Why We Need an Incest Taboo
Albert Mohler weighs in on the incest controversy that we have already discussed on this blog. I want to add one point that I haven’t seen anyone raise. People seem to think that the “ick” factor is not significant because it cannot be entirely explained on rational grounds. (Mohler’s quote from Wm. Saletan is to this effect.)
But we should not entirely dismiss the “ick” factor. To say that incest is “icky” is to say that it is unthinkable. That is what taboos are supposed to do: take a given behavior off the table, to make that behavior completely unworthy of consideration by any decent person.
Why? Because if people start asking themselves, “gee, would sex with my father really be so harmful in this particular case?” or “could I get away with sex with my daughter in this particular case?” they will find cases where they could convince themselves that it isn’t really harmful and they could get away with it. (And just because an individual has convinced himself that “it isn’t really too harmful” in his case, that doesn’t at all prove that an objective observer would agree. People have a universal tendency to let themselves off the hook. Every sensible person knows this.) Then, without an “ick” factor, and with no reason not to do it, with low probability of getting caught, they will go ahead and do it.
A social order is built upon people restraining themselves from taking advantage of every situation for anti-social behavior where they might get away with it. That is the job that a functioning conscience performs in a properly socialized person. And that element of self-restraint means that people can live together with lower probability of being harmed by others, because the Others who have the opportunity to harm them, don’t even think about it. It doesn’t even cross their minds.
Incest is precisely the kind of crime that is extremely difficult to detect inside the home. All the freedoms that allow a family to operate in private work against detecting predatory behavior of the strong against the weak, by the adult generation against the younger generation. The privacy of the home presents many opportunities for undetected sexual exploitation. Any protective system the government might try to establish would almost certainly be inadequate. The primary deterrent against exploitation has to be the “ick” factor: the thought of having sex with a child or a parent is so revolting that it doesn’t even occur to the vast, vast majority of adults.
I know that some people believe the family is inherently exploitive. Well, if that is your view, all I have to say is that you ain’t seen nothing yet! Try living in a society without a functioning incest taboo. Then, you’ll see exploitation that will make your head swim.
I made the general argument about conscience development in my book Love and Economics (which BTW, didn’t have a single word about same sex marriage or incest or polyamory or all the other things we are obsessed with these days.) A free society depends on the vast majority of people having well-functioning consciences. Conscience development depends on children having a good first year. Hence, a free society depends on mothers and fathers taking personal loving care of their children.
Hence, my interest in the family and in marriage.
PS you can get
Loading ...
I loved “Love and Economics”! And I love this blog. I’m going through and reading all the archived posts. Although I was already strongly rooted in my beliefs (which match up with the Ruth Institute), I feel much more strengthened and knowledgeable now; I have better amo in conversations. Keep up the good work!
thanks RR! Merry Christmas!
Are we in danger of losing our “incest taboo”?
“Hence, a free society depends on mothers and fathers taking personal loving care of their children.”
This seems like a bit of a stretch. How is freedom dependent on parenting situations or skills? Sounds good, but also sounds like a touchy-feely platitude, lacking evidence.
The fact that incest is even up for discussion shows how far the moral relativism of our age has left us. Adultery is wrong. Period. Polygamy is wrong. Period. Incest is wrong. Period.
Rape is wrong. Period. But were are fast approaching a point where “anything goes.”
The truth is moral relativism is a great evil because it makes possible so many other evils.
Of course, even those who profess a soft moral relativism are forced to admit exceptions; stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong, cheating is wrong.
Incest is taboo because it is harmful to children and harmful to society.
I do not believe in divorce personally but I admit it must exist in law because not everyone has the same belief in sacramental marriage as I do. But the ideal of marriage between one man and one woman for life is still believed in by most Americans. But divorce cannot be put in the same category as incest or so-called Gay Marriage because divorce is tied to the concept of monogamy and the idea that adultery is wrong. We accept divorce because polygamy is not morally acceptable and we recognize that adultery could make any marriage intolerable. Divorce is morally acceptable when one or both parties breaks the marriage convenant or if one of the parties, for example, no longer feels safe in the relationship. So divorce is sad and often tragic because people sometimes cannot live up to their promises and the ideal of “till death do us part.” But divorce is not a perversion though it may be harmful to chlldren and society; it is viewed as a necessary escape clause so as to avoid GREATER EVILS and GREATER SUFFERING when there are “irreconcilable differences.”
Incest ,by contrast, IS a perversion: it is a deviant, harmful, abnormal behavior. Incest is always wrong; I think it one of the most horrible evils a parent could inflict on a child next to selling that child off into slavery (which was very common in Greco-Roman times).
There is a reason that incest is taboo; the reason is it is morally reprehensible and unacceptable to a civilized society. A free and just society knows the weak and the innocent (such as children) must be protected and nurtured not exploited and abused.
Some people want to justify not only homosexual sex but also incest and bisexual sex because there ARE people who practicise incest or homosexuality; but they are not content with tolerance of their private perversion now they want public acceptance, official public acceptance and the right to choose their gender which I find very bizarre.
I remember the 1960’s when homosexual behavior was criminalized in most Western countries (still). There were many who felt there were moral objections to this and so most people (especially elites) supported the end of laws which made homosexual activity unlawful. Homosexuality was still, then, regarded by most churches and most educated people as a great moral evil but it was thought that people who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits would no longer be treated as criminals. Most believed this would be the end of the matter. But it wasn’t.
After the Griswold Case (how far we have come from the idea of “marital privacy”!!!) essentially we are moving closer to the view that anything goes -anything at all- as long as no one dies and the sex is consensual. Even a concept as simple as “the age of consent” has become muddied.
Now we have demands for so-called absolute gender “equality” and of course some want privileges also such as the right to marry across the gender lines and thus transform the meaning of the word marriage itself Now the Gay Lobby has won another victory with the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. But it remains to be seen if a relaxing of standards in the mlitary will help morale or combat readiness. It is interesting the notes that the soldiers and Marines most sceptical (and unhappy) about the change are in combat arms. The establishment thinks the abolition of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will help recruitment and retention. They may find it has just the opposite effect.
What is lost in this demand for “equal rights” for the individual is the common good of society as a whole, the good of families and children.
It is good sense to know that children should be protected and that families should be protected.
A just and free society can tolerate pockets of hedonistic non-producers and hangers on but a just and free society cannot long endure unless it has a healthy community life at the neighborhood and family level.
In fact, a society which does not protect the family is a society that does not deserve to be defended and a society that is committing sexual and social suicide.
Incest is wrong because it is offensive and harmful to the raising and education of youth. Incest is wrong because it undermines marriage. Incest is wrong because it is harmful to society as well as harmful to innocent individuals who ought to feel safe, loved and protected in their family circle. Incestuous parents or relatives were once seen as monsters whose behavior was unspeakable and unacceptable to a civilized society.
But perhaps we are closer to a world where incest is just another “private choice” and “alternative lifestyle.”
by the way LOVE AND ECONOMICS is a wonderful book and I highly recommend it.
Wow, Richard Munro, way to throw a whole lot of stuff into one place.
1. Homosexuality is a normal form of sexual orientation, as is heterosexuality. Incest is a completely separate topic
2. Repealing of DADT is the right thing to do. Gays and lesbians are already fighting and dying for this country. Repealing DADT merely allows them to do it openly, to allow their significant other to visit them if injured, and to not be a security risk. As for those in “combat arms”, since when do we allow soldiers to VOTE on what they want to do? Do you think the army would have racially integrated if the soldiers could have voted?
@Sean
Sean, that conclusion, which you think is touchy feely, is based on a lot of research. Attachment theory is a highly developed branch of family studies and psychology. The claim that conscience development is related to attachment is well established in that field of study. The absence of a conscience is one symptom of attachment disorder, and this too, is a widely accepted fact among specialists. The absence of maternal love is the most common cause of attachment disorder, which is a pretty scary disorder.
I give a lot of references to this in Love and Economics. I discuss it more in my second book, Smart Sex. By that time, I had learned more about brain development. Check out those books, and the references, and you will see I’m not just making up touchy feely stuff.
So where’s your conscience when it comes to the needs and rights of same-sex families? You know these families, and their children, would be better off if they could marry. Why are you ok with undermining them?
How about the issue of sibling marriage, or parent-child marriage? And, is that the same question as sibling procreation, or parent-child procreation?
I’ve come across many instances of anthropoligists and biologists writing about “cousin marriage” from a purely procreative standpoint, as though it was the same question. And indeed, it is the same question, because marriage always approves and allows and expects the spouses to procreate together. We should not separate them, by suggesting that a marriage can be prohibited from procreating, or that we can allow a couple to procreate but still prohibit them from marrying.
It is very interesting how everyone ran away from discussing the intersection of incest and marriage. Not just on this blog, but virtually everywhere where this case was discussed.
I think Sean has questioned whether IVF or artificial insemination using siblings sperm and eggs would be illegal incest or perfectly legal. I think he’s right that according to the letter of the law, it would be perfectly legal, but it’s worth noting that even the PlanetHospital guy refused to help facilitate it. We should be able to interpret the law broadly enough to recognize that procreation is never allowed when sex is prohibited, and punish intentional incestuous procreation even more strongly than intimate contact.
Anyone want to address incestuous marriage?
“A free society depends on the vast majority of people having well-functioning consciences.”
Long live the “ick” factor.
Some are mired in perversion to the extent that it seems acceptable to them..
People who don’t even know perversity when they see it should not be making public policy.
The SSM idea rejects the sexual basis for a line against incestuous marriage. SSMers might wish society would arbitrarily support the line, but their argumentation cannot sustain justification for it.
I’m shocked at the number of internet forums i’ve found lately regarding incestuous affairs and people wishing to have incestuous affairs,with siblings mostly differing in age by only a few years.not porn sites or fictional stories about sex but real posts regarding real situations and desires/mostly teens and preteens in the age range of 12-17 years old.many post of wanting to have an affair or are in the middle of being in an affair or had an affair with another family member.i was shocked at how common this seems to be and how so many seem to feel it’s normal and quite clearly comment about it as being normal.when someone posts a reply defining the actions as being sick or immoral the perv merely replies that morals are nothing more than someone’s opinion. i’m beginning to believe that the younger generation today is simply dysfunctional and possessed by sex. as said,i’m shocked at how common this is today and believe me i don’t shock very easily/.
@Dennis Teel
The older generation (the children of the “greatest generation” – I’m not sure how that works) have set this generation up with sappy “if it feels good, do it” morality.
But, Dennis, take heart. There are some godly, strong and courageous young men and women coming down the pike.