Bad Incest

Bad Incest

Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable.

Dashboard
Publications
Account settings
Log out

Advanced

Clipboard

Format

Abstract

PubMed

PMID

Format:

Summary (text)
PubMed
PMID
Abstract (text)
CSV

Subject:

1 selected item: 6839266 - PubMed

Format:

Summary
Summary (text)
Abstract
Abstract (text)

Create a new collection

Add to an existing collection

Name must be less than 100 characters

Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again

Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again

Would you like email updates of new search results?

Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons

Yes

No

Frequency:

Monthly
Weekly
Daily

Which day?

The first Sunday
The first Monday
The first Tuesday
The first Wednesday
The first Thursday
The first Friday
The first Saturday
The first day
The first weekday

Which day?

Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday

Report format:

Summary
Summary (text)
Abstract
Abstract (text)
PubMed

Send at most:

1 item
5 items
10 items
20 items
50 items
100 items
200 items

Send even when there aren't any new results

Number of items displayed:

5
10
15
20
50
100

Page navigation

Title & authors

Abstract

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

J Henderson .

Can J Psychiatry .

1983 Feb .

Format

Abstract

PubMed

PMID

Denic S, Nicholls MG.
Denic S, et al.
Med Hypotheses. 2006;66(1):52-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.08.015. Epub 2005 Sep 28.
Med Hypotheses. 2006.

PMID: 16198502

Brown S.
Brown S.
Child Welfare. 1979 Jul-Aug;58(7):435-42.
Child Welfare. 1979.

PMID: 477457

Wells LA.
Wells LA.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1981 May;42(5):197-202.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1981.

PMID: 7217024

Immerman RS, Mackey WC.
Immerman RS, et al.
J Genet Psychol. 1997 Jun;158(2):151-64. doi: 10.1080/00221329709596658.
J Genet Psychol. 1997.

PMID: 9168585

Review.

Swanson L, Biaggio MK.
Swanson L, et al.
Am J Psychiatry. 1985 Jun;142(6):667-74. doi: 10.1176/ajp.142.6.667.
Am J Psychiatry. 1985.

PMID: 3890565

Review.

Ginsburg H, Wright LS, Harrell PM, Hill DW.
Ginsburg H, et al.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1989 Fall;20(1):59-71. doi: 10.1007/BF00706958.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1989.

PMID: 2766875

Grayston AD, De Luca RV, Boyes DA.
Grayston AD, et al.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1992 Summer;22(4):277-86. doi: 10.1007/BF00707669.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1992.

PMID: 1526193

Related information

MedGen

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Atypon

Format:

AMA

APA

MLA

NLM

Send To

Clipboard

Email
Save

My Bibliography
Collections

Citation Manager

[x]

NLM

NIH

HHS

USA.gov

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before
sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal
government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the
official website and that any information you provide is encrypted
and transmitted securely.

Classically, incest has been considered from both a psychological and sociological point of view to have harmful consequences. Genetic research, though by no means lacking controversy of its own, generally supports the notion that inbreeding has untoward genetic consequences. The psychodynamics of all three parties to father-daughter incest seem to indicate that people who become involved in incestuous behaviour are often psychologically damaged before the fact, so that if they show subsequent evidence of psychological impairment the incestuous behaviour can be as plausibly viewed as a dysfunctional attempt at solving problems as it can a cause of subsequent psychopathology. Girls involved in the father-daughter incest present in one of half a dozen frequent clinical syndromes. The presentation is influenced by the degree to which the girl may have participated in ongoing incestuous behaviour as opposed to being the presumed victim of an older adult's coercive actions or her own temporary suspension of a behavioural taboo. Research is inconclusive as to the psychological harmfulness of incestuous behaviour, and evidence is reviewed on both sides of this complicated and controversial question. Quite apart from the general issue of the harmfulness of incest, a number of indicators can be derived from the nature of the incestuous episode and the early response to therapeutic assessment which aid in the clinical forecasting of probable outcome.

MeSH
PMC
Bookshelf
Disclaimer

Help
Accessibility
Careers

Get Big Think for Your Business. Enable transformation and drive culture at your company with lessons from the biggest thinkers in the world.
In Britain a young lady was ‘caught’ having sex with her brother. The brother is 21, while his sister is 18. According to the law, they should be convicted for incest.
Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday
One book will gather all topics on the search for life in the Cosmos.
An astrophysicist explains these shortcuts through space-time.
Kublai Khan wasn’t the first ruler in history to issue paper money, but his Yuan dynasty did take unprecedented action to ensure this revolutionary form of currency retained its value.
The war in Ukraine is unlikely to trigger a catastrophic nuclear meltdown. Physics and smart engineering are the reasons why.
David Cameron has refused to subject Britain to a series of financial regulations demanded by the European Union. As a result, a new financial bloc has been formed outside the E.U.
Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday.
Get Big Think for Your Business. Enable transformation and drive culture at your company with lessons from the biggest thinkers in the world.
© Copyright 2007-2022 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
+ Firstly, the old, tired argument that “It’s not natural”.
+ Secondly, people claim that incest creates ‘deformed’ children.
+ Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim it’s “just” repugnant.
In my time teaching students about making choices, especially moral ones, based on sound reasoning and evidence, we often range into areas many have not thoroughly considered. After all, everything deserves scrutiny if we are to be fairly sure an idea (or belief) is worth pursuing, defending and so on. If this idea is worth our support, it will pass tests of reasonable scrutiny; if it does not, it either means we must strengthen the idea by addressing its failings or discard it altogether. For example, there is no good reason to justify the oppression of gay people or women – though there are plenty of reasons people do. Thus because there are no good arguments to support oppressing gay people, the idea should be discarded and indeed opposed where it arises. In an effort to battle bad ideas, we should scrutinise (or at least be willing to scrutinise) every view, belief and idea we have.
Nothing is sacred in my class (indeed, we’ve debated the merits of sanctity itself). We engage with questions that focus on real-life matters, which tend to evoke knee-jerk reactions of dismissal and/or disgust .
With this in mind, my students asked whether incest or necrophilia is wrong. Since in many countries, both of these are automatically crimes , I think it’s important to consider what arguments there are for considering these as automatically wrong. However, just because something is right or wrong does not mean that the law follows suit. Something can be legal and be wrong by a moral standard, and vice versa. Here we are mainly considering the morality of these two supposedly taboo types of sexual conduct. Are they, by definition, wrong?
In Britain, when a young lady was ‘caught’ having sex with her brother, both siblings blamed the other, citing alcohol, desperation and so, on as motivations. This is not of concern. What is of concern is that “the pair were convicted of committing incest under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995”. The brother is 21, while his sister is 18. Now, according to the law, they should be convicted.
However, laws are not perfect. What should matter to us, firstly, is whether they’ve done something wrong.
Often when people hear incest , they assume rape or paedophilia, too. But here it’s clear that neither rape nor paedophilia are the problem in the recent case, since both siblings are adults and both consented – in the same way any other drunken couple implicitly consent, since neither partner was forced into it.
Assume they were not brother and sister; is the sex act wrong? Given the implicit consent and their ages, it’s not clear that this would be any different than other sexual engagements where, after the fact, one or both (or all three) regret the act. However, neither one feels the other was violated in the sense of calling it rape. So that’s not the issue.
Notice, though, that even if one of these two was violated – whether because s/he was too young or raped – then it would be the violation through rape or paedophilia that made it wrong, not the fact that they’re brother and sister .
So, we’re clear that what makes this wrong is solely the fact that it’s incest – that is, the fact that they’re brother and sister. But why does this make it wrong?
This seems entirely based on mere repulsion. To try articulate why incest should be viewed as inherently wrong is difficult and there’s no clear argument. Here are a few arguments that my students and others have offered.
Firstly, the old, tired argument that “It’s not natural”. This argument must, like cancers and earthquakes, disappear from our planet. Cancers and earthquakes, by the way, are also natural. The philosopher Julian Baggini has correctly said that something being natural tells us no more about its moral property than if you said something was red. Good and bad things are natural, so not everything that is natural is good (or bad). (Considering that humans are part of the natural world, I see no reason for the distinction in most instances anyway. ‘Natural’ is not part of my vocabulary, since it seems largely useless.)
Secondly, people claim that incest creates ‘deformed’ children. This is not entirely true. There is a greater risk of various handicaps, true, due to a closer sharing of genetics. But there is a danger in every form of child creation that the child might be handicapped. There might be a difference in degree of risk in incestuous sex acts but certainly not in kind . And, similarly, if we continued with this logic, it seems that any person who has an increased risk of having children with disabilities ought not to reproduce (or should be condemned). The fact that we don’t condemn or restrict people with a verified increased risk of producing disabled children indicates that even this reason isn’t solid.
So, this view doesn’t work either. Furthermore, this assumes sex acts are solely for having children, whereas this is nonsense, since we have effective contraceptives and other measures to prevent pregnancy.
Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim it’s “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).
Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.
So these arguments fail. But if these arguments are sound, then this has a further implication.
What makes the case unfortunate is the young lady in question has been attacked and threatened by members of the public. Because of her ‘disgusting’ acts, she has been forced to flee her home. This seems to me unjustified. Violence is almost never the right response. Furthermore, as the arguments above have indicated, it’s not entirely clear what makes incest wrong when we are dealing with consenting adults. If we agree that consenting adults are allowed to have sex, then what makes these two people different, besides sharing parents? Why should sharing genetics make it a crime – or rather, something so monstrous that this young lady deserves to be treated like a diseased monster?
In considering this case, we are not encouraging incest, nor do we have to say we ‘like’ it. We don’t even have to say it is good or right. However, incestuous acts certainly need not be worth condemning a young lady over, nor does she deserve to be treated like someone requiring therapy. There is little justification for thinking she’s done something wrong.
What’s occurring here is inflating outrage – I don’t think there is such a thing as “moral” outrage – and personal disgust at an act, which has not harmed anybody else, to the point of having a lady’s life threatened for no good reason. Whatever the political situation, if we respect an adult’s right to engage freely in sexual acts with other consenting adults, it’s not clear why we draw a line based on genetics.

People are rightly horrified by abuse scandals at Penn State and in the Catholic church. But what about children who are molested by their own family members?
People are rightly horrified by abuse scandals at Penn State and in the Catholic church. But what about children who are molested by their own family members?
Last year offered plenty of moments to have a sustained national conversation about child sexual abuse: the Jerry Sandusky verdict, the BBC’s Jimmy Savile, Horace Mann’s faculty members, and a slew of slightly less-publicized incidents. President Barack Obama missed the opportunity to put this issue on his second-term agenda in his inaugural speech.
Child sexual abuse impacts more Americans annually than cancer, AIDS, gun violence, LGBTQ inequality, and the mortgage crisis combined—subjects that Obama did cover.
Had he mentioned this issue, he would have been the first president to acknowledge the abuse that occurs in the institution that predates all others: the family. Incest was the first form of institutional abuse, and it remains by far the most widespread.
Here are some statistics that should be familiar to us all, but aren’t, either because they’re too mind-boggling to be absorbed easily, or because they’re not publicized enough. One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys, are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, “ and this is a notoriously underreported crime.”
Incest is a subject that makes people recoil. The word alone causes many to squirm, and it’s telling that of all of the individual and groups of perpetrators who’ve made national headlines to date, virtually none have been related to their victims. They’ve been trusted or fatherly
Dad Sperm
Naked Episodes
Brazil Tgirls

Bad Incest

Report Page