Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Note 816.2  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re 358.66
<I think that's a pretty non-standard definition of incest.  Incest involves
<family members (exactly how that's defined varies from culture to culture).
<If two adult siblings (for example) have consensual sex, that's incest.
<Likewise, if a father rapes or seduces his minor daughter, that's incest.
<The former is probably not sexual abuse, the latter most certainly is.

The use of 'incest' to encompass those experiences recounted in .63, .65
is used by way of convenience by mental health professionals. Most books I
have read on the subject -and I have read many- typically specify the
precise meaning of incest and then go on to point out that any sexual
experience that involves the violation of trust between an adult and a
child has a psychologically similar impact on the child as the more
narrowly defined "incest" does when one of the parties is a minor.
The authors then go on to say that for convenience they will henceforth use
the word "incest" to encompass the wider set of experiences. Knowing
completely that the common, and legal use of the word is different. People
who are experienced in this area often forget that those without comparable
experiences have difficulty when the word "incest" is used in a way that
is certainly new and perhaps even challenging.

    If we are to adopt the modified language of several noters here,
    violent incest can now be a non-forceful act between absolute
    strangers.

    
    I wonder if word-definition and semantic games are launchings into the
    cognitive estrangement required to handle atrocities with the everyday
    grace one often reserves for afternoon tea?
    
    In order to discuss something, I often try on what it might feel like
    to have been close to it.  I acknowledge that this is not how all
    noters note, but it is what keeps me from shilly-shallying about word
    usage when the pain evident in those who have suffered from the abuses
    mentioned has become obvious to me.
    
    I do not advocate this kind of noting for all, but I feel it important
    to express that although there can be no silencing or censoring of the
    broad spectrum of viewpoints, there is sometimes a *cost* attached to
    over-distancing, over-codifying, and over-logicking certain topics.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .2  Mike Z.
    
    > If we are to adopt the modified language of several noters here,
    > violent incest can now be a non-forceful act between absolute
    > strangers.
    
    Actually, the dictionary definition of "incest" does include sexual
    activities between absolute strangers who happen to be blood-related,
    doesn't it?  (Isn't the blood-relation the defining criteria in the
    dictionary definition, rather than the relationship between individuals?)
    

    	I think this attempted redefinition of "incest" is particularly
    unfortunate.
    
    	I have already mentioned an example of incest from Tolkien. Other
    examples would include Oedipus, who unwittingly married his mother, and
    the daughters of Lot (Genesis 20.31) who got their father drunk in
    order to have children by him.
    
    	I could quote other examples, but in every "famous" case of incest
    in literature it takes place between consenting adults. These are what
    the average person will think of when you use the word without any
    redefinition. O.K., I admit that in the case of Lot there was maybe
    some doubt about the consent because of the alcohol, but it wasn't an
    older abusing the trust of a younger relative - quite the reverse.
    
    	I can't off-hand think of any famous event that could be classified
    as both incest and child abuse, so an attempted merging of the two
    ideas is a great disservice to the language.

    I can't help but wonder what the underlying agenda is of those who
    focus on definitions. It confuses me, I don't understand it, but it
    makes me uneasy.
    
    
    				herb

    Our agenda is clarity of communication and understanding.

    <Our agenda is clarity of communication and understanding
    That _may_ be the overt agenda. 
    But, how is understanding advanced when we obsess about definitions?
    (that's a rhetorical question please do not answer)
    
    I think the _hidden_ agenda has a lot more to do with feelings than
    clarity and understand do. 
        
    There is an overwhelmingly clear understanding of what is 'meant' when
    the term "incest" is being used in these 'discussions'. 
    
    There is also an overwhelmingly clear understanding of what is meant by
    'rape is violent'. 
    That statement means something very, very much like 
    
    		rape results in emotional trauma 
    		rape results in psychological abuse

    RE: .7
    
    > Our agenda is clarity of communication and understanding.
    
    What can be clearer than pointing out that violence and pain *are*
    violence and pain even if someone else can't see or feel the damage??
    
    (Which word is difficult to understand?)
    

    re .9
    
    So, violence and pain *are* violence and pain.  I'm pleased that you
    have this understanding.  I, on the other hand, find tautological
    definitions unhelpful.

    RE: .10  
    
    > So, violence and pain *are* violence and pain.  I'm pleased that you
    > have this understanding.  I, on the other hand, find tautological
    > definitions unhelpful.
    
    Well, I was referring to the dictionary definitions of these words
    (without any changes at all.)  Isn't that what you wanted?
    
    If you don't know the dictionary definitions of violence and pain,
    either, then I can see why this whole subject is so difficult to
    comprehend.
    

.11> Well, I was referring to the dictionary definitions of these words
.11> (without any changes at all.)  Isn't that what you wanted?
    
    You must have a heavily abridged dictionary, mine goes beyond the
    obvious and meaningless :
.9> violence and pain *are* violence and pain
    
    See 816.25 for a real definition of violence.

.6> I can't help but wonder what the underlying agenda is of those who
.6> focus on definitions. It confuses me, I don't understand it, but it
.6> makes me uneasy.
    
    Then stick to discussing the issue and not the people.

    RE: .12  Mike Z.
    
    > You must have a heavily abridged dictionary, mine goes beyond the
    > obvious and meaningless :
    > .9> violence and pain *are* violence and pain
    
    Since you're having so much trouble comprehending the English language
    today, I'll spell this out for you as simply as I can:
    
    	1. The definition (of violence, at least) had already been posted.
    	2. People wanted to stick to the dictionary definition (which had
    	     already been posted.)
    	3. I was trying to point out that my definition of violence (in
    	     the context of the discussion at hand) didn't differ from
    	     the dictionary definition (which had already been posted.)
    
    > See 816.25 for a real definition of violence.
    
    I know.  I saw it when it was posted earlier.  Since it's all we've
    been talking about since, I didn't think anyone here had forgotten
    that "it had already been posted."
    
    Are we doing a bit better now?

    <then stick to discussing the issue and not the people>
    
    
    As far as I am concerned you are one of the issues.

.15>  <<< Note 818.15 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Conferences are like apple barrels..." >>>
.15>
.15>    <then stick to discussing the issue and not the people>
.15>    
.15>    As far as I am concerned you are one of the issues.
    
    I see.