Talk:Incest/Archive 1

Old Talk that someone deleted, rescued from the revision history
-
 * (This proposal was later withdrawn by the committee, in spite of their own feelings on the issue, due to a large public outcry, which was mostly based on the misunderstanding that the committee was intending to legalize sexual relations between parents and their minor children, which it did not.)

I know nothing about this issue, but it seems it's probably presumptuous to pretend to be able to guess who understood or misunderstood what--short of actual surveys. (Maybe such surveys were done, though, and the author knows this.) It's also presumptuous, probably, to assume that the public outcry was due to this alleged misunderstanding. Or am I wrong? I.e., is there good, specific evidence for these things, or are they instead partisan claims? --LMS
 * Well, the committee insists they were misunderstood, and they can even quote several submissions made to them which show clearly that a lot of people responding to the committee's discussion paper misunderstood what the committee's position was. See the committee's final report on sexual offences. -- SJK

"Public outcry" often conveys meaningful messages. If the yellow press would scream "children in danger" while the proposal only affected adults, there's not much room for interpretation. But I was not there ... --Robbe

The claims are absolutely spot on and could be verified by anyone willing to dig up enough old Australian newspapers. I can't see that they are relevent enough in the bigger picture to be worth mentioning in a general article on incest though.
 * No, probably not that relevant, but it is an interesting tidbit of information nonetheless. More importantly, it shows that while some people are willing to seriously question our societies taboos (or more accurately, the legal enforcement of those taboos), such questioning tends to produce a very vocal response in opposition. There may be more examples of this than the Standing Committee of Australian Attorneys-General Model Criminal Code Law Officers Committee, which isn't very important in the grand scheme of things -- its just the only one I am aware of. -- SJK

- I think there might be a wider meaning of incest than that given. Does anyone know how sociologists or anthropologists define it? The actual rules for how close is too close have varied and still do vary a lot from society to society. In some cases it applies only to blood relations, but often relatives by marriage or adoption also count.

In some societies that are ordered with clans as subdivisions of the tribe, any sex within the clan is considered incest no matter if there is any known blood relationship or not. In some matriachal societies all men must move to another clan to marry. Maybe there are some patriachal societies where the women must move to marry, i'm not sure.

Even within modern western society, their is disagreement of local laws over whether first cousins count as incest. (Christian churches usually now consider first cousins to be incest in line with Old Testament law, whatever the local law says. But this has varied in the past.)

Some biologist should add some numerical information about likelihood of birth defects after incest, say between brother and sister. Also some general information about why mixing is good would be useful. --AxelBoldt

At the level of brother and sister the probability of birth defects goes up noticeably, but not enormously if the gene pool is fairly healthy. Maybe it almost doubles. Some of the more common birth defects (hare lip etc) are probably not due to genetic causes. For first cousins, the increase is down in the noise. Inbreeding can have advantages (ask any plant or animal breeder), but breeding individuals who are not closely related also has advantages (again ask any plant or animal breeder). The best way to get a healthy population seems to involve a mixture of both.

As to why, that is a very complicated thing that is not quite fully understood yet. It would take a very knowlegeble geneticist writing a very long article to explain even what we now know.

I am not sure how this relates to incest for humans. A lot of people would not want to think about humans in these kind of terms, of deliberately breeding to improve the species. Also incest is not quite the same as inbreeding, since in most juristicions it includes various relationships without close blood relationship, and it also includes sexual relationships that do not produce children.

True, but that's just a result of confusion by priests and jurists. It's clear that the incest taboo is there because of genetic reasons.

In Germany for instance, it is legal for a sister to have oral sex with her brother, but penetration is illegal. That makes eminent sense. But the article should explain why.

''Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "incest taboo" except in modern societies. It certainly didn't arise due to genetic reasons or evolution.'' - Is it really clear that the taboo is for genetic reasons? The fact that most traditional versions of it are not very precise in preventing genetic trouble, should be a hint that other reasons should be considered. The genetic reasoning may well be a modern rationalisation for an old custom. It is unlikely that the ancients in the cultures where the taboo existed did the detailed and careful statistical analysis needed to show that inbreeding can increase short term genetic risk. They certainly did not have the theory needed to understand why.

For the definition of incest found in some tribes, that no sex inside the clan is allowed, there is a much more obvious explanation. It is to improve the unity of the tribe by forcing the clans to remain friendly. For other versions of the taboo it is hard for me to imagine any rational reason based on evidence available to the people who first invented it.

i haven't read anything on this in a while, but my impression is that property had lots to do with it. For example, I seem to remember that in Classical Athens, an uncle could marry a neice if she were the sole heir to her father, in order to keep the property in the family. On the otherhand, I'm pretty sure that Post-Christian Rome had a 7 degree limit, which was also held as the standard for the Franks, although they tended to look at the degrees slightly differently. Of course, this doesn't work if you look at the marriage of Louis the Pious and his son to two Welf sisters, so that Charles the Bald's maternal aunt was also his sister-in-law... Off to hunt in Herlihy and Wemple -- I think that's where I read this stuff...JHK

This is all about marriage and not incest, so irrelevant to the article and the article title.

Article removed from Good articles
Dear Anacapa. The article's author (presumably you) writes that "Sexual predation by priests, nuns or other religious authorities against childhood parishioners, by teachers against students, by therapists against clients, and by a host of other authorities against people in dependent roles is seen by therapists as incestuous in nature, although not in form." In the discussion below you talk of behaviour that is "INCESTUOUS IN FORM but NOT NATURE" (your caps). The terminological insconsistency is confusing, but not nearly as confusing as the insistence on identifying behaviors which resemble incest as being incest when they clearly are not: resemblance does not constitute identity. The sections on "Covert Parental Incest" and "Incestuous abuse by non-related adults in responsible roles" need to be clearly identified as describing behaviours that are similar to, but are not, incest (or simply eliminated). Identifying them as "Types of Incest" is nonsensical, equivalent to identifying a wax lemon as a "type of lemon". 24.52.167.159, May 6, 2006.


 * Dear 24.52.167.159. 'Incest' is taboo, forbidden or criminal sexual conduct between relatives. I make no claims that Sexual predation by priests and other responsible elders...is incest itself.  What I am claiming is the sexual predation of a parishior by his Father (priest)is "incestuous" sexual abuse as "incestuous"  is defined by John K quote in the discussions at the bottom of this page.  The methods used and the consequences to the victim in "incestuous" priest-Father sexual rape/abuse are quite similar to those of actual incest by a birth father.  I see your point about Types of incest which I will attempt to fix with Types of Incest/Incestuous Sexual Abuse as a new title.  It is indeed essential to state which conduct is incest vs which is incestuous...thus the discussion on these definitions and usages below.  As for Covert incest that IS being defined by the professional as a NEWLY DETECTED FORM of actual incest which happens between actual relatives as opposed to incestuous conduct between non-relatives.  I see your points about confusion.  I willY do what I can to make this clearer once we consense on definitions/usages here.  By the way editor JohnK offers this definition of incestuous "incestuous" (meanning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com).   For the many definitions of "incest" I point you to the sections at the bottom of this discussion page. Anacapa 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because this article talks about things that are not incest - psychologically dependent relationships with relatives and abuse by people in authority. Failing to grasp the concept you're dealing with does not a good article make. 24.80.109.19

somone should add something about the role of incest within the tragedy of hamlet.


 * To the unnamed editor above. Before you accuse other editors of "failing to grasp a concept", I suggest you read clinical psychologist Ken Adams' Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners, Understanding Covert Incest.  As for the INCESTUOUS  abuse of dependent children by people in authority, I suggest you go to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases.  That widely reported EXAMPLE of widespread and repeated (INCESTUOUS IN FORM but NOT NATURE eg not biological) child sexual abuse is indeed comparable with the tragedy of Hamlet unless the sexual integrity of boys is meaningless to us as a people.  (I don't mean to pick on the Catholic Church either as incest is widespread among my people too.)  I welcome all reasonable criticsms of POV here but I imagine that there might be new research that you haven't seen yet.  I also note that most sex and psychological researchers consider incest the worst form of child abuse bar none.  Since Child Abuse and child Sexual Abuse is a tragedy in the US and many other nations I suggest we give incest the tragic tone it deserves here.  To do otherwise is to demean, discount, and diminish the terrible nature of this crime against children.  What is that quote that says something like "the best way to judge a society is by watching how it treats it's children"?  The way we treat children in the US is indeed a tragedy and one that comes home to bite us everyday.  Britannica says incest "is almost universally condemned and is usually viewed with horror".  Now there may be other POV's on this (since clearly some cultures see female circumcision as a 'good' thing to do to girls!?) but if there are positive POV's about incest please state them and source them so we can compare and contrast them with facts here.  You seem to have a POV about incest too.  What is it?  Is it well-known or is it your personal POV?  How can I or we address real concerns you have and yet still keep all POV's about incest in this article about incest with complete, balanced NPOV content.  Please be specific so I/we can respond with specifics here.  I claimed my POV above.  No one is perfect about NPOV so I welcome other editors feedback as long as usable to complete the article. Anacapa 00:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, it wasn't a good article even before I found out it was POV. Stop repeating the same quotes over and over, I've read everything you've said so far, and most of your linked references. Now please accept the criticism graciously. There's hundreds of delisted "good articles" out there, and most of them were better than this one. 24.80.109.19


 * I could care less about this or any other article being a 'good' article. I want good content.  If you had actually gone out and read the reference sources themselves  I doubt I would have to repeat myself so much.  We seem to be struggling over 'grasping concepts' and some unstated POV you have about incest.  Look, this is always going to be a loaded and taboo topic.  I ask that you stop the personal insults state your sources/specific POV's and focus on the content.  I stated mine about as clearly as I could so please be big and state yours so some sort of NPOV consensus about POV is possible here. Anacapa 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To continue what I believe the earlier user was referring to:

Abuse of children by non-relatives is not incest. Categorizing such relationships as incestuous does not transform them into incest either. This is not a POV regarding incest, but disagreement with your interpretation of its definition. As an editor, you don't get the right to change (in this case, broaden) the definition of a word. Nor do the researchers you cite. The change, if any, is left to the unpredicatable future of 'common usage'. I commend you for your work and in trying to improve people's awareness, but this expanded concept of incest is not appropriate for todays enyclopaedia.

By definition, Roman Catholic clergy abuse of children is not incest, nor is it incestuous. It is child abuse - for lack of a more specific term - and until a more specific term is invented and used, it will remain so. Lumping that example in with incest does not improve understanding or the accuracy of this article.

I have little problem with Covert Incest - if defined as a method employed by a relative to engage in said behavior. I also agree that incestuous relationships can occur without sexual contact or even sexual overtones.

If researchers studying incest have a problem with the definition of incest, then I suggest they look up this word and especially 'incestuous' in the dictionary. The definition of these words is what it is. To redefine words because researchers are sloppy in their semantics or can't be bothered to propose new, more specific terms - would be a mistake. Sincerely, Pendragon39 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To respond to editor Pendragon39. Sexual abuse of children of non-relatives is indeed NOT incest.  However it is incestuous in nature.  Ken Adams PhD a licensed clinical psychologicist clearly explains this in Silently Seduced as shown in part by the quotes I added at the bottom of this discussion page.  I was clear about the distinction between actual incest and incestous child sexual abuse in the article.  I am not broadening the definition because I used incestuous with clear distinctions to separate this from incest itself. What I am doing is saying that there are other relationships that closely approximate actual incest due to the type of dependent relationships involved.   This is common sense...a woman raped by her trusted gynocologist in his office during a pelvic exam is going to have quite a different experience from that of a woman raped on the street by a stranger...thus the use of the term incestuous to describe rape of a dependent by people in responsible roles.   If you come back from reading Adams and other sources on this with a different POV please let us know.  There is no intent on my part to broaden the actual definition of incest (which has many different definitions in many different sources anyway) but I do have an intent to include closely associated incestuous acts in this article.  As for what is appropriate for todays encylcopedia I ask that you explain your criteria for what is appropriate here.  I call your attention to other mainstream encyclopedias and ask that you notice the enormous variations between encyclopedia articles (and incest definitions).  It seems to me that we are in quite uncharted territory with this taboo and forbidden topic.


 * By definition the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases would be incestuous rather than actual incest, a distinction that is made in the article. These were cases of insidious child sexual abuse by trusted priests and other responsible adults of dependent children.   This is what makes them incestuous as opposed to the sexual abuse of children by adult strangers.  To ignore the incestuous nature of this kind of child sexual abuse is to ignore the KEY aspect of what makes these and other similar kinds of sexual abuse by people in responsible roles PARTICULARLY horrible.  There is no intent to single out Catholics here...they just happened to be a well- known example due to extensive press coverage of a huge nationwide problem.


 * As far Covert Incest, I am not sure what your problem is there but would be glad to hear more about what you mean here. I would also be interested to have you explain a little more about incestuous relationships that occur minus sexual contact (which Adams and other sources concur with) or even sexual overtones (which seems to be outside the definitions of incest shown in most dictionaries/encylopedias).  It would be a big help to have a few examples here as this has caused quite a bit of discussion below.


 * As for definitions...I concur with you on this. However, it seems that incest is defined quite differently depending on which encyclopedia or dictionary one uses.  (I will add a couple more to the list I added in the discussions at the bottom of this page).  Incest seems to be a taboo and forbidden topic which confuses even professional encylcopedia editors...and one that is expanding rapidly as more researchers dive into heretofore hidden aspects of it...such as mother-daughter incest or covert incest.  I am hoping we will decide on one definition that includes the full scope of current research but also stays close to the key aspects of the various definitions being used by other sources.  For example, one encyclopedia defines incest as just HETEROSEXUAL sexual relations, but recent research includes same-sex incest as well such as mother-daughter incest, father-son incest, or priest-male parishioner incestuous sexual abuse.


 * Last, I thank you for you feedback, your courtesy, and your insistence on clarity here.  To me there is no right or wrong here.  This is a loaded topic that I want to see well-discussed until we have surfaced most of the issues and can come to some kind of consensus that is reasonable to all reasonable editors. Anacapa 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anacapa, You are right to refer to relationships that approximate the damage caused by certain forms of incest. My objection is describing them as being incestuous.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

incest One entry found for incest. Main Entry: in·cest Pronunciation: 'in-"sest Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- + castus pure -- more at CASTE
 * sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

incestuous One entry found for incestuous. Main Entry: in·ces·tu·ous Pronunciation: in-'ses-ch&-w&s, -'sesh- Function: adjective 1 : constituting or involving incest 2 : guilty of incest - in·ces·tu·ous·ly adverb - in·ces·tu·ous·ness noun

If we follow the lexical definition of incestuous, a relationship that is not defined as incest cannot be referred to as incestuous. I respect Ken Adams' interpretation, and can almost accept the phrase incestuous in nature, but his terminology is not accurate. For one, it does not fit into the existing definition. And it doesn't convey the fundamental basis for the similarities, which is the type of abusive relationship involved.

This is the key aspect you refer to. It is not directly addressed probably because of a lack of proper terminology. 'Incestuous in nature' is a poor substitute for explaining the consequences of similar abusive relationships. We know there are incestuous relationships that are not parent-child, nor abusive. If we use those, then incestuous by nature takes on a different, milder meaning.

Please see persuasive definition

I realize incestuous is sometimes improperly used. Alternative meanings are used to imply relationships that are forbidden, illicit or scandalous. Some mistake etymology for being part of the definition - for example, unchaste.

Covert Incest

As stated earlier, I have little problem with covert incest. The use of covert distinguishes it from incest. When I referred to sexual overtones, I was describing a situation where the abuser refrains from making them or the victim is unable to discern them. There are forms of intimacy and romantic entanglement that do not involve sex. The extreme would be lack of sexual overtones as well. The definition of covert incest suggests that a need for romantic intimacy causes improper, damaging behavior in the parent. I don't know if my example would be one of covert incest.

I hope these explanations will help.

With best regards, Pendragon39 16:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pendragon398. Thanks again for your consideration/courtesy on such a highly loaded topic.  Editor JohnK pulled in this defintion of "incestuous" (meanning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com) about which we are discussing usage now at the bottom.  I am using 'incest' to denote what is defined as actual incest by law, custom or tradition but using "incestuous" to define similar conduct that closely resembles incest and would be indeed incest if it happened between blood relatives.  "Incestuous" rape or sexual abuse by say a Father-priest is NOT incest itself but it is "incestuous" as I see the definition.  There are many definitions of incest and we are discussing usages so I welcome you to join the discussions at the bottom of the page.  As for Covert incest it is being defined by the professionals as a COVERT form of actual incest and one that is often used in combination with the OVERT form by OVERT predators too.  So I see Covert Incest as incest rather than as a form of incestuous abuse.  Hope this addresses most of you concerns, best Anacapa 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incest in animals
I have come accross this page when searching for whether or not incest was a phenomeneon also observed in animals, but there is not even the slightest mention of incest in animals, which I think makes the article wanting.

Prohibition old/new
I understand that this kmkis a hot-button topic for many discussing it, but the NPOV of this article seems severely at risk.


 * Where is this idea that the incest taboo is purely an invention of modern society coming from? That is simply untrue. Not only many (most?I have no numbers immediately available) human societies frown on incestual sex, many animal societies structure their mating in such a way as to diminish the risk. Additionally, it is a well-researched fact (by actual scientists, not Internet people with a high speed connection and an axe to grind)  that, among humans, sexual attraction to those one spends certain formative years in close contact with diminishes very severely, regardless of level of blood relation.  Several posters seem to be advocating the view that the incest taboo is some kind of cultural imposition. That is patent nonsense.

The cultural imposition point are true, and are patent nonsense in themselves, there is no documented side effects to incest, unless you inbreed for CENTURIES, as the trials with inbreeding mice and rats have shown. I, personally, know of a brother and sister that married, had children, and the children are perfectly normal.

The only time you get bad side effects is when one or both partners have genetic abnormalities, and then, they are likely to have problem with ANYONE they choose to marry. Look at the Tay-Sachs problem, they are now finding that some non-Jewish people have the gene for Tay-Sachs, when they thought it was confined to only those of Jewish ancestry. -Christopher

I mean no offense, but I have the distinct impression that people with no real knowledge in this area are playing fast and loose with the facts.

The bonobo chimps, very, if not, more closer related as regular chimps, regularily mate with all family members. The only taboo, as far as I know, with this species is son/mother after the son reaches puberty. --ShaunMacPherson 07:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Biological genetic issues
Some biologist should add some numerical information about likelihood of birth defects after incest, say between brother and sister. Also some general information about why mixing is good would be useful. --AxelBoldt

A biologist in England did do a study on the effects on inbreeding in humans, going to an island where it was common. His findings- there was no reconizable side effects from inbreeding, unless it was done over CENTURIES, the people on the island were perfectly normal, and had no genetic diseases or abnormalities. - Christopher

At the level of brother and sister the probability of birth defects goes up noticeably, but not enormously if the gene pool is fairly healthy. Maybe it almost doubles. Some of the more common birth defects (hare lip etc) are probably not due to genetic causes. For first cousins, the increase is down in the noise. Inbreeding can have advantages (ask any plant or animal breeder), but breeding individuals who are not closely related also has advantages (again ask any plant or animal breeder). The best way to get a healthy population seems to involve a mixture of both.

As to why, that is a very complicated thing that is not quite fully understood yet. It would take a very knowlegeble geneticist writing a very long article to explain even what we now know.

I am not sure how this relates to incest for humans. A lot of people would not want to think about humans in these kind of terms, of deliberately breeding to improve the species. Also incest is not quite the same as inbreeding, since in most juristicions it includes various relationships without close blood relationship, and it also includes sexual relationships that do not produce children.

True, but that's just a result of confusion by priests and jurists. It's clear that the incest taboo is there because of genetic reasons.

In Germany for instance, it is legal for a sister to have oral sex with her brother, but penetration is illegal. That makes eminent sense. But the article should explain why.

''Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "incest taboo" except in modern societies. It certainly didn't arise due to genetic reasons or evolution.''

"Bullshit? I think not.  Where or when has it ever been common to have sex with your parents, for example?  I believe the taboo is based not on scientific reasoning or intellectual rationalizations so much as the 'ick' factor, plain and simple." -- GP

Is it really clear that the taboo is for genetic reasons? The fact that most traditional versions of it are not very precise in preventing genetic trouble, should be a hint that other reasons should be considered. The genetic reasoning may well be a modern rationalisation for an old custom. It is unlikely that the ancients in the cultures where the taboo existed did the detailed and careful statistical analysis needed to show that inbreeding can increase short term genetic risk. They certainly did not have the theory needed to understand why.

For the definition of incest found in some tribes, that no sex inside the clan is allowed, there is a much more obvious explanation. It is to improve the unity of the tribe by forcing the clans to remain friendly. For other versions of the taboo it is hard for me to imagine any rational reason based on evidence available to the people who first invented it.

Incest and inheritance
I haven't read anything on this in a while, but my impression is that property had lots to do with it. For example, I seem to remember that in Classical Athens, an uncle could marry a neice if she were the sole heir to her father, in order to keep the property in the family. On the otherhand, I'm pretty sure that Post-Christian Rome had a 7 degree limit, which was also held as the standard for the Franks, although they tended to look at the degrees slightly differently. Of course, this doesn't work if you look at the marriage of Louis the Pious and his son to two Welf sisters, so that Charles the Bald's maternal aunt was also his sister-in-law... Off to hunt in Herlihy and Wemple -- I think that's where I read this stuff...JHK

I restored JHK's recent contribution, and also revised the article. "incest" is a term that has many meanings and uses, and one meaning and use is to describe prohibited marriages. I agree that it is sometimes important to distinguish between prohibited sex and prohibited marriage, and I revised the article to make this clear -- I provided two different definitions of incest, and an specific case that includes an example of a forbidden sexual relationship and a forbidden marriage. I also removed some tendentious polemic. SR

"incest" almost universally means "sex" in modern societies. It is VERY important to distinguish between sex and marriage since nobody except sociologists and historians give a damn about marriage anymore. So what's the deal with putting the marriage definition and examples (which nobody cares about) before the sex definition and examples?

Your "example" is extremely bad, suggesting that people throughout history have forbidden both cases of incest. Which is completely false.

The incest taboo is myth. That is reality. Shouldn't encyclopedia entries deal with reality and report myth as myth? By removing the "polemic" you only confirm the people's preconceptions on the matter!

Child abuse and incest
Here's another way to understand just how wrong and stupid SR's view is.

Consider "child abuse". Is it child abuse to leave whip a newborn infant into a coma? Yes, yes it is. And anyone who gainsays this is a moron. Yet, at the turn of the century in Germany, such practices occured. Was it considered child abuse by the natives? Who cares?

What child abusers consider child abuse is irrelevant. It is a well-known fact that no parent considers themselves a child abuser, even when they are. So who gives a damn what the child abusers believe?

Similarly, what the natives consider incest or not is irrelevant. The fact that Trobriand islanders consider some type of incest to be a-ok doesn't mean we should stop calling incest incest. Incest is a specific practice which we believe to be wrong. It isn't "whatever some society believes to be wrong"!

Next you're going to redefine "evil" and say that child sacrifice in Carthage wasn't evil because they never saw a thing wrong with it!

If you can't deal with the reality of incest then lay off the damn page!

Actually, SR, since you can't even differentiate between incest and inbreeding, which are completely different concepts, you should just lay off the page entirely. For the record, incest refers to sex while inbreeding refers to the reduced genetic diversity of children resulting from incest! -- User:ark

POV - incest OK
This article seems to be giving equal or greater weight to the POV that there's nothing wrong with incest. Since over 90% of readers (maybe even 99%) would strongly disagree with this POV, shouldn't we give a little more space to the anti-incest POV?

Not that we should come out and denounce it (that would violate our editorial policy). Just that it should be more balanced.

Who objects to incest, and on what grounds? What are the genetic consequences (for humans)? Why is incest a taboo?

Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002


 * I am DEEPLY disatisfied with the article because the POV that incest exists and is evil (contrary to both the sociologists' view and the "incest taboo" myth) is so reduced. And SR won't even let me have that much. Apparently, he won't tolerate any mention of incest as existing, let alone as an intolerable practice.

Incest is a taboo only in modern societies because it's the product of child sexual abuse and is thus considered immoral. The genetics have nothing to do with it, never have and never will. -- ark


 * Thanks for explaining that, ark. We should mention the reason for the incest taboo in the article. Something like,


 * One of the biggest reasons for the incest taboo in modern societies is that many people consider it a form of child sexual abuse. Generally, people consider it immoral to exploit children sexually.


 * Sl, can you and ark agree on the above formulation?


 * And what do you suggest that paragraph replace?


 * I disagree with the paragraph because 1) people already think the immorality of incest is universal, and 2) this is false. So saying "Generally, people consider sexual exploitation of children immoral" doesn't identify exactly who considers it immoral (nearly all modern people) and who does not (many people in third-world countries and in the past, including such luminaries as Socrates and Seneca).

Thanks for engaging me in the discussion, ark. I see where your objection is, and I agree with you to some extent.

We cannot advocate the POV that the incest taboo is universal. Instead, perhaps, we can describe when and where the taboo has existed. I have read in the article one or two examples of non-adherence to the taboo, and the article would be better off with these examples than without them.

How about:


 * The taboo against is nearly universal (or, common to most cultures). Yet, some cultures are unaware of the taboo. Such as, etc.

We might even discuss the tension between (A) the American prohibition against incest, and (B) evidence that it is practiced to some extent (how much?).

Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

Taboo
When and where the taboo has existed? Only the last (couple?) century and only in the heavily industrialized countries.

There is a much older and wider taboo against flaunting incest in public but even that was never universal. Plus, there is the added consideration that in many cases, kissing your wife in public was taboo (as it still is in Western Africa) while sucking your son's penis in public wasn't (in neolithic tribes). There is far more evidence of a taboo against public adult heterosexual practices than against there is for one against incest.

So how "universal" is the taboo? Not at all. In fact, it's incest that was universal until only very recently. I don't mean to imply that the current prohibitions against incest are a fad, they're just a very new development in morality. People are much more moral nowadays than they ever have been in the past.

How widespread is incest nowaday? I do not know. It's understood that the vast majority of sexual abuse is incestuous. So that reduces the question to how widespread sexual abuse is. The estimates range from 10% to 50%, with the better studies giving the higher numbers. 50% does seem pretty high to me but 10% is delusionally low since abuse itself runs at 90%. -- ark

Following moved from User:Slrubenstein user page:

you stupid fuck. you don't even understand what "inbreeding" (which does NOT refer to animals specifically but to children born out of incest!) means and you think you have authority over "incest"?

Hi, Sl. It seems you have picked up a sparring partner. Why not duke it out on the Talk page, instead of reverting each other's edits?

24, please don't abuse the "anyone can edit" privilege. I'd hate to see an administrator have to lock thi incest page. Discussion usually leads to consensus, and have you read the NPOV article?

Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002

I know what NPOV means. And I also know what incest, inbreeding and marriage rules are. SR does not. He confuses all three of them together and butchers my contributions.

dictionary.com gives 3 or 4 definitions of incest. NONE of them relate to inbreeding or marriage rules.

Even among sociologists, it is FALSE that they believe incest means marriage rules. They believe it means sex practices, but they also believe that marriage rules constrain sex practices (because sex outside of marriage doesn't exist in their worldview). If you go according to sociologists, when the mother sucks the penis of an infant boy, this is neither sex nor incest! But since this example *clearly* contradicts SR's fairy-tale worldview that incest doesn't exist, and proves the fact that sociologists are deluding themselves, it can't be allowed to exist on the page.

I've let SR have the sociology side even though it's completely false. That's a HUGE amount of compromise. SR can't compromise with me or cooperate in any way because when the facts are listed side by side, he knows he'll lose completely. -- ark

Neolithic tribes
Can I get a cite on the "Neolithic tribes"? It just seems unlikely that they all have (or had) the same customs, any more than industrial civilizations all have the same customs. It would thus be worth specifying the cultures we're referring to.

Also, I did a slight rewrite under "Old Testament": I'll let stand the use of that Christian term for the Jewish scriptures, but the "OT" is the Jewish Bible, not just "a central part" of it. (The previous was similar to "The Bible (an important part of Christian scripture)" says...") Vicki Rosenzweig


 * Sorry, Vicki, I had thought that OT was a subset of the Jewish Bible. I get confused by Mishnah, Talmud, and so on. It would be a Mitzvah if you would staighten me out :-) Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002


 * I'll look for cites for neolithic tribes. But remember, the contention is that nearly all societies throughout history have practiced incest (whether or not it was officially "permitted"). If you can show such uniformity in later societies (which you can) and establish one or two cases of neolithic tribes practicing it (which you also can) then it's a good bet that all neolithic tribes were also uniform in that way. -- ark


 * Okay, ark, let's distinguish between incest, inbreeding and marriage rules. Let's also distinguish between (A) what various advocates want and (B) what actually happens in the world.


 * I'd say, based on my own concepts, that "incest" means "sex between family members other than husband and wife" (typically, father rapes or seduces daughter; can also be mother/son, or two siblings).


 * My church does not allow brother and sister to marry. (Once, Rev. Moon unknowingly matched a brother and sister before a Unification Church mass wedding, and they had to go back and tell him of his mistake!) Perhaps we could say what other, larger churches say about bro/sis marriage.


 * As for "inbreeding", I think the term has larger scope than one's immediate family. Doesn't it also refer to marrying within one's tribe or other relatively small group? The terms exogamous and endogamous come to mind.


 * Ed Poor, Friday, May 31, 2002


 * Inbreeding refers to the production of offspring (both human and animal) using a restricted gene pool. If you have a line of mice derived from a single mouse 20 generations back, then the whole population is considered inbred.


 * Could you provide chapter and verse on the OT prohibition of incest? -- ark


 * The cite: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln07_evolution.html

INCEST AND THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN NEW GUINEA
As with infanticide, the sexual abuse of children is widely reported by anthropologists, but in positive terms: maternal incest is seen as indulging the infant's sexual needs, oral and anal rape of boys is described as both desirable and as desired by the boys and rape of both girls and boys is presented as an unmotivated "cultural" artifact. I will begin with the use by mothers of their infants as erotic objects.

Anthropologists maintain that "the incest taboo is the very foundation of culture"140 and that "the taboo on incest within the immediate family is one of the few known cultural universals."141 The culturally-approved sexual use of children, therefore, must be renamed wherever it is found as something other than incest. Ford and Beach's widely-cited Patterns of Sexual Behavior makes this false distinction clear: incest, they say, "excludes instances in which mothers or fathers are permitted to masturbate or in some other sexual manner to stimulate their very young children,"142 then going on to call incest rare. The authoritative Growing Up: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia covers 87 cultures in which it says there is no incest, just adults playing with, stroking, masturbating and sucking their baby's genitals: "Truk adults play with an infant's genitals...In China, Manchu mothers tickle the genitals of their little daughters and suck the penis of a small son...in Thailand, a Banoi mother habitually strokes her son's genitals."143 But again this isn't incest. Davenport's cross-cultural study similarly concludes that "Mother-son incest is so rare that it is insignificant and irrelevant [since] genital stimulation as a means of pacifying a child may be regarded as nonsexual..."144 Konker reviews cross-cultural adult-child sexual relations and finds that "the ethnographic record contains many...examples of normative adult/child sexual contact" but said this isn't a problem since experts have found there is "no reason to believe that sexual contact between an adult and child is inherently wrong or harmful."145 Korbin's Child Abuse and Neglect: Cross-Cultural Perspectives likewise finds that mothers masturbating children is widespread in her large sample, but she says it is not incest since the society doesn't call it incest:

[And it goes on and on and on and on from there]

Hebrew Biblical
I made a few changes. here are the reasons:

I changed OT to Hebrew Bible, because it was called the Hebrew Bible before it was called the OT.

I moved the line about Murdock down to the section on marriage for two reasons. First, the current opening definition does not mention marriage at all, and defines incest solely in terms of sexual relations; therefore, the qualification concerning Murdock is not necessary in the opening. Second, the qualification concerning Murdock is useful, but appropriate to the section on marriage.

I removed the line about "neolithic" for three reasons: first, it is vague (which neolothic tribes?). Second, it is hard to prove -- the neolithic refers to a period about 10,000 years ago for which there is no written historical record; whatever archeological evidence there is for the practice mentioned is at best scant and inconclusive. Third, the use of "neolithic" to describe contemporary non-industrialized societies is inaccurate and misleading, and many have aruged, colonialist and perhaps racist.


 * "neolithic" just means "stone age" and there were still stone age tribes very recently. They have been extensively studied. So your claim that it is "difficult to prove" is just your own uneducated opinion.

I understand the point that is being made by this sentence I have cut -- that incest need not involve marriage. But given the way the article now reads, that is not a point that needs to be argued. Even the section on incest and marriage states that the relationship between sexual and marriage practices is complex, and provides an example of incest that is unrelated to marriage.


 * "complex" means nothing.

I did, however, keep the specific reference to the practice (mothers sexually stimulating their infant sons), but made it more specific -- I do not know how many "neolithic tribes" have this practice, but there is a famous study of Bali.

As for inbreeding. I am among many who believe incest among humans is not inbreeding, and inbreeding among other animals should not be likened to incest -- the line that ark cut made this clear. Whether that line should be put back I will now leave to others. But let me make plain my reason for including it. There are many who believe that sexual relations between closely related humans and closely related non-humans is comparable and should be explained according to the same principles. The fact that some people believe this, and the fact that many social scientists and biologists do not, should be in the article. SR

Inbreeding refers to the production of children. When children are the product of incest, in the English language they are called inbred. 'Inbred' is an epithet with connotations of mental retardation but not animalism.

In animals, the term incest is not used because one is never interested in cases where animals have sex without producing offspring. Thus, people use 'inbreeding' but never 'incest' in the case of animals.

I am applying the same principles to both animals and humans, and because of that I use different words. -- ark

I'm not sure who's saying what about "inbreeding" and "incest". Could you guys use the four-hyphen thing to make a horizontal line? That will distinguish one contributer's comment from another's.

I gather that "inbreeding" can refer to animals or to humans, while "incest" refers only to humans. Additionally, "inbreeding" refers more to the production of offspring. Perhaps we should contrast the terms incest and inbreeding in the article.

For example, some mountainous, isolated parts of the U.S. east (Appalachia?) are notorious for inbreeding and are the butt of many incest jokes. Are any of us aware of scholarship on Appalachia?

I cut this, but am putting it here if Icarus or others want to work on it:
 * Although incest can now be used to describe relationships between an authority figure and a pupil, such as teacher-student or troop leader and scout, it once only refered to sexual relations between geneticaly close family members, such as brother and sister or parent and child. Generally the term incest is reserved for sex between family members.


 * Incest is a criminal offence in most countries, as well as being against most modern religions. The term is also sometimes used metaphorically, to describe relationships between an authority figure and a pupil, such as teacher-student or troop leader and scout.

Although I see some value to breaking the intro into two paragraphs, I do not see how this version is more NPOV. Indeed, I have some serious problems with it. The newly proposed opening "Although incest can now be used to describe relationships between an authority figure and a pupil, such as teacher-student or troop leader and scout, it once only refered to..." is vague and inacurate. It is vague to say that incest "can" be used to describe... -- "incest" can be use to describe anything at all; the question is, is it used that way. Frankly, I have never head anyone use it to describe student/teacher relations, although I am willing to believe that it does happen. But if it does happen, I would still have to ask what it means -- do people experience the same kind of revulsion at a student/teacher relationship as they do at a parent/child relationship? Do they really believe it should be treated the same way, legally? Do they really believe it owes to the same psychological causes? I doubt it, and if someone really believes this I am sure there are many who would object. For these reasons, I just do not think that the article should begin by refering to a form of incest that many would not consider incest. For similar reasons, it is wrong to write, "it once only refered to." On the one hand, I doubt that it once only refered to this, I think that in many different cultures in the past incest refered to other things. Also, today there are still many people for whom this is all that incest refers to. And I would bet (not having done research, but still, I would bet) that this is how incest is still defined by local (if applicable), state, and (if applicable) federal law.

Of course "incest" is a complex topic, there have been and are different deffinitions and explanations for it. But the introductory paragraph of the article, I believe, should state clearly what the most common understanding of the term is. I believe the previous version did that. I believe the revised version muddled it. Slrubenstein

people equate too much incest with child sexual abuse
I think a lot of people equate too much incest with child sexual abuse. Incest can be, and most often is, a form of child sexual abuse -- but that does not mean that incest always is a form of child sexual abuse. Incest between adults is not a form of child sexual abuse. And yet it is funny how many authors (who call themselves "psychologists" or "social workers", and publish in things called "Journal of such-and-such", equate the two. I think the article cannot warn against this error too strongly. It does mention it, but it downplays it. (It also fails to note that parent-child incest involving adults isn't child sexual abuse either, since obviously if the child is an adult they are not a child and whether having sex with them is abusive or not it cannot be child sexual abuse since, as I said, they are not a child.) I added a clear note to the effect that the referenced work at the end makes this mistake.

Also, I notice comparing the current revision to earlier ones that someone has cut a lot of useful and interesting information about incest as an impediment to marriage, differing incest laws in different countries re. first cousins, etc. Why are people deleting useful information from articles? Someone should put that back in....

Finally, having gone back and repaired much of the damage (i.e. deletion of information) from this article: you can't separate the issue of incest from that of marriage. Marrying a close relative is incest, because traditionally sex and marriage were not distinguished (and try marrying your brother or sister with the argument "but i just want to marry them, i don't want to have sex with them..." and see how far that gets you). In any case, anthropologists commonly describe prohibitions on marrying a relative as incest taboos, and here is a whole website discussing restrictions on marriage entitled "exogamy and incest prohbitions" http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/incest.html

also, i vaguely remember hearing claims from some right-wing christian lobby group that the colombian constitutional court considered legalising adult incest, but have never heard any real evidence that this actually happened. if anyone has some evidence, that could be added to the article to complement the australian example... (any more examples of attempts to legalise incest?) -- an.

-- an.


 * an, I appreciate your various contributions to this article. You ask, perhaps rhetorically, why some people were deleting useful information some time back.  If you have some time to kill, go to the incest taboo article and read the Talk page.  Read enough and you will find out what happened. Slrubenstein

incidence of porphyria
Re: the incidence of porphyria - I don't believe anyone has shown that the form of porphyria apparently present in the British royal family (assuming that this is what the last editor is referring to) was caused by the inheritance of two copies of a recessive gene, so I don't think that can be used as an example of the effects of incest. -- Oliver Pereira


 * No-one has contradicted me on that one, so I expect I'm right. :) I've removed the reference to porphyria from the article. -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:04 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

genetic reasons against incest
Some text fodder for you all regarding the genetic reasons against incest. Feel free to incorporate this into the article, since I don't have time to do that myself at the moment.

''Why is this? The biological explanation, which scientists accept today, has to do with the recombination of 'lethal recessive' genes. Brother and sister are quite likely to carry the same lethal recessive genes, and when they produce a child together, these lethal recessives will be expressed. In what you might call a normal coupling, husband and wife (or boy and girl) are not closely related and they carry different lethal recessives. The lethal recessives of the one partner are over-ridden by matching non-lethal genes of the other partner. As a result, the lethal recessives are far less likely to be expressed in the child.''

''What would people have made of this difference in, say, the seventeenth century? They must have noticed the number of stillborn, damaged and deformed children born into incestuous relationships ? a sign, incidentally, that incestuous relationships must have occurred often enough, and openly enough, to be counted. In a deeply superstitious era, the deformities must have been seen as evidence of God's curse on family love. This superstition persists today, although we have a ready remedy to hand now: if the female partner takes the birth control pill, it is very unlikely indeed that the partners will produce a child.''

Taken from a Usenet post by Jennifer (not very scientifically written, but gets the point across).

Some quantitative facts guesses. Dawkins says that according to some books, on average every human has two lethal recessive genes. Close relatives (siblings or parent/child pairs) share about 50% of genes. Dawkins goes on to say that for every recessive lethal gene a person has there is a 12.5% chance of his incestous offspring dying young (or being stillborn).

There is an obvious fact that incest would be usually selected against during evolution, because having dead kids sucks. One evolutionary strategy is to reduce attraction towards the closest relatives, another is to force youngs to move away from the original pack.

Still, there are genetic advantages to mating with relatively close relatives. A research by Patrick Bateson have shown that partridges prefer to mate with cousins, as opposed to siblings or less-closely related birds.
 * We have to begin with empirical evidence. Many societies practice relative inbreeding (e.g. marrying a grandparent's grandchild).  Why?  I posit that the claim that it sucks when a child dies is ethnocentric; it is not a scientific claim but reflects our Western values that heavily value the lives of children.  Many societies have high infant mortality rates, and in the case of societies with relative inbreeding, congenital birth-defects are cirtainly a reason.  The question is, why would so many societies encourage relative inbreeding?  The answer is, inbreeding leads to an increase in the homozygote.  The homozygote may be bad, but it may be good.  If all the offspring with the bad (congenital birth-defect) homozygote die during childhood i.e., before reproducing, then over time the frequencies for the dangerous gene will quickly decline in the population.  Of course this would work only in relatively small societies, but it is precisely in such societies that one finds relative inbreeding encouraged.  This is a plausible explanation for why incest would be selected for in evolution -- it ultimately has a beneficial effect on the gene pool.  Put another way (if you are invested in Dawkin's "selfish gene" myth) the good genes are promoting a practice that leads to the elimination of bad genes. Slrubenstein
 * I have to disagree that dead kids is purely a Western society thing. Dead (stillborn) kids cost resources and mammals (especially large ones) generally follow the strategy of few kids investing heavily in each (unlike, say, fish). Other than that, you make good points. That lethal alleles would wash away from the gene pool (after just a few generations) sounds plausible and if that happens, genetic selection (according to the "selfish gene" theory) would actually favour incest, since mating with your sister would on average pass more than 75% (if this is the first incident of incest, then 87.5%, then 93.3%, etc.) of your own genes to the kid, while in non-incestous society about 50% of the genes is passed each time. I am not a geneticist, but given such a huge advantage of inbreeding I would make a guess that most disadvantages of inbreeding in such groups would be related to long-term variability and would be mostly irrelevant to modern humans.
 * Would someone please expand on the the increase of homozygotes may have either good or bad effects bit in the article? I see it is being discussed here but when I read that I said wtf? and had to come over here to see what that means. "good" and "bad" aren't really the right words in genetics, now are they?
 * I agree that the dead kid thing is not "purely" or exclusively Western, but it is not shared by all cultures. Be that as it may, you understand my points, and I agree that this scenario does not apply to our society for a variety of reasons. Slrubenstein

Work needed
This page needs some work on it asides from the NPOV concerns. Maybe if we address these, it'll help with the other. I see it needing: --zandperl 23:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Sections: articles are much easier to read if they're broken up into topics or themes with headers.
 * Sources: there's a few of them at the end, but where things are stated like facts ("incest is taboo in most societies") we should quote a reference.

The article also seems to suggest that incest always occurs between different sexes. Obviously (though, probably less frequently), it can occur father-son, mother-daughter, brother-brother, etc. This is distinguished from the Ancient Greek practice of an older man instructing a younger man on sexual practices, usually in preparation of the younger man's marriage.

Inbreeding Here
The topic of Inbreeding should be compiled into one spot in the article, and if an inbreeding article does not exist make one. The topic of inbreeding is an important one, and seperate from incest in so far as sexual intercourse seems to be recreational instead of for procreation.

The problem of inbreeding for people, and other species in general, is that an indivduals are carriers for 'defective' genes (genes that would likely be detramental to the functioning of the animal). When one individual breeds with another unrelated individual, it is far less likely that both are carriers for the same defective gene. However, if both are related both are much more likely to be carriers for the same genes as they share many genes though being releated.

Male A, Female A (Related)


 * AA, AA -> Mating unproblematic
 * Bb, Bb -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
 * CC, Cc -> Some children will be carriers
 * Dd, Dd -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
 * Ee, EE -> Some children will be carriers
 * Ff, Ff -> Mating problematic (some children will be affected)
 * GG, gg -> All children will be carriers
 * hh, hh -> All children will be carriers, and affected

For animals that people breed, inbreeding becomes less of a problem since over time animals that express or carry defective genes are culled so the population as a whole cannot be affected any longer. --ShaunMacPherson 07:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a little too scientific to me. Rationalism isn't everything. The author of this article brushes off emotional considerations as "belonging in psychology". Doesn't the fact that incestuous relationships, even consensual ones, can have terrible effects on the mental health of the individuals involved and those close to them merit a mention? Also, the notion of the Oedipus Complex is itself controversial, like much Freudian thought. -joye 2 Jun 2004


 * Well, the problem is that the very idea of Mental health itself is controversial. See that article's section named: Controversy over the nature of mental illness. Specifically, as described in the article, the definition of incest varies through the societies. In case of first cousins, that would mean that definition of mental health varies between different US states, as some of them permits such relations, and some not. You must remember, that incest is discussed here in broad sense, so any generalisation is difficult. Przepla 23:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Still non-neutral POV?
I am intending to remove non-neutral POV disclaimer. Any objections? Przepla 23:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC).
 * No objection from me, Slrubenstein

An odd claim made with no factual basis whatever...
''Historically, the most important forms of incest were maternal incest (see also Oedipus complex). And while surveys do not indicate a high rate of maternal incest, this can be seen as a reflection of the difficulty of collecting information about illegal sexual acts with children rather than its rare occurrence. ''

Err...the fact that Freud made up something called the Oedipus complex is hardly evidence of anything. So what's the basis for this statement? john k 05:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I am suspicious of the word "historically" without evidence or parameters, and "most important" begs the questions, in what way and according to whom.  Maternal incest is not quite the same thing as the Oedipal complex, also -- to link the two suggests a serious misunderstanding of both.  Can we just cut this passage? Slrubenstein

Speaking of lack of factual basis, I have slaughtered the following passage:

''What the vast majority of the population fails to realize, is that incest is an intrinsically natural phenomenon, having first occurred many millenia before the first notions of "morality" or "law" ever entered the public psyche. Indeed, in the time of our most distant ancestors, whose subsistance lifestyle dynamic we commonly refer to as "hunter-gather", the notion of sexual relations outside one's own familial unit would be as foreign as any social abberation in modern occurance. To that end, it could be positted that in fact non-incestuous sexual relations are the orginal "perversion" or socio-sexual deviance.''

''Unquestionably, a vast segment of today's population world-wide is repulsed by the thought of engaging in sexual relations with non-family members. Through the centuries, there have been numerous proponants of de-criminalizing incest, though exact data regarding the names and or numbers of said proponents is impossible to come by, due the the constant threat of persecution to those who would dare to voice their opinions openly. This statement is supported by the proliferation of incestually explicit subject matter in the media of the time, most notably books, films, and in today's "on-line" world, the Internet.''

''In the final analysis, the notion of what is "right" or "wrong" comes down to a consensus of opinion. As such, there can be no hard and absolute evidence to support either claim, as opinion is simply that, and is therefore beyond dispute. Thus, the opinion that incest is as natural and beautiful as non-incestuous sex is disgusting and sickening, is as valid and irrefutable as any other.''

I am sorry if that is perhaps nearly defacing a web page, but I do NOT consider this passage to bear any value whatsoever. It is a sloppy and relativistic argument; and create distinct sets of norms. Or one could not distinguish between the two; but in the end, what counts is that there is a decision that determines a specific set of normative rules. (sorry, forgot to sign: Michel Hardy 00:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * True, incest is a natural fact, but so are non-incestuous relations also. The fact that one of the two is being rejected by society (i.e. "marginalized") does not create a voucher for an inherent superior moral value. The first paragraph is suggesting that, after all, what is posited as "natural" is not so natural, because what is posited as "unnatural" isn't that much unnatural. Non sequitur.
 * What does "a vast segment of today's population" represent? 10%? 20%? 90%? Even 0.1% of the world population could count as a "vast segement"; 7000 people is still a lot of people by some standards. Nevertheless, this argument is also misleading because it tries to mix "presence of people not disgusted by incest" with "there is a significant amount of people behind de-criminalization of incest to make it a viable life choice" by using the presence of child porn on the net as a supporting evidence. Hello? The mere presence of something does not entail its ethical value. Murder exists. Is it right or wrong? Its mere presence is not a sufficient condition to validate our ethical judgements about it. Love exists: same question.
 * Finally, the shifting of the notions of right/wrong is absolutely irresponsible. Perhaps there could be no final justification for either position, but we have nonetheless the duty and the ability to take one of either side, and not have to consider either opionion as being of identical value. Provided that the divide between right and wrong "comes down to a consensus of opinion", this would mean that the author of the above lines could not argue against me, because, anyway, what I am saying is as good as s/he/it said. My removing of these three paragraphs is therefore as irrefutable as him/her/its writing of it. So that means that whatever I do, I will always be justified. If I kill somebody, I am justified, because there is no way one could put his/her opinion to be stronger than mine, and imprison me. Every situation that creates a conflict must utlitmately bring on some norms. That those norms may not rest on absolute principles of Truth does not undermines the fact that we need some norms, of some sort to function. The nature of those norms is a question of debate; in the case of incest, one could perhaps distinguish between
 * Incest between two consensual adults, able-minded to bear the weight of responsibility and
 * Incest between a parent and a children

Forbidden marriage -- same surname
The article mentions that

Chinese society probably takes these restrictions the furthest, by banning relations between two individuals with the same surname, as they would theoretically be related. This is true in some communities in India too.

In fact this is not a legal restriction: Elsewhere in Wikipedia,

Within Chinese societies, marriage with persons of the same surname is generally considered taboo, and many Chinese areas will have local taboos against marriages between people with certain surnames which are considered closely related. The sanctions against this action are informal social ones rather than formal legal ones, however.

What's also not mentioned here: There was an article in the NY Times mentioning this same restriction in Korea. Apparently there are laws against this practice there, and it is a serious problem due to the small numbers of surnames in Korea. The article mentioned that, although there are periodically years declared as "marriage amnesty" years, where the laws do not apply, they are few and far between and unpredictable; the result has been suicides between lovers with the same surname.

Someone from Korea should verify this. Benwing 04:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Being from India, I can comment on the above sentence in the article that mentions marriage between people with the same surname. In fact, that is not true at all in most places in India. The reference is to some communities in southern India, but even here, some clarification is due. Southern India does not have a consistent custom of surnames. Most people only have a first name and some initial(s). Even when they do have a surname, the surname is simply the initials expanded, and has no direct correlation with blood relationship. It is quite common for a person's surname to be different from his/her parents' surname (both of my parents have different surnames, and mine is different from both of those names). So, marriage between two people with the same surname is not considered any form of incest at all, for the simple reason that surnames in most communities in southern India have nothing to do with blood relationships.


 * The only way I can make sense of that sentence is by noting that some communities in India have a concept of a genealogical name (Gotra), that is supposed to indicate a person's genealogy. Some people prefer not to marry a person from the same gotra. However, this is very much a choice and the practice is certainly not banned in any sense. --ashwatha 04:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Although not from China, I'm from Malaysia. I've heard of the same surname (Chinese) taboo once before by an (old) teacher who suggested it's something which use to be discouraged (not banned) a long while ago but is not anymore. Given the very large number of Chinese and the frequency of certain surnames, this is not surprising... Perhaps it is still true in isolated Chinese (China) villages but I doubt it's true in Chinese (China) socities in general anymore Nil Einne 17:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As a sinologist I know about this taboo, and it did indeed exist. I do not know how consistently it was applied, and I believe it is not much observed anymore. Nonetheless it did exist, and people are still aware of it. I personally know of one present case where a highly educated woman is conciously excluding husbands with the same surname. 84.154.51.61

Nonsense math
I removed this:


 * At least one interesting question arises from the nature of geometric progressions. Each person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so forth. In general, the number of ancestors k generations older than you is $$2^k$$. Now if we consider, say, 40 generations ago, this implies that there were 2^40 (about 1 trillion) ancestors preparing to make you 40 generations later. This number is much higher than the size of the available breeding pool, or even the world population. We have only three ways of resolving this discrepancy:


 * Some of our ancestors were hermaphrodites. This would enable the $$2^k$$ to be lowered to $$x^k$$ where $$1 < x < 2$$. This is believed to be a biological impossibility in humans.
 * Not all of the $$2^k$$ contributors were human contributors. This is also believed to be a biological impossibility in humans. It may happen in rare cases, such as with mules, but such species are likely to be sterile.
 * All of the ancestors were human and non-hermaphrodite, which implies that genetic intra-mixing did occur at some point in our ancestry.


 * Since the size of the available breeding pool was much smaller than the world population, it may be concluded with significant probability that some of the intra-mixing was close enough to be categorized as incest.

This is bad reasoning. Take a population of N people. For simplicity assume that every person procreaetes, has one sexual partner and they have two children. For each person there are 3 direct relatives (parents and sibling). There are 6 relatives at the next step (2 grandmas, 2 grandpas, 2 uncles/aunts). There are 12 relatives at the next step and so on, 3*2^K for the Kth step. Of course, the progression does break down for obvious reasons, but for N=1000, there are 615 people that are at least 9 steps distant from the person. It's more than enough for each and every person to be able to select a partner, the relationship with whom would not be categorized as incest.

Although it is true that all humans are related and most are relatively closely related (closely being 30-40 steps or so), you must realise that being 10 steps related means having one thousandth of the distinct parts of genetic code similar (roughly, I am oversimplifying a bit).

So all these calculations have nothing whatsoever to do with incest and are therefore removed. Paranoid 18:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * agreed Slrubenstein 18:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * *nods*, good call. --fvw *  00:18, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

I am a muslim that has read the Quran several times, and I've found Islam the best religion. If anyone knows the Islam, as it is, s/he will convert to it. that's not what I wanna mention here.

Here is Chapter 4, Verse 23 from the Koran :

Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispTargam.asp?nType=1&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=4&nAya=23&t=eng
 * No matter how many times you have read the Quran, quoting it once should be enough. I didn't mean to say that either.--84.188.134.80 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters: what ? if we'are talking of feeding with milk - how can we tell f-mother from f-sister ?

NPOV?
copied from Template talk:FamilyLaw where no one will ever read it probably I'm not sure the framing of Incest on this template is entirely NPOV. While I appreciate the effort to organise matters, incest isn't considered a crime (or even wrong) in all cultures, so having a big "family law - crimes" template at the top of the page isn't entirely neutral. Perhaps we could split out the incest-with-childeren-in-modern-cultures section and only put the template on that? --fvw *  04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Australia
The Australia bit is interesting. Coming from NZ, I know Australians frequently claim incest is common among aboriginal communities and wonder whether this has anything to do with their strict penalties. Can anyone comment on this. If it's true, perhaps this is worth mentioning along with the potential implication as a manifestation as part of the Australia anti-aboriginal sentiment. Nil Einne 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Encouraged?
In some instances, studies have found that among the small "village" mentality which promotes the culture of "individual privacy becomes everybody's business" under the guise of ignorance or lack of information, relations that have the appearance of inappropriateness are oftentimes encouraged if not enforceable. - Is that wording correct? If it appears inappropriate (I'm assuming that the standard in question is that of the village), why would it be encouraged? Should it read "tolerated" instead? Nik42 06:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense to me. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I was just coming here to complain about that text. It is confusing.  I'm not sure what the author was trying to get at.
 * ~ender 2005-11-09 21:11:MST

question
I have a question that i hope someone can answer with facts to back it up! me and my younger brother were discussing incest because of the show NIP TUCK one of the characters had a genetic deformite caused from Incest or so they claimed and I argued that when Incest occurs the child has a higher risk of having birth deformaities than people who weren't related at all. and of course he disagreed because he said his bio teacher who used to be a college professer said that the only way a birth defect can occur is if there is a defect in the family's genetic history .. now im 20 and he is 15 so neither of us have an extensive knowledge on this subject ... just so we are clear the question is, Does incest produce or cause a higer risk of birth defects than if two people from completely families had a child?? i hope that makes sence. well write back on this ill be checking it regularly.

It depends on the situation. Some animals can commit incest because there are less genetic detriments. One of the primary concerns is that the parents are more likely to be genetically related, and thus it's higher to have both recessive genes or alleles, thus triggering the recessive trait, as you need two, one from each parent. If one is genetically more diverse, than it is far less likely to be both carrying recessive alleles for the same trait. Recessive traits tend to contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities. However, it differs case by case. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I can clarify this answer somewhat. It isn't really accurate to say most recessive traits contain a lot of deformities and abnormalities IMHO. However most genetically linked deformities, abnormalities and diseases are recessive. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that frequently these abnormailities are caused by the abscence of a fully functioning protein of some sort(be it enzyme or whatever) so obviously this absence can only occur if both copies of the gene coding the fully functioning protein are missing. Another is that dominant linked traits that are detrimental, especially if strongly detrimental (i.e. abnormalities etc) are unlikely to last long because anyone with a copy of the gene is affected. Therefore, there are no carriers of the trait which are not affected. The ability of all people with this gene to have offspring (children) and care for them is effected and the gene quickly dies out (in many cases, it may simply arise sporadically in an individual and die out with that individual). You may be aware of Huntington's disease which is a dominant trait? One reason why this disease is believed to have survived despite being dominant is because the late age of onset means didn't have a significant effect on the ability of a person to have childrean and the survival of said children. Also, you may think if you don't have a family history of any genetic diseases you're safe, but remember there could still be more minor problems you're not aware of or maybe a major genetic disease you're not aware of or that only arose recently. Generally, I would say most human geneticists would agree that excessive homozygousity in humans is not a good thing. I should mention, this clarification is also a little on the simple side and perhaps somewhat misleading but I hope it helps. Nil Einne 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fiction
The novel Wise Children by Angela Carter also features incest perhaps this could be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anus&oldid=14135345

More Fiction
Would someone mind adding information about Jeffrey Eugenide's book Middlesex? This book has a few incidences of insest and its resulting deformities.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312422156/qid=1138223591/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4097353-3616866?n=507846&s=books&v=glance


 * Jeez, if to make full list of such books/songs/movies - we would need one more WikiPedia. LEt's start with Stephen King. Or let's talk of Karlsson-on-the-Roof, which beginning, if literally translate, sounds quite comic in russian.

"Scope of incest"/covert incest
The section "Scope of incest" needs some serious work IMO. Looking at the history page, there seems to be an ongoing debate about some aspect of this section, so I didn't want to just dive in and rewrite the section without opening it to discussion first.


 * What aspects specifically please?

First off, what the section is actually about might be more correctly (though awkwardly) phrased as "Scope of what is called incest in contemporary western society". That's a whole different thing from "scope of incest" which suggests "how wide is the occurrence of incest".


 * How about types of incest or forms of incest? I will note that incest is being researched by pyschologists on a worldwide basis including in rural Eastern societies so I am not sure the reference to Western Society covers this here.

I think the section should be retitled as "Covert incest" and rewritten to explain the distinction between covert and physical incest, and to describe covert incest as a form of emotional abuse. It's kinda-sorta written to cover these issues already, but it's not at all focused. One could read the section several times over and not be clear on the fact that "covert incest" is a term used by the psychological community to describe a type of parental emotional abuse which does not include (though it may accompany) physical incest, i.e. sexual acts. KarlBunker 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me consider this please.


 * I attempted to clean this section up following your basic concerns. Please comment.  Also can anyone explain why there is so little study of the pshycological effects of incest on human beings in this article.  I have listened to stories from around the world which have common themes of great damage be they in South East Asia, Europe or the US.  This article is not yet reflective of those real people.  (I notice in the rape article on the other hand, the opposite bias with NO attempt to get at the actual causes of rape.)  Could someone fill me in on the intention here and what all the cultural/theoretical fights are about.  Don't get me wrong...animals can teach us a lot but I thought this article was about humans for humans.Anacapa 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've made the changes I describe above. If you feel any changes or discussion is warranted, this is the place to discuss. KarlBunker 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: In general I see where you are going and consider your changes helpful. Let me address each point above and add a few more.  Please let me know how I can assist you.  Anacapa 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Anacapa: I like your changes; good work. The only one I didn't care for was calling covert incest "psychological rape" rather than "emotional abuse." That sounds more like the language of a sensationalist self-help book than an encyclopedia. I can see how there's a certain technical accuracy to "psychological rape", it just doesn't sound professional to me.

I agree that the article could use a lot of expanding on the psychological effects of incest. As for non-western cultures, I don't think there's any attempt to exclude them; note that the large section of the article has "industrialized societies" in the section title. not "western society". This is just an attempt to distinguish between behaviors in "modern" cultures versus behaviors among Trobriand Islanders, for example. KarlBunker 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The real HUMAN effects of incest
Karl thanks for the assistance here. I used 'psychological rape' because I know of what I speak and because attorney Andrew Vachss (sp) uses these distinctions about contact incest. He asks, rightly I believe, how can we be so outraged when a stranger rapes a child yet look the other way when a parent, the child's closest relation does it. There is a huge double standard in definitions I hope to show here somehow. Susan Forward in Toxic Parents says incest 'is perhaps the cruelest most baffling of human experiences...Incest betrays the very heart of childhood its innocence.'  This is the worst form of rape to me and many many others  See The Last Secret by Bobbie Rosencrans in RAPE. I have spent 10,000 hours of trauma transformation to be able to contribute here. Incest includes emotional abuse but is far beyond mere emotional abuse. It is sexual, emotional, intellectual and/or psychic rape by a parent. Please assist me to get these effects shown here in at something similar to what is seen on the rape page. Incest has terrible consequences to children and it is a horrible crime. I become frustrated by all the academic debates in this article and I am person who enjoys academic debates except when we use them to hide from say genocide, rape and incest. I mean no offense here but to me real human issues associated with incest belong front and center in this article and then we need to debate biology and culture etc etc. Could we include an Effect of Incest Section here? Is the trauma of incest completely unknown outside the pyschological community. I see incest in horrorable, homicidal fiction films so I've gotta wander what's going on in this article. Please assist me to ensure that this article reflects the human realities of incest in balanced and unbiased way that does NOT demean the efforts of all those who do focus on the academic, cultural or animal sides of incest.

Anacapa 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not trying to deny the human cost of incest. I can't speak for the rape article, not having read it (I will) or contributed to it. In an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a magazine article or a popular-press book, it's a rule that the language has to be pretty dispassionate. No matter how horrific the subject--murder, genocide, whatever--the language is supposed to be dispassionate. And in fact, that's how one can often make the most impact, especially in Wikipedia, where readers know that "anyone can edit". If the language gets too emotional, people will be more likely to disregard it than if it's professional-sounding and sticks to facts. KarlBunker 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Karl, I acknowledge your engagement and assistance here. Being new to this article, I can only guess from the content what people see as significant here.  I see no denial from you or anyone else and you have been good to tighten things (I added) up.  However, it is stunning to me to see so little emphasis given to the human cost of incest in this article.  It might be lack of knowledge given how secret and taboo incest is, I don't know.  I did do a quick google to add at least one story of each type of Parental Incest in the references along with some good books about the effects.  I hope this helps people see what is missing here.  I welcome suggestions and comments here and I thank you for your followups.

Now on to the 'rape' discussion. I hear your sound point about passion and can concur on this occasion. However, I have to have words that capture the full essence of what happens in incest so that people see how horrible it is. To me, this article needs to reflect the loathsome crime that incest is. Of all the terrible forms of child abuse Susan Forward sees, the only one she singles out for specific condemnation is incest. She says she believes that 'incest is a genuinely evil act' and explains why. When I glance at the rape article, I have no doubt that rape is wrong right away. When I glance at this article, that tone is missing to me. I want to see passion where passion is due here because for far too long this cruel crime has been denied with a wink and a nod by parents who hope to see no passion in these pages. So given a choice, I will begin with passion and precision. You are more than welcome to tone me down and I will be glad to listen to alternate words that capture the meanings well. I do ask that you and I discuss the meanings though, (in a pinch) so I can get the whole meaning into the less passionate term. Is that ok with you?

Note: The words used to describe Sister My Sister the English film about consensual adult sibling incest were 'beautiful' and 'horrible' (in the film reviews.) Would these words be innappropriate to describe that film here? If so, how would one capture the full essence of that film here with watered down words? Do you see my dilemma. Anacapa 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anacapa -- I'll accept "psychological violation" to describe covert incest, though I still think "emotional abuse" is better. I think accurate words are always better. Because it's clinically accurate, the term emotional abuse is the best way to convey the evil behind the act, as well as being the best way of explaining this form of abuse to those who are unfamiliar with it.
 * And explaining facts is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be about. Except for some perpetrators who are trying to rationalize their own crimes (and perhaps you see a lot of those people in your work) I don't think much of anyone needs convincing that parent-child incest is an evil thing. KarlBunker 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, You may be right here about the best way to convey things. My issue here is that this form of incest involves (covert) violation, USE, and Abuse similar to rape. I am trying to capture that somehow. Violation may not be the best word. Do you have a better one that includes all these aspects? In the final analysis this is covert sexual abuse which is why we call it covert incest.

Would you mind discussing the issues above. Would you be willing to google child-abuse attorneys Andrew Vachss' Parade Magazine articles on this to see his take on how people see this? I don't want to be a pushy, but there is immense ignorance and denial in the US about incest and it's consequences to children. I need your assistance here to show this well. I don't think much of people who need convincing that P/C incest is evil either but you would be surprised by how many people/parents rationalize and deny this evil. Anacapa 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalina, I appreciate your wikifying because I am just learning how. The NPOV and topic statments help a lot. However, please dissuss with me before you change terms. These terms have precise pshycological meanings in this context. For example 'dissocation' is far from being 'reclusive', dissociation is what happens in rape or truama when the victim goes out their body and seems to be watching the whole thing happen to them, from say the ceiling. It is a trauma-related phenomenom that I did try to link too. Please comment and please suggest how we can cooperate to get the best of what you are trying to do here with the best of what I am trying say too. Anacapa 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Would incest have any effect if it were not for society? Plus I detest the fact that you group all incest into dominant/subordinate status. Brother/Sister that are 25 hardly applies--mboverload 07:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes (Jan. 2006)
In addition to the change mentioned in the section above, I've made a number of other edits, trying to get a logical flow to the article, trying to remove POV statements, unsupported statements, and even some (gasp) "original research".

Comments welcome. KarlBunker 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

effects of covert incest
The statement "Covert incest is known to cause damage similar to that associated with actual incest" seems nonintuitive to me, and it is worded as fact. I have trouble believing that treating one's child as too much of an equal is as damaging as having sex with one's child, or even that the results of the two actions would be qualitatively similar. Is this really a consensus view among psychologists? If so, does anyone have a reference? --Allen 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allen, This is indeed, counterintuitive but real nonetheless. The best book that shows the phenomenon and the damage it does is the little Silently Seduced by Ken Adams. Another good and bigger book is Emotional Incest Syndrome by Pat Love. Also, I suggest you google 'Emotional Incest'. Suite101.com has a title Emotional Incest=Sexuality Abuse. It is the 'specialness' of the relationship as well as the psuedo-equality that induces so much incestuous damage. A child is unwittingly used as (covert) lover, spouse and partner by the parent. I also suggest Toxic Parents' (Susan Forward) chapter on incest to see some of damage done. Let me know if you need more. Anacapa 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that is more recent research that still needs more empirical evidence in order to cite it as a significant phenomenon, although they may be on to something. Besides, it's hard to distinguish between the lines sometimes (is it for example, just plain spoiling the child?) I replaced "disassociate" with "recluse" because "disassociate" links to a band. Recluse does not. The latter is therefore more suitable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 04:23, 4 February

2006 (UTC)

Men (fathers) tend to commit (contact or overt) incest with force or coercion which is visible. Women (mothers) tend to commit (covert, non-contact) incest with special psuedo-'praise', mental/emotional seduction, and psychological deception which is invisible. I say 'tend' to reflect the preferred tactics the genders use, not to make absolute gender distinctions here; some women commit contact incest, some men commit non-contact incest and some men and women commit both. Mothers who commit psychological incest call their sons 'special' as they would a lover. They use "unconditional" love to fuse the sons to them in pathological bonds. They (falsely) pretend to respect the son as man or as an equal. All these tactics are done to seduce, use, and abuse the son's emerging manhood to their satisfaction as they might with a real lover...only the son is still much to young to see how he is being raped...psychologically. By creating these, role reversals, the mother can manipulate the son into doing what her lover/husband/son's father should be doing at terrible cost to the son. I hope this help show how this is different from mere 'spoiling' and I hope this shows the sexual nature of this type of (psychological) incest. Covert incest includes mental/emotional use/abuse too but the tone is primarily sexual and the victims are usually opposite sex children not same-sex children.

More research is indeed needed here, and I am sure it is ongoing. However, there is enough out there now to at least introduce this topic here. It is a real phenomenom with real authors doing real systemic research on it. (Please read the books, they show real cases and explain it better than I do.) Because it is so well-concealed, so psychological, and so counterintuitive it is little known in the media. It needs to be known so others can do more research and so victims can see and cope with their parent-predators. If anyone needs me to dig into the scientific papers on this I will, however please be specific with concerns.

As to 'disassociate', thanks for catching that. I thought I could depend on Wikidictionary as a standard dictionary but I see not yet. Do you still want 'disassociate' and 'reclusive' now or can we simpify this sentence? Anacapa 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we split this into a new article? I think the article may be going off topic because there will be readers who will be wanting to be informed about the issues with non-parental incest (ie. cousins, brothers/sisters, etc.) and physical acts, not emotional ones. I mean, this is to avoid creating a new definition here.


 * I think reclusive also works best, since it explains most of the effects (depression, etc.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (On 'reclusive') I am ok with both words. They describe two separate things, to me, both of which occur in incest and both of which are important effects. I have no problem adding new terms. I just wanted to make sure my original meaning about dissociation was captured.  I would appreciate discussion before editing my psychological terms because I choose them with care to summarize complex issues as much as possible.   I also welcome any other terms that flesh out things that I miss or fail to feature such as 'reclusive'.


 * (ON SPLIT) I don't see this as new definition at all. I see this as two types of incest both forms of sexual abuse, one a physical form and one a psychological form.   The therapists call Covert Incest incest to reflect the psycho-sexual rape of children which is its key component.  It is not merely a form of 'emotional' abuse, it is incest.  I want to see both forms of incest introduced here...as all forms of trauma are introduced in the trauma article.  To me, this introduction on Covert Incest is about done in the Main incest article.  We could create a new article on Covert Incest as more research comes in, but for now I would like to just introduce it in the main article on incest.  I, too, see much more content coming on other forms of overt (contact) incest here.   I want to make sure we see it all, but  covert incest deserves mention here as a real (covert) incest phenomenom that effects millions of people in single-parent homes to some degree or other.   Please comment.  Anacapa 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but there's less information about covert incest and it's of quite a different kind. For example, if you will permit my rough analogy, take matter and antimatter, though they are both different forms of the same thing (mass) we have more information about the first than the second, so in the article about mass we tend to deal more with matter-centrism, for example. This is especially since in some cultures this again isn't regarded as abuse (incest between adults in general, not counting children). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are at least three solid books for lay people that describe covert incest and include it as type of incest along with the well-known type of incest (eq overt or contact incest). To me we have more than enough information available to describe it here and to balance it among all the other types of incest.  It is not the opposite of incest it is just another type of incest.  Please take look at all the other types I added and comment again.  Is this reasonably balanced now?

Anacapa 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have questions about other cultures who see (some consensual, adult-adult contact??) incest as non-abusive. Can someone point me to credible sources so I can understand this better.  I know some cultures in Africa see female circumcision as non-abusive too so I have no problem believing this but I just don't know which cultures condone incest and how many people we are talking about here.  Please comment.

Anacapa 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

types of incest
I attempted to organize types as distinct from laws and mores. Please see the rape article for comparision. please comment. Anacapa 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sibling incest
please see new external link I added for sources on this topic. Also please google other sources.

Anacapa 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Prohibitions on cousin marriage around the world
I deleted the paragraph "Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. All other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages." because it's wrong. Greece, for example, prohibits the marriage of first cousins (trust me, i'm a greek lawyer!), but i'm sure that most EU countries prohibit it also.


 * thanks a lot. I was concerned about that statement but had no basis for questioning it.Anacapa 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonobos
The following paragraph:
 * Incest between family members, including parents and children occurs; however, incest between a mother and immature sons, who are less than four years old, has not been observed.

Seems to suggest to me that incest between fathers and immature daugthers has been observed. Is this correct? Nil Einne 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the bonobo page and talk page, it appears this is correct, however the only source so far is some BBC documentary which is not exactly the best source. However, it's not clear what form of sexual contact occurs between mature males and immature females, possibly not penetrative... Nil Einne 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think referring to inbreeding among animals as "incest" is itself a problem. Incent implies socially defined relationships and has social meanings, none of which we can easily discern from observing animals. Even "sex" has a set of psychological and cultural meanings among humans that we do not yet know how to recognize in animals. Inbreeding is observable, as is and we can infer functions of inbreeding. There may be genital contact that does not lead to breeding too. But we will never know what it "means" to bonobos, at least not for some time. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Check with some biologists
Hello, I've just done a complete revise of the "genetics" section. Believe it or not, there is actually a rather massive body of literature dedicated to the biology of incest, which I've tried to provide a good introduction to. I was shocked that much of the discussion board is filled with arguments "My brother read this article about some dude who inbred rats and they were FINE". Check with the professionals, please!


 * Thank you for your work on this, and for leaving a comment on the talk page. The new version is closer to a neutral point of view than the last similar version was (the one before my previous edit).  --Allen 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall from my undergraduate days in the early 1980s that there was a textbook called "Advanced Genetics" by Voorhees (I think). It had a rather extensive section on what we would call "in-breeding" here in the U.S. but which was considered normal for the particular cultures studied. I can't seem to find the text on Amazon or via a web search. Is anyone familiar with the book? One of his studies involved a people in Argentina (as I recall) where the prefered marriage relationship was between an Uncle and his sister's daughter. The one thing that struck me at the time, and has stayed with me, was his conclusion that particulary deleterious genes did not survive the third generation, after which, the life expectancy was comparable to "non-inbred" populations. I would like to revist the text and see how rigorus his scientific method was, or perhaps this was just a case of Dutch liberal thinking.

I added the Leavitt reference. The important things is to distinguish between inbreeding and incest. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Desire
I have a 1/2 sister that I did not grow up with. She is in her early 30's, remarried with two sons. Ever since the first time I saw her, I have been in love with her. She is a remarkably beautiful woman and I have longed for her for so long. I KNOW this is wrong on many levels, but she consumes my thoughts, desires and fantasies. All I think about is holding her in my arms and making love to her non-stop. Any ideas on how to discreetly get help to overcome this would be gretaly appreciated. Thanks, Texas.


 * Texas, first stop blaming yourself...what you feel is what you feel... and it is YOU right now, so as long as you do no deeds against her..your feelings are your feelings to feel as long as you need to. Next, stay away from her!  Then go inside yourself and decide how to break the hold she has on you.  There are many resources on this article (and on the web) to begin research on this.  However, we men are truly f_____ because there are no male therapists I know of who handle male sexuality/female sexual aggression and we men are always, falsely, considered sexual monsters so you risk being blamed or shamed if you go for help and especially in Texas...despite all the goodhearted people there.  I suggest you check out Men's Web, Kali Munro and Sexually Aggressive Women (see links here and on Rape).  I will also note that in my experience it takes two to tango.  In hunter-gatherer societies, young women at adolescence would be separated from men and young men because their emerging sexual power was so hard to resist and because they themselves had no idea what power they were playing with at that age.  Your job is to separate your fantasies from her spell (she may or may not be attempting to seduce you but if she IS, she is being 'bad' too, some women use seduction/sex to predate against men and this is quite dangerous!) Remember exactly what she did that 'caught' you and try to determine whether she is seducing you or whether you are just being 'consuming' all by yourself.  That's all I can do now.  I am writing this back to you because I know how you feel but this page is not a page for therapy.  It is a page for discussions on completing this article.  (I wish someone would have been there for me when I had your questions.)  I hope this helps but feel free to toss it away too.  You are your own man and you have to decide what to do for you.  I wish you the best. Anacapa 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I recommend that he just sleep with his half sister :-p--Frenchman113 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, me too, and tell us all about it here! :) Sweetie Petie 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I third the notion. ;) Unless, of course, he already is in a consumate relationship. Or she is. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 12:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect TEXAS was being a big man here. Wish I could say that about the other editors (in between) who came back with all this silliness. Now I could be all wrong about TEXAS too which would mean that I am the biggest fool in the world but nothing risked nothing gained. Anacapa 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The responce this person got was truely disgusting. You sound like a fricken cult leader Anacapa. And yes, I do know that was a personal attack. But please read what you said. It sounds more like a southern church sermon than any actual advice. --mboverload 07:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Anacapa, have i got the picture here? This "Texas" tells us (be it fiction or not, i don't care) that HE is in love with his half-sister, that HE has these feelings for her and HE doesn't know how to handle... And in your opinion, SHE is to blame for this? And SHE's probably/possibly being sexually agressive (he's never suggested that, so that must be your divine inference)? Oh, brilliant, man. Really. Do not hesitate to put a hijab on us women and cover us up with blankets, lest we go assault someone else any minute. Cheers, mate. - Eva

Oh well done Eva. Women are blaming men for every problem in society and when a man makes a harmless comment about perhaps thinking that it's NOT a man's fault, you freak-out on him? Nevermind the bollocks, Brad

Incest between two brothers
Is this illegal? Because it's not like they could ever have kids so theres no biological reason it would upset people


 * It's definitely illegal in the UK, I don't know about other countries. Silly, really. I mean, who hasn't done it with their brother? Sweetie Petie 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also serious psychological reasons why it might do damage to the two brothers. Incest is far more than just a biological phenomenom.  I suggest a glance at the article.


 * This article is borderline POV and emotional to the point of melodrama. Looking at it won't help you understand anything. I mean, it has phrases like "but fails to show how the sister and mother covertly incested the brother and son this fatherless family" - is "incested" even a word? In fact, I think one particular user is pushing a certain family model as the only "healthy" one a little too much here and calling everything else "incest" with "psychological costs"


 * It also talks about "Incestuous abuse by non-related adults in responsible roles" and questions the existence of consensual adult "incest". I think the article fails to grasp what "incest" is.24.80.109.19


 * To the anonymous 'fails to grasp what "incest" is' editor, please be aware that you have no less a POV about what incest is than I do. From a quick glance at other encyclopedias and dictionaries this is to be expected as they ALL use different definitions.  The only family model I have seen is well summarized in Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome from another researcher.  I could care less about family models per say.  Incest is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror" according to Britannica.  That is indeed a POV.  If there are other more positive POV's (as seen in the responses above to TEXAS) we need to see them and see their sources so they can be included here.  I know incest personally.  It has been no fun for me.  Anacapa 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To the editor(s) above. Incest is far more than just a biological or anthropological phemomenom.  It is a social, sexual and psychological phenomenom too.  I mean no offense here but I suggest a glance at the research on this from many diverse fields.  Incest is far more than a topic for tiltillating intellectual curiosity.  It is the cruelest violation of (childrens') human rights as stated by many unrelated authors.  I welcome suggestions to make clear what can be a very confusing topic and one that most establishment encyclopedias seem to almost ignore.  I can see why the phrase above could be confusing but there is no attempt to push any family model here.  This content comes from many sources (see links).  If you have issues with melodrama or borderline POV please be specific so that we can clean them up or at least discuss them.  I will note that when I came aboard there was almost no mention of the human forms of incest much less their costs.  Seems to me that this needs to shown here somehow with complete, balanced NPOV content.  NO ONE even in the mainstream encyclopedias seems to grasp or explain what incest is with the exception of Britannica.  A taboo and forbidden topic is going to be harder than most to come to consensus because NO ONE has a good grasp on this topic yet.  Anacapa 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Incestuous abuse by adults in responsible roles has been well covered in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases.  It clearly is a huge problem with terrible consequences to the children abused.  To include it here so people can see possible perps is reasonable to me.  What is the issue with it to you? Anacapa 04:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean: "Sexual predation by priests, nuns or other religious authorities against childhood parishioners, by teachers against students, by therapists against clients, and by a host of other authorities against people in dependent roles is seen by therapists as incestuous in nature, although not in form" - what is incestuous about molestation by non-relatives?

Nothing, naturally. Even if the effects are similar, they're not the same thing. This section does not belong here. Neither does the "covert incest" section.24.80.109.19


 * They are indeed the same thing but in different forms. To continue to take these nasty anonymous pot shots is indicative of a POV on your part too.  Please be big enough to state who you are and what your POV is here so we can include all POV's.Anacapa 03:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And most of your "many" sources come from psychologists who for some reason define non-incestuous relations as incest. You need more diverse sources.24.80.109.19


 * What is means is that there is a huge difference between being raped by a complete stranger versus by your trusted priest, nun, teacher, doctor or whatever. Since you obviously haven't even bothered to glance at my sources I wonder why you are so hot about this here. If you have more 'diverse' sources I sure would love to see em.  Right now psychologists and sex researchers seem to be doing the most research on the dynamics of incest.  To discount these researchers out of hand is quite POV IMHO.Anacapa 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you obviously are busy pushing a very narrow view and so on, I'm going to assume bad faith on your part as long as you assume it on mine. And "what's in it to me?" - despite your continious insiuations, nothing more than intellectual titillation. And a severe disbelief at a Wiki article trying to push controversial ideas as non-arguable. And your intense PoV.


 * I should find you the studies where birds consistently prefer cousins to both brothers and total strangers. Obviously nobody here even bothered talking of outbreeding depression and why it happens rarely in humans and so on. You have got to rid yourself of thinking that incest = abuse and think of it as incest = sexual activity between realtives, and sometimes abuse. Even if incest = abuse in humans unequivocally (a thing very dubious in itself), abuse does NOT = incest. Including "non-related incest" with people who are not even adopted relatives is just stretching the general definiton too much.24.80.109.19


 * The so called 'narrow' POV I am pushing is the one shown in Britannica which says that incest is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror".  That seems to be quite broad POV to me.  As for 'bad faith' whatever that means I don't even know who you are so far from me to assume bad faith about you personally.  I focus on the content here.  I meant no personal offense to anyone HERE about 'mere intellectual tiltillation' as that is what sells movies about incest.  As for stretching the general definition in this article, I suggest you glance at how other encyclopedias handle this that is those that handle it well at all.  I am not here to argue about birds because birds and other animals have no HUMAN social conventions such as marriage, rape or even incest.  I also have no problem with showing how animals inbreed as long as it closely relates to HUMAN incest somehow.  What I do take issue with is that sexual relations between closely related animals or plants is being seen as incest here when it is really inbreeding...a separate idea.Anacapa 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Inbreeding, while not "incest", is at least, or more, relevant than family role reversals to the discussion of incest. Avoiding talking about inbreeding /behaviour/ in animals and why or not it does or doesn't happen in humans is sidestepping the biology and running straight to psychology. I don't find that informative at all. 24.80.109.19

"Covert Incest"
The thing I notice about "covert incest" is that it is not, in fact, incest. Let's quote the first sentence of this article: Incest is sexual activity between close family members. "Covert incest," in fact, is not sexual activity between close family members. It is a psychological term that is meant to indicate an analogy to incest, not incest itself. "Covert incest" ought to be discussed separately from the discussion of various forms of actual incest. john k 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe "Covert Incest" should be removed altogether from this article as it's a poorly supported theory AND not, in actuality, incest at all. I also think that this article has to be delisted as "good" until such time as the "covert" section is gone.

Cheers. 24.80.109.19 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I respectfully disagree with your assessments above. Incest according to Britannica is "Sexual RELATIONS between PERSONS who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying".  Now I don't know what the correct definition should be but I notice this article includes inbreeding between ANIMALS as incest so I think we have a way to go on consensus about what incest is and isn't here.  Covert incest is indeed a form of NON-CONTACT sexual relations and therefore a form of incest. It is abuse that is sexual in nature rather than say violent in nature.  I ask that you read the available literature on this topic and apply a single set of consensus criteria to address your concerns about this article.  Incest has always been an emotionally loaded, forbidden and confusing topic.  I ask that you work with me and others to understand what I mean before you make judgements about what you see should be included or excluded here.  I have no problem with you delisting this as a good article because I think there are a lot of similar issues that need to be addressed here before this is a good article.


 * As for theories of incest, let me just say that I see no universal cause/effect theories about incest ITSELF in this whole article that tie incest together...a point that Britannica makes too. Psychological and sex research sciences seem to be in the classification and correlation stages of science in their research about incest (which is where Covert incest comes in.)  There is no known theory that adequately explains rape much less incest as of today.  What researchers of incest see is that Covert Incest has many of the same dynamics as Overt incest and that the two forms seem to be related to dysfunctional family systems where one parent is missing or missing in action. Anacapa 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it oughtn't be listed as an unproblematic type of incest. If nobody objects soon, I'm going to at least move it to a different part of the article, and probably drastically shorten it. john k 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to changes on this prior to discussion and referencing the relevant sources. I added this content from a number of good books on the subject.  Although this type of incest is just beginning to be known it is no less serious to it's victims that the overt form.  It is the use of pyschological sexual coercion and deception to commit covert incest.  I see it as a highly problematic form so let's discuss how it is being represented here as 'unproblematic'.

Anacapa 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to this content even being here. First of all, it's not incest as there's no incestuous activity going on, second of all, it's just more POV pushing and trying to regulate appropriate family models. Even if making your kid your "confidante" ruins their "childhood innocence" it's still not incest.24.80.109.19


 * Who are you? Have you read any of the references about covert or psychological incest or are you just shooting from the hip with your own POV about this?  There is no particular family model expoused here other than that spouses should 'spouse' spouses, parents should parent their children etc and adults should refrain from exploiting their children in adult roles.  When a mother for example uses a son to fight her husband for her, be her little 'man', and parent her and her kids for her (including the son himself) by seducing the son with 'special' attention as if he were a spouse the son loses much more than his childhood innocence...he suffers long term trauma as he attempts to sort out these terrible role reversals and fill in the losses incurred.  This is the psychological or covert form of incest.  Those who know about sex know that the brain is the biggest and most important sex organ (please See arousal template)in Eroticized Rage and other Sexualized Feelings to imagine that contact sexual relations are the only form of sexual relations flies in the face of all we know about online sex abuses and other forms of NON-CONTACT sex crimes such as exhibitionism etc.  Covert incest/incestuous abuse is a form of NON-Contact sexual relation by relatives or others in reponsible roles.  If you have issues with this please at least inform yourself so we can discuss this with specifics.  I suggest Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome for a quick outline of family model research (and extensive content on covert incest) and Ken Adams Silently Seduced for a good education on the differences and commonalities between OVERT/CONTACT and COVERT/NONCONTACT incest.  Anacapa 02:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * At the very least this section needs to be severely shortened and clearly tagged as "(some) psychologists choose to define these non-incestuous activities as incest" and go from there.24.80.109.19


 * I agree with the anon. This material is highly questionable, and at the very least, it is not incest under the most common definition of the term. And, obviously, I'm not changing it without discussion.  I put the initial post up weeks ago, and only just got a response. john k 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John thanks for the consideration about waiting to change this and sorry for two week lag here.  There is no single universal definition of the term as of yet according to Britannica (see discussion below).  I would like to suggest that rather than being highly questionable this content is just not well-known as of yet...similar to the biases against  victims of female-male or female-female rape.  To address your questions I will add some content from clinical psychologist Ken Adams' Silently Seduced When Parents Make Their Children Partners Understanding Covert Incest.   I ask that we discuss specific issues here before making wholesale changes.  Anacapa 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anacapa, when something is "not well known yet," that tends to mean that it should not be treated with disproportionate length in the article. I'm not sure I understand your point about Britannica - it says that incest consists of sexual relations between people who are related.  "Covert incest" does not consist of sexual relations - which generally means intercourse, but at least has to mean some kind of actual sexual act, and not just emotional abuse.  I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but as you yourself admit this does not yet feature in the mainstream understanding of incest.  As such, it isn't really appropriate for more than a very brief mention in this article. john k 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

John, may I add a little content from clinical psychologist Ken Adams for discussion? He make these distinction better than I. I know from experience that this is quite confusing to most people so please be patient as we try to sort it out.

One distinction I can make, however, that might be helpful is the distinction between sexual and emotional abuse. Sexual abuse is the use of sexual offenses to abuse (which is what happens in both overt and covert forms of incest.) Emotional abuse may or may not include sexual abuse. For example when a parent seduces his or her child, overtly or covertly that is sexual abuse/incest but when a parent shames or ridicules his/her child with no sexual connotations that is 'pure' emotional abuse. Covert incest does indeed consist of sexual relations/abuse...it's just that as in many other forms of sexual relations that abuse is non-contact and covert. Now we can argue whether fellatio represents sexual 'relations' or not here as in Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" but we cannot argue that NON-CONTACT sex is not a form of sexual relationship because there are many known forms of child sexual abuse that do not depend of direct contact. Hope that begins to cut some confusion. I ask that you refrain from making appropriate/innappropriate calls until we have finished discussing the issues here. This is complicated stuff that most people here seem to feel quite strongly about for unstated (and in your case stated) reasons. Anacapa 03:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, DO make a distinction between all child abuse and sexual child abuse. I absolutely refuse to believe that just because I'm in a close emotional relationship, or even have sexual desire for another person I'm having "non-contact sex" with them. I'm not having sex with them. I have sex with them when we're sweaty and exchanging body fluids. You are redefining not only incest but sex itself, unless I'm profoudly misunderstanding everything. Here's your chance, tell me where I'mm dumb. 24.80.109.19


 * Sex is far more than just contact sex. People go to prison for non-contact online kiddy sex.  Phone sex is a popular theme in movies.  The mind is well known as the source of the arousal template that drives sex.  What Adams and many romances show is that there can be sexual seduction with no contact at all.  That's what happens in covert incest.  Spare me this 'dumb' stuff.  I am here to create some sort of a dialogue based on the facts rather than a POV shoutout.  There is no right or wrong here just many loaded POV's about a highly loaded taboo topic.  Can you sort out your POV and state it so I have some chance of working with you?  Anacapa 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also welcome your attempts to tighten up definitions and consider proportion but please do not imply that this covert incest content should be removed for proportion reasons or well known/not well known reasons when there is so much other content in this article that fits the same criteria. I am beginning to feel a little singled out here and I wonder what is so hot button about covert incest as opposed to say animal inbreeding which leads this article..no offense to that editor. Anacapa 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, non-contact sexual abuse is not what we're talking about here. What Adams describes as "covert incest" is essentially emotional abuse by a parent with a supposedly sexual undertone. There are no sex acts of any kind involved. It is not incest by the commonly accepted definition of incest. It is something different, which one particular psychologist has labelled "covert incest." That is not sufficient for it to get a huge section in the incest article on wikipedia. john k 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I just added some content from Adam's book below that I hope will clarify this. NON-Contact sexual abuse is what I am talking about here and I talk from decades of personal experience.  I mean no offense to you nor do I wish to contradict you.  I just ask that you try to understand what are quite subtle, covert and cunning sex acts before you cast judgement here.  Covert incest victims fall in love with their parents because their parents do exactly what any lover does to induce those feelings.  What Adams describes in his books is the 'seduction' of sons/(daughters) using covert sex acts well known to most women but barely known to most men.  It is sexual and emotional in nature with immense sexual and emotional consequences.  As one guy Adams quoted said "I had no idea my mother was SEDUCING me because she was lonely."  There are about 2150 references to covert incest on google scholar and 190,000 on google so Adams is far from a single lonely single voice on this today.  If you like I can go pull in newspapers articles worldwide too but I wonder about the intense interest on just a small section.  We can discuss size and specific content but I insist that we include this form of incest here somehow.


 * So you "insist". Well, charming. Can we stick this section at the end with the "Incest as Metaphor" bits? It will fit there equaly charmingly. It's certainly a metaphor. I've never had sex in my brain, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have sex with my genitals. There's my PoV to you. You may find it's a common one. 24.80.109.19
 * Please spare me the sarcasm and go try to understand what I am talking about. I know what you are talking about. I agree that many men in the West seem to have sex with their genitals with little thought much less feeling.  That said, some men still use their heads, hearts, hands, and genitals to have sex.  Covert incest is no metaphor--incest in the Pentagon as described by John Boyd is a metaphor.  Covert incest is the covert form of incest that occurs between 'relatives too closely related to marry'.  I insist that you source other POV's before you summarily discount these Psychological POV's.  I put this content where it is so readers could see the differences and commonalities between these two forms of incest and so I could tie to the sections below with no repetition.  I still have no idea what you are so hot about.  What is your POV about incest in general?  Anacapa 03:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for a 'commonly' accepted definition of incest what are you calling that? I notice many different definitions/handlings of incest as I search around other encyclopedias and dictionaries.  The diversity is almost absurd.  I also know from my work on rape that the 'official' definitions of rape are ridiculous.  The FBI completely excludes male-male, female-male and female-female rape as a possibility in it's official crime reports.  As the rape research comes in I can guarantee you the the WIKI rape article will be far more representative of rape than the traditional encyclopedia/dictionary entries are.  That is the whole point of WIKIpedia to me.  I expect the definition of incest or anything else to change as research comes in...as well.  For now I would like to know what is a reasonable definition of incest that includes as many sources as possible and includes recent research. To ignore covert sexual acts is to let one half of the human species off scott free here.  Women love to 'drive men crazy' with many non-contact sexual acts also known as 'mind games'.  Young fatherless sons are quite helpless against this because they are cognitively unable to sort out incestuous seduction from proper parental love and attention.  This is why I feel strongly about this.  If you like I will call the authors of the books on this and have them weigh in here but I would prefer to see if we can decide on a common definition that makes sense and then conform the content to it.


 * I'll make you a deal, I'll find again the references from where my ideas were drawn over the next week or so. And I'll definitely try to make the definition match most definitions found out there. We aren't doing original research on Wiki. We aren't even re-defining things. I think you may well be trying to. 24.80.109.19
 * What ideas are we talking about here? I am not trying to take issue with your ideas.  As for definitions I would be glad to have that discussion.  Just don't try to imply that father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio or mother-daughter sexual molestation are not forms of incest.  I am quite comfortable with definitions but I will insist that once we consense on some reasonable definitions that the content fit into that scope.  The only original research being done here is well sourced from the original researchers themselves.  Incest is getting quite a bit of research attention now.  This research belongs here just as much as other research does.  As for a deal what are you trying to trade here?  I still have no idea what set you off.  I have no reason to fight with you. Anacapa 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To call the covert incest section 'huge' is a bit of a stretch to me. I see three short PP's on covert incest while there are pages and pages of content on inbreeding, genetics and exogamy, history, fiction and religion that dwarf this content.  I have refrained from taking issue with that content because I wanted to see how the article developed but I insist that if we begin to condense here that we have common consensus criteria for the whole article.  That said I want to work with you on this with constructive changes.


 * I see a section longer than "parental incest", the both "inbreeding" sections put together, and about as long as the "mythology" section. This is just the "covert parental 'incest'" alone. The abuse by non-related individuals is yet another thing. In short, yes, it is disproportionately long.24.80.109.19


 * I also want to acknowledge the patience, tone, and consideration with which you have approached this. I am open to any reasonable change here but I am not willing to be bullied by a group of other anonymous editors who clearly have their POV's but are unwilling to state them specifically so please assist me to keep this respectful. I welcome your checks here and I welcome continued discussion until we have some resolution. I ask your patience when we are discussing new topics that are difficult to describe much less show here. Anacapa 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, anonimity is a great thing and Wiki supposedly lets you do that. I am posting all my comments and doing all my changes in good faith. Will signing my comments be enough? 24.80.109.19
 * Sure. Please keep the good faith though.  Please be specific with what you insist on.  Please stick to the issues and refrain from personal insults too.Anacapa 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Silently Seduced content for Covert incest discussions
Clinical psychologist Ken Adams PhD wrote the seminal Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners; Understanding Covert Incest in 1991. In about 100 pages he shows the commonalities and differences between both OVERT and COVERT incest. He also has many first-person testimonials from "The Man of the House", "Mamma's Boy", "The Prince, and "Daddy's Little Girl" to show how these children were seduced into adult role reversals with Covert SEXUAL seductions.

The content below is from his book to address many of the issues raised in the discussions above. I ask that all editors carefully consider his arguments before summarily discounting this phenomomen as non-incestuous. He clearly shows how mothers can be sexually abusive in covert ways unlike fathers who tend to abuse overtly.

Chapter 2: When Is A Child Betrayed by a Parent's Love?

Incest confuses and stirs us. The word is usually used to describe sexual contact between a parent and a child. Webster's New World Dictionary defines incest as "sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry legally". There are both overt and covert forms of incest.

Overt incest occurs when there is sexual contact in any dependent relationship, the most obvious being between parent and child. However, other types of dependent relationships are experienced emotionally as parent-child due to the nature of the interaction. These include the religious leader and parishioner, teacher and student, therapist and client, or doctor and patient. Sexual contact in these relationships often feels incestuous.

Sexual contact in dependent relationships is never justifiable because there is always a loss of choice. People in dependent relationships seldom challenge those in positions of authority, even when they feel victimized and violated. This is especially true when the violation is between parent and child. One of the ways parents justify their behavior is to believe, "This is my child so I can do what I want."

Children are not property. They feel terrified and degraded when a parent or any adult is sexual with them. Cooperation does not mean they like it. They are either too scared, too emotionally needy, or too starved for affection to say no. Even if children report on some level that they enjoyed it, the sexual contact is still emotionally damaging. Children are generally too needy and confused as to what is appropriate affection. Their enjoying it at some level is a source of guilt and shame later in life. "It was my fault because I enjoyed it and did'nt say no. All my life I carried guilt because I thought I seduced my father.  It wasn't until I went over the wreckage of my life that I realized I was a victim of incest."

Covert incest occurs when a child becomes the object of a parent's affection, love, passion, and preoccupation. The parent, motivated by loneliness and emptiness created by a chronically troubled marriage or relationship, makes the child the surrogate partner. The boundary between caring and incestuous love is crossed when the relationship with the child exists to meet the needs of the parent rather than those of the child. As the deterioration in the marriage progresses, the dependency of the child grows and the opposite-sex parent's response to the child become increasingly characterized by desperation, jealousy, and a disregard for personal boundaries. The child becomes and object to be manipulated and used so the parent can avoid the pain and reality of a troubled marriage.

The child feels used and trapped, the same feelings overt incest victims experience. Attempts at play, automomy and friendship render the child guilt-ridden and lonely, never able to feel ok about his or her needs. Over time the child becomes preoccupied with the parent's needs and feels protective or concerned. A psychological marriage between parent and child results. The child becomes the parent's surrogate spouse.

The sexual energy or tension created in a relationship of covert incest is more akin to young love than to a caring parent-child love. Eric described his story of growing up with an alcholic father and a mother who kept him close. "My mother and I fought a lot, but I would have killed anyone who put their hands on her--including my father. Sometimes I had fits of jealous rage when she paid more attention to my father or some other man.  She was mine and I wasn't going to share here". Monica described her experience this way: "I always felt special being Daddy's little girl, especially when he brought home presents just for me and no one else. I wanted to be with him wherever he went.  I was so in love with my Daddy."

An important difference between overt and covert incest is that, while the overt victim feels abused, the covert victim feels idealized and priviledged. Yet underneath the thin mask of feeling special and priviledged rests that same trauma of the overt victim: rage, anger, shame, and guilt. The sense of exploitation resulting from being a parent's surrogate partner or spouse is buried behind a wall of illusion and denial. The adult covert incest victim remains stuck in a pattern of living aimed at keeping the special relationship going with opposite-sex parent. It is a pattern of always trying to please Mommy or Daddy. In this way the adult continues to be idealized. A priviledge and special position is maintained; the pain and suffering of a lost childhood denied. Separation never occurs and the feelings of being trapped in a psychologica marriage deepen. This interferes with the victim's capacity for healthy intimacy and sexuality.

...The seduction inherent in these psychological marriages is subtle and insidious, as is it's effect on one's capacity for a fulfilling sexual and intimate life. Since the parent-child relationship is used to meet the needs of the parent in the psychological marriage, the child feels ashamed of legitimate needs. A child seeking to have those needs met by a parent fears loss of the parent. As unhealthy as it is, the child has no choice but to actively participate in meeting the parent's needs. The child already feels emotionally abandoned, and expressing needs raised the fear of more abandonment. Children do not have the cognitive capacity to see the situation as it is. They are trapped.

As the children become adults, this entrapment continues as long as the reality of being a covert incest victim continues to be denied. Adults continue to feel ashamed of their dependency needs and seek to fulfill parents' needs at a continued cost to their own ability to be intimate. One important ingredient in learning how to be intimate is accept one's own dependency needs. The silent seduction, if not faced directly, continues to sabotage the desire to reap the benefits of intimacy and love with another.


 * This stuff is completely insane. As described, nearly every parent-child relationship could be defined as "covertly incestuous."  john k 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To call this insane with no stated basis is gross POV. Millions of parents do indeed commit SOME covert incest against their children.  Some are far more serious than others.Anacapa 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This book's content is lunatic. And if you're going to tell me it's NOT enforcing a very rigid family role, I will have to assume you don't really want a discourse at all. It's impossible to have almost any normal family without being incestuous under this set of definitions. Thanks for quoting this, now I definitely will try to find people saying this guy's very wrong. 24.80.109.19


 * To call this 'lunatic' with no basis is gross POV. As for some idea of a 'very rigid family roles', I suggest you read Chapter 7 of Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome...entitled Key Differences Between Enmeshed and Healthy Families.  She does a fine job of summarizing the extensive research of family systems therapist Salvador Minuchin there.  She clearly shows the distinctions between healthy and incestuous/enmeshed family systems there and describes why covert incest occurs in unhealthy family systems with a few short easily readable tables.  I do indeed want a discourse but one based on facts rather than demeaning innuendos.  If you can find a 'healthy' family system that contains the types of Covert Incest described above I sure would be willing to be surprised.  But please finish with baseless 'lunatic' characterizations and go get the facts and source them. Anacapa 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anacapa, there is no rule that editors' comments on talk pages be NPOV. I have every right to think that this stuff is crazy.  I don't have the right to state that in the article.  At any rate, what you need to do is provide evidence that this stuff is widely accepted in the scholarly community.  If it is just the opinion of some tiny minority (and given what's been quoted here, I find it hard to believe otherwise), it does not belong in this article.  john k 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John, of course you can say anything you please here. I notice that some of the discussions by other editors, long before these were quite ugly which to me is a waste of time.  I just ask that you respect me as an editor and Ken Adams as a source by providing us specific problems rather than a global statement that the content is 'insane'.  I have no idea how to do a poll among psychologists.  From what I know about science, a single scientist (say Sir Isaac Newton) can rule as long his/her ideas remain valid.  I know of no psychologists who have mounted sustained attacks much less successful attacks on this Covert Incest classification/issue.  Maybe you will find some which should make for quite interesting discussions here.  I will keep looking too.  However, to have such huge problems with this one little section when there is other quite questionable content in this article makes me wonder about what personal POV you are bringing to the table here.  To call it "insane" implies quite a strong POV about something or other.  I would appreciate knowing your how you see Incest/Covert incest so sort of NPOV consensus is possible here.Anacapa 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The key is to find sources in peer-reviewed journals, and see what they say about this issue, rather than what self-help books say. We need discussion of this issue from relatively neutral, authoritative sources - psychology textbooks would be particularly useful. All the material on the internet about "covert incest" seems to be victim support groups stuff.  That's problematic. If there is no material in psychology textbooks on this subject, it is inappropriate to treat it as a generally accepted psychological phenomenon, even if there haven't been "sustained attacks" - there are lots of subjects which haven't been subject to "sustained attacks" simply because they're so far outside the mainstream that there's no need to launch a sustained attack. john k 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A JSTOR search turned up no results for the phrase "covert incest" among the psychology journals listed there. A search in the "CSA Illumina" database turns up 2 articles that have "covert incest" as a keyword, and another two with "emotional incest", as compared to 3160 with "incest" as a keyword. john k 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
There are 3 out of the many references that are in any way science-related, the rest are all about victims and victims and victims. The somewhat controversial "Royalty" historical section is upheld by one reference from the work of a single historian (apparently the Egyptians didn't do incest much, huh?)and finally use of words like "ostensibly" when talking about consensual incest is hardly NPOV. The emotional overload of the "real HUMAN" cost runs right through the article. ALL abuse is equated with "incest" (including the non-relatives!). Is this about "psychological implications" or about the phenomenon itself?

I'd like to see more science and anthropology instead, and discussion of incest in terms out inbreeding and outbreeding. Maybe it's better to split the article into the one that deals with the topic and the other one that deals with what Andrew Vacchs thinks. 24.80.109.19


 * I welcome POV checks on such loaded topics. My education is in the 'hard' sciences (physics etc) and I have a background in psychology too which is a 'soft' science so please let me weigh in a little here.  Incest is a phemomenom that crosses many disciplines.  It has biological, physiological (medical), psychological, sexual, sociological, and anthropological aspects to name a few.  These specialties are ALL sciences as far as I know.  I see the many references from the psychological or sex research field as no less scientific than the '3 unnamed science related references' referred to above.  I see many references about both PERPETRATORS and victims which seems appropriate for a topic that Britannica says is "almost universally condemned and usually viewed with horror".  'Emotional overload' often comes with a topic that is so 'loaded', taboo and forbidden as incest is.  Do you have a problem with the facts about what is indeed the 'real human cost of incest' or is this POV false to you.  Do you have sources that show incest as a positive thing with no emotional overload?  All the incest feature films (Sister My Sister etc) I have watched have much emotional overload and dark twisted tragedies so I wonder what you POV is here.  When I came aboard this article had almost no content about the human-human aspects of incest which was a bit shocking to me as this is a human-human phenomomem that is defined by Britannica as "Sexual relations between PERSONS who because of the nature of their kin relationships are prohibited by law or custom from intermarrying".  Now as to the specifics you noted above:

Anacapa 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see other references on the historical content although given the taboo nature of incest they will probably be hard to find.
 * I will take a look at 'ostensibly' in consensual incest.
 * I need specifics on 'emotional overload' judgements which may or may not be in the eye of the beholder.
 * There is no attempt to make ALL Child Abuse much less all Child Sexual abuse into incest or incestous abuse. The rape or sexual abuse children by strangers, child pornoghrapy and pedophilia is not included here.  However, the rape or sexual abuse of DEPENDENT children by other elders in RESPONSIBLE ROLES is either incest (when by blood or kin relations) or incestuous in nature (when by other elders in reponsible roles) is included here for good reasons.  These distinctions came straight from the linked psychological references and are valid forms of incest or incestuous abuse.(I will add source content to show this below)
 * What science(s) do want to see more of here and why?
 * This is about the phemomenom itself in both it's overt/contact forms and it's covert/non-contact forms AND it's psycho-sexual implications which are beginning to attract much research. I have no problem with the article including biological, historical or anthropoligical implications.  What is your problem with including the sexual, social, psychological implications of incest in an article about incest?  "Sexual RELATIONS between persons" include all forms of sexual relations not just contact sex.  Phone sex, online sex or non-contact mutual masturbation are all forms of sexual RELATIONS between people.  Likewise the use of NON-CONTACT seduction against children by parents or others in incestous relationships is a genuine and deeply damaging form of incest.  It is just much less well-known to most people much as the female-male rape is much less well known.  I ask that you read the references on this before you make judgements about what is or isn't incest.
 * In Britannica 'inbreeding' and 'outbreeding?' are separate entries. To me, they are complex biological terms related (AND UNRELATED as with plants and animals) to incest that should be explained in depth there and linked to this article with content here that relates them to the incest content.  Britannica mentions that "highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders" in it's INCEST entry but that is about all.
 * As for anthropology, I concur about more and better content as incest seems to be mostly about 'law or custom'. Britannica says that the widely varying beliefs about incest "caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a UNIVERSAL DEFINITION"
 * As for Andrew Vachess, he is just reflecting what most people think about incest and the double standards about how incest is handled legally. If you have specific suggestions about maybe making him less prominent in the intro I welcome them but to suggest splitting this article to separate so-called 'unemotional' anthropoligical science from the emotional human sciences seems a bit much.  Science is far from able to define much less explain incest as it stands now.  That means we are left with law, custom, and art (literature) until science takes over.
 * I ask that you name yourself when you make a POV check as we will have to ask you to remove the POV template when YOU are satisfied that NPOV balance is attained here.

Cleanup observations/suggestions
Some observations about this article (I'm not a POV expert, but the article does seem vaguely slanted still...)

--"However, child abuse attorney Andrew Vachss notes that in the United States, most states' penal codes give privileged treatment to parents who rape their own children. He states that despite this legal double standard, "most US citizens agree that child sexual abuse is one of the foulest crimes imaginable."

In-text citation please -- this is a very loaded opinion, and needs some backup from stats or other sources. Its placement at the beginning does colour the tone of the piece, unfortunately. Presenting it as an *opinion* with an opposing opinion would work.


 * I see your point here and the point of other editors above about Vachss especially in the introduction. The article needs a tone (as Britannica shows) and which was completely missing when I came aboard.  However that tone need not come from Vachss in the intro.  I will take Vachss out and add the tone somehow as a 'universal' tone similar to how Britannica handles it unless other editors object. Anacapa 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! The quote could certainly fit elsewhere in the article (effects of incest?), with a citation as well.--Marysunshine 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My inclination is to delete it altogether as the content in Law from Vachess and all the new content added elsewhere by various attorney editors seems to have clarified this.

--The "covert parental incest" could also benefit from some cited material. It also reads as quite repetitive. I recognize a LOT of work has gone into this article, and many cooks can spoil the stew, but it's more like a undergrad psych paper than an encyclopedia article. Its length, odd APA citations (why not use Wikipedia footnotes?), and jargonistic grammar are all deterrents. I'm willing to help clean that up if it's okay with everyone.


 * I would be glad for this help. (I added the content with another editor's help in a bit of a hurry and am not satified with it either).  Please discuss the major changes you see with specifics so I can work with you on this.Anacapa 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll start working slowly on this. Maybe section-by-section. --Marysunshine 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused about what you mean by 'section-by-section as there is only one subsection on Covert Incest. I cleaned up the first two PP's a lot.  Are they closer to what you were looking for here? Anacapa 01:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

-- a number of therapists, psychologists, and case studies are cited -- could we trim these references? Apart from their titles, we have no real indication of the merit of their work (i.e., if they are respected within their field or not)... They don't add much to the article, apart from propping up POV statements. Just because a "professional" agrees with it doesn't mean it's neutral.


 * Indeed! I would like to cut as much of this as possible so that the content stands by itself. I am looking for clean tight content that just shows the content itself with sources.Anacapa 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, probably the best way to tackle this is by editing one section at a time. There's a lot of good material here, and obviously a lot of time and effort went into those cited sources. It just seems like overkill right now. --Marysunshine 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

--"Effects of Incest" -- much of this is covered under the descriptions in "Types of Incest." Please consider removing that content from the former category to avoid redundancy in a quite-long article.


 * Yes I did and will consider this. I would like to keep the Effects section as it is a bare-bones section that is quite likely to be expanded.  Would you consider condensing the repetitive content into Effects instead and deleting it from Types where it is clearly irrelevant? Anacapa 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good too, as long as one of them gets the boot.--Marysunshine 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

--The "History" section could go under "Science," perhaps. It's rather incongruous after a long stretch of modern psychology.
 * I took a glance at the "rape" article--it might be nice to parallel its "contents" structure, in the interests of continuity. However, that's a major change, so perhaps I'll focus on the other issues first.--Marysunshine 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

--"Incest as a topic in fiction" "Fiction"

There is no good reason why these sections can't be merged. Again with the redundancy.

Just a few suggestions. --Marysunshine 02:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

N.B. I am not the person who placed the NPOV template -- sorry if that was confusing at first.

I placed the template, and it's going to stay there unless someone els removes it. I'm not convinced Anacapa should be allowed to redefine the structure of the entire article if there SO MANY objections from other editors.


 * I am fine about the template staying but it is your responsibility to state your specific POV issues and work toward some sort of consensus. As for objections from so many other editors please spare me as the only other editor who stated his POV clearly was John K.  This is not a popularity contest...it is an attempt to sort out POV's.  Covert POV is very hard to sort out much less include in NPOV content.  Please state specific overt POV's you come from so some sort of consensus is possible here.Anacapa 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I will look through the sources that he provided myself and look up some new ones. If it proves that his PoV is indeed the persistent one in all psychology, then I'll concede and let him have the run of this place. As such it appears to be more than a little controversial. 24.80.109.19


 * To anonymous 'POV check', I have no interest in redefining the whole article.  MarySunshine is doing the restructuring here.  I plan to make no structural changes at all other than to follow some other editor's suggestions. I have no problem with content on inbreeding or the other content.  I just insist that the psychological content be included as well and that no one restructures anything unless it is discussed first.  Yes incest is always more than a little controversial as the literature shows.  That said I have an open mind.  If you or other editors can show us HUMAN societies where incest is considered healthy, consensual and respectable, I would welcome that POV too.  Could you state your POV's here clearly so we know what we are dealing with?  Anacapa 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Structure of article
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4== deal with animals and people, seem a little jumbled

Why not structure them like this--

1. Genetics

2. Incest vs. inbreeding
 * This can merge "inbreeding in animals" with "distinctions between incest and inbreeding." After all, we are not sure if animals engage in "incest," as a sociological phenomenon, per se, so devoting an entire section to it here seems odd. That material belongs to "inbreeding," and we can link to it there.
 * From the dictionary and other encyclopedia definitions of incest it is clear that incest is a HUMAN sociological phenomenom related to but distinct from inbreeding or outbreeding in animals and plants. This merge seems like a good idea.  Also all inbreeding or outbreeding content should be directly related to their implications to HUMAN incest so that this article stays within scope.  Long discussions about genetics/inbreeding/outbreeding belong in separate (linked) articles devoted to those topics as they cover content that goes way beyond the scope of incest itself...(eg plant and animal inbreeding are clearly not incest itself) Anacapa 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, if you're going to be removing discussions on inbreeding, since they have articles and so on, I have a great idea. Why don't you write an article on "incest-esque psychological abuse and other things that don't fit family model X" and link to that article from here. At least the genetic part is easily verifiable. 24.80.109.19
 * There is no reason to remove Inbreeding content IMHO. I just want to see it tied as closely to incest as possible as there are many forms of inbreeding (eg plant and animal) that have nothing directly to do with incest (a sociological phenomenom with biological consequences).  What is your issue?  Do you just want to demean me personally or do you have something of importance to you that I/we should be listening to.  I am not here to upset your apple cart as much as you might assume otherwise.  I am here to try to attain some sort of complete balanced NPOV content and I include all content in that.Anacapa 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Incest vs. exogamy
 * I like this here, yet the examples provided seem to lead into either "Laws and mores regarding incest..." or "In religious traditions." My advice would be to nix all the material from "Trobriand Islanders..." and merge that with "Laws and more regarding incest," dropping the "industrialized societies."
 * I for one concur with this for the most part...but I imagine that Trobriand Islander content could shed much light on incest so I will have to take a close look at that content before making a call. To me it is important to show any societies that have significantly different views about incest here but I concur with dropping 'industrialized societies' because that usage to seems imply that only industrialized societies forbid incest which I suspect is false. Anacapa 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Types of incest

--Marysunshine 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The basic structural changes you propose seem fine to me. I am not sure we can make this article match the rape article's structure because incest is so much more complicated than rape but I will consider that idea too.  I too want to see a nice clean flow here that makes this complicated, loaded and taboo topic much more easy for most people to understand.  Unless other editors oppose this I urge you to go ahead and be bold as long as you cut no key content without discussion.  However, you might want to wait a while so that people have time to check this out first. Anacapa 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll start making structural/grammatical changes as time permits this week and follow this talk page closely for discussion about the other issues to see if a consensus is reached re: the material. I readily admit that I'm not a psych expert...--Marysunshine 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Thanks for your feedback/suggestions too.  I know I/ need your kind of assistance here.  However, I suggest you be careful about the structural changes as I see some issues were raised here by the anonymous editor above.  I made changes to the intro to reflect our discussions.  I also cleaned up some of the Covert section content because it was being edited by others.  But as for the rest of the content I added (psychological) go at it.  However please check with me before altering the basic content itself other than for flow.Anacapa 05:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Covert Incest placement and sourcing
To user John Kenney. I welcome your feedback and all the concerns you have raised. From your discussion page you seem to be a seasoned veteran of Wiki so I see that you might have to much to offer here as quite valuable. I, for one, would like to have you continue with hard hitting feedback so we can all challenge our POV's and make this article better.

That said, I ask that you refrain from making major changes to this content unless you complete your discussions here and attain some sort of consensus. I also ask that you use this page for discussions rather than the edit comments as per wiki protocol. Finally, I ask that you complete discussions you start before you jump in and make changes to this content...by that I mean to refrain from reactions like 'insane' (as Adams no doubt spent his career on this) remain civil and to state specifics.

I moved the Covert Section back where it was for a whole host of reasons mostly to do with flow and the elimination of needless repetition. (I will discuss those reasons if needed). I will be glad to continue to discuss definition issues you might have but please make no new changes such as 'Covert Incest' until we have some sort of consensus here. I will also be glad to add sources such as Susan Forward's Toxic Parents or Pat Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome or others if you like...but no one has been as succinct and clear on this as Adams has which is why I used him as my main source. Please work with me to meet your concerns. Anacapa 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your issues about the definition of incest raised many good issues for me. I am going to go get the dictionaries/encyclopedias and pull their definitions in for disussion here so that it is possible to scope this article based on some sort of reasonable criteria. I ask that you weigh in on this with well-reasoned sources as this definition seems to be highly loaded and subject to change as the research comes in. Anacapa 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * not having a NPOV is enough to delete whole article, and this section is factually inacurate too, so as this isn't a very important type of incest i think deleting it is better, if anyone disagrees, pleast tell me. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As nobody replyed for more that 28 hours, I assume nobody opposes deleting. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Size and space issues with respect to Types section
A number of editors have raised space as concern about the Covert Incest subsection here. I print previewed the article. Covert incest takes less than 2/3 page about the same as Inbreeding. Genetics, Incest vs Exogamy, and History take a page or more EACH. It is clear that the 'abuse' content is far from dominant here. If editors have space concerns I ask that we look at the whole article in toto rather than singling out specific content on a POV basis claiming space as the issue.Anacapa 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not space. The problem is that the way it is presented is POV, it has not been verified from reputable sources and it may constitute original research. john k 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources I pulled most of this Covert Incest content from are licensed psychologists with PhD's, credible published books, and many hits on google scholar. I did add content in the Effects section from a broad range of books because I no of no one who has written a book just on Effects (either OVERT or COVERT incest effects).  That section will indeed need to be carefully checked by other editors up to speed on the incest literature and by me as soon as I have time.  When you have POV problems with this content, please state specific problems you have as "insane" is a bit hard for us ALL to use to correct POV issues and implies some kind of personal POV reaction to this content itself.  Incest is a highly loaded taboo topic that almost always inspires intense personal POV's.  I have no problem with you or any other editor bringing in other POV's but please refrain from summarily tossing a POV just because you don't know it yet or don't agree with it.


 * I would be glad to cite these sources and I will be glad to show that this is far from original research. Could you give me one example of the correct way you would like to see me fill in your citation templates as I am somewhat new to Wikipedia?  I am familiar with NPOV/POV by now.  Therefore if you or other editors have sources for other POV'S please state them so we can include them all here.  (For example, I notice a single source in the links that seems to show incest in a positive POV)   As for reputable sources on the Covert Incest and its definition, I called Pat Love (author of The Emotional Incest Syndrome a full length book written for the general public that explains Covert Incest and family systems in detail) today to check on how her professional psychologist peers see this.  Here is MY take on what she told me:


 * When she uses the word 'incest' to describe what she calls the (covert) "violation of intergenerational boundaries" by (parents, step-parents and other related/unrelated elders in responsible roles), people, especially parents, tend to come unglued as incest is a highly loaded word. Therefore, she sometimes substitutes "enmeshment" for "incest" so she can be heard at all rather than because "enmeshment" is the correct term for what is really incest. Her experience suggested that I should expect that kind of reaction here too.
 * I asked her what the consensus is in the psychological community about this definition and specifically what she calls this topic in speeches to her peer professional groups. She said that the correct definition is indeed "incest" and that she never has used the term enmeshment to define covert "incest" in speeches to peer professionals.  She referred me to other professionals at The Meadows in Arizona, a center for the treatment of sexual disorders, to get their take on this.
 * I told her about the issues editors here have about 'rigid family roles'. She said that intergenerational boundaries are key to healthy families in much the same way that a fence around a school playground has been shown by a famous study to encourage full exploration of that playground versus almost none when there are no fences.  She mentioned the extensive research by the family systems therapist she quotes/shows in her book.
 * I mentioned the use of the COVERT incest use of 'special' by Terri Hatcher's (see Vanity Fairarticle on links) uncle who committed OVERT incest against Terri and who committed OVERT incestuous sexual abuse against another young teenager that led to that teenager's suicide). Pat Love said that COVERT Incest (eg NON-CONTACT psycho-sexual seductions that use 'specials' to flatter young victims into letting their guard down) is often committed in combination with OVERT incest. It seems that OVERT incest perps use BOTH Overt and Covert incest tactics but that Covert incest perps use JUST Covert Incest tactics.
 * She was busy so I didn't have time to ask her if there were professionals psychologists who argue against Covert Incest as a phenomenom. I will ask other professionals that question when I speak with them.  I also welcome other editors to pull in reputable sources that show other sides of this issue but please state those other POV's and use sources to support them. Anacapa 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Incest

 * Incest is sexual activity between close family members (this article)
 * Sexual relations between persons who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying (latest Britannica)
 * "All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. The World Book Encyclopedia (2005)
 * INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection (Encyclopedia American 2005)
 * in·cest   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nsst) Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.  Middle English, from Latin incestum, from neuter of incestus, impure, unchaste  : in-, not; see in-1 + castus, pure, chaste; see kes- in Indo-European Roots.  Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * Main Entry: in·cest Pronunciation: 'in-"sest Function: noun Etymology: Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- not + castus pure: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the crime of engaging in such sexual intercourse Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

To eliminate some of the round and round about definitions I pulled in a variety of definitions from other sources for comparison. Clearly there is a POV about incest in the definitions as the root word means impure or unchaste. Clearly there is a focus on law and customs as the basis for defining what incest is. Last some definitions seem to use sexual relations where some seem to use sexual intercourse.

I have a few questions/issues related to these definitions:
 * father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio, mother-daughter sexual molestation and all other forms of overt and covert sexual abuse of children by parents is called incest in the psychological literature. If we limit this article's definition to sexual intercourse we will excluding almost all the the other forms of incest shown in the literature most of which is fairly new as in The Last Secret (mother-daughter incest) or Mother-Son Incest; the Unthinkable Broken Taboo.  To me, this article's definition should be wide enough to include all forms of incest here, just as the rape article's definition is wide enough to include all forms of rape there.
 * This article's definition (as it stands) is missing any mention of law or custom...yet these sociological sanctions seem to be the main basis for defining incest. Maybe we should add these to the article's definition somehow.
 * Clearly from these definitions, incest is a primarily a human sociological phenomenom with biological consequences...rather than a biological phenomenom with sociological consequences.  Inbreeding and genetic issues are clearly related consequences of incest but not the topic itself. (It is also important to note that biology/genetics have no bearing whatsoever on same sex incest, on NON-Contact Covert incest, or on incest between opposite sex people where conception does not occur) The main basis for this definition seems to be human 'purity' or 'chasteness' as coded in law and custom rather than in science or biology.
 * There is no inclusion of animal or plant sex between close relatives in these definitions of incest. Incest is clearly defined as a human phenomenom.  Human laws and customs would seem to be meaningless in the animal/plant world.

Whatever we decide to do with definition I hope we tighten the scope of this article with a reasonable definition that match the known definitions/recent research. I have no need to eliminate any content per say but I also have no interest in creating a whol bunch of little stubs to describe all the forms of incest either. Please discuss how to handle this. Anacapa 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
Since it may have gotten lost up above, I'm going to repeat my problem with the "covert incest" material. In the first place, in its current form, it is unsourced. In the second place, all the citations which Anacapa has provided are to what are essentially self-help books. All internet hits on "covert incest" seem to lead to victim support groups. It seems clear that there are a certain number of clinical psychologists who embrace the idea of covert incest.

But I have yet to see any evidence that this concept is generally accepted by the psychological community. In particular, I think what is needed are citations from


 * 1) Peer-reviewed journals - a search of what appears to be a principal psychological article database discovered only a minuscule number of articles with "covert incest" or "emotional incest" (2 each), as compared to several thousand articles with "incest" as a keyword.
 * 2) Standard textbooks. This is even more important.  If the concept is in general use, it should not be a problem to find standard psychology textbooks which discuss the idea.  If standard textbooks do not discuss covert incest, that would be a good indication that it is a fringe idea which should not be given much attention in this article (although it still would probably deserve its own article). john k 22:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John, It is false to call this material unsourced when I have clearly shown the sources above. I will be glad to fill in your fact templates. As for peer reviewed journals, I will be glad to use those where available.  From my glance at WIKI's standards published works are also usable here.  To limit any new idea to a textbook is a bit much given how far behind textbooks often are.  (Theory of Constraints is an idea that world class corporations have been using for decades now but it barely is even mentioned in most finc/accounting textbooks because it busts the old conventional ideas in academia) Are you insisting on Wiki standards here or are these your personal standards?  Also do you intend to apply the same standards to the entire article or is Covert Incest your particular punching bag here?  Anacapa 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Covert incest is a particular punching bag because I've never heard of the idea before coming across it in wikipedia, and its presence on wikipedia seems to be entirely the result of the energy and passion of a single user (you). That combination is always suspicious, and nothing which has been presented has allayed the suspicion that this is a fringe concept.  In terms of standards, published works are usable, but for a subject like psychology, where tons of nonsense is written by credentialed psychologists, I think we need to be especially careful.  I don't believe the standards I'm insisting on are my personal standards, but I will admit that I've not been closely involved in articles on psychological subjects in the past, so I'm not completely familiar with what standards have been applied in the past.  In terms of textbooks, I'm not demanding that it show up in a psych 101 textbook.  But if no undergraduate textbooks of any kind mention the concept, I think it's fair to say that it's a fringe idea, and doesn't deserve to be discussed at any length in the main incest article, although it still might be notable enough to have its own article.  At any rate, so far you have basically cited a single self-help book (unless I've missed something).  Are you admitting that no psychology textbooks of any kind mention "covert incest" as an issue? I'd suggest you review No original research john k 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John thanks for these clarifications. I am not surprised that you never heard of Covert Incest before as incest in general is a taboo and forbidden topic that MOST people prefer to ignore thus the immense variation in how this topic is handled in even mainstream encyclopedias.  You have every right to be suspicious in general and I have no problem with anyone who pushes me hard to back the content I add.  However, I ask that you carefully read the sources I used (Ken Adams and Pat Love are both professionals with PhD's) before judging the content I added.  The two main sources I used for the Covert Incest content were Adam's Silently Seduced and Love's Emotional Incest Syndrome.   A quick search on Amazon books of 'incest' shows 406 books on this topic...Love's book is #4, and Adam's book is #9 which gives one some idea of their popularity as I suspect Amazon sorts by sales.  It also clearly shows that Covert incest is being listed under incest rather than emotional or even sexual abuse.  I share your concern with psychology as it is a fairly new science.  I am also glad to see you make a distinction between your personal standards and general wiki standards.  If there are written wiki guidelines that spell out special standards for psychology as a science I would be glad to abide by them.  (I come from big business and know that most undergraduate Finc or Accounting textbooks barely mention or fail to mention Theory of constraints a powerful package of thoughtware that has been used decades now with breakthrough successes in business, the military and government...so I question how reliable textbooks are in general to keep up with current realities much less on taboo, forbidden and politically incorrect topics such as incest)  However, I did review what counts as a reputable publication above which was quite helpful.  Covert Incest seems to be both from academic and professional sources.  I will go dig up some peer-reviewed journal articles to further meet your concerns.   Pat Love's publisher is Bantam, while Adams publisher is Health Communications, Inc in Dearfield Beach FL.  I have cited two sources and will cite more as soon as I do some google scholar reseach on the topic.  As for textbooks, I have no idea as I am not a psychology undergraduate.  In any case I hope that you will show me where in wiki standards this textbook 'test' is applied as it would appear to eliminate much of the content in this and many other articles.  I will be glad to abide by general wiki standards here...and I have no problem with you being personally suspicious but please make sure your textbook test is wiki-wide before you demand that of US ALL here.  Are there wiki guidelines on what you call a 'fringe' subject as I notice that animal inbreeding leads this article...a topic that seems much more 'fringe' than Covert Incest but one that might show implications for actual human incest.  I will be glad to do anything possible to meet your concerns here.  I have no problem with you personally...instead I welcome hard feedback as it makes the article better. I just ask that we stick to the facts and make some kind of reasonable judgments using wiki guidelines.  You are/were right to push hard on this.  However, I hope you will offer me a chance to respond to your specific problems with specific solutions.  I also hope you will be fair-minded and insist on one standard for the whole article rather than one standard for a one section. Anacapa 05:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Google Scholar Covert Incest page 1-2/3 (bold highlights mine)

BOOK] Silently Seduced: When Parents Make Their Children Partners- Understanding Covert Incest - group of 2 » KM Adams - 1991 - books.google.com ... SEDUCED When Parents Make Their Children Partners Understanding Covert Incest Kenneth M. Adams, Ph.D. Health Communications, Inc. Deerfield Beach, Florida ... Cited by 4 - Web Search - Library Search - UC-eLinks

[CITATION] Sexual Addiction and Covert Incest: Connecting the Family Roots of Alcoholism, Neglect and Abuse. KM Adams - Focus on Chemically Dependent Families, 1987 Cited by 2 - Web Search

[CITATION] Covert Incest in Women’s Lives: Dynamics and Directions for Healing. ND Hyde - Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 1986 Cited by 1 - Web Search

Child sexual abuse and the multidisciplinary team approach: contradictions in practice - UC-eLinks - group of 2 » M Jacobson - Childhood, 2001 - chd.sagepub.com ... Covert incest, a new term coined in the 1980s by sexual abuse experts, is a "hands- off" derivative defined by a boundary violation between parent and child ... Cited by 4 - Web Search - BL Direct

Pastors and Sexual Addiction MRK LAASER - Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment …, 2003 - Taylor & Francis ... '''Their sexual addiction represents role reversal from the overly erotic atmosphere of the covert incest experi- ence'''. When assuming ... Cited by 2 - Web Search - UC-eLinks - BL Direct

The sex killer - UC-eLinks RV Langevin, MHV Ben-Aron, PV Wright, VV Marchese, … - Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1988 - Springer ... Revitch (1965) stated that he is preoccupied with '''maternal sexual contact as well as with overt and covert incest'''; he was guilty about sex, rejects sex as ... Cited by 14 - Web Search

CTS - group of 9 » A ABUSE - fadaa.org ... '''Covert incest and sexual abuse involves seemingly accidental touching, comments that have sexual connotations, and exposure to sexual activity or pornography'''. ... View as HTML - Web Search

From Obsession to Betrayal: The Life and Art of Pablo Picasso - group of 3 » MB WILSON - Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment …, 2004 - Taylor & Francis ... Adams (1991) describes covert incest as occurring when a child becomes the object of a parent’s affection, love, passion and preoccupation. ... Web Search - UC-eLinks - BL Direct

[BOOK] The Politics of Survivorship: Incest, Women's Literature, and Feminist Theory R Champagne - 1998 - books.google.com ... Chapter Two The Law ofthe (Nameless) Father Mary Shelley's Mathilda and the Incest Taboo 53 Chapter Three Covert Incest Frankenstein after Oedipus 9 1 ... Cited by 6 - Web Search - Library Search - UC-eLinks

Sexual Addiction and ADHD: Is There A Connection? - group of 4 » RF BLANKENSHIP, MF LAASER - Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment …, 2004 - Taylor & Francis ... Adams (1991) documents the phenomenon of covert incest. ... Silently seduced: When parents make their children partners— understanding covert incest. ...

The emergence of a new paradigm in sex therapy: integration GR Weeks - Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2005 - Taylor & Francis For example, a woman might be the survivor of covert incest (Courtois, 1988). During the course of therapy she might mention something ... Cited by 1 - Web Search - UC-eLinks

Sigmund Freud and Psychiatry a Partial Appraisal - UC-eLinks SE Jelliffe - The American Journal of Sociology, 1939 - JSTOR ... One finds here a meeting-ground for much that is still called heredity, for many involved emotional repug- nances, peculiar covert incest prohibitions, murder ... Web Search

Memory of Childhood Sexual Abuse among Clinicians: Characteristics, Outcomes, and Current Therapy … - UC-eLinks - group of 4 » LS Little, SLS Hamby - Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 2001 - Springer ... after this survey.” One woman tried to explain her response by commenting: “I am new in the field and experienced subtle, covert, incest—mostly comments ... Web Search - BL Direct

THE PATHETIC AND THE TRAGIC P Patheticness - International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 1993 - pep-web.org ... bore any significance beyond 'decompressing' her bad back.2 During this period, the patient returned to the theme of covert incest—sometimes focusing on a ... Web Search

[BOOK] Betrayed As Boys: Psychodynamic Treatment of Sexually Abused Men - group of 2 » RB Gartner - 2001 - books.google.com Page 1. CriticalAcclaim fo rBet ra yedasBoys “This volume provides important tools not only for clinicians working with individuals ... Cited by 14 - Web Search - Library Search - UC-eLinks - BL Direct

Deconstructing and Locating Survivor Discourse: Dynamics of Narrative, Empowerment, and Resistance … - UC-eLinks - group of 2 » NA Naples - Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2003 - journals.uchicago.edu [Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2003, vol. 28, no. 4] © 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0097-9740/2003/2804-0010$10.00. ... Cited by 2 - Web Search - BL Direct

[BOOK] Struggle for Intimacy JG Wotitiz - 1986 - books.google.com Page 1. STRUGGLE FOR INTIMACY ThisOne IIIUfl IIIII Page 2. STRUGGLE FOR INTIMACY Janet Geringer Woititz, Ed.D. p 4l Health Communications, Inc. ... Web Search - UC-eLinks

[BOOK] Adult Children: The Secrets of Dysfunctional Families J Friel - 1990 - books.google.com Page 1. Aduib GHILDREN TheSecretsof Dysfunctional Families____ IOHNFRIEL&LINDAFRIEL Page 2. ADULT CHILDREN The Secrets of Dysfunctional Families 4 John C. Friel ... Cited by 6 - Web Search - UC-eLinks

[BOOK] The Intimacy Struggle: Revised and Expanded for All Adults JG Woititz - 1993 - books.google.com Page 1. THE INTIMACY STRUGGLE Revisedand Expanded ForAllAdults JAN116.WOITIIL ‘4 iL Health Communications, Inc. Deerfield Beach, Florida Page 2. ... Web Search - UC-eLinks

[BOOK] Sexueller Missbrauch und seine geschlechtsspezifischen Auswirkungen SB Gahleitner - 2000 - books.google.com Page 1. Silke-Birgitta Gahleitner Sexueller Mißbrauch und seine geschlechtsspezifischen Auswirkungen Tectum Verlag Page 2. Sexueller Mißbrauch undseine ... Cited by 3 - Web Search - Library Search - UC-eLinks


 * Google scholar gives 27 hits for "covert incest" and another 62 for "emotional incest." This compared with over 60,000 hits for "incest" alone.  It seems fair to me to say that this is not a widely recognized issue in the scholarly community.  It obviously does have some scholarly backing, though.  My main issue is this: whether or not people recognize "covert incest" as existing, it does not fall under the generally accepted definition of incest.  Our "types of incest" section is about different types of straight-up incest.  As such, the "covert incest" stuff should go somewhere else.  It also needs to be sourced, and its larger place in the psychological literature needs to be made clear.  We shouldn't say "psychologists say such and such."  We should say that it is an issue recognized by some psychologists. We also need to cite sources for the various claims made in the section. john k 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I would suggest to you that incest as a topic in-toto is barely recognized at all as a significant research subject in the scholarly community. The researchers I read seem to have to fight tooth and nail to be able to do research on this taboo, forbidden and politically incorrect topic...especially on Mother-son, Mother-daughter and Father-son forms.  A glance at the other encyclopedia articles below clearly shows this as there is considerable confusion among a wide range of disciplines (For example, one article says genetics are insignificant and another says genetics are significant, another article defines incest as just HETEROSEXUAL relations, etc).  Clearly, as Brittanica mentions there is no basis yet for ONE 'generally accepted definition of incest much less a single standard for it's scope or scientific basis.  I suggest that before we decide on Covert/Emotional incest or any other content in this article we settle on a single definition/scope for the article.  I note that the old traditional definition that the FBI uses to report rape now looks pretty absurd given what we now know about female-female, female-male and male-male rape so I expect similar evolution here too.  I pulled all the different definitions in that I could find in the Definition section above and added three encyclopedia articles below.  I will note that their has been an explosion of incest research in the psychology/sex research fields in the last decade or two from a glance at the Amazon literature.  Do you want to propose a single 'incest' definition that could include all the research on a topic being called 'incest' (including those of relatively recent researchers'') for this article?


 * That said, I concur that Covert/Emotional incest is a relatively new form of incest that needs to clearly shown as classified in the 1980's by the psychological profession so that people know where it came from, what it has in common with overt incest and how it differs from overt incest. I will glad to source the claims, show Covert Incest's relative significance in both the psychological literature, the public literature (eg sales) so that people see it's place inside the larger article. I am unwilling to move it somewhere else as it is clearly being classified as 'incest' (rather than something else) by the psychological professionals and as (to my knowledge) no one has mounted a significant scholarly challenge to this classification despite a couple of decades of chances to do so.  Also it is quite clear from my conversation with author Pat Love and a glance at Terri Hatcher's Vanity Fair article that some overt incest perps use covert incest in combination with overt incest.   For flow, to show  relationships between both types of incest and to eliminate needless repetition vi a vi Effects, I placed the Covert incest section just below the Overt incest section.  I am fine with 'some psychologists' vs psychologists and we might say psychologists who specialize in sexual disorders and sexual addiction to make it even more specific.  You also helped raise another question for me which is to make a distinction about the law vi a vi Overt and Covert incest which I will try to do when I edit the Covert incest content to meet your other concerns.  I am also considering many of the other points you and other editors made above to see how to better frame this so that readers know family systems research about 'functional' vs 'disfunctional' families that seem to form the basis for research on Overt and Covert incest in the psychological literature.  I will go edit this Covert content to address as many of your concerns as possible.  Please push back where you see fit but please hold back from judgements about inclusion until we have a single sound definition for 'incest' with which to scope this whole article. Anacapa 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Incest loophole
The incest loophole claim seems specious to me. The issue, as far as I can tell, is that in many states there is a law on the books against incest. The penalties for incest are considerably less than the penalties for the crime of sexual abuse of a child. But this doesn't constitute a loophole, because it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether to charge an offender with incest or sexual abuse of a child (or both). If incestuous acts can be charged as the more serious crime at the prosecutor's discretion, then there's no loophole. There's just an option for the prosecutor to charge a less serious crime. It would only be a loophole if the prosecutor wasn't allowed to charge sexual abuse in cases where the victim is related to the accused. john k 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we bring in editors who are attorneys here. Attorneys seem to have eliminated a lot of nonsense earlier in Sex between cousins.  My take on Vachss (who is a nationally known child abuse attorney) is that the loophole is encoded in the code itself.  This provides the prosecutor possibilities to let the perp off by ironically charging them with the lesser crime of incest rather than a listed sexual offense.  A reasonable law would IMHO resemble what the Australians have done with incest law which is a severe standard for a horrible crime.  Vachss is stating a legal loophole big enough for prosecutors to drive a truck through IHMO.  To Vachss it seems, these US legal absurdities while common are far from specious and show the double standard that occurs in US law vi a vi incest. I would like to hear some attorneys weigh in on how this plays out in practice however.   There also may be a clearer way to state all this.Anacapa 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An attorney here. Anacapa is correct in the above statement. In the states where incest loopholes exist, the discount given to related perpetrators is written into the penal code.  I added a link to a new law review article on the incest loophole ([Abuse and the State"]) to the External Links section of this topic. The article is fully sourced and footnoted, and I hope it helps. It includes a section on the history of incest prohibitions as well.  I see from the comments here that the topic itself is undergoing major changes, and as I don't wish to complicate things for you editors, I won't alter the body of the topic.70.177.34.18 06:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What the competition says about incest
I pulled in three encyclopedias in my public library to show how much variation there is vi a vi how the so-called professional encyclopedia editors handle this topic. I note the differences in definitions, significance and content. To me, this shows that incest is a topic that even the professionals have no single standard for showing but there is much food for thought here.Anacapa 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The World Book Encyclopedia (2005)

Incest. See Marriage (Other laws and customs)

Marriage|Other laws and practices

"All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. However, different societies have different views on what constitutes incest.  For example, some societies forbid cousins from marrying, while other permit such marriages."

"Some societies require a person to marry someone who belongs to his or her own tribe or group. This custom is called endogamy.  In other societies, an individual must follow the rules of exogamy and marry a person from another tribe or village."


 * Encyclopedia Americana (2005)

INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection. Everywhere in the world sexual relations between father and daughter, mother and son, and brother and sister are forbidden. However, the brother-sister taboo was reversed for royalty in some instances, as in ancient Egypt, Peru, and Hawaii, where the ruler was required to marry his sister in order to keep their blood "pure".

Incest taboos beyond relationships within the immediate family show enormous variation. In some societies any sexual contact or marriage with any known blood relative, no matter how remote is forbidden. In societies with clans (unlineal descent systems), a person is required to choose a sexual mate or marriage partner from outside his own clan (exogamy). In cultures with castes, everyone is required to marry inside his own caste (endogamy). Penalties for incest vary from mere dissaproval to death.

The alleged functions of incest taboos include the stabilization of family and society by specifying sex and marriage boundaries, the establishment of alliances between distinct kinship groups through the exchange of brides, and the prevention of inbreeding and its harmful biological results. The last function has been increasingly been challenged. A study of inbreeding in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, suggested that the inbreeding occurring in the world today produces so few harmful effects that it may be ignored.

The origin of the incest taboo remains highly speculative. Many experts believe that early forms of man probably preferred less familiar women outside their own kinship groups, and that the probability of finding a mate within the small kinship groups produced by the high mortality rate was remote. Eventually such behavior patterns became fixed in law.

In the United States, state laws show considerable variation in the relatives one is forbidden to marry, and the penalties range from a small fine and a few months in jail to a $5,000 fine and life imprisonment.


 * The New Encyclopedia Brittanica Volume 6  Ready Reference  (2005)

incest, sexual relations between persons who, because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or custom from intermarrying. Because, cross-culturally, incest is more an emotional than a legal issue, the term taboo is generally preferred over prohibition. The incest taboo is acknowledged in anthropology as universal, although it is imposed differently in different societies and knowledge of its breach provokes widely different reactions from society to society.

Generally speaking, the closer the genetic relationship between two people, the stronger and more highly charged is the taboo prohibiting or discouraging sexual relations between them. Thus, sexual intercourse between a father and a daughter, a mother and a son, or a brother and sister is almost universally forbidden. Sexual relations between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew are also generally taboo, and relations between first cousins are prohibited as well in some societies.

Incest taboos beyond immediate family members can vary enormously however. In matrilineal societies in Melanesia, for example, the taboo is extended from biological brothers and sisters to include all so-called classificator siblings who trace their descent through the same matriline. Thus in Melanesian societies, the incest taboo makes distinction among persons--all of whom would be called first cousins in American or European kinship systems--some being expressly forbidden as sexual partners, others considered ideal marital mates. A different type of cultural consideration is evident in Balinese tradition, which held the birth of opposite-sex twins to low-caste parents to be evidence of incest, based on the belief that the neonates had the opportunity to engage in sexual activity while in the womb. Twins of opposite-sex born into the caste of the ruling class, however were enjoined to marry. Beliefs such as these caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a universal definition.

Nonetheless, a few general statements can be made: (1) incest is almost universally condemned and is usually viewed with horror; (2) rare, culturally sanctioned abrogations of the incest taboo are known, one of the foremost being the mandatory marital union of royal siblins; (3) as the immediacy of the biological relationship decreases, sanctions against sexual intimacy may be relaxed or dissapear.

In anthropology, most research on incest consists of analysis and interpretation of the structure, function, and, to a lesser degree, origin of incest taboos. For sociobiologically oriented anthropologists, the question of incest, and the related questions of exogamous and endogamous marriage, are primarily a matter of genetics. Highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders.

In functional terms, some scholars view the incest taboo as preserving the nuclear family from the disharmony engendered by sexual jealousy, and this argument is extended in it's application to explain rules of exogamy. Evolutionary theorists argue that the prohibition on incest within a group and the corresponding rules of exogamy require males to seek sexual and marital partners outside the group, thereby establishing functional alliances with the men of other groups with whom they exchanged women.

Another theory, emphasizing socialization, argues that the taboo is an important method of regulating the erotic impulse in children, preparing them to function with mature restraint in adult society. The psychoanalytic explanation of Sigmund Freud speculated that the horror of incest derived from the combination of ambivalent emotions toward ones immediate family and repressed forbidden desires to commit sexual acts with family members of the opposite sex.

Contemporary scholars, in their attempts to account for either the origin or the perpetration of the incest taboo, have been careful to avoid monistic explanations, whether genetic, historical, or social. The question has also been raised whether a unitary phenomenom of incest exists, suggesting that brother-sister, mother-son, and father-daughter sexual unions might be better understood as theoretically distinct.

Defining the term

 * Incest is sexual activity between close family members (this article)
 * Sexual relations between persons who because of the nature of their kin relationships, are prohibited by law or customs from intermarrying (latest Britannica)
 * "All countries forbid incest, which is marriage or sexual relations between certain close relatives. The World Book Encyclopedia (2005)
 * INCEST, in'sest, is a heterosexual relationship that is disapproved by society because the partners are too closely related by blood, marriage, or traditional connection (Encyclopedia American 2005)
 * in·cest   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nsst) Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.  Middle English, from Latin incestum, from neuter of incestus, impure, unchaste  : in-, not; see in-1 + castus, pure, chaste; see kes- in Indo-European Roots.  Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * Main Entry: in·cest Pronunciation: 'in-"sest Function: noun Etymology: Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- not + castus pure: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the crime of engaging in such sexual intercourse Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I think one thing that's worth noting in definitions of the term is that it has distinct meanings in at least three separate fields - there is the legal definition of incest, which is a crime which is defined in varying ways in varying jurisdictions, but generally involves illegalizing sexual intercourse or marriage between close family members; there is the anthropological definition of incest, which is interested in incest taboos in different cultures, and on what a given culture defines as an incestuous union (for instance, in some cultures, some types of first cousin unions are considered incestuous, while other types are preferred types of marriage), and so forth; and finally, a psychological definition, which is generally concerned with incest as a source of trauma, and particularly with incest as child abuse. We should be careful about distinguishing these. We do a decent job already, I think, with the legal issues. But the current "types of incest" section mixes up psychological definitions with anthropological ones, and that seems like a bad idea. I think we should have first a section about incest as discussed by anthropologists, which can discuss things like the ways different cultures define incest, cultures where incestuous unions were explicitly encouraged (like among ancient Egyptian royalty, for instance), and so forth. Psychological issues relating to incest ought to be kept separate from this, and the issue of incest as abuse, and so forth, can be discussed there. john k 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see at least 10 separate disciplines/areas where incest seems to be a topic:


 * History (see Foucault's The History of Sexuality and others)
 * Sociology (exogamy vs endogamy etc)
 * Anthropoly (cultural and traditional bases for the incest taboo or it's opposites)
 * Biology (genetics, inbreeding/outbreeding, and evolution)
 * Psychology (classifications, cause and effects and interpersonal dynamics of incest)
 * Sexology (studies of sexual crimes/addictions/disorders)
 * Law and Politics (see Bell's Interrogating Incest and others)
 * Art and literature (See Marquise De Sade's Incest Or Anais Nin's House of Incest)
 * Philosophy (Scruton's 'Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic and others)
 * Religion and Morality (See Carmichael's Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18-20 and others)

Each of these areas overlaps as this is a complex topic. We do indeed need to make distinctions between them but we also need to show the relationships between them. However, first, we need a one-sentence definition of incest for the whole article within which to scope the content. Anacapa 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In terms of your fields, I'd suggest that sociological and anthropological definitions of incest are pretty much the same, and that psychological and sexological definitions are also essentially the same. I'd add that I don't think incest really is a topic in biology. Animals may inbreed, but they don't commit incest, because incest is a human phenomenon, and exists in the context of human society, not simply the biological process of reproduction. The appearance of incest in history, art and literature, and philosophy is essentially secondary. There is no specific historical definition of incest. The depiction of incest in history is a topic that ought to be discussed, as also it's depiction in art and literature, and discussion of it in philosophy, but none of these fields provides its own distinct definition. The religious/moral definition of adultery is, I think, closely related to the anthropological/sociological one, or, at least, any discussion of it in wikipedia would have to be. There are numerous religions in the world, and their views on incest ought to be discussed in the context of the overall societies they arise from. There is no possible way to have an NPOV discussion of the morality of incest.


 * I'd have to see the specific definitions from each discipline you are alluding to above to make a judgment on your assessment about what is the same/different..vi a vi sociology and anthropology. I know that psychology is coming at this from research on functional versus dysfunctional family systems/and the related interpersonal/intergenerational boundary violations but I am not sure how sex researchers see/define incest.  These are interesting questions that I would like to see answered because they are quite relevant to some kind of univeral definition in the future.  Your points about biology, art, history and literature seem sound to me.  However, I believe philosophy, law and religion matter here as one can find some of the human rights/responsibility arguments there that show what is forbidden/illegal and why...thus this might influence how incest is defined as well.  I differ with you on a NPOV discussion on the morality of incest.  I believe we could show all 'moralities' here as long as they are sourced with complete, balanced NPOV as is done in the Religion arguments but I imagine that would make our little tempest in a teapot fade into insignificance so I have no need to go there now. Anacapa 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As to a brief definition, Incest is sexual relations or marriage between close family members, surely? It's traditionally been defined as only heterosexual relations, but I think it would be fair to add that in recent times, at least, its use has been expanded to cover sexual relations between close family members of the same sex. "Covert incest," whether or not it is accepted as a valid concept, definitely falls outside the normal definition of incest, although such relations may be appropriately described as "incestuous" (meanning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com). The word "incest" itself does not apparently contain a figurative meaning like its adjectival version, though. john k 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * John, let's set aside Covert incest for a minute and just attempt to consense on a single standard definition of the term incest which clearly has no normal definition, as of today, based on the wide differences in the professionals' definitions above. Britannica probably says it best "Beliefs such as these caution anthropologists against narrow biogenetic explanations for the incest taboo and pose severe impediments to a universal definition". However Britannica, although probably the most NPOV and professional of the existing encyclopedias, is obviously way behind the explosion of recent research from the psychological/sex research/social worker disciplines.  It is clear from a glance at the literature (see table below) that the psychiatric/psychology/sexology field dominates the recent research on incest and that anthropology/sociology is barely addressing it today.  However since there is no single standard definition of the term, let's take your definition as a beginning and build from there.


 * I concur with you that the definition needs to be expanded beyond the traditional heterosexual limits to include same-sex (eg father-son, Mother-daughter, etc) incest as the psychological literature has busted many old myths about incest being just a father-daughter phenemomem.

However, do 'sexual relations' include father-son sodomy, mother-son fellatio or mother-daughter molestation in your definition of incest? How do we handle the forbidden by custom and/or tradition and illegal by law aspects of the definition seen in the various professional definitions above?


 * As to 'incest' versus 'incestuous', I use the following distinctions I used in the article to prevent confusion. Forbidden sexual relations between relatives qualify as 'incest'...as in father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister or sister-brother.  Forbidden relations committed against dependents by non-relatives in responsible roles qualify as 'incestuous' (as they are being "improperly (and usually illegally too!) intimate and interconnected"...as in stepparent-stepchild, Father (priest)-child parishioner, Sister(nun)-child-parishioner, psychiatrist/psychologist-patient, doctor-patient, teacher-student sexual relations to name a few.  Since these types of forbidden/illegal violations are directly related to 'incest', since incestuous perps use the same methods as incest perps, and since these incestuous violations often cause consequences identical to incest consequences, I see no need to create a separate article called 'incestuous' to show 'incestuous' sexual relations as some kind of separate phenomenom.  In my opinion, 'garden variety' child sexual abuse (where there is no responsible/dependent relationship) belongs in other articles because it is more akin to regular rape than incestous rape.  I placed incestuous acts in this article because incestuous is a direct use of the root word 'incest'. On what specific basis do you have problems with the use of the word 'incestuous' in the artice?  Is 'incestuous' unclear here, is 'incestuous' a touchy POV issue or is this something else altogether?


 * I think one thing we should be clear on here is that incest is not always sexual abuse. The sibling marriages of Egyptian pharaohs, or Byron's incestuous relationship with his half-sister (whom he didn't grow up with and only really got to know as an adult), don't really qualify as abuse at all, so I'm not sure how they can be compared to a priest sexually abusing a child in their care.  The latter doesn't really seem to be "incest" to me, and to refer to it as "incestuous" strikes me as highly misleading (why exactly?) - much more so than referring to "covert incest" as "incestuous."  The latter usage is clearly entirely appropriate (covert incest can be 'incest' (blood relations) or incestuous (non-blood relations) so I use incest for covert incest here following the research)  When a son has a relationship with his mother that is considered closer than normal, it can be described as "incestuous" (Covert incest IS instead being described by the psych/sex research professions as 'incest' so on what basis would we change their classifications?) without necessarily involving any sexual acts.  But I'm not sure that one would describe, say, a teacher sexually molesting a student as "incestuous", even if the activity is rather close to the way an uncle might sexually molest a nephew or niece, which would be incest.  But what makes the latter activity incestuous (incest?) (in the literal sense of the term) is not that it involves sexual abuse of the minor, or the same kind of betrayal of trust.  The latter activity is incest simply because the two people involved are related. (and because IMHO the activity is taboo, forbidden and/or illegal too)  I do think that stepparent/stepchild would count, (Let's check the law/literature here) because step-parents are traditionally seen as parents of their stepchildren.  In terms of "forbidden by custom/tradition" and "illegal by law," I'd suggest that father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, grandparent/grandchild sexual relations are going to count as incest whether or not they are forbidden in a specific tradition or illegal(In the literature they seem to all be taboo, forbidden and illegal so I concur here)  Obviously Egyptian sibling marriage among royalty was not forbidden by custom or illegal, but it's hard to say that it's not incest (I suggest it might be mere inbreeding marriage instead of taboo incest) For more distant degrees of relation, the role of custom and law is much more important.  In some traditions first cousin marriage is considered (actual incest?) incestuous, in others it's encouraged and normal.  In the medieval Catholic church, marriage with anyone who is a seventh cousin or nearer was technically forbidden by canon law. But dispensations were readily available, and marriages among as close relations as uncle/niece occurred with a fair degree of regularity among the upper classes (How were these marriages seen by other Catholics?)  So consanguinity laws don't necessarily make for incest.  And also I think there's a certain essential quality to the most basic kinds of incest - parent/child and brother/sister - in that they are so nearly universally taboo that even in those tiny number of societies (where? please show me sources so I can take a look at these exceptions) where they are accepted, the term incest is still normally used.  I think that the basicc definition remains "sexual relations or marriage between close family members."  The definition of "sexual relations" and "close family members" can be flexible, and what the latter means can be defined differently depending on the traditional and legal customs of different societies. john k 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can concur that incest may not always be sexual abuse expecially when it happens in consensual relationships between adults who are knowledgeable about its possible consequences and where it is legal and welcomed by the culture. I also concur on the definition you have proposed as a beginning.  Putting 'incestuous' aside for a minute, I am fine with "sexual relations relations between close family members" for the first part of the definition as long as the definition of "sexual relations" includes all sexual relations forbidden by law, custom or culture (in the stated societies).  "Marriage" seems like a moot point because where marriage is forbidden there would be NO marriage (except with special historical exceptions against the taboo) and where marriage between relatives is considered fine there would be NO incest so I would vote for taking "marriage" out of the definition and covering these special cases in the article as Britannica does.  However, I still believe we must state that incest means "forbidden" sexual relations between close family members and state the common bases for these taboos...as it is clear from all the definitions above that the forbidden or taboo nature of the phemomenom is what makes it incest rather than merely the sexual relations themselves.  I see something like "Sexual relations between people (family members might include stepparents etc so we have to be careful here) who are so closely related that the sexual acts between them are illegal, forbidden by custom, or considered culturally taboo."  Is this definition something you (and other editors) could live with?  If not, how do we address the (taboo, forbidden, illegal by law, custom, or culture) issues that the other definitions deal with and also stay within the historical roots of the term as 'impure' or 'unchaste'? Anacapa 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As to your concerns above about "incestuous sexual abuse (and sex crimes I might add)". I made no such claims in any sections that all incest is always sexual abuse.  Clearly there is a section on incest between adults that these RARE cases (sibling marriages of Egyptian pharaohs, or Byron's incestuous relationship with his half-sister (whom he didn't grow up with and only really got to know as an adult)), could be included in with no loss to the article and no inconsistency between sections.  I am quite able to make the distinction between consensual (and also it seems criminal incest) and the kinds of criminal incest/incestuous acts committed against kids...if two ADULT sisters get off on sex with each other far be it from me call that consensual choice abuse even if the law calls it a crime.  (However, I do try to judge for myself how much fun they had and I have never seen a case that I would want to follow myself.)  Thus there was no intent in my content to compare these RARE cases of historical incest with with the far more widespread, well-known and recent incestous priest or other contemporary incestuous sex crimes AT ALL.  If Byron's sexual relations with his half-sister were forbidden or taboo at that time by law, custom or culture they would be considered actual incest, IMHO, as they were HALF-related.  As for 'incestuous', I am trying to make sure there is NO confusion between 'incest' and 'incestuous' by using incest for sex between BLOOD relations and using 'incestuous' for incestuous acts between Fathers (priests) and other adults/professionals who exercise parental type roles but WHO HAVE NO BLOOD bonds or legal relations with their dependents. (The lawyers could help us on stepparents I suspect) I am aiming all content I add about 'incestuous' sexual relations at your definition (meaning "Improperly intimate or interconnected," according to dictionary.com,) which says nothing about relatives.  I am using incest to define all forbidden, taboo and/or illegal sexual relations between BLOOD relatives...so that all we have to know about Byron's half-sister sex and the paroah's sibling marriages is whether they were taboo/forbidden/illegal or not to decide whether they were incest or not...and so we do not confuse related 'incest' with 'incestuous' sexual crimes or abuse between NON-Related people. Can you concur with these usages of 'incest' vs 'incestous' or do you have other usages that make more sense, or tighter distinctions and that are based on firm sourced foundations rather than our personal opinions?Anacapa 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of adding questions/comments to your last paragraph above as there are so many issues in it. I intend these as clarifications/comments/questions recognising that this is a terribly complex topic.  I also want to make distinctions between your (and my personal) opinions about this topics versus how they are handled by the literature/law or other researchers so that we keep going back to professional sources to decide key issues.   Please address any of these issues that you feel are unaddressed by my last discussions. I want to try to come to some sort of consensus on the definition of 'incest' and the usages of 'incest' vs 'incestous' so we can scope the whole article's content with a single standard that is professional, balanced, complete and NPOV rather than with our personal opinions.  We seem to be getting a little closer to some common language.  Let's keep trying.Anacapa 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The sociological and anthropological definitions above are in substance identical. That (sociological/anthropological) definition begs the question as to what constituted "sexual" (in some societies, for example, fellatio does not) and what constitutes family (in some societies, a father's sister is not). I agree that the discussion of this body of literature should be distinguished from research within a particular culture, whether by psychologists, medical doctors, or lawyers, and add that it doesn't surprise me that each group would have its own views. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I understand you correctly that some societies do not consider fellatio to be 'sexual'? Could you provide some sources for how those societies handle the term 'sexual' so I/we can see what you mean here?  As for 'family', I suggest we replace 'family' in the definition with 'people' as shown below to eliminate this possible source of confusion.  Science, and medicine, and often law are somewhat culture independent so I am confused about what you mean by 'distinguished from research within a particular culture'.  Could you be specific about how you see how we should handle what, how, here? Anacapa 03:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Below is the most recent proposal for a definition of incest based on editor JohnK's and my discussions above. Is it sufficiently specific yet universal enough to include all known forms of incest in the world? If there are cases of incest that fall outside this definition how do we modify the definition to include them?

"Sexual relations between people who are so closely related that the sexual acts between them are illegal, forbidden by custom, and/or considered culturally taboo"

I imagine we can show all the key distinctions and differences between societies in the article but IMO we need a complete definition to 'begin' the article with. Is this definition complete, balanced and NPOV enough for all editors to use? Anacapa 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey of the literature on incest
I did a quick count of the first 250 titles on Amazon that came up on "incest" search. There were a few repetitions and I did a quick classification so this survey is in no way perfect. However, it did show that the vast preponderance of literature on this subject is from the counseling professions and the survivors themselves. This suggests that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, sex researchers and the survivors themselves are most responsible for the recent explosion of titles on this taboo topic. The titles themselves also suggest that these authors might (by facing the incest horror head on) have many things to say about incest that other disciplines are unable or unwilling to say. I was surprised to see so few titles from anthropology or sociology and there were no titles by biologists. However, incest does seem to be a fascinating topic in literature, religion, history and law. Here is the breakdown of the first 250 titles which Amazon seems to rank by sales:

Anacapa 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 90 titles or 36%---Psychology/Sex Research/Counseling
 * 53 titles or 21%---Survivors or Survivors's Relatives' Stories
 * 35 titles or 14%---Literature
 * 17 titles or 7%---Religion
 * 10 titles or 4%---Law
 * _8 titles or 3%---History
 * _6 titles or 2%---General
 * _5 titles or 2%---Antrophology
 * _4 titles or 2%---Politics
 * _1 title or .4%---Sociology
 * 15 titles or 6%---Others


 * Are you a Scientologist? --mboverload 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not no but HELL NO! Anacapa 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incestuous sexual relations by non-related adults in responsible roles
This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. Sexual predation by priests, nuns, rabbis or other religious authorities against childhood parishioners, by teachers against students, by therapists against clients, and by a host of other authorities against people in dependent roles is seen by therapists as incestuous in nature, although not in form.[citation needed] As a host of media stories on the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, show, the consequences to children are similar to those associated with parent-child incest (see Effects of Incest below.)

In the interest of maintaining the peace, I am going to hold back on replacing this section into the article until we have some consensus on the article's definition and other scope issues. To those editors that pulled this because it 'isn't incest' I ask that they use a single standard for this whole article as applying this standard to the whole article would mean that much other content associated with but far more clearly NOT actually incest would be deleted too. I will go pull in the sources and discuss this before putting in back but I insist on a reasonable discussion before future reverts so these reverts are not done on a PERSONAL POV basis. I am quite aware of the politically loaded nature of this ugly, well-known, and taboo topic so I question wholesale deletions on the basis that this is somehow unrelated to incestuous conduct...expecially when there is so much other content here that seems to be even much less related to incest itself. I insist that those editors who have a problem with this section at least be decent enough to discuss their concerns in a fair-minded, balanced NPOV way. I also insist that consensus standards be used that apply to the whole article rather than a few so-called 'problem' POV sections. I am willing to toss whole sections on the basis of some reasonable criteria but hate being bullied because some editors MIGHT have a personal problem with some content that hits a little to close to home, here and now. Anacapa 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychological POV about incest
Many editors seem to have personal opinions about how psychologists approach incest and especially as to how psychologists relate incest to family roles. I am no psychologist but I have read hundreds of psychological tracts on the topic. From what I have seen, just as biologists come at incest from inbreeding or evolution, many research psychologists come at it from family systems theory, trauma theory, interpersonal choice theory, and various theories about sexual relations. It is important to distinguish these approaches from those of gender-politics, philosophy (or morality), anthropology, sociology, law, religion or whatever. When I glance at the almost absurd attempts by all the various disciplines to define, classify and establish cause and effect theories on rape it is clear to me that incest research faces even more quandaries as it is much more socially taboo than even rape. Like rape research the cutting edge in incest research seems to be classifying all the heretofore hidden forms of incest such as father-son, mother-son, and mother daughter and covert incest. There have been many books on the traumas incest cause with a few that begin to systematically describe the systems/context within which incest occurs. Those researchers I have read who focus on the systemic aspects of incest usually pull in research on family systems that show distinctions between functional and disfunctional families as the basis for defining what is incest/incestous and what it is not, as basis for showing the effects of incest and as a foundation for suggesting the root causes of incest. Salvador Minuchin is one example of a family systems theorist that some incest authors use to make their cases with. As Pat Love states in Emotional Incest Syndrome "One of his key observations is that in healthy families there is a clear separation between adults and children. ....the adults and children are kept apart by an invisible boundary (in overt incest they would be kept apart by a VISIBLE boundary too, I imagine). This boundary can be likened to a one-way valve. It allows the adults to meet the needs of the children, but prevents the children from meeting the needs of the adults."  The distinction between those family systems that seem to establish respectful, loving, and supportive boundaries and those that seem to induce boundary violations, enmeshments and incest is key to understanding the family systems approach to incest. I hope this clarifies some of the concerns some editors had with the 'family role' POV I came from when I added the Types content. Anacapa 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Types section cleanup
I added sources to the Covert Incest subsection and attempted to address a number of concerns about who classified this as covert incest (and when) with specifics. I also added some social-cultural context so that it makes more sense to those unfamiliar with covert incest and so flows well with what happens in Overt incest. I also moved effects content down where it belongs in the Effects section. Finally I added statements on the law so that covert incest is shown as a new and different form of incest that has not yet become illegal as the law has yet to weigh in here.

In Overt incest, I moved Effects content down to effects and moved Definitional type content up from effects. I also made a number of other minor changes and cleanup for flow or clarification.

All these cleanups were to address previous editors concerns and to surface remaining areas of dispute or POV. There were NOT intended to make a statement about the continuing issues some editors have about the Covert incest definition/section ITSELF. That is an ongoing issue that still has to be resolved. Please refrain from major reverts of this content until we have some consenses on the definition of 'incest', the usage of 'incestuous' and the term 'covert incest'. I welcome comments/suggestions on all these changes however. Anacapa 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Adams/incestuous debate
I'm suprised at the amount of discussion over use of the word incestuous. Wouldn't it be simpler to avoid this word with regards to those relationships that are clearly not defined as incest?
 * I am simply struggling for clarity here. I am familiar with 'incestuous' activities in business, political and military settings the involve no sexual connotations. I am trying to separate incest (as defined by law, custom or culture) from all OTHER kinds of 'incestuous' activities related to but not actually defined as incest. To me, incest is incest rather than 'incestous' and 'incestuous' is incestuous rather than incest. Given how many types of incest or incestuous acts there are to describe I see these distinctions as essential to prevent enormous confusion about what is defined as what.  That is why I am discussing this, observing other POVs about this usage and attempting to find some consensus.  To me this 'incestous' definition/usage discussion has much more to do with Incestuous sexual abuse by people in other Responsible Roles than it does with a debate over how the professional decided to define covert incest.Anacapa 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ken Adams uses the word incestuous to mean "like incest". He is implying similarities between RC child abuse and parent-child incest; therefore the context is clear (and unacceptable). On the other hand, if Ken Adams means incestuous as in "improperly intimate or interconnected" then it is a simple matter to use alternative adjectives and avoid the controversy completely.


 * I am holding a copy of Adams' Silently Seduced in my hand right now. As far as I can see Adams does not use 'incestuous' at all.  He uses 'incest' to define both overt and covert incest.  He is defining a NEW TYPE of incest which he, Pat Love and other professionals call covert, or emotional or psychological incest.  To me incestuous is either overt or covert conduct that would be (overt or covert) incest between relatives but that involve no relatives and therefore cannot be directly defined as actual incest.  Does this clear things up at all?

If you refer to the edits I made at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases I believe you will find they are not the end of the world. The link to similar situations (this article) can be pointed out without causing such controversy.


 * Look, this is far from the end of the world to me. I am not Catholic, I have no special emnity toward Catholics and my people do far worse things than the Catholics were caught doing.  I used the Catholic sex cases because this scandal is so well-known is all.  I wish I could use my people and other groups here, as well, but they have been more successful than the Catholics were about silencing these criminal controversies.  I will point out though that the perpetrators of these crimes and those authorities (cardinals and bishops etc) who cover up such crimes are the people who commit the crimes and indeed cause the controversies.  To accuse me of 'causing such a controversy' when all I did is point to what is well known as a HUGE and ONGOING controversy in the press seems false to me.


 * If we are unable to use such widespread examples here, what example(s) CAN we use to show this type of incestuous conduct in human scale? I know a father who was Catholic and who had a son raped by a priest, who successfully fights this kind of silencing every day in the press.  When we silence such terrible crimes to make a few criminals comfortable we do terrible damage to the victims of these crimes.  However, thanks for stating your POV here.  I will be glad to work with you to make sure this is fair to all groups.  However, IMHO encyclopedias need to show all such controversies well so I ask that you put aside what seems (from these comments only) to be a personal POV need to censor this controversy...in the interest of complete, balanced NPOV content here.  Can you do that? Anacapa 02:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be understood that definitions both generalize and limit their usage. If incest were absurdly defined as "improper relations between relatives who have blue eyes" then as a consequence relatives who did not have blue eyes would be excluded. It would not matter that the definition were useless or absurd; only that it be properly interpreted for use in Wikipedia. Pendragon39 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I, for one, understand this. It is quite clear from a glance at the dictionary/encyclopedia attempts at a definition and Brittanica's comments is that incest is a particularly difficult topic to define clearly.  However, IMHO no single editor gets to define what is HIS or HER so-called 'proper' or what is an opposite so-called 'absurd' definition.  When in doubt, I ask that we go to the professional sources and state their definitions along with any professional challenges to those definitions.  This is not an topic where personal opinions can be allowed to rule because it is so loaded, taboo and politically incorrect to even discuss in public.  Your points above explain exactly why I want to attain some sort of complete, balanced and NPOV consenses on definitions and usages of 'incest' and 'incestuous' in this article.  I want to prevent endless edit wars over terminology, have a basis from which to scope the article well and by all means give WIKIPEDIA readers a more professional take on it than some other very sloppy encyclopedias do.  I do respect Brittannica but it is clear that even Brittanica is way behind the times on this TABOO topic.  What is indeed, absurd to me is a comparision of the other encyclopedias' articles.  I hope we can do better here. Anacapa 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anacapa, I think it will be simpler for me to just go ahead and edit what I believe is wrong, when the missing section is returned. Pendragon39 00:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. All I ask is that you be specific about what you believe is wrong versus what you see as a 'cause of controversy'. I can handle the 'wrong' stuff but the POV stuff needs to be stated as POV stuff please so we keep things straight here.Anacapa 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide news articles on incest from Proquest database

 * I don't think it's lawful to quote such large sections of articles word for word.--Anchoress 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that too. However since this is a discussion page and since some of these articles from Southeast Asia would probably be hard for other editors to access I added the full content.  There is no intention here to use this content verbatim in the article itself.  I do plan to add some of the titles to the reference section though with full attribution.  If there is a WIKI policy against such use of mass media articles in the discussion pages please point me to it.  I will be glad to delete anything that is actually illegal once I know it is indeed illegal. Anacapa 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but from what I understand of copyright law, it's not so much whether or not it's wiki policy, it's just the law. I don't think it makes a difference whether it's on an article or talk page, it's an unauthorised publication. But I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I understand of the law.--Anchoress 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it is wiki policy to abide by copyright law on the content pages. I have no idea what the law has to say about using these articles for discussions this way.  If it is illegal and therefore out of WIKI policy to use these articles for discussions here, I'd ask editors who know more than we do to weigh in here. Anacapa 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyvios are not acceptable anywhere. The original article can be found here.Geni 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info Geni. I was pretty sure I knew the law but I didn't want to step on another editor's feet.--Anchoress 06:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both editors above for this lesson. Thanks to Geni for linking one of the original articles. I will go see whether it is possible to link the others to as they seem to create a NPOV context for discussion of this taboo and quite loaded topic.Anacapa 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Semantic guidelines
Definitions of "incestuous" from Dictionary.com []Anacapa 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "incestuous" from Merriam-Webster [] Pendragon39 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentdragon39's guidelines:

1. Avoid describing non-incest relationships as incestuous. Describe them as similar and provide a link to the related article, if there is one.

2. Avoid definiton 3 from Dictionary.com that defines "improperly intimate or inter-connected" as incestuous. Adultery would be incestuous (according to definition 3), but not according to definitions 1 and 2. As this is an article based upon what is/is not defined as incest, the use of 'incestuous' in the context of definition 3 only serves to confuse the issue.

3. If Covert Parental Incest is an accepted term, then:

- it is a form of incest, so incestuous can be used to describe it.

- it implies that Incest is either (Overt) Incest; or an inclusive term containing all specified forms of incest.

I will edit out inappropriate usage as best I can. Wikipedians can then decide if those edits should be kept. Pendragon39 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are these imposed semantic guidelines or proposed guidelines? If they are proposed, I suggest the following counterproposals:


 * Keep both incest and incestuous conduct in one article (this one) as is being done with the the content in Incest as a metaphor. To create a separate article on incestuous conduct seems repetitive, redundant and ridiculous to me after a glance at the definitions of "incestuous" above.  Move content closely related to incest or content on what is called 'incestuous' but that is not defined as actual incest down to that section and describe it there as 'incestuous'.
 * Define Covert incest as 'incest' unless the professional sources define it otherwise.
 * Describe what is defined as incest as "incest". Refrain, as much as possible, from using 'incestuous' in this article to describe what is indeed incest... to prevent confusion between the usages of 'incest' versus 'incestuous'.
 * Use "incestuous" in this article to describe things 'suggestive of incest', or 'relating to incest as by excessive intimacy' such as Father (priest) sexual abuse of young parishioners etc.
 * Also use "incestuous" in this article to describe relations that are 'improperly intimate or interconnected' as in Pentagon/CIA relations and make the proper distinctions between sexual and non-sexual forms of incestuous 'intimacies'.
 * Be very careful to make distinctions between actual incest and incestuous conduct when faced with cases such as stepparent-stepchild sexual relations. Check with the lawyers as we did with sex between cousins to see what actually constitutes incest in the law before calling this incest.
 * Be very careful not to call cousin-cousin intermarriage/inbreeding incest or incestuous unless it is considered illegal/forbidden or taboo by the culture. The Bedoin have a 65% rate of cousin-cousin inbreeding that seems to be fine to them except for the genetic disorders it causes.  This would be inbreeding but not incest to me.


 * I will wait before making counteredits until I see where you and other editors are on this. I ask that you come to some sort of consensus before deciding what is 'appropriate' for us all. Anacapa 04:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated earlier, I believe it will be simpler to just make the edits if and when the 'non-relatives' section is returned. The semantic guidelines I wrote are the ones I intend to follow.


 * Meanwhile, I'm making edits with regard to legibility and style. Hope they will be acceptable to all concerned... Pendragon39 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not as bad as they say
You will read a lot about incest causing severe emotional trauma in boys when they grow up. I for one haven't experienced this. I come from a somewhat broken home where my father wasn't home half the time. My mother and I started having a relationship when I was about 16. To this day it is the best sex I have ever had in my life. We used to lie in the bathtub for hours and make love to each other. This was about 15 years ago and I have no emotional problems at all nor do I hate my mom. We still fool around every once in a while but not as much as we used to. I'm just glad I had the courage to go through with it and take a chance for two reasons. 1) I would still be thinking about what could have been to this day and 2) my mom is unbelievable in the bedroom. Mothers have unbelievable passion for their sons and it comes out in a big way during sex.
 * That's hot --mboverload 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To all those editors who come from a POV similar to the boy/man above...I welcome all points of view here. Could such a 'positive' or 'hot' POV (about mother-son) incest be sourced in the professional literature somewhere so we can show this POV in this article on the basis of facts.  If incest indeed does create 'happy-ever-after' situations (on a long term basis) we need to show this here too.  Anacapa 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a book a couple of years ago by a woman who had a long-term consentual relationship with her father. I'm too lazy to look it up, but it might make a good addition here. It's not exactly "professional literature", but at least it's verifiable. :-) What we really need is for Peter Singer to start looking into this....

Questions and comment
Questions: 1. At what point is it appropriate to archive a talk page? 2. Parent-child friendship as Covert incest? 3. What is your source material for the claim that incest is legal in france (under the heading consentual adult incest)? Covert incest violates the child with demands to be a spouse, a covert lover, a parent, an intimate confidant and/or a friend, or to fulfill other roles that are obligations of the parent or the parent's spouse. Please clarify why friendship is included.

Comment: I'm not happy with the format of Wiki's talk pages. I don't like having to scour an entire talk page to locate a reply to a previous posting :( Pendragon39 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incest as a topic in fiction
I propose this part be merged with the Fiction section. There is also some duplication when mentioning examples of Japanese anime/hentai. Pendragon39 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely should be. Repetitious, and doesn't belong under laws/mores anyway.  Goldfritha 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, did some rearranging and merging. All references to fiction now in the same sub-section. I thought there were sufficient anime references so I removed a few: Oldboy(Korean), Marmalade Boy, Super Taboo / Super Taboo Extreme Pendragon39 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Effects of similar forms of child abuse
There is a scientific consensus that abuse from adults in parental roles carry the same psychological consequences as abuse from blood relatives. This includes abuse from step-parents and foster parents as well as from persons in positions of authority or long-term care. See 'Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals' Pendragon39 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Persia/Zoroastrianism?
Anyone know anything about incest in ancient Persia or as part of Zoroastrianism? I've read scattered references in a few places to incest as a sacred rite under some forms of Zoroastrianism, but have had no luck tracking down reliable information on the subject. One website refers to it as "hvaźtvōdatha", but it's the only site to do so, so I have no idea whether this is at all accurate. (I have vague recollections of another impossible-to-spell word's being used in one of the other sources I've read, possibly one which started with "xv", but have been unable to find any trace of it online.) Anyway, if this is true, it would make an interesting addition to the history section.

Jolie
Angelina and her brother passionatly kissed. Did they commit further incest? Did anyone say? Or is that a mystery.

A random question
Ok, so this article talks about incest and how damaging it is and how it can be seen as abuse. But what if, like in the Virginia Andrews book Flowers in the Attic, and the sequels, a brother and sister or something just fall in love and have a loving relationship. And stay that way? And what if they arent emotionally damaged? Because the characters in that book were messed up, granted, but they didnt seem as messed up as a direct result of their incest thing. (and they had children and they were perfect. But that's because it's Virginia Andrews). Is it possible to have an incestuous relationship and not be totally screwed up? I mean you must have something not right to want to do that in the first place but...oh im not making any sense. I need to stop reading Virginia Andrews books.