Brother Sister Taboo Stories

Brother Sister Taboo Stories

Therapists
:
Login
|
Sign Up

United States

Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC

Mental Health

Addiction

Anxiety

ADHD

Asperger's

Autism

Bipolar Disorder

Chronic Pain

Depression

Eating Disorders

Personality

Passive Aggression

Personality

Shyness

Personal Growth

Goal Setting

Happiness

Positive Psychology

Stopping Smoking

Relationships

Low Sexual Desire

Relationships

Sex

Family Life

Child Development

Parenting

Talk to Someone

Find a Therapist

Find a Treatment Center

Find a Psychiatrist

Find a Support Group

Find Teletherapy

Trending Topics

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Narcissism

Dementia

Bias

Affective Forecasting

Neuroscience

Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today

Get Help

Find a Therapist

Find a Treatment Center

Find a Psychiatrist

Find a Support Group

Find Teletherapy

Members
Login
Sign Up

United States

Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC

Mental Health

Addiction

Anxiety

ADHD

Asperger's

Autism

Bipolar Disorder

Chronic Pain

Depression

Eating Disorders

Personality

Passive Aggression

Personality

Shyness

Personal Growth

Goal Setting

Happiness

Positive Psychology

Stopping Smoking

Relationships

Low Sexual Desire

Relationships

Sex

Family Life

Child Development

Parenting

Talk to Someone

Find a Therapist

Find a Treatment Center

Find a Psychiatrist

Find a Support Group

Find Teletherapy

Trending Topics

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Narcissism

Dementia

Bias

Affective Forecasting

Neuroscience

We all harbor secrets. Some are big and bad; some are small and trivial. Researchers have parsed which truths to tell and which not to.

Posted April 28, 2008

|

Reviewed by Devon Frye

Fellow "Experiments in Philosophy " blogger Jesse Prinz posted about UVA psychologist Jon Haidt's work on political differences. I want to continue exploring the philosophical implications of Haidt's work by asking whether it's all right for Julie and her brother Mark to have sex .
Here's a scenario drawn from a study Haidt conducted:
"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night, they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it okay for them to make love?"
If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy , Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.
The scenario, of course, is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair—a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation (or at least some kind of deliberation) Haidt's model—the "social intuititionist model"—sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying—the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process.
As Haidt recognizes, his theory can be placed within a grand tradition of moral psychology and philosophy—a return to an emphasis on the emotions which began in full force with the work of Scottish philosophers Adam Smith and David Hume. Although the more rationalist theories of Piaget and Kohlberg were dominant for much of the twentieth century, Haidt-style views have gained more and more adherents over the last 10 years. Which leads to the question: are there any philosophical/ethical implications of this model, should it be the right one? Plenty, in my view, and I'll conclude this post by mentioning just a few of them.
First, although Haidt may disagree (see my interview with him for a discussion about this issue), I believe Haidt's model supports a subjectivist view about the nature of moral beliefs. My thinking is as follows: We arrive at our judgments through our emotionally charged intuitions—intuitions that do not track any kind of objective moral truth, but instead are artifacts of our biological and cultural histories. Haidt's model reveals that there is quite a bit of self-deception bound up in moral beliefs and practice. The strength of these intuitions leads us to believe that the truth of our moral judgments is "self-evident"—think: the Declaration of Independence—in other words, that they correspond to an objective moral reality of some kind. That is why we try so hard to justify them after the fact. But we have little to no reason to believe that this moral reality exists.
(I should add that contrary to the views of newspaper columnists across the country, claiming that a view might lead to moral relativism or subjectivism is not equivalent to saying that the view is false. This is not a reductio ad absurdum . If Haidt's model is vindicated scientifically, and it does indeed entail that moral relativism or subjectivism is true, then we have to accept it. Rejecting a theory just because you feel uncomfortable about its implications is a far more skeptical or nihilistic stance than anything I've discussed in this post.)
Second, and less abstractly, I think it would make sense to subject our own values to far more critical scrutiny than we're accustomed to doing. If Haidt is right, our values may not be on the secure footing that we believe them to be. We could very well find that upon reflection, many of our values do not reflect our considered beliefs about what makes for a good life.
It's important to note that Haidt does not claim that it's impossible for reason to change our moral values or the values of others. He just believes that this kind of process happens far less frequently than we believe—and furthermore, that when values are affected by reason, it is because reason triggers a new emotional response which, in turn, starts a new chain of justification.
Finally, I think we might become a little more tolerant of the moral views of others (within limits, of course—sometimes too much tolerance is tantamount to suicide ). Everyone is morally motivated, as Haidt says: liberals should stop thinking of conservatives as motivated only by greed and racism . And conservatives should stop thinking of liberals as—as Jesse Prinz puts it in his post—"either tree-hugging fools or calculating agents of moral degeneracy."
More importantly, if Haidt is correct, we must recognize even the people we consider to be the epitome of pure evil—the Islamic fundamentalists who engineered 9/11, for example—are motivated by moral goals , however distorted we find them to be. As Haidt told me in our interview:
"One of the most psychologically stupid things anyone ever said is that the 9/11 terrorists did this because they hate our freedom. That's just idiotic. Nobody says: 'They're free over there. I hate that. I want to kill them.' They did this because they hate us; they're angry at us for many reasons, and terrorism and violence are 'moral' actions—by which I don't mean morally right, I mean morally motivated."
It seems plausible that in order to shape our policies properly, we need to have an accurate understanding of the moral motivations of the people with whom we're at war.
Haidt, J . (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834
August 2005 interview with Jon Haidt in The Believer.
Tamler Sommers is a professor of philosophy at the University of Houston.

Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.

Psychology Today © 2022 Sussex Publishers, LLC

We all harbor secrets. Some are big and bad; some are small and trivial. Researchers have parsed which truths to tell and which not to.

Ask Amy: I had sex with my brother. Should I just forget it?

By Amy Dickinson | Tribune Content Agency

Follow Us

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Recommended For You

Mets win with circus walk-off in 10th inning on Keith Hernandez Day

Paolo Banchero leads Magic to thrilling summer-league win over Kings

Mychal Mulder, Marcus Garrett make statements in Heat 88-78 summer-league win over Celtics

Ask Amy: It’s her house, but I object to this over-the-top display

Ask Amy: Does the bride’s announcement warrant anything beyond an emoji?

Caltrans to stabilize eroded Highway 17 slope near Scotts Valley

Dear Abby: My dogs disappeared, and I know who’s behind it. What’s my next move?

Miss Manners: Should I say anything about the young wife's party request?

Vatican defrocks priest who scolded Oakland Diocese over sex abuse

Moses Moody drops 34 points but Jonathan Kuminga shows rust in 2022 Summer League debut

Follow Us

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe Now

Get Morning Report and other email newsletters
Get Morning Report and other email newsletters
DEAR AMY: I am a 40-year-old woman with a brother two years younger.
We were raised in a house that had a lot of pornography exposure (initiated by my father — my mother was dismayed).
At the ages of 10 and 12, my brother and I started behaving sexually with each other. It went all the way.
It was consensual, and it lasted less than a year.
I still think about it and wonder if my brother ever thinks about or feels ashamed about it, like I do.
Should I still feel ashamed after all these years, or is this something I need to just forget about?
DEAR EMBARRASSED: Just forget about it?
Can you? No. So you should deal with it now.
You and your brother violated an ancient taboo without realizing it — because you were children. You were acting out adult sexual behavior that you were seeing in your home. Your father’s choice to expose you to pornography normalized behavior in your home that should not be normalized among children.
As the older sibling, you might have initiated this behavior — or as you got older, you might have realized it was wrong and now feel guilty that you either started it or didn’t put a stop to it sooner.
You should discuss this with a therapist.
Ultimately, you may choose to discuss this with your brother, to put it in perspective and — if necessary — explain and apologize for your part.
DEAR AMY: I barely talk to my wife.
What do you do when you know you still love someone and you know she still loves you, but the betrayal and actions of both parties were so great that forgiveness isn’t even an option?
DEAR SAD: Forgiveness is always an option.
The path toward forgiveness is paved through talk, connection and apology. You can’t undertake this journey without being truthful and heartbreakingly vulnerable with your partner.
It is possible to repair a relationship, but only if you are both willing to do the hard work necessary to repair and reattach to each other. I hope you will try.
DEAR AMY: “Estranged” fears being scorned by society for separating him/herself from an abusive father.
I lived for years with anger and depression rooted in an abusive upbringing.
I finally found the strength to walk away completely from my past — which included severing contact with my parents.
Within months, I began to heal. I’ve now been free of them for 15 years, and I’m happier every day for it.
As for social scorn, I was elated to discover that those who knew me fully understood my decision. The opinions of those who don’t know me don’t matter.
I hope “Estranged” is able to take the steps necessary to be happy — without concern for others’ perceptions.
DEAR HAPPY: Many readers have responded with similar stories. Sometimes the best way to heal from a legacy of abuse is to break the cycle and create a new, healthy life.
Send questions to askamy@tribune.com or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.
How many times have we fallen for this?
We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.
Get Morning Report and other email newsletters

Fuck Ass
Massage Videos
Miniskirt Pussy

Brother Sister Taboo Stories

Report Page