The Last Taboo

[obscene cupcake]

Then why are you engaging in this discussion if you want to make a point but don't intend to provide any supporting proof when a deconstruction of your logic is given?

 

Why keep responding if you'd rather this end?

 

There are other taboos out there, sure. That I would not question. Yet this thread is (mostly, it seems) about the significance of incest as a historical/cultural/social 'forbidden behaviour' and the reasons surrounding it.

Apparently you didn't read the original post or you've forgotten what it said. 

[Stellar]

Apparently you didn't read the original post or you've forgotten what it said. 

 

Which original post? The one that Sasha, the OP, made? No, Sasha's post was was quite clearly about incest -- which is what the topic is focused on.

 

Or maybe you are referring to your own post, the one that you made about dolphins and sex that is a complete tangent to the original topic and is in no sense validated since you have (retroactively and conveniently) claimed you lost the information to do so?

 

While I appreciate anyone who is in a meaningful discussion having their say, I have little time for those that employ oblique ad-hominem in the form of passive aggressive commentary that adds nothing to the current discussion. You are also directly contradicting yourself and at this point, frankly it is embarrassing. Unless you have something interesting and useful to say, I'd suggest returning to Sasha's topic.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Stellar

[Zombie]

seems just like old times *hides*

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Zombie

[obscene cupcake]

The one where not only does she claim incest is the last taboo online BUT OH LOOK I'M NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO CALLED BULLSHIT AND MENTIONED BESTIALITY. Nice of you to be an asshole to me online though. Thanks. I appreciate it. That isn't hypocritical at all. 

 

I love being attacked. 

Which original post? The one that Sasha, the OP, made? No, Sasha's post was was quite clearly about incest -- which is what the topic is focused on.

 

Or maybe you are referring to your own post, the one that you made about dolphins and sex that is a complete tangent to the original topic and is in no sense validated since you have (retroactively and conveniently) claimed you lost the information to do so?

 

While I appreciate anyone who is in a meaningful discussion having their say, I have little time for those that employ oblique ad-hominem in the form of passive aggressive commentary that adds nothing to the current discussion. You are also directly contradicting yourself and at this point, frankly it is embarrassing. Unless you have something interesting and useful to say, I'd suggest returning to Sasha's topic.

[Former Member]

Okay.  Let's grow up and be the adults we are, shall we?  This has already gone horribly off-topic and I think it would be wise if we stuck to a REAL discussion about taboos.   What is happening right now is not helping the discussion, it is not furthering understanding of a subject.  What is happening is the proliferation of an argument for the sake of having the last word.  So why don't we get back on track?  Please and thank you.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Myiege

[Gene Splicer PHD]

ITS AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. NOT A LIFE OR DEATH STRUGGLE FOR THE TRUTH - and this board is not one that's generally argumentative and fighty.

 

Please let's not do fighty. Mods here aren't happy when there's fighty. Peace in our time and all that.

 

Also - genetic damage from incest is caused by continuous inbreeding. It builds over time. Like with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

 

Now THIS is a family tree you can show to your unclecousingrandson:http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/wp-content/blogs.dir/474/files/2012/04/i-ad0e60b6ff8c7bd2e3ba38183a6177b7-SpanishHabsburgs.jpg

 

Sibling incest can compound birth defects found in both partners and/or parents, where common traits can compound - and at a much higher rate than cousin incest. The chances of genetic damage from cousin incest is surprisingly very small.

 

After all that: kissing your brother? Eww.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Gene Splicer PHD

[Stellar]

The one where not only does she claim incest is the last taboo online BUT OH LOOK I'M NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO CALLED BULLSHIT AND MENTIONED BESTIALITY. Nice of you to be an asshole to me online though. Thanks. I appreciate it. That isn't hypocritical at all. 

 

I love being attacked. 

 

The problem is that, once again, you are shifting the parameters of discussion somewhere else in order to frame your own point in favourable terms. Other taboos have already been mentioned and acknowledged, including subsequently by the OP. I said so myself that these taboos exist, a post or two back, in a direct response to you. So, if the extent of your response is that 'bestiality exists and I pointed it out!' then you still have not addressed the substance therein. Additionally, incest remains the main topic of this thread -- something that I am repeating, yet again, as are other posters, but you are not engaging in that discussion.

 

Everything I have said is grounded in logic and not in appeals to emotion or spurious covert character assassination and name-calling. I don't think you are truly interested in making a point and having a civil discussion, or you would have responded to other quite rational talk still occurring here instead of just inflaming this point with me. I believe you are actually a troll who is more interested in having the last word than real dialogue. I do not intend to play that game, so I will not respond to you any further, regardless of what you say to or about me.

 

Good day, miss cupcake.

 

*wipes his hands*

 

ITS AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. NOT A LIFE OR DEATH STRUGGLE FOR THE TRUTH - and this board is not one that's generally argumentative and fighty.

 

Please let's not do fighty. Mods here aren't happy when there's fighty. Peace in our time and all that.

 

Also - genetic damage from incest is caused by continuous inbreeding. It builds over time. Like with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

 

Now THIS is a family tree you can show to your unclecousingrandson:http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/wp-content/blogs.dir/474/files/2012/04/i-ad0e60b6ff8c7bd2e3ba38183a6177b7-SpanishHabsburgs.jpg

 

Sibling incest can compound birth defects found in both partners and/or parents, where common traits can compound - and at a much higher rate than cousin incest. The chances of genetic damage from cousin incest is surprisingly very small.

 

After all that: kissing your brother? Eww.

 

But I do so enjoy a life and death struggle for the truth

 

With regard to sibling incest versus cousins, that would make a lot of sense as there would be more of those commonalities and thus more points for it to happen. It is curious, I wrote quite some years ago a fantasy mythology for a world I was creating (well before I had read George R R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire) with one of the most powerful royal families unwittingly engaging in incest. The family tree ended in a rather creepy rectangular block shape and produced what was probably the most insane and viciously tyrannical boy-king their world had ever known, who nearly ruined everything due to his psychosis. Dollars to donuts, he could have been Joffrey Lannister's twin brother.

 

It's an interesting topic from several standpoints and I definitely think it deserves some exploration in fiction.

 

Though with the brother-kissing thing ... yeah. Eww. I could never  think of mine that way.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Stellar

[Sasha Distan]

It's an interesting topic from several standpoints and I definitely think it deserves some exploration in fiction.

 

but this returns us to one of the original questions that I and Thorn discussed which is, if we did explore these ideas, both good and bad sides, in fiction, would anyone read it?

[Former Member]

It's one of those things I think that we, as authors are just going to have to accept that it's just not everyone's cup of tea.  And those that do read and give constructive feedback, well, those readers are to be cherished and we should be even MORE thankful to them for putting the time and effort into reading and saying something - ANYTHING - about it.  Personally, I see it a lot with lesbian fiction on this site.  There really isn't a lot of it, because let's face it, how many of us came for the girl-on-girl fiction?  Anyone?

[Stellar]

but this returns us to one of the original questions that I and Thorn discussed which is, if we did explore these ideas, both good and bad sides, in fiction, would anyone read it?

 

I have on occasion read fiction involving incest, but it takes something interesting and special to hold my attention if you're going to tackle a topic like this. I don't know, I think it's just a matter of individual tastes as Myiege says.

[thebrinkoftime]

I've been reading this topic ever since it started with a keen interest. Even though I stand at the opposite end opinion-wide to Sasha (I can't stand incest and if possible, I don't really want to read stories where it is positively portrayed), I really respect the authorial inspiration to tackle the issue, even though it is certainly taboo in many of the societies involved in this discussion. I don't know if I'd ever write a story about incest, but I have and will read stories about them in the same way I read stories about rape and pedophilia, if there is a certain amount of distance and disapproval of the act. Let me explain my thoughts on that last point.

 

If I'm interpreting the original post correctly and not misrepresenting his stance, Sasha mentioned that perhaps there shouldn't be much of a problem with incest if it is between two consenting adults of the same gender who cannot procreate. I'm not so sure. To me, incest is very much in the same category of pedophilia in that both are presently thought of as potentials of non-standard sex between two humans that is not tolerated well in many societies. There are other similarities, but the one I am most chiefly concerned with is the psychological difference between soft and hard versions of both phenomena.

 

What do I mean by soft pedophilia? You can see a lot of this in Japan to the point where I'm not sure you could call it pedophilia. The "softest" occurence of it is where people think it is attractive and desirable to have child-like or childish qualities. This can be seen as a very common cornerstone of our modern culture, where the word "cute" is, regardless of gender, used more often for sexual attraction than any other adjective, including things like "hot," "cool," "pretty," "handomse," or "beautiful." If you strictly defined this preference for love or sexual objects, it might correlate to pedophilia. But that would be ridiculous. It's like saying you can't love or find sexually attractive people who have red lips, that such objectification is called to be redophilia and be from now on, taboo. Nobody would take you seriously. So even if you think it may be strange to correlate child-like behavior or mannerisms in adults with the sexually desirable, since the two participants are most often consenting adults with no harmful or lasting psychological manipulation occuring, what damage can it cause? None, really.

 

Now, if we're talking about Japan and pedophilia, then there are two elephants in the room and their names are "loli" and "shota." If you don't know what these are, a quick definition wouldn't be very helpful, but for the sake of argument, we'll define them here as a preference for consuming fictional media (not real life exploitation and abuse) with sometimes explicitly sexual images of young children engaging in sexual acts. That's much closer to actual pedophilia, but as with actual pedophilia, there are stages of disgusting. Pedophiles who act on their own impulses are, without question, far worse than those who keep it to themselves, much as the same as those who have murderous tendencies are far less heinous if they don't act on them. In the same way, as bizarre as it is to me as to why you'd want to subject yourself to loli and shota, I'm closer to live and let live here. As long as these people aren't hurting children, I see no harm in them looking at the pictures and reading the stories they like, even if I find them rather repulsive. And again, there are different extents. Some people just like child characters in a story and are not necessarily itching to see them do sexual things, in Japanese, you might say you enjoy a loli or shota character, instead of simply saying you like child characters. This is obviously another mark removed from the abhorrent possibility of child molestation and abuse. In fact, these two words are often mistranslated and underexplained when they are referred to in English, both terms can mean other, potentially harmless things as well. For instance, Lolita fashion just refers to women who like to revolve their fashion around looking like young girls -- roll your eyes all you want, but there's nothing wrong with that on a fundamental level.

 

So these are types of "soft" pedophilia, in the widest term of the word: a love of children. But what about hard pedophilia that leads to actual sexual acts performed with children? Unless we're talking kids, kids and not encompassing older teenagers, I see some blurred lines there as well. Because in today's laws children are referred to as minors and in many countries the ages at which they cease to be minors for different legal purposes differ. We have some really different ideas of what pedophilia between an adult and a minor is between country to country. I think everyone is horrified when they hear stories of 30-year-olds and 9-year-olds being sexually involved.

 

What I'm talking about is the really sketchy area, like 17 and 18, or 19 and 16. In order to process whether there is child molestation or statutory rape actually going on, regardless of what the law says, I think its useful to consider the context. So for instance, maybe the 19 and 16-year-old have been in a relationship for 2 or 3 years where the older one has become an adult quicker than the younger? And maybe it's a positive relationship, certainly with no abuse or manipulation going on? While the 19-year-old is potentially living  a world very different than the 16-year-old now, the mere fact of age does not imply that this person is using it advantageously to psychologically do sexual things that would be damaging to the 16-year-old. On the other hand, the 19-year-old could be a player who has manipulated and abused people in the past, but this time wants to make a clean slate of it and is attracted to someone in nearly the same age bracket. That's quite a bit less clear. Then there is the case of a 19-year-old who has been living an adult life for two years and uses that gap in experience to easily force a conquest on a 16-year-old. There is an obvious case of clear psychological manipulation resulting from a gap in age, and one that will likely have far more damaging repercussions on the 16-year-old than on the 19-year-old.

 

These days, I often hear people make comments like, "Ew, you think that 16/17-year-old is hot, that's so creepy!" But really, come on, who are we kidding? Many modern societies encourage teenagers to flaunt their sexuality by surrounding them with it and making it look like the coolest, most adult thing to do. Then they turn around and say for that many of the upper echelon of teens (say over 15) whose bodies, depending on the person, can be or look very close to a fully mature adult, that it is depraved to see any sexual attraction there? We have Rolling Stone photo ops sexualized Justin Bieber and then rejoicing with a headline "Now legal." As if a day passing by has now absolved anyone of any possible guilt in using their sexual maturity to manipulate Mr. Bieber. That's absurd. This is most likely because the reaction toward the obviously disgusting act of pedophilia is close to the same moral outrage as the obviously disgusting act of racism. Whether or not a behavior is actually negative, counterproductive and harmful, we often brand it as racist, because isn't it so if people say so? So I think there is a case where people have become oversensitive and imply that anyone who thinks near-adults look like adults is nearing pedophilial thoughts. I find this to be ridiculous. Actual creepy behavior, like fetishizing six-year-olds or leering at actual kids in a park, or preying on those who are just starting to develop into adults, is undermined by this casual demonification. And it doesn't help us move to a place of clarity with which to analyze the fringe cases between those just above the age of adult and minors on the borderline.

 

Then there are the large gaps in age. This is not even restricted to minors. Say somebody who is 60 is dating somebody who is in their 20s, despite the younger person being an adult, you still hear some people say they are "robbing the cradle." This, again, gets to the crux of the matter. The gap in age and experience is why we have a problem with pedophilia. Still, I imagine there is the exceedingly, overwhelmingly rare case of say, a 30-something and a 15-year-old enjoying a relationship with no emotional manipulation coming from the more experienced party and no lasting psychological damage, which turns out to be more positive than anything. It's just not very common, because the usual 15-year-old isn't that emotionally mature or ready for it. But I am prepared to accept that there are even cases like this, where legally it may be wrong, but morally it's much less so.

 

So while my stance is that "soft" pedophilia will not necessarily lead to "hard" pedophilia and even in cases of legal pedophilia, there are sometimes circumnstances which beg to be analyzed first before branding either party with the scarlet P, this is where I think it's pretty close to incest. In the same way, there are many levels of incest. There are the soft sorts of it, which are just normally some kind of infatuation or temporary crush on an impressive family member that normalizes into a more typical expression of familial love and can range perhaps all the way to people who become rather obsessed and may even fantasize on such ideas, but never act on it. Then there is hard incest, which I find much less tolerable. But I reserve my greatest disgust for relationships that imply increasing levels of foul play.

 

I have the same objection to acting on it as I do toward pedophilia -- it stems from an innate sense that one or more parties are being emotionally manipulated and the result will be some serious psychological damage. In the case of pedophilia, its because one of them hasn't developed enough to be able to be ready or appropriate for such behavior. In the case of incest, I believe it has a serious chance of developing a person's burgeoning sense of relationships to a warped level because it stunts the ability to develop such behavior. I think one ought to look outside their family for romantic and sexual relationships. Even if ultimately, say living with a brother or cousin is almost like a spousal relationship on an everyday level, it should not ever progress to a sexual level.

 

On a fundamental level, I think sex ought to be a way to connect to functional adults who are not already some way connected to you. The physical proximity of a familial relationship is bad for this on multiple levels. People ought to be encouraged to seek sexual intimacy outside of their family so they can learn to connect to people they have no previous ties to and build that into the relationship, as well as how to distance themselves when it may be time to move on. These are crucial skills to learn that most likely could get hampered if someone gets into a long-lasting incestual relationship. I can imagine all sorts of healthy norms getting warped. The close emotional and locational bond of family can be used to manipulate one party into sexual situations too.

 

On the other hand, to pretend there is no incest or incestual themes in great literature would be a fool's errand. And in some cases, I see stories suggest that certain incestual relationships are not as ugly and repulsive as I consider most of them to be. I think casual sexual incest is really eye-twitchingly unappealing, but I can see how a light peppering of it (as previously said, a passing crush) or the odd really unconventional relationship could be okay.

 

In literature however, the same standard for every potentially licentious theme applies: if it wasn't done merely to titillate, it's probably okay. In gay literature, right now, as in 2013, I'm hesitant to applaud it, even if done well. I think gay authors have to think about possible audiences including straight people, not just other gays. It's not going to help normalize gays to bring in taboos and it's especially not going to help to do so in a positive manner. While gay writers are not required to "write for the cause," so to speak, I'd like to see them take up a responsibility for the imagery they propagate when they write a story. To a certain extent, you have less of a leg to stand in if you're bemoaning the the mistreatment of the gay image in mass media if you are contributing to it in parts.

 

So that's my long-winded, multi-faceted objection to incest in a walnut shell.

Edited October 23, 2013 by thebrinkoftime

[Sasha Distan]

I am not really sure that coercive pedophilia and consensual incest can be lumped into the same category...

[Former Member]

I actually thought Brink had a lot of good points.  Both can cause lasting psychological damage, for one.  I have to imagine that there must some 'waking up' point even in consensual incest that someone experiences.  There must be some doubt there, some "what the EFF am I DOING?" before they become comfortable with shagging their sibling/cousin.  Although, it is very VERY difficult for me to imagine someone becoming 'comfortable' or 'resigned' afterward.  It is still bound to have SOME consequence on their psyche.

 

I would like to pose a question though, in the case of a heterosexual couple, one of which is sterile (some posters in the past have said that as long as genetic material cannot be passed down, incest was okay).  Does it now become okay that they have incestuous relations?  This question poses a lot of merit, I think.  Because a lot of people would automatically assume that it was wrong, because they would assume both were healthy fertile humans, right?  What I'm trying to get at, is how can we judge this couple, whose genetic potency is - and really should be - ambiguous based on one set of rules, but judge another, which is OBVIOUSLY not going to result in offspring (any incestuous m/m f/f pairing) using a different set of rules?

 

Keep in mind that, unless you are very close with this heterosexual couple, you will most likely never know that they cannot reproduce.

 

*shrugs* just a thought.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Myiege

[Ron]

In gay literature, right now, as in 2013, I'm hesitant to applaud it, even if done well. I think gay authors have to think about possible audiences including straight people, not just other gays. It's not going to help normalize gays to bring in taboos and it's especially not going to help to do so in a positive manner. While gay writers are not required to "write for the cause," so to speak, I'd like to see them take up a responsibility for the imagery they propagate when they write a story. To a certain extent, you have less leg to stand in if you're bemoaning the the mistreatment of the gay image in mass media if you are contributing to it in parts.

 

I also thought that Brink made many good points. This particular point though is one that I want to applaud but it is also one that I find disturbing. It seems a valid point of view and one I agree with on the surface but to follow it further we then touch on censorship. Do we then stifle a creative voice in order to promote some version of normalcy for the world at large; give them something sweet that they can swallow down more easily or perhaps something cozy to snuggle up with. Then they will shout to the heavens... "Why, they are just like us!" It is not going to happen. So whether it be a self imposed censorship or administratively done, such as for this site, is beside the point. It will be censorship nonetheless and not likely to spare us any hate if in fact we do it either way.

 

Sasha's story, 'Home Grown' may not have been everyone's cup of tea but it was a good, a solid, and creative work, and it should stand on it's own merits. I think that it does and if the incest is hard to swallow, then move along... this is not the story you want.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Ron

[W_L]

seems just like old times *hides*

 

 

Feeling nostalgic for our old box

 

The ultimate question left unanswered is: what is truly too taboo for human beings to ever accept?

 

Morality and Ethics only last for a short period of time, sexuality has been acceptable and decried, and love continues to be explored in every conceivable passion.

 

Seriously, what can't people accept is the ultimate question to Sasha's OP?

[Former Member]

Feeling nostalgic for our old box

 

The ultimate question left unanswered is: what is truly too taboo for human beings to ever accept?

 

Morality and Ethics only last for a short period of time, sexuality has been acceptable and decried, and love continues to be explored in every conceivable passion.

 

Seriously, what can't people accept is the ultimate question to Sasha's OP?

 

Human beings as individuals or as a society?

[Zombie]

No man is an island

 

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/

 

 

 

.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Zombie

[W_L]

Human beings as individuals or as a society?

 

Both as an individual's openness eventually will become or was already a group concept, if history is our guide.

[Sasha Distan]

Seriously, what can't people accept is the ultimate question to Sasha's OP?

 

Necrophilia? No matter how understanding people get, i think that might always be a no-no.

[W_L]

Necrophilia? No matter how understanding people get, i think that might always be a no-no.

It can be made acceptable or else you wouldn't have so many walking dead fans.

 

Necrophilia is used for tragedy and exploration of love beyond mortality. It can be dramatic theme in horror. At the moment, it might be more acceptable than incest due to popular appetites.

[crazyfish]

Takeshi Miike has some necrophilia scenes in Visitor Q, and it was hilarious.  Ok Takeshi Miike makes some fucked-up movies. 

[Graeme]

It can be made acceptable or else you wouldn't have so many walking dead fans.

 

Necrophilia is used for tragedy and exploration of love beyond mortality. It can be dramatic theme in horror. At the moment, it might be more acceptable than incest due to popular appetites.

It also sometimes makes an appearance in Halloween stories. There's an excellent example in one of Tragic Rabbit's short stories over at AwesomeDude, but since the necrophilia was the shock twist at the end of the story, I'm not going to say which one as that would ruin the story for anyone who hadn't read it.

[Thorn Wilde]

I think necrophilia in fantastic settings is one thing (I mean, that can easily include vampires if you think about it), but I don't think I know of a single person who won't be severely freaked out by the idea of someone actually fucking a corpse. Nothing mystical or magical, no zombies, no walking dead, no Corpse Bride, just a dead person, whether freshly dead or already rotting.

[W_L]

I think necrophilia in fantastic settings is one thing (I mean, that can easily include vampires if you think about it), but I don't think I know of a single person who won't be severely freaked out by the idea of someone actually fucking a corpse. Nothing mystical or magical, no zombies, no walking dead, no Corpse Bride, just a dead person, whether freshly dead or already rotting.

 

 

Depends on how far the necrophilia goes and what culture we are referencing:

 

Chinese for thousands of years have practiced ghost marriages between living people and deceased ones. There have been amazingly sad stories about lovers, who lose their soul mates and marry them through the ritual, then hold onto their corpses. (Yes, it's a real thing and still exists to the modern day; despite pushes for its end from time to time over the centuries)

 

In the US, we don't perform those kinds of rituals, because as you say thorne, it freaks people out, but it is an accepted tradition in China.

 

As for sex, the implication is kind of weird, but among Chinese folklore, there are references. I don't know how far the actual consumation goes, nor do I particularly care.

 

Look up the variety of ghost marriage rituals, you might find it interesting.

 

(As a special note on my story, I know readers of my story will ask this question: There is no such thing as gay ghost marriages in the past in Chinese folklore or even the diverse schools of Asian myths  Homosexuality and relationships are referenced, just not commitment as far as I know.)

Edited October 26, 2013 by W_L

[Thorn Wilde]

Folklore, IMO, is a 'fantastic setting', as mentioned above. And when I say necrophilia, I mean actual sex with actual corpses. Which, first of all, the health implications are... ew.

 

A friend of mine at school told me a story, and I don't know if it's true, but she claimed to have known the girl it happened to. This girl was on holiday somewhere, and met a guy in a nightclub. They ended up making out, but she declined going home with him. When she got back home, she started getting these sores around her mouth, and she thought the guy had given her herpes or something. She went to see a doctor, and it turned out the sores were actually caused by maggots. Shortly thereafter, police contacted the girl and she found out that the guy she had snogged was a necrophiliac mass murderer who liked to invite girls to his house, kill them and then shag their dead bodies until they fell apart.

 

Like I said, this story might not be true (in fact, it probably isn't, this girl is a rather brilliant actress and very good at making things sound true that just aren't), but think about it. A decaying corpse means maggots, bacteria and all kinds of shit. It will make you sick. And I don't mean it'll make you feel sick, I mean it'll do bad things to your body. 

 

It's excellent as a horror plot point precisely because it is so extraordinarily taboo. But I have never, ever read or even heard of a story in which necrophilia (in the starkest sexual sense of the word, not including corpses or undead that can move, walk and/or talk) is romanticised, nor have I read a story in which a sympathetic character is a necrophiliac.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Thorn Wilde