Family Incest Fun

Family Incest Fun
What Happens in the Family Stays in the Family: Incest and It’s Implications
‘Life in a Day’ Review — Beautifully Simple
Wonder Woman 1984 HBO Max Experiment Movie
Harikrishnans- An in-depth analysis
Legendary Sir Sidney Poitier — Rest in Power
Hidden Nuggets: Symphony Kaizen — Auron Ko Jalan
The Man, The Myth, The Legend: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
‘Mortal Kombat’ Review — A Flawed Victory
Miniatures: The Dollhouse Inside The Dollhouse
Returning to the Real Spirit of Potter: Thoughts on Fantastic Beasts 3
You can already tell from the title of this post that this is another family-friendly (HAH!) article from your’s truly, detailing the grim and gritty reality of both real-life and the fictional sphere of horror. You can imagine how much fun I have writing down lists of terrible and ungodly subjects to talk about at length (and for your forced viewing pleasure, too!) But let’s get serious for a minute, because as unfathomable as this taboo-topic may seem, chances are you unwittingly know someone whose been a victim of it.
Incest, by definition, is any sexual relationship between blood-linked family members. It’s copulation with an individual whose the product of previous related copulation — a recipe for genetic disaster that’s been rightfully cemented in our minds as repulsive and immoral. But what’s important to acknowledge is how such relationships are created through a power-imbalance, and are debilitating in nature to its victims. Cue our dive into cinematic horror, whose incorporation of this disturbing concept can never truly be described as “tasteful”.
Yup. It must be said, some directors are real creeps, and their reputation for art gives them more moral-leniency than others. (Roman Polanski, anyone?) Everyone has their dark-secrets, and for some male directors, their platform is the perfect chance to unwittingly reveal these fixations to the rest of the world for mass-traumatization, creating replicant deviants amongst the audience. To begin this fucked-up little update, let us use a character-study of one-such iconic director, Park Chan-wook.
Park Chan-Wook, known for such critically acclaimed films as The Handmaiden (2016), Snowpiercer (2013), and Oldboy (2003), has a panache for the psychologically dubious. Stoker (2013) itself focuses on the strained relationship between a widowed mother and her daughter, and the inevitable inclusion of the dead father’s brother, Uncle Charlie. Though Park Chan-Wook can be credited with creating a realistic atmosphere that fosters such a terrible phenomenon (an emotionally distant and volatile mother, a psychologically stunted older man, and a young girl desperate for paternal love), the movie’s prioritization of aesthetics over a realistic portrayal of the trauma incest entails cannot be refuted.
Beyond the romanticization of such dynamics, horror movies are equally guilty of placing the blame of its evils on the victims who are subject to it. An example of this is in Crimson Peak (2015), when the male victim — Thomas Sharpe — is revealed towards the end as having been coerced into a sexual relationship with his older sister, Lucille Sharpe, from a young age. Though the film portrays Thomas as the victim (only by the end of the movie), it utilizes the audience’s expectations of gender to portray him as “allowing” it, insinuating he is just as culpable to the relationship’s evils as his sister, which results in the “thematic justice” of his own death at her hands. Clearly, sympathy for male victims of sexual violence is at an all-time low for horror movies. (And that’s not even broaching the topic of sexual violence towards women!)
Beyond its romanticization and invalidation, horror just seems to have a time of utilizing incest as a means of shocking the audience. There’s dozens of movies utilizing the “incestual backwoods cretins” trope for their villains, making the victims of this phenomenon almost demonized and depicted as vile-natured as their upbringing. No wonder real-life victims have a hard time speaking out, when their trauma isn’t sexualized or overlooked, its practically vilified! The first culprit of making those victimized by incest a marker of inherent villainy is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), which opened the floodgates of “cannibalistic incest country family” tropes decades after its premiere.
It’s a difficult subject to acknowledge, let alone speak on, but once again we must examine how horror — the genre of the psychologically chilling and revolting — sculpts distinctive perceptions of marginalized people in our minds. As a genuine source of trauma many have had to face as a formative part of their lives, this topic should be treated with more care and consideration for the sufferers who are no doubt highly conscious of its portrayal in media. The intrinsic and unspeakable pain some feel from this form of sexual violence should be respected, and so incest should not be utilized in a movie’s plot willy-nilly as a means of shock-value, or even worse, a director’s gratification. By acknowledging how we’ve undervalued serious topics like this in media, I hope we can all practice more consideration towards the experiences of others.
Hello horror-fanatics! If you’re into the gruesome & creepy, than this is the place for you. Join me, Marshall, as I explore this ghoulish genre in all it entails, including movie reviews and discussion on universal horror tropes.
Hello horror-fanatics! If you’re into the gruesome & creepy, this is the place for you. Join me, Marshall, as I explore this ghoulish genre in all it entails.

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.

Saturday, Jul 9th 2022
9PM
17°C
12AM
15°C

5-Day Forecast

RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next

Embed icon

Embed Most Watched Videos

By embedding this you agree to our terms and conditions

Cancel
Copy code
Tick icon

Code copied

Site
Web

Enter search term:
Search

Sri Lanka protesters storm president's house, set fire to prime minister's residence
Twitter says it will make Elon Musk buy it – even though he doesn’t want to
Andrea Jenkyns: Minister says she raised her middle finger because of a 'baying mob'
Rishi Sunak cemented as favourite as Ben Wallace rules himself out of Tory leadership race
Boris Johnson retreats to Chequers as he considers leaving politics at next election following Tory coup
Boris Johnson resignation: Zahawi and Shapps enter Tory leadership race
Brits to bask in 32°C sunshine next week
Russia threatens broad Ukraine offensive as U.S. presses China over war stance
Kate Middleton cuts a chic figure in yellow as she arrives Wimbledon
Mother slams 'disgusting' decision to 'ban' her daughter from prom

Home

News

U.S.

Sport

TV&Showbiz

Australia

Femail

Health

Science

Money

Video

Travel

Best Buys

Tyera Brooks
African Shemales
Impregnate Story

Family Incest Fun

Report Page