alleles, thus triggering the recessive trait, as you need two, one from each parent. If one is genetically more diverse, than it is far less likely to be both carrying recessive alleles for the same trait. Recessive traits tend to contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities. However, it differs case by case. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can clarify this answer somewhat. It isn't really accurate to say most recessive traits contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities IMHO. However most genetically linked deformities, abnormalities and diseases are recessive. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that frequently these abnormailities are caused by the abscence of a fully functioning protein of some sort(be it enzyme or whatever) so obviously this absence can only occur if both copies of the gene coding the fully functioning protein are missing. Another is that dominant linked traits that are detrimental, especially if strongly detrimental (i.e. abnormalities etc) are unlikely to last long because anyone with a copy of the gene is affected. Therefore, there are no carriers of the trait which are not affected. The ability of all people with this gene to have offspring (children) and care for them is effected and the gene quickly dies out (in many cases, it may simply arise sporadically in an individual and die out with that individual). You may be aware of Huntington's disease which is a dominant trait? One reason why this disease is believed to have survived despite being dominant is because the late age of onset means didn't have a significant effect on the ability of a person to have childrean and the survival of said children. Also, you may think if you don't have a family history of any genetic diseases you're safe, but remember there could still be more minor problems you're not aware of or maybe a major genetic disease you're not aware of or that only arose recently. Generally, I would say most human geneticists would agree that excessive homozygousity in humans is not a good thing. I should mention, this clarification is also a little on the simple side and perhaps somewhat misleading but I hope it helps. Nil Einne 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: In addition to the change mentioned in the section above, I've made a number of other edits, trying to get a logical flow to the article, trying to remove POV statements, unsupported statements, and even some (gasp) "original research".
Comments welcome. KarlBunker 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes (Jan. 2006) 

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

message: please see new external link I added for sources on this topic.  Also please google other sources.
Anacapa 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sibling incest

message: I deleted the paragraph "Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. All other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages." because it's wrong. Greece, for example, prohibits the marriage of first cousins (trust me, i'm a greek lawyer!), but i'm sure that most EU countries prohibit it also.
::thanks a lot. I was concerned about that statement but had no basis for questioning it.Anacapa 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibitions on cousin marriage around the world 

message: The following paragraph:
:Incest between family members, including parents and children occurs; however, incest between a mother and immature sons, who are less than four years old, has not been observed.
Seems to suggest to me that incest between fathers and immature daugthers has been observed. Is this correct? Nil Einne 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the bonobo page and talk page, it appears this is correct, however the only source so far is some BBC documentary which is not exactly the best source. However, it's not clear what form of sexual contact occurs between mature males and immature females, possibly not penetrative... Nil Einne 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonobos 

message: Hello, I've just done a complete revise of the "genetics" section.  Believe it or not, there is actually a rather massive body of literature dedicated to the biology of incest, which I've tried to provide a good introduction to.  I was shocked that much of the discussion board is filled with arguments "My brother read this article about some dude who inbred rats and they were FINE".  Check with the professionals, please!
:Thank you for your work on this, and for leaving a comment on the talk page.  The new version is closer to a neutral point of view than the last similar version was (the one before my previous edit).  --Allen 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check with some biologists 

message: I have a 1/2 sister that I did not grow up with. She is in her early 30's, remarried with two sons. Ever since the first time I saw her, I have been in love with her. She is a remarkably beautiful woman and I have longed for her for so long. I KNOW this is wrong on many levels, but she consumes my thoughts, desires and fantasies. All I think about is holding her in my arms and making love to her non-stop. Any ideas on how to discreetly get help to overcome this would be gretaly appreciated. Thanks, Texas.
:Texas, first stop blaming yourself...what you feel is what you feel... and it is YOU right now, so as long as you do no deeds against her..your feelings are your feelings to feel as long as you need to.  Next, stay away from her!  Then go inside yourself and decide how to break the hold she has on you.  There are many resources on this article (and on the web) to begin research on this.  However, we men are truly f_____ because there are no male therapists I know of who handle male sexuality/female sexual aggression and we men are always, falsely, considered sexual monsters so you risk being blamed or shamed if you go for help and especially in Texas...despite all the goodhearted people there.  I suggest you check out Men's Web, Kali Munro and Sexually Aggressive Women (see links here and on Rape).  I will also note that in my experience it takes two to tango.  In hunter-gatherer societies, young women at adolescence would be separated from men and young men because their emerging sexual power was so hard to resist and because they themselves had no idea what power they were playing with at that age.  Your job is to separate your fantasies from her spell (she may or may not be attempting to seduce you but if she IS, she is being 'bad' too, some women use seduction/sex to predate against men and this is quite dangerous!) Remember exactly what she did that 'caught' you and try to determine whether she is seducing you or whether you are just being 'consuming' all by yourself.  That's all I can do now.  I am writing this back to you because I know how you feel but this page is not a page for therapy.  It is a page for discussions on completing this article.  (I wish someone would have been there for me when I had your questions.)  I hope this helps but feel free to toss it away too.  You are your own man and you have to decide what to do for you.  I wish you the best. Anacapa 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I recommend that he just sleep with his half sister :-p--Frenchman113 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, me too, and tell us all about it here! :) Sweetie Petie 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I third the notion. ;) Unless, of course, he already is in a consumate relationship. Or she is. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Desire 

message: There are 3 out of the many references that are in any way science-related, the rest are all about victims and victims and victims. The somewhat controversial "Royalty" historical section is upheld by one reference from the work of a single historian (apparently the Egyptians didn't do incest much, huh?)and finally use of words like "ostensibly" when talking about consensual incest is hardly NPOV. The emotional overload of the "real HUMAN" cost runs right through the article. ALL abuse is equated with "incest" (including the non-relatives!). Is this about "psychological implications" or about the phenomenon itself? 
I'd like to see more science and anthropology instead, and discussion of incest in terms out inbreeding and outbreeding. Maybe it's better to split the article into the one that deals with the topic and the other one that deals with what Andrew Vacchs thinks. 24.80.109.19
:I welcome POV checks on such loaded topics.  My education is in the 'hard' sciences (physics etc) and I have a background in psychology too which is a 'soft' science so please let me weigh in a little here.  Incest is a phemomenom that crosses many disciplines.  It has biological, physiological (medical), psychological, sexual, sociological, and anthropological aspects to name a few.  These specialties are ALL sciences as far as I know.  I see the many references from the psychological or sex research field as no less scientific than the '3 unnamed science related references' referred to above.  I see many references about both PERPETRATORS and victims which seems appropriate for a topic that Britannica says is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror".  'Emotional overload' often comes with a topic that is so 'loaded', taboo and forbidden as incest is.  Do you have a problem with the facts about what is indeed the 'real human cost of incest' or is this POV false to you.  Do you have sources that show incest as a positive thing with no emotional overload?  All the incest feature films (Sister My Sister etc) I have watched have much emotional overload and dark twisted tragedies so I wonder what you POV is here.  When I came aboard this article had almost no content about the human-human aspects of incest which was a bit shocking to me as this is a human-human phenomomem that is defined by Britannica as "Sexual relations between PERSONS who because of the nature of their kin relationships are prohibited by law or custom from intermarrying".  Now as to the specifics you noted above:
*#I too would like to see other references on the historical content although given the taboo nature of incest they will probably be hard to find.
*#I will take a look at 'ostensibly' in consensual incest.
*#I need specifics on 'emotional overload' judgements which may or may not be in the eye of the beholder.
*#There is no attempt to make ALL Child Abuse much less all Child Sexual abuse into incest or incestous abuse.  The rape or sexual abuse children by strangers, child pornoghrapy and pedophilia is not included here.  However, the rape or sexual abuse of DEPENDENT children by other elders in RESPONSIBLE ROLES is either incest (when by blood or kin relations) or incestuous in nature (when by other elders in reponsible roles) is included here for good reasons.  These distinctions came straight from the linked psychological references and are valid forms of incest or incestuous abuse.(I will add source content to show this below)
*#What science(s) do want to see more of here and why?
*#This is about the phemomenom itself in both it's overt/contact forms and it's covert/non-contact forms AND it's psycho-sexual implications which are beginning to attract much research.  I have no problem with the article including biological, historical or anthropoligical implications.  What is your problem with including the sexual, social, psychological implications of incest in an article about incest?  "Sexual RELATIONS between persons" include all forms of sexual relations not just contact sex.  Phone sex, online sex or non-contact mutual masturbation are all forms of sexual RELATIONS between people.  Likewise the use of NON-CONTACT seduction against children by parents or others in incestous relationships is a genuine and deeply damaging form of incest.  It is just much less well-known to most people much as the female-male rape is much less well known.  I ask that you read the references on this before you make judgements about what is or isn't incest.  
*#In Britannica 'inbreeding' and 'outbreeding?' are separate entries.  To me, they are complex biological terms related (AND UNRELATED as with plants and animals) to incest that should be explained in depth there and linked to this article with content here that relates them to the incest content.  Britannica mentions that "highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders" in it's INCEST entry but that is about all.
*#As for anthropology, I concur about more and better content as incest seems to be mostly about 'law or custom'.  Britannica says that the widely varying beliefs about incest "caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a UNIVERSAL DEFINITION"
*#As for Andrew Vachess, he is just reflecting what most people think about incest and the double standards about how incest is handled legally.  If you have specific suggestions about maybe making him less prominent in the intro I welcome them but to suggest splitting this article to separate so-called 'unemotional' anthropoligical science from the emotional human sciences seems a bit much.  Science is far from able to define much less explain incest as it stands now.  That means we are left with law, custom, and art (literature) until science takes over. 
*#I ask that you name yourself when you make a POV check as we will have to ask you to remove the POV template when YOU are satisfied that NPOV balance is attained here.
Anacapa 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: To user John Kenney.  I welcome your feedback and all the concerns you have raised.  From your discussion page you seem to be a seasoned veteran of Wiki so I see that you might have to much to offer here as quite valuable.  I, for one, would like to have you continue with hard hitting feedback so we can all challenge our POV's and make this article better.
That said, I ask that you refrain from making major changes to this content unless you complete your discussions here and attain some sort of consensus.  I also ask that you use this page for discussions rather than the edit comments as per wiki protocol.  Finally, I ask that you complete discussions you start before you jump in and make changes to this content...by that I mean to refrain from reactions like 'insane' (as Adams no doubt spent his career on this) remain civil and to state specifics.
I moved the Covert Section back where it was for a whole host of reasons mostly to do with flow and the elimination of needless repetition. (I will discuss those reasons if needed). I will be glad to continue to discuss definition issues you might have but please make no new changes such as 'Covert Incest' until we have some sort of consensus here.  I will also be glad to add sources such as Susan Forward's Toxic Parents or Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome or others if you like...but no one has been as succinct and clear on this as Adams has which is why I used him as my main source.  Please work with me to meet your concerns.  Anacapa 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not  having a NPOV is enough to delete whole article, and this section is factually inacurate too, so as this isn't a very important type of incest i think deleting it is better, if anyone disagrees, pleast tell me. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As nobody replyed for more that 28 hours, I assume nobody opposes deleting. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Covert Incest placement and sourcing

message: *#Incest is sexual activity between close family members (this article)
*#Sexual relations between persons who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying (latest Britannica)
*#"All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. The World Book Encyclopedia (2005) 
*# INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection (Encyclopedia American 2005)
*#in·cest    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nsst) Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.  Middle English, from Latin incestum, from neuter of incestus, impure, unchaste  : in-, not; see in-1 + castus, pure, chaste; see kes- in Indo-European Roots.  Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 
*#Main Entry: in·cest Pronunciation: 'in-"sest Function: noun Etymology: Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- not + castus pure: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the crime of engaging in such sexual intercourse Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
To eliminate some of the round and round about definitions I pulled in a variety of definitions from other sources for comparison.  Clearly there is a POV about incest in the definitions as the root word means impure or unchaste.  Clearly there is a focus on law and customs as the basis for defining what incest is.  Last some definitions seem to use sexual relations where some seem to use sexual intercourse.
I have a few questions/issues related to these definitions:
*# father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio, mother-daughter sexual molestation and all other forms of overt and covert sexual abuse of children by parents is called incest in the psychological literature.  If we limit this article's definition to sexual intercourse we will excluding almost all the the other forms of incest shown in the literature most of which is fairly new as in The Last Secret (mother-daughter incest) or Mother-Son Incest; the Unthinkable Broken Taboo.  To me, this article's definition should be wide enough to include all forms of incest here, just as the rape article's definition is wide enough to include all forms of rape there.
*#This article's definition (as it stands) is missing any mention of law or custom...yet these sociological sanctions seem to be the main basis for defining incest.  Maybe we should add these to the article's definition somehow.
*#Clearly from these definitions, incest is a primarily a human sociological phenomenom with biological consequences...rather than a biological phenomenom with sociological consequences.   Inbreeding and genetic issues are clearly related consequences of incest but not the topic itself. (It is also important to note that biology/genetics have no bearing whatsoever on same sex incest, on NON-Contact Covert incest, or on incest between opposite sex people where conception does not occur) The main basis for this definition seems to be human 'purity' or 'chasteness' as coded in law and custom rather than in science or biology.
*#There is no inclusion of animal or plant sex between close relatives in these definitions of incest.  Incest is clearly defined as a human phenomenom.  Human laws and customs would seem to be meaningless in the animal/plant world.
Whatever we decide to do with definition I hope we tighten the scope of this article with a reasonable definition that match the known definitions/recent research.  I have no need to eliminate any content per say but I also have no interest in creating a whol bunch of little stubs to describe all the forms of incest either.  Please discuss how to handle this. Anacapa 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of Incest

message: The incest loophole claim seems specious to me.  The issue, as far as I can tell, is that in many states there is a law on the books against incest.  The penalties for incest are considerably less than the penalties for the crime of sexual abuse of a child.  But this doesn't constitute a loophole, because it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether to charge an offender with incest or sexual abuse of a child (or both).  If incestuous acts can be charged as the more serious crime at the prosecutor's discretion, then there's no loophole.  There's just an option for the prosecutor to charge a less serious crime.  It would only be a loophole if the prosecutor wasn't allowed to charge sexual abuse in cases where the victim is related to the accused. john k 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we bring in editors who are attorneys here.  Attorneys seem to have eliminated a lot of nonsense earlier in Sex between cousins.  My take on Vachss (who is a nationally known child abuse attorney) is that the loophole is encoded in the code itself.  This provides the prosecutor possibilities to let the perp off by ironically charging them with the lesser crime of incest rather than a listed sexual offense.  A reasonable law would IMHO resemble what the Australians have done with incest law which is a severe standard for a horrible crime.  Vachss is stating a legal loophole big enough for prosecutors to drive a truck through IHMO.  To Vachss it seems, these US legal absurdities while common are far from specious and show the double standard that occurs in US law vi a vi incest. I would like to hear some attorneys weigh in on how this plays out in practice however.   There also may be a clearer way to state all this.Anacapa 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An attorney here. Anacapa is correct in the above statement.  In the states where incest loopholes exist, the discount given to related perpetrators is written into the penal code.  I added a link to a new law review article on the incest loophole (["Child Abuse and the State"]) to the External Links section of this topic. The article is fully sourced and footnoted, and I hope it helps. It includes a section on the history of incest prohibitions as well.  I see from the comments here that the topic itself is undergoing major changes, and as I don't wish to complicate things for you editors, I won't alter the body of the topic.70.177.34.18 06:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incest loophole 

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

message: I did a quick count of the first 250 titles on Amazon that came up on "incest" search.  There were a few repetitions and I did a quick classification so this survey is in no way perfect.  However, it did show that the vast preponderance of literature on this subject is from the counseling professions and the survivors themselves.  This suggests that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, sex researchers and the survivors themselves are most responsible for the recent explosion of titles on this taboo topic.  The titles themselves also suggest that these authors might (by facing the incest horror head on) have many things to say about incest that other disciplines are unable or unwilling to say.  I was surprised to see so few titles from anthropology or sociology and there were no titles by biologists.  However, incest does seem to be a fascinating topic in literature, religion, history and law.  Here is the breakdown of the first 250 titles which Amazon seems to rank by sales:
*#90 titles or 36%---Psychology/Sex Research/Counseling 
*#53 titles or 21%---Survivors or Survivors's Relatives' Stories
*#35 titles or 14%---Literature
*#17 titles or  7%---Religion
*#10 titles or  4%---Law
*#_8 titles or  3%---History
*#_6 titles or  2%---General 
*#_5 titles or  2%---Antrophology
*#_4 titles or  2%---Politics
*#_1 title  or .4%---Sociology
*#15 titles or  6%---Others
Anacapa 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a Scientologist? --mboverload 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not no but HELL NO! Anacapa 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey of the literature on incest

message: This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
Sexual predation by priests, nuns, rabbis or other religious authorities against childhood parishioners, by teachers against students, by therapists against clients, and by a host of other authorities against people in dependent roles is seen by therapists as incestuous in nature, although not in form.[citation needed] As a host of media stories on the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, show, the consequences to children are similar to those associated with parent-child incest (see Effects of Incest below.)
In the interest of maintaining the peace, I am going to hold back on replacing this section into the article until we have some consensus on the article's definition and other scope issues.  To those editors that pulled this because it 'isn't incest' I ask that they use a single standard for this whole article as applying this standard to the whole article would mean that much other content associated with but far more clearly NOT actually incest would be deleted too.  I will go pull in the sources and discuss this before putting in back but I insist on a reasonable discussion before future reverts so these reverts are not done on a PERSONAL POV basis.  I am quite aware of the politically loaded nature of this ugly, well-known, and taboo topic so I question wholesale deletions on the basis that this is somehow unrelated to incestuous conduct...expecially when there is so much other content here that seems to be even much less related to incest itself.  I insist that those editors who have a problem with this section at least be decent enough to discuss their concerns in a fair-minded, balanced NPOV way.  I also insist that consensus standards be used that apply to the whole article rather than a few so-called 'problem' POV sections.  I am willing to toss whole sections on the basis of some reasonable criteria but hate being bullied  because some editors MIGHT have a personal problem with some content that hits a little to close to home, here and now.  Anacapa 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incestuous sexual relations by non-related adults in responsible roles

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

message: I added sources to the Covert Incest subsection and attempted to address a number of concerns about who classified this as covert incest (and when) with specifics.   I also added some social-cultural context so that it makes more sense to those unfamiliar with covert incest and so flows well with what happens in Overt incest.  I also moved effects content down where it belongs in the Effects section.  Finally I added statements on the law so that covert incest is shown as a new and different form of incest that has not yet become illegal as the law has yet to weigh in here.
In Overt incest, I moved Effects content down to effects and moved Definitional type content up from effects.  I also made a number of other minor changes and cleanup for flow or clarification. 
All these cleanups were to address previous editors concerns and to surface remaining areas of dispute or POV.   There were NOT intended to make a statement about the continuing issues some editors have about the Covert incest definition/section ITSELF.  That is an ongoing issue that still has to be resolved.  Please refrain from major reverts of this content until we have some consenses on the definition of 'incest', the usage of 'incestuous' and the term 'covert incest'.  I welcome comments/suggestions on all these changes however.  Anacapa 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types section cleanup

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

message: You will read a lot about incest causing severe emotional trauma in boys when they grow up. I for one haven't experienced this. I come from a somewhat broken home where my father wasn't home half the time. My mother and I started having a relationship when I was about 16. To this day it is the best sex I have ever had in my life. We used to lie in the bathtub for hours and make love to each other. This was about 15 years ago and I have no emotional problems at all nor do I hate my mom. We still fool around every once in a while but not as much as we used to. I'm just glad I had the courage to go through with it and take a chance for two reasons. 1) I would still be thinking about what could have been to this day and 2) my mom is unbelievable in the bedroom. Mothers have unbelievable passion for their sons and it comes out in a big way during sex.
:That's hot --mboverload 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To all those editors who come from a POV similar to the boy/man above...I welcome all points of view here.  Could such a 'positive' or 'hot' POV (about mother-son) incest be sourced in the professional literature somewhere so we can show this POV in this article on the basis of facts.  If incest indeed does create 'happy-ever-after' situations (on a long term basis) we need to show this here too.  Anacapa 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not as bad as they say 

message: Questions:
1. At what point is it appropriate to archive a talk page?
2. Parent-child friendship as Covert incest?
3. What is your source material for the claim that incest is legal in france (under the heading consentual adult incest)?
Covert incest violates the child with demands to be a spouse, a covert lover, a parent, an intimate confidant and/or a friend, or to fulfill other roles that are obligations of the parent or the parent's spouse.
Please clarify why friendship is included.
Comment:
I'm not happy with the format of Wiki's talk pages. I don't like having to scour an entire talk page to locate a reply to a previous posting :( Pendragon39 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions and comment 

message: I propose this part be merged with the Fiction section. There is also some duplication when mentioning examples of Japanese anime/hentai. Pendragon39 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely should be.  Repetitious, and doesn't belong under laws/mores anyway.  Goldfritha 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, did some rearranging and merging. All references to fiction now in the same sub-section. I thought there were sufficient anime references so I removed a few: Oldboy(Korean), Marmalade Boy, Super Taboo / Super Taboo Extreme Pendragon39 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incest as a topic in fiction 

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

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