Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Well in the ruling houses of Egypt under the rule of the Pharohs
    and in the royal families of Hawaii an heir to the throne (if I
    recall my history correctly) had to be born of a brother and a sister
    of royal blood.
    
    Bonnie

    The main thing that I see as wrong with incest is the power/coercion
    issues behind it.  Incest between a child and an adult is another
    version of rape.  The other problem is that it is an "unspeakable" act,
    leaving the victim in a position where (s)he feels that there is no one
    to talk about it to.  Confusingly hurtful for a small child, guilt and
    internal conflict for an older one. 
    
    In some societies, such as ancient Egypt, incest was expected to occur
    at least under some conditions.  Since it is a normal part of that
    society, it probably doesn't have the same consequences about guilt
    simultaneous with coercion that incest does in our society. Of course,
    for this to be true, the participants would have to be past puberty and
    not forced into the act.  If there is force involved, it's going to be
    damaging no matter what else. 
    
    Between consenting adults where there is no imbalance of power, and no
    possibility of pregnancy, I'm not sure.  At the very least, it's not
    rape, but I'm still unsure if there aren't some very subtle coercions
    going on.  Example "Won't you do this for your poor, aging, lonely
    father who loves you?" 
    
    Elizabeth

    Scientifically speaking, no, incest isn't really a bad thing, *if*
    the offspring are culled. That means not allowing those with reinforced
    negative genes to 1) live or 2) breed. 
    
    In animal husbandry, it is accepted practice to breed offspring
    back to parents. This is one of the quickest ways of selecting for
    a particular trait. However you have to accept that you will get
    a certain rather high percentage (from 25-50% depending on how many
    genes control the trait) of failures. This can range from not viable
    as an embryo to simply not suitable for breeding.
    
    In humans, as Bonnie pointed out, the negative taboos against incest
    do not exist in all cultures. Even in European history there is
    the Hapsburg family, a good example of what happens if you don't
    kill/get rid of the weaklings created by generations of close
    inbreeding simply because they're royalty.
    
    Frequently, in earlier history, one could not become the king/ruler if
    one were less than physically perfect. This would help eliminate the
    bad genes ands keep the gene pool clean. 
    

    If you notice, in mythology, there appears to be little taboo against
    incest among the gods and goddesses. My perception of the traditional
    (and mostly based on religion) taboos against incest, come from the
    strain of dealing with less than hardy persons, in a nomadic
    environment. Reinforcing bad genes was simply a strain on the
    tribe/society.                          
    
    Tamzen
    

What does the Bible say about the sons of Adam and Eve?

Who did they marry?

Pete

    Incest between an adult is always a monsterous act and if I caught
    anyone in the act of doing such I would feed him/her his/her own
    heart.
    
    If two consenting adults want to, let 'em.  I personally think it's
    revolting but who am I to judge?   They have the right to do anything
    they want as long as both agree on it.
    
    Bill 

    ooops....that is supposed to be "an adult and a child"  I don't
    know how you can have incest between an adult (singular).
    
    Bill
    

    Incest was initially outlawed due to genetic flawing of the offspring,
    yes?  
    
    I agree that adult-child incest is bad.
    
    I'm not so sure about consenting-adult-kissing-cousins, though.
    I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, as long as the legal
    system doesn't get wind of it (isn't it still illegal "on the books"
    - parent/child, cousin/cousin, sibling/sibling)...
    
    -Jody
    

    I agree that beyond the problem genetic inbreeding, societal 
    context has everything to do with whether incest is "good"
    or "bad".  While I tend to go along with the notion of adult/child
    incest being bad, I think the definition adulthood can be tricky,
    especially in the sexual sense.
    
    Some, such as the late Robert Heinlein (the nearly interminable
    Lazarus Long series of books) feel that, in the context of a
    supportive society, incest might be a very positive binding
    mechanism.
    
    Steve
    

    I don't think it is healthy. People must be more socially rounded.
    
    Tamzen: Surely you don't advocate infantacide for imperfect children
            of the incestuious? 
    
    

    From The American Hertiage Dictonary:
      Sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that their
    marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. 
      But as people with minds given to us to help us make *healthy*
    decisions, Do as your mind and concious will allow you to, remembering
    that you might meet with much disapproval.

       

    Re: .7

    > I agree that adult-child incest is bad.

    Jody, do you mean adult-<minor> child only, or are you referring to
    all parent/child couplings? If you *are* referring to all, can you 
    explain why you feel this way? 
    
    > I'm not so sure about consenting-adult-kissing-cousins, though.
    > I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, as long as the legal
    > system doesn't get wind of it (isn't it still illegal "on the books"
    > - parent/child, cousin/cousin, sibling/sibling)...

    This goes along the lines of what I mentioned in the "Sin" Note, started
    by Joyce. Why is it legal in one state to marry your first cousin, and
    not legal in another?

    Why is it illegal in Massachusetts (probably many other states, also)
    for step-siblings to marry? 

    Indeed, here, it is illegal for an ex-stepparent to marry his/her former
    stepchild. I believe it's also illegal for ex step-siblings to marry.

    Now the state can't be proscribing these sexual couplings because it's
    afraid of "defective" offspring. Something else (perhaps society's con-
    cept of SIN?) must be behind these prohibitions. 
    
   
    Re: .8   

    > or "bad".  While I tend to go along with the notion of adult/child
    > incest being bad, I think the definition adulthood can be tricky,
    > especially in the sexual sense.
    
    Steve, the same question I posed to Jody: Are you referring to all
    parent/child sexual unions, regardless of the age of the child?
    
    > Some, such as the late Robert Heinlein (the nearly interminable
    > Lazarus Long series of books) feel that, in the context of a
    > supportive society, incest might be a very positive binding
    > mechanism.
    
    This can be thought of as "the family who plays together, stays
    together" concept. :-)
    
   
    Re: .9
    
    > Tamzen: Surely you don't advocate infantacide for imperfect children
    >        of the incestuious? 
    
    Kate, I don't think that Tamzen is advocating infanticide of imperfect
    children of the incestuous, any more than she would advocate infanticide
    of *any* imperfect children.


    Re: .10
    
    But I think that's the point I'm trying to make. Incest is "wrong"
    because our culture/law/society/religion once decided to make it
    not "normal" (as were homosexuality and other so-called "aberrant sexual
    behaviors).
    
    And people who weren't "normal" were made to feel guilty for their
    "sinful" behavior.                   
    
    Now, most (certainly not all) of us have become sensitive to the
    fact that for people who are homosexual, it's okay - it's their
    life; and that they have the right to be accepted for whom they are. 
    
    Is incest between "consenting adults" just another artificial societal
    barrier, ready to fall by the wayside?
    
      Alan
    

    	I don't think I have the right to judge the behavior of consenting
    adults when such behavior has no negative effect upon others.
    
    	True - there are societal and religious disapprovals, but to
    answer the question of it's rightness or wrongness - by what standads
   ???  Who among us can assume the power to make such a judgement ?
    
    
    	Guy B.
    
    

    No, I'm not advocating infanticide, simply pointing out that it makes
    sense from the view of good genetics. Having studied genetics while
    getting my biology degree, I am very aware that allowing bad genes to
    be reinforced and to survive and breed back into the pool is a bad
    idea. At one time most societies went along with that and put deformed
    children out on the mountainside to die. Now modern medicine keeps
    alive those who wouldn't have survived only a hundred years ago. If I
    take the long view, sometimes, I'm just not always sure that's a very
    good idea for humanity as a species. Hence, societal taboos against
    incest make sense and are better than "good" (from a scientific
    viewpoint)  genetics.
    
    Tamzen

    re: .11
    
    I believe that any sexual relationship between ANY TWO PEOPLE (not just
    family) that is not entered into freely and happily by the two people
    (or three...or four - let's be open minded here) - is BAD.
    
    I think a sexual relationship is best entered into by consenting
    adults, but I'm sure there may be a few exceptions.
    
    -Jody
     

    Re: .14    
    
    > I believe that any sexual relationship between ANY TWO PEOPLE (not just
    > family) that is not entered into freely and happily by the two people
    > (or three...or four - let's be open minded here) - is BAD.
    
    And if the sexual relationship is entered into freely and happily
    by the two people (or three...or four)  - I *am* being open minded
    here :-) - and they happen to be within the same family, then is it
    GOOD (or at least not BAD)?
 
    > I think a sexual relationship is best entered into by consenting
    > adults, but I'm sure there may be a few exceptions.

    Can you say what these exceptions are, Jody?
    
      Alan

    re: .15
    
    for all intents and purposes, anything that is not in the BAD category
    I described, seems okay to me, as long as it's okay with those
    involved.
    
    Is this the answer you are looking for?  Wasn't it obvious?
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Tonite in the check out line for the supermarket a tabloid
    article caught my eye. It was something about a brother and
    sister who had been married before but the judge broke them
    up who had now married again. (As I sort of vaguely recall it
    from scanning headlines while waiting in line, they did not
    know they were brother and sister when they married and they
    had at least one child.)
    
    What about adopted kids. Should adopted sibs with no genetic
    relationship be allowed to marry? Should full or half blood
    sibs who had been adopted separately be permitted to be married
    if the relationship is discovered?
    
    To me part of the incest taboo revolves around family dynamics.
    If family members (at least in this society) were to regard each
    other as potential sexaul partners it could have the effect of
    tearing apart family bonding. They would become rivals instead
    of copartners.
    
    This of course assumes that anything other than a one person with
    one person sexual relationship will cause strife. If one could
    describe a society where people could have multiple sexual partners
    with out any one partner feeling pain or hurt or betrayal, then
    sexual relations within a family could be potentially bonding. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    	re .18, Bonnie,
    
    It *is* connected with family dynamics. If one reads up on their
    family system theory, one quickly finds that healthy systems have
    healthy *boundaries* between *all* members in the system. Clearly,
    incestual relations crosses some of these borders; the line is
    crossed as soon as skin touches skin - in a sexual context. Sometimes
    that doesnt even have to actually happen - it can be as covert and 
    subtle as just a *thought* of crossing the line.
    
    The Taboo simply "draws the line" defining what is appropriate,
    in the sexual context. Any given person has the right to their own
    boundaries remaining well defined. Would any child actually invite
    an event which would tend to smear his or her boundary definitions,
    relative to his or her own family? I doubt it. The Taboo is *needed* 
    because, sometimes, "not being invited" isnt good enough -
    
    	Joe Jas
    	

       
   Re: .19
    
   Joe, I think I see what you're saying, vis-a-vis, boundaries, drawing
   the line, and crossing the line - and how this family system theory would
   be important between parents and children, when the children are young.

   However, once children reach adulthood I don't understand why maintaining
   these parent/child dynamics are nearly as important (or important at all).

   Sure, a child will always be his/her parents' child, and a parent will
   always be that child's parent. But once they're all adults, the parents
   should (in the "normal" scheme of things) no longer be authority figures
   or in control of the child's life. Parents and grown children *should* be
   relating as equals, making their own independent decisions, living their
   own lives. In this context, why should it make any difference if the "lines
   get crossed?"

   Also, in the case of sibling incest - with no coercion - how are the
   boundaries getting smeared? A brother is still a brother; a sister is still
   a sister. The fact they have sex with each other should not be relevant
   in their sibling relationship, *unless* they buy into our society's rules
   that say that a brother and sister (or brother/brother, sister/sister)
   cannot have sex with each other.    

   > incestual relations crosses some of these borders; the line is
   > crossed as soon as skin touches skin - in a sexual context. Sometimes
   > that doesnt even have to actually happen - it can be as covert and 
   > subtle as just a *thought* of crossing the line. 
                       ^^^^^^^

   I'm somewhat surprised that you - Joe Jas - should make this statement.
   From reading your notes in this and other Conferences, I have the impress-
   ion that you do not care for guilt being laid upon people, particularly
   children by their parents.

   Yet, reading what you said, it sounds as if a child should feel guilty for 
   even *fantasizing* about an incestuous union, let alone doing it.

   Am I getting the wrong inference from the paragraph I quoted?

     Alan  

    incest if fine.
    
    as long as you keep it in the family.
    
    (i know....bad humor)
    8*)
    tony

    	Inbreeding in animals has developed beatiful breeds such as
    the Irish Setter. Their ability to hunt, retrieve, etc. was bred
    out in order to enhance their "feathers", coat, color, sleekness.
    It bred in skin problems, cataracts, blindness, and in many cases
    stupidity. You never know what you're gonna get.
    	                                 
    	In a recent Nova program about cats, it was stated that the
    alley cat (usually male/toms) keep the strains from becoming weak.
    They pass on a toughness, an instinctiveness, an ability to survive
    under extreme conditions. They pass on strength and wile. They weak
    of litters often die and the strongest pass on a pool of 'good'
    genes, needed to keep the species alive. They're not often pretty,
    but they're strong.
    
    	Because of genetic conditions passed from parent to child, like
    Huntington's, incest increases the 50% of passage to higher number
    because the gene is already in place.
    
    	I don't think incest is "good", but it often times is the form
    of sexual learning for children in poverty and extreme rural areas.
    I'll show you mine, if I can see your's becomes the investigative
    process for many children. Most touch and experiment, but usually
    don't develop beyond that stage. School introduces new and exciting
    changes and interest in a brother or sister wanes. When there is
    a failure to break the relationship, then there would appear to
    be a 'problem' in that 'normal' relationships are unable to form
    with other boys and girls. I think that's where incest is wrong.
    It doesn't allow for alternative experimentation and understanding.
    	
    	If a brother and sister live together and have children, will
    they then have sexual encounters with all of their children and
    encourage them to have sexual relations and more children where
    the original parents (now grandparents) can have children by their
    children and grandchildren? Imagine 2 brothers and two sisters having
    incestous relationships. Each sister has two children (1 male/1
    female) by each brother. The mother has two children by each son,
    the daughters have two by each brother, each of the fathers, and
    the grandfather. It goes on and on. Somehow this seems very unnatural.
    
    Ken

    In the case of a biological brother and sister, where one or both of
    them were adopted and raised in different families, if they
    accidentally choose each other for husband and wife, and it's later
    discovered, either should end the marriage/sexual relationship or see
    to it that they don't procreate (with each other, anyway). From a
    psychological perspective, they don't view each other as siblings, and
    it doesn't look and feel to them like incest. 
    
    Step-siblings is kind of shaky.  If they were raised together from very
    young, they are going to feel like siblings, and while it will not have
    the biological implications of incest, it has the psychological ones.
    It's probably not a real good idea for them to marry in this society,
    but I don't really see any reason to make it illegal.  Obviously, if
    they were 30 when their widowed parents married, they don't feel like
    siblings toward each other, and are not siblings, and there should be
    no reason for them not to marry. Somewhere there is a fuzzy line (what
    if the kids were 13 when the parents married?  How do they feel about
    each other?), but I don't know where it is.  Obviously, if there are
    large age differences and power-plays between the step-siblings, it
    becomes sexual abuse/incest in spite of the fact that they are not
    related.  For example, if a 17 year old boy is having sex with his 11
    year old stepsister, that should be stopped.  If the kids are the same
    age and size, they still run the risk of a lot of guilt put on them by
    their parents if the parents find out. 
    
    In a nutshell.  People who are raised together (at least in this
    society) shouldn't have sex with each other, but it should not be
    illegal; people who are to closely related shouldn't procreate, but
    that shouldn't stop them from having sex as long as they aren't
    producing children.  People who happen to have parents married to each
    other and don't fall into either of these classes should have no
    prohibitions put on them. 
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .22
	
    >	If a brother and sister live together and have children, will
    > they then have sexual encounters with all of their children and
    > encourage them to have sexual relations and more children where
    > the original parents (now grandparents) can have children by their
    > children and grandchildren? Imagine 2 brothers and two sisters having
    > incestous relationships. Each sister has two children (1 male/1
    > female) by each brother. The mother has two children by each son,
    > the daughters have two by each brother, each of the fathers, and
    > the grandfather. It goes on and on. Somehow this seems very unnatural.
    
    Ken, if one believes literally in the total inerrancy of the Bible (Old 
    Testament), Creationism, and Adam and Eve, then there was an interesting
    set of incestuous couplings. Now, I'm not too literate with the Bible,
    so if I'm wrong, please, somebody, let me know. :-)

    Eve had two sons by Adam - Cain and Abel - so for the next generation
    of offspring then Cain and/or Abel had to "carnally know" (as long as 
    I'm on the Bible kick) their mother, Eve. 

    After that, then Adam could "know" Cain/Eve's daughters or Abel/Eve's
    daughters. Cain could "know" his/Eve's daughters, or Abel/Eve's daughters,
    or Adam's/his daughters' daughters .......   
    
    And let's not forget about Eve: Not only did she have to "know" her own
    sons, but very possibly her son's sons or her husband's/granddaughters'
    sons.............

    And then all these sons' sons got to "know" all these daughters'
    daughters and - if you're still following this - their parents' parents
    and uncles/aunts and................

    Boy, with all this genetic inbreeding, no wonder we humans are so
    screwed up today. :-)

      Alan                       
    

    I'm sure that the Bible says that Adam and Eve had other children
    besides Cain & Abel.  One named Seth comes to mind, and there are
    other, unnamed ones.  Besides, Abel couldn't procreate very well
    after Cain murdered him.
    
    Of course, if you believe that these people were the only people
    on earth, they had to have incest to procreate.

    THE RIGHT TO INNOCENCE - Healing the Trauma of Childhood 
    Sexual Abuse, by Beverly Engel, M.F.C.C., foreword by 
    Eleanor Hamilton, PH.D.  $17.95 in hardcover, Pub. 1989

    "By some estimates, one in three American women and one
    in seven American men are victims of childhood sexual
    abuse.  No childhood trauma is more widespread or has 
    a more devastating impact."

    "But, in the last few years, healthcare professionals and
    psychotherapists have begun to discover methods for 
    healing the deep and lasting damage that these innocent
    victims have suffered.  When the anguish, guilt, and 
    fear felt at the time of the trauma are held in and
    go untreated, they become compounded with tragic conse-
    quences that include:  feelings of worthlessness and
    self-hatred; difficulty in trusting others; involvement with
    partners who are physically, verbally, or emotionally
    abusive; sexual dysfunction and lack of sexual desire;
    problems with gender identity and sexual promiscuity;
    anger, depression, extreme fears and phobias, nightmares,
    and insomnia; and inclinations toward abusiveness to 
    others and oneself."


    This book explains and maps out a recovery program for
    healing childhood sexual abuse.  The author has had over
    15 years of experience in working with abuse victims/
    survivors and is herself a survivor.

    
    justme....jacqui

    Re: .26
    
    jacqui, there's also "The Courage To Heal" by <mumble> and Laura
    Bass.
    
    But these books, and many others, are referring to incestual abuse,
    rather than incest between *consenting adults*.
    
    If you'll re-read the basenote, you'll see that I'm referring to
    the latter issue.                                                  
    
      Alan

    
    	re .20,
    
    	Yeah, I meant that statement in the context of the adult/parent's
    thoughts. Even though "nothing happens", a child can still be effected
    by, for example, "Dad" seeing his child in his own mind in the
    context of a nice object to boff or whatever. It is inappropriate
    for "Dad" to conceptualize his own child in that context. What
    can be mentally damaging is when the child finds out how s/he is
    being seen. I imagine it would give one quite a creepy feeling,
    and make necessities like "trust" difficult.
    
    	My reply .19 assumed only the case when children are young;
    still within the confines of their original household/family.
    
    	Joe

    Re: .28
    
    Joe, what about a child's fantasizing about having sex with his/her
    parent, where the parent in this case would be the sexual object?
    
    Should the child feel guilty for having these thoughts?
    
      Alan

    What kind of a parent would want to have sex with his offspring?
    Adult or no adult. Sick is sick. No matter how old a person is,
    he always regards his parents as being different from his peers.
    There would always be a power issue. 
    
    A parent is sick for having sex with his offspring, child or adult.
    And for those of you who seem to poo-poo societies norms, think
    about the fact that most cultures seem to agree on this one. 
                            
    Also, we are all socially conditioned at a young age. As Tamzen
    said, some cultures left their deformed babies on a mountainside
    to die. Could you? Well,I couldn't either. A Japanese woman from
    California attempted suicide by walking into the ocean while carrying
    her two young children with her. In her culture, it is discrace
    to kill yourself while leaving your responsibilities in this world.
    I think what she did is murder. By the way, they saved her and charged
    her with murder. I think they reduced the sentence or something.
    My point is that mores and taboos develop in us since our birth.
    They are a way of life. One can not repute XX years of conditioning
    very easily. Values are cultural. Emotions are at a more primative
    level. Sorry about the tangent.
    
    Kate
    

    Originally we all (Asians, Europeans, Africans....) came from one
    woman.  This woman was not Eve, however, for there were other women
    besides her.  Their offsprings vanished, but her children survived
    Scientists now tried to figure out where she came from.  Now, that
    proved that incest must occur long long before, and it is still
    going on strong.  If our ancestors passed any judgement as some
    of us do today, we would not be here to write this note.  The issue
    here is the abuse.  This has the most negative effect on a child
    whether that child is a boy or a girl.  If there is a consent between
    two parties then what is our right to judge them?  We always forget
    our own hunch and laugh at others' hunches.  How sad!!!
    

    I have always held stock in instinctive behaviors.  In our current
    society we do not have a lot of people in love with their parents
    or siblings.  We may have some children exhibiting some sexual
    curiosity but for the most part the numbers of people wishing to
    establish a incestous relationship is minimal.  
    
    That tells me that it is instinctive to separate the love you have
    for family and the love that you feel for a partner.
    
    As a woman that was approached by her father in her adult years,
    I can tell you it was a shock.  For many years I had wanted to be
    closer to my father and when this happened my mother was sick and
    I thought for one brief moment that maybe we could have a good 
    father/daughter relationship.  What Dad offered was not what I was
    looking for.
    
    Emotions are funny things...laws are often invasive....and morality
    implies judgment...but yet in this particular case I say let's leave
    it alone.  
    

The problem with incest and the problem with sexual relationships with more
then two people is that it takes exceptionally well adjusted people for it
to work well.  They have to be people with a strong sense of individuality,
non manipulative, etc...  

One problem with even adult parent-child incest is that very few people really
reach the stage where the parent doesn't have some power over the child on some
level.  Another problem is that when people bond *too* closely, such as with
'the family that plays together', the family gets very enmeshed in each other's
lives.  It becomes hard to tell where your problems stop and someone else's
problem start.  This is a problem common to dysfunctional families, families
where incest is often a very great problem. 

The family is a structure where children learn to be individuals, how to relate
to each other as individuals, how to depend on each other, how to be
interdependant and how to relate to each other as a group.  It's a whole series
of interactions of people coming together and being sperate.  Adding incest to
the pyramid is almost certain to topple it. 

My children's mother's parents were step-sibling who married in MI.  I always
thought that was interesting...  A dysfunctional family which was not
particularly harmfull, but certainly not healthy or helpfull....

"a society in which sex is uniformly used as an expression of love and caring,
incest would be a very different thing."

*sigh*, wouldn't that be nice... 'uniformly used as an expression of love
and caring'... no possessiveness or fear of abandonment...

But I don't think that it is possible...  sex is a very powerfull weapon
in the wrong hands... 

"However, once children reach adulthood I don't understand why maintaining these
parent/child dynamics are nearly as important (or important at all)."

Maybe a better question to ask is why change them?  There are a lot of other
fish in the sea then in the family.  They most likely would be hard to change
the healthy boundaries that developed during childhood.  I think that you will
find that the vast majority of the people who are involved in adult incest do so
for unhealthy reasons.  Not because incest is bad per se, but it seems like a
place '''bad''' (I use the term *very* loosly) people go.

Jim.

>    What kind of a parent would want to have sex with his offspring?
>    Adult or no adult. Sick is sick. No matter how old a person is,
>    he always regards his parents as being different from his peers.
>    There would always be a power issue. 
>    
>    A parent is sick for having sex with his offspring, child or adult.
>    And for those of you who seem to poo-poo societies norms, think
>    about the fact that most cultures seem to agree on this one. 


	I think we need to acknowledge that it's not "sick" to feel
	a sexual attraction for one's child, or another member
	of one's family.

	All too often people run into problems in life by thinking that their
	attractions or feelings are "sick".  People need to help their
	own mental health by acknowledging their feelings and
	attractions, rather than try to deny them.

	Even if it's not normal, legal, or healthy to have sexual
	relations with another family member, it's quite normal
	to feel attracted.

	A father raising an attractive woman as his daughter may very
	well feel an attraction towards her.  This is not "sick".
	What's important is what he does with that attraction.

	For example, a father talking to his teenage daughter might
	say something like "honey, I don't blame Roger for calling
	you so often on the phone.  You ARE developing into a very
	attractive woman, and if I met you in school, I'd probably want
	to call you too."

	This is fine, and a far cry from the father that actually makes sexual
	advances on his daughter.

/Eric

                  
    	Re .29, .34
    
    	I think that .34 answered your question posed in .29 as well
    as I possibly could. Irregardless of who's doing the feeling, having
    the feeling, it is most imperative that the feeling be expressed
    approrpiately.
    
    	The surest way to express a feeling inappropriately (and perhaps
    this is what's really "sick" or whatever) is to stuff it for a good
    long time. Using the example given in .34, if Dad never told Daughter
    how her appearance made him feel (as attracted to her), after about
    5 years of stuffing it, the feeling just might manefest itself in an
    inappropriate way - all on it's own.
    
    	This idea can be extended to much shorter duration instances. 
    
    	Feelings are very powerful things, and cannot be "brushed aside"
    as a means of dealing with them. It's no doubt in this light that
    the Greatest Characteristic Rule of the Dysfunctional Family is
    the so called "No Talk Rule". I know of a family where it was
    specifically mandated by the patriarch that feelings will not be
    brought up, aknowledged, or discussed. I'll not comment on the result.
    
    	Joe Jas

    re:.34
    
    I have a good friend who happens to be a clinical psychologist.
    I once asked her what constituted "sickness". Actually I said mental
    illness. In any case, she didn't know! I think mental illness is
    something which deviates from the social norm in a harmful way.
     Again I say thatI think sex between parent and child is sick. 
    A parent who fantasizes about it is also sick. This is my definition.
    Not my clinical psychologist friend's.
    
    Kate
    

    re>: .39
    
         I don't know if our floor was unusual, or if was because we
    were all in San Francisco, but on our interspersed room coed floor
    sibling like feelings were *not* the norm.  The norm was musical
    relationships with several men vying for relationships for the most
    interesting women and visa-versa.
    
    ASP

       Re: .30

       .30 > And for those of you who seem to poo-poo societies norms, think
       .30 > about the fact that most cultures seem to agree on this one. 

        Kate, at one time in our society, one of our "norms" was that
        men or women did not have same-sex couplings. However, those
        people who are gay/bi/lesbian *did* decide to poo-poo the norms,
        the taboos, the ostracism.    
	
	Norms/taboos/customs change only when enough people are willing
        to go against the "established" rules. Look at what the turbulent
	'60's did to our society (for better or worse).
        

	.34> For example, a father talking to his teenage daughter might
	.34> say something like "honey, I don't blame Roger for calling
	.34> you so often on the phone.  You ARE developing into a very
	.34> attractive woman, and if I met you in school, I'd probably want
	.34> to call you too."
    
   
	.35> The surest way to express a feeling inappropriately (and perhaps
        .35> this is what's really "sick" or whatever) is to stuff it for a 
        .35> good long time. Using the example given in .34, if Dad never told 
        .35> Daughter how her appearance made him feel (as attracted to her), 
        .35> after about 5 years of stuffing it, the feeling just might 
        .35> manefest itself in an inappropriate way - all on it's own.
    
	Joe, in Eric's .34 scenario, I feel Dad is not really being com-
    	pletely honest about his sexual feelings towards Daughter. Yes,
    	he's indicating that she's "developing into an attractive woman
    	and if he met her in school he'd probably want to call her, too."
    	But it seems that Dad is "euphemizing" his sexual desires about 
    	Daughter *to* Daughter.

	Now if he were truly not stuffing his feelings, wouldn't he say 
	something like, "Gee, Daughter, you really are beautiful. I'd love
	to go to bed with you, but, as your Dad, I can't, because I love
	you, and I don't want to mess you up?" 

	Now I'm not sure that that is what Dad should really do, nor what 
	Daughter's reaction to this declaration would be, but that, to me, 
	is real honesty.

	  Alan
                                                                   

    Re the last note -- a short sidebar on "Norms"
    
    
    We often talk about norms, especially "society's norms" etc., as
    if they were legislated or voted on in some way.
    
    Norms are what behavioral scientists call emergent behavior.  The
    norms of a group are those behaviors that the group has created
    and follows just by behaving that way.  So when a group may have
    a heated discussion about how "our norms are to be on time," but
    in fact nobody ever comes on time, or a lot of people don't; their
    real norms are to not come on time, regardless of what they say.
    They may have another norm to talk about how their norms are to
    be on time, etc., but it is the behavior that can be observed that
    is the "norm."
                  
    Where behavior touches close to the bone of moral codes and values
    (this dicussion and some of the ones about faithfulness and the
    like), one area where there seems to be some confusion is when someone
    who holds a belief based on their values or personal moral code
    puts that belief forward as a "norm," as if it has some force of
    law or is a kind of absolute.
    
    The base note question calls for a discussion of judgement... the
    badness of the behavior... but I think we need to be careful in
    that discussion to not refer to codes whichh may or may not be being
    followed at large as "norms."
    
    Personally, I think there is increasing evidence that there isn't
    much of a norm about incest... that more and more it is coming to
    light that far more children are victims of this behavior than we
    ever were willing to admit.  I believe that such behaviors are a
    violation of a parent's responsibility and trust, and an abuse of
    the power differential inherent in the parent child relationship
    -- this belief has to do with my values, and not with a societal
    norm.  
    
    Now if this belief is widely shared... and I think it is...
    that will have an impact on those who engage in the behavior whether
    they believe in the same values or not.  Hence the secrecy about
    the behavior.  We generally don't keep things secret that we feel
    pretty okay about, even when it differs from accepted behavior.
    
    So my answer... yes, it's usually bad in some way for all the parties
    involved... unless you happen to be a Pharoah of ancient Egypt,
    or you and your opposite sex sibling or parent are the only survivors
    on the planet.  In the latter case, get busy... you have work to
    do.                     
    
    \r.
    

    
    re.0 "can incest between consenting adults ever be considered ok?"
    
    yes.
    
    consenting adults can do what they want to in a truly free country.
    i would hope that they explore all the possible negative aspects
    of sexual contact prior to consent and establish appropriate safe
    guards.....
    but i guess even that is their own business.....

    Re: .38
    
    >Again I say that I think sex between parent and child is sick.
    
    Incest covers more scenarios than just parent-child.  Sibling-sibling
    and uncle/aunt-niece/nephew are two others that come to mind.  By
    some definitions, a relationship between first cousins might be
    called incestuous.

On my Dad's side of the family, his sister and her husband were first cousins.
My Dad's father and mother were first cousins.  And I believe that there were
more cousing relationships in that part of the family that I no longer recall.
So far as I know, nothing terribly evil ever came out of this.  No kids ever
were idiots, or had extra legs, or anything like that.  And I don't believe
that it ever bothered anyone else in the family, at least as far as I was
ever aware.

It seems to me that the primary issue with incest among consenting adults
is power.  Is the sexual relationship truly mutually voluntary, or is there
an element of (possibly subtle) coercion present?  I think it might be dif-
ficult for the power issue not to surface in intergenerational incest (i.e.,
father-daughter, nephew-aunt, etc).  However, when both partners are adult
and of the same generation, it seems more likely that mutual interest  with-
out coercion could develop in some cases.  Thus, I can't see any legal reason
to attempt to stop brother-sister relationships, for example, assuming both
parties are over 21 or so. (As it is, it is perfectly legal for adult brothers
and sisters to share a residence.  And the state has no way of knowing who
sleeps in which bedroom.)   And first cousins can marry in many states (I
think my Aunt and Uncle had to go to Kentucky to get married, if I recall).
Once they are married, I think other states will recognize the marriage as
legal.

In most father-daughter relationships that reach the news, though, it seems
that the incest begins before the daughter is of adult age.  In my opinion
that is totally abusive, for the same reason that we view any adult having
sex with a minor as statutory rape:  below a certain age the concept of
"voluntary consent" becomes meaningless.  It seems to me that the statutory
rape laws should be sufficient to keep sex between a father and his preteen
daughter illegal.

					--Q (Dick Wagman)