Caroline Zielinski
archillesIncest: Justifiable or just plain wrong?
April 10th 2008 09:34
To those of you who have been watching and/or reading the news lately, you'll know what sparked this topic.
The recent coverage of a women and her father living in a sexual relationships has sparked a lot of controversy in terms of morality, boundaries and power within both sexual and familial relationships.
My first reaction upon hearing about a man and his daughter having sex made me feel physicially sick. Because I watched the footage on the internet and not on 60 Minutes, I was already aware of the scandal, but did not fully appreciate its extent until I actually saw the two people. I was absolutely disgusted, and still am, but it's mostly in a way that is bound to my own life and personal relationships. I don't know about others, but when I view this kind of stuff, I tend to relate it back to me and how I would feel in that situation. And in this instance, I was horrified.
How could these people break one of the greatest taboos of our time? How can one knowingly not only have sex with, but PROCREATE with their parent/ daughter? It defies all logic and, at least my own, morality.
However, I got thinking about it, trying to see this from an objective perspective. Yes, initially, I thought they were right to be shunned and condemned for such a gross act of immorality (for lack of a better word). But then I realised that law really should have nothing to do with personal relationships. Sure, these people are in a relationship which is condemned by many societies and religions, especially the Western culture. But really, what business is it of ours to regulate the relationships of others? We may view it as disgusting and wrong, and we are certainly entitled to that opinion, but what people do in their private sphere is up to them.
Let's think about this: homosexuality was considered the greatest taboo there was roughly 60 years ago, classified not only as a disease but also an illegal and immoral act. Today, although it still must progress to being more accepted socially, and even in law in terms of marriage, it is by no means a completely immoral union in the eyes of many people.
Also consider this: incest between parents, their children and between siblings was once a preferred method of breeding, with aristocrats and royalty especially thinking that if they procreated with their own family members, the children would come out with royal blood and perfect genes.
Now, of course, we know that incest greatly increases the chances of the infant being born with a genetic disease, because if there is a defective gene in one family member, the chances are that the other family member in the sexual relationship will also have it, thus doubling the chances of their child having it. In that sense, I guess this is where the law sees fit to interfere, for children such as those suffer.
However, that argument can also be deconstructed. If the law, and most people, believe that two members of the same family should not have sex for the fear of them procreating and giving life to a retarded child, why stop there? What if 'genetically inferior' couples with say, Down Syndrome or Dwarfism decide to have a baby? The chances are that baby will also come out with that disease, but these couples should not, and aren't, restricted to having children. It all comes down to the Western concept (dare I say Arian ideal?) of creating a perfect society with no handicaps.
Incest is a very delicate subject, one that may or may not adopt a new set of opinions as the years progress. These people aren't evil: they just failed to form the taboo that exists between family members having a sexual relationship. Whether it's a conscious choice, a mistake or a psychological condition, we won't ever really know unless we're in that situation ourselves.
The recent coverage of a women and her father living in a sexual relationships has sparked a lot of controversy in terms of morality, boundaries and power within both sexual and familial relationships.
My first reaction upon hearing about a man and his daughter having sex made me feel physicially sick. Because I watched the footage on the internet and not on 60 Minutes, I was already aware of the scandal, but did not fully appreciate its extent until I actually saw the two people. I was absolutely disgusted, and still am, but it's mostly in a way that is bound to my own life and personal relationships. I don't know about others, but when I view this kind of stuff, I tend to relate it back to me and how I would feel in that situation. And in this instance, I was horrified.
How could these people break one of the greatest taboos of our time? How can one knowingly not only have sex with, but PROCREATE with their parent/ daughter? It defies all logic and, at least my own, morality.
However, I got thinking about it, trying to see this from an objective perspective. Yes, initially, I thought they were right to be shunned and condemned for such a gross act of immorality (for lack of a better word). But then I realised that law really should have nothing to do with personal relationships. Sure, these people are in a relationship which is condemned by many societies and religions, especially the Western culture. But really, what business is it of ours to regulate the relationships of others? We may view it as disgusting and wrong, and we are certainly entitled to that opinion, but what people do in their private sphere is up to them.
Let's think about this: homosexuality was considered the greatest taboo there was roughly 60 years ago, classified not only as a disease but also an illegal and immoral act. Today, although it still must progress to being more accepted socially, and even in law in terms of marriage, it is by no means a completely immoral union in the eyes of many people.
Also consider this: incest between parents, their children and between siblings was once a preferred method of breeding, with aristocrats and royalty especially thinking that if they procreated with their own family members, the children would come out with royal blood and perfect genes.
Now, of course, we know that incest greatly increases the chances of the infant being born with a genetic disease, because if there is a defective gene in one family member, the chances are that the other family member in the sexual relationship will also have it, thus doubling the chances of their child having it. In that sense, I guess this is where the law sees fit to interfere, for children such as those suffer.
However, that argument can also be deconstructed. If the law, and most people, believe that two members of the same family should not have sex for the fear of them procreating and giving life to a retarded child, why stop there? What if 'genetically inferior' couples with say, Down Syndrome or Dwarfism decide to have a baby? The chances are that baby will also come out with that disease, but these couples should not, and aren't, restricted to having children. It all comes down to the Western concept (dare I say Arian ideal?) of creating a perfect society with no handicaps.
Incest is a very delicate subject, one that may or may not adopt a new set of opinions as the years progress. These people aren't evil: they just failed to form the taboo that exists between family members having a sexual relationship. Whether it's a conscious choice, a mistake or a psychological condition, we won't ever really know unless we're in that situation ourselves.
| 95 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by thegilbo
1. yuck
2. true, strictly legally speaking, nothing wrong with it. which is wierd.
i find it odd but also understand that it is our human right to engage in that act (with two consenting adults of course)
on one hand the government can't control what we do as long as we are in line with the law. . . .
but yuck
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Interesting post Caroline. Raven
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous