1. A breach or rent; a breaking forth into a loud, shrill sound.
2. An harangue; a long tirade on any subject.
3. A record of her attempt to climb out of writer's block
and this bothers you why? is it because of the children?
um, because it's INCEST.
but they're two consenting adults. in the privacy of their own home.
i know what you're doing and it won't wash.cultural taboos against threats to the human gene pool is a lot more rational than a socially relative 'taboo' against gay sex because it goes against a moral code.
andrew sullivan has a very nice rebuttal to the gambit JC just tried. (he explains rhetoric better than i ever could!)go here: http://www.slate.com/id/3642/entry/23844/good try, though!
so if they didn't have biological children and just adopted, it would be ok?
i think JC is being facetious.she's trying to make a point equating gay marriage/gay sex with incest.it's along the same lines of santorum's gay marriage=bestiality argument a year ago, or so.
well i'll be dipped! the post i wrote didn't show up! crappity crap as the saying goes. here's the deal and i'm not trying to be facetious - truly. once upon a time, homosexuality was socially and morally taboo. now-a-days, not so much. perhaps incest is now where homosexuality once was. minus the children -that's spooky. but say there's a couple who want to hook up and are not going to have children. what's the rub in that scenario? and no, i'm not on crack. . . .
i have a hard time figuring out if you're really serious about following this chain of thought all the way to the end.
of course i'm being serious. i don't have time to fritter away playing around. i'm truly interested in your thoughts. do tell.
no...this time, i wanna know how your thoughts are going about this. it's too easy for me to sort of step in and control the direction, so let me know what you're thinking, instead.i'm all aflutter at how this is going to go!
argh. i've already said what i thought. sans children, why isn't it okay for two consenting adults to hook up? whether it be two men; two women; or a brother and sister (or to make it really interesting, two brothers. . .)
In general, the incest taboo is still current not just because of the ancient "blood" issues (i.e. consider the offspring), but because it's a blurring/violation of psychological boundaries and (especially if it's a parent or guardian figure) a serious abuse of power.Personally, after reading that story, I'm a lot less creeped out by it than I was by, say, the Woody Allen/Soon Yi business. And no, I don't think the law should be coming into it, here. It does sound like they hit one of those odd loopholes; for all intents and purposes they were not actually siblings.Again, I'd be a lot more bothered by people who'd had the familial -relationship-, whether blood-related or not, who then turned it sexual; particularly, again, if it were a parent figure with the son/daughter.Sibling stuff I guess doesn't hit me on as much of a gut level, possibly because I am an only child and don't feel the "squick" on as visceral a level.but generally, the reason people apply the term "incestuous" casually to say o i don't know, really hidebound little cliques, ought to be a clue as to the other reason why this is problematic: keeping it "all in the family," as it were, tends to be not so hot psychologically & socially speaking, whether or not actual sex is involved; it tends to make people...odd.but as per this particular story: provided there isn't actual abuse going on, I don't really think it's any of the government's business; and in fact I think that what they're doing to intervene may well be more disruptive than anything else. if they were to find say the parental figure having sex with a child whom sie's been given guardianship, then that to me is very VERY different: throw the book at 'em.
that was very cogent - more cogent than anything i could say.
okay -so the concern is for the psychological impact brother / sister "relations" could have on the participants. there are psyschological implications for every physically intimate relationship. but let's just get to my point. why is it okay to have homosexual relations but not any other type that you deem "inappropriate"?
see?!i knew you were being completely disingenuous. it's an unfair way to argue and i'm, actually, sort of pissed off that you aren't honest enough to say that's exactly what you're arguing. and even though you totally threw up the incest thing as a coy rhetorical screen, i'll tell you why it's not ok to argue what you are, ostensibly, arguing:rhetorically, you're calling homosexuality the slippery slope of deviant behavior, i.e., if one accepts homosexuality as normal then one must also accept incest/bestiality/pedophilia/insert whatever gross thing here. in other words, you're erasing any differences between each 'condition' (is pedophilia = bestiality? or incest = necrophilia?) and you're starting from the position that being gay is not 'normal' when there is increasing evidence that sexual orientation is like skin color or gender - it IS because it IS.why not say, then, that being gay is like practicing cannibalism or forcing your child to live in a cage or that it's like saying slavery is ok? or that those of us who think being gay is normal are also fighting for incest, slavery, child abuse? clearly, advocating for gay rights is NOT the same as advocating for those things. so it's a false, reactionary scale you're building.if you're arguing that, relatively speaking (as in morally relative), that two women who love each other or even just like each other and date are the same as a father sexually abusing his child, then you're going to have to make that argument. don't wait for me to make the intellectual argument for you - how is it the same? and if you think about it, you will find that the very argument you avoid making is hollow: it's significant that, after millions of years, there are a number of us who love and accept gay people as equal to us (because they are), while all those icky things you think being gay leads to aren't so tolerated. so, again, a false equation. in other words, if the fates of incest/pedophilia/slavery/bestiality were so tied together (one the same as the other), one would expect they would enjoy the same kind of social status or attention. but again, clearly that is not the case. and, again, your implied argument is empty.but to your question (that you should have just come out with instead of making me go through all this): why is it ok to have unrelated, homosexual relations? because it's no different from having unrelated, heterosexual relations.
this sentence:"in other words, if the fates of incest/pedophilia/slavery/bestiality were so tied together (one the same as the other), one would expect they would enjoy the same kind of social status or attention"was supposed to read:"in other words, if the fates of homosexuality and incest/pedophilia/slavery/bestiality were so tied together (one the same as the other), one would expect they would enjoy the same kind of social status or attention."
first and foremost, i was not trying to be disengenuous. when i raised my initial question 14 posts ago i went on the assumption that you would recognize my question for what it was (re homosexuality). if i was trying to be coy that would have been a complete waste of time - a waste of coyness -and that's nothing to waste. so your pissy-ness is misplaced and should be reeled back in from whence it came. slow your roll girl! dang!second- i need to put my children to bed and then i'll be back ;)
Okay – I’ve finally read through your whole post here and there is no need to be so vituperative.Your suggestion “why not say, then, that being gay is like practicing cannibalism or forcing your child to live in a cage or that it's like saying slavery is ok? or that those of us who think being gay is normal are also fighting for incest, slavery, child abuse?” is a stretch beyond all reasonable comprehension. I’m really not sure how my comments could be construed in such a fashion.OK - what moron would suggest that homosexual relations could be compared to a father sexually abusing his daughter? And please don’t sit there and say, “you’re the moron”. I repeatedly used the word “consenting adults” and a father sexually abusing his daughter is totally not okay.This comment: “there are a number of us who love and accept gay people as equal to us (because they are), while all those icky things you think being gay leads to aren't so tolerated.” Is completely out of bounds. Don’t make assumptions about what I believe and think – you know nothing about what I think. I love and accept gay people; I know gay people; I’m related to gay people – I’m not some freak from children of the corn out here, you know. That “there’s a number of us who love” is a nice stinging smack which is completely undeserved. How in the world do you think I treat gay people anyway? And what’s with “all those icky things you think being gay leads to”? until this very moment I didn’t think being gay lead to anything. Hello hostile nice to meet you. I will agree that the implied argument is empty because it’s not my implied argument. I am not making leaps and bounds from a brother and sister in germany to bestiality and pedophilia. Re “to the question you should have just come out with instead of making me go through all this): why is it ok to have unrelated, homosexual relations?”. That wasn’t my question. And if it was my question, I would have worded it thusly: “why do you think it is ok to have unrelated, homosexual relations?” and why is the word “unrelated” popping up?Anyway. . . here is my original question: why is someone getting their ire up if two ADULTS are sexually involved in a CONSENTING, PRIVATE relationship? Does it all of a sudden matter that they’re brother and sister? (please remember I said sans children). And if it does matter that they’re brother and sister, why? I am not interested in bestiality/pedophilia/necrophilia et al and I am not saying that homosexuality is the same as any of the aforementioned activities. I read the article on the german couple and asked the question. Two parting thoughts, (1) heterosexual relations are clearly different from homosexual relations –just from a mechanical standpoint and (2) why are you so stinkin’ crabby. I could save my hide if I hung out at churchgal but instead I choose to get clobbered every time I open my mouth on screed. And I didn’t even use a bible verse – I was afraid your head might explode. That would be messy ;)
JC, as much as i like our exchanges, i'm calling you out on being disingenuous because you are.way up thread i called it and you denied it: 'no, i really want to discuss incest and cultural taboo!' no, you didn't. you wanted to talk about incest as a cover for talking about cultural tolerance of homosexuality even though there is nothing similar about the two at all. apple meet orange. incest is the violation of a filial bond; being gay is...what? what bond is being broken when you're born gay?that's an old, tired gambit from the conservative right and i'm not going to play into it.yes, i lost my temper and i apologize for that. but you're the one who pushed it, wanting my thoughts when i made it pretty clear i thought your attempt to equate homosexuality and incest was bogus. well, you said jump and i jumped. don't protest i jumped too high.i'm glad you know gay people, JC. really. ask them how someone could make the distinction between what happens between a gay couple and what happens in an incestuous relationship - see how they'd like to treat that question. it's clear you don't even believe in the question you're asking and, to me, that smacks of manipulation, a trap. you're asking one thing to make a point about another - just skip all that and make the frakking point.
you said this, JC:"sans children, why isn't it okay for two consenting adults to hook up? whether it be two men; two women; or a brother and sister (or to make it really interesting, two brothers. . .)"that, to me, shows how you're equating homosexuality with incest. that's the logical leap your mind made.(for example: i had a student who said that housing discrimination against blacks was ok since a landlord had a right to ask his tenants not to have dogs. though he may have thought he was making an analogy, he just symbolically linked dogs and black people. problematic.)
i can't believe you think i'm disingenuous. i'm stunned. i don't know what to say. i'm not trying to be crafty. am i wording it incorrectly? i do want to know your thoughts on the cultural taboo against incest and i would then like to compare it to the former cultural taboo against homosexuality and other sexual practices. does that make more sense? is that not what i said?you mention the "violation" of a bond -in my mind if two people are consenting to something, there is no violation. the post that anonymous left re the psychological implications does give me food for thought. i will ask my gay friends the same question as you suggest. apologizing for something and then blaming the person you're apologizing to doesn't hold much water. you're sorry you lost your temper but it's my fault. so actually i'm the one who should be apologizing. next time i post i will be as direct and forthright as my monosyllabic vocabulary will allow.
you don't have to apologize for anything. i'm the one who lost her temper.but, yeah, you're being disingenuous (def: faux-naive, insincere or pretending to be unaware.) Or - you really are naive and unaware. it's hard to tell.i'm going to withhold my thoughts, JC, because your thoughts seem so much more interesting on this subject - and the fact i have no thoughts on the incest taboo. i'm totally fine with it.what are *your* thoughts on cultural taboo, incest and consenting adults?
it's hard to figure out what is culturally taboo - and increasingly so as we become more and more multi-cultural. not that being multi-cultural is a bad thing; it's just a bit of work to accommodate all cultures while not stepping in someone's taboo. so, what makes something taboo to one culture but acceptable to another? how are cultural taboos broken? how do they start? what are the guiding principles? are there any guiding principles? why do i have to put in the word verification 2x these days?
(because word verification blows.)for me, i think these things are agreed on, as a group.like, i don't think prohibitions and taboos (which i think are stronger than prohibitions) can exist without the social body at large agreeing on them as a whole, communally. (even if it's an unsaid agreement.) and at crucial moments, the society is either prompted to reevaluate-or takes it upon itself to reevaluate-if these things should remain so. but it happens over time, so you can't see them actually happening.
using women in the workplace as an example, the taboo used to be against working outside the home. and over the last xx years, has shifted to be acceptable and/or the norm. i'm looking for any safe example here. . .
hmm, i don't consider that really a taboo. i mean, in my definition, a taboo is something that could get you kicked out of the community. working outside of the home is more of a prohibition - it's disapproved but you weren't going to be kicked out the community for it.
okay. how about abortion? and how do you define community?
-sigh.- You know, I posted something that actually did have clear ethical and moral guidelines; you responded to it as though I/we were arguing for complete moral relativism. It's not. ABUSE OF POWER. which causes HARM. -That- is the problem with most cases of incest (parent figure-child particularly). There were a few other things I talked about there, but that is the big one.there were concrete reasons for the taboos on homosexuality, too, same as there were for not eating pork or shellfish. some had to do with "oh, shit, we're gonna die out unless we all concentrate on breeding." More had to do with "we're not like THOSE people, who put everything from pig meat to cock in their mouths without even thinking about it, and worship any old gods; this is how we differentiate ourselves; this is how we define ourselves as "pure;" this is our "brand.""it's also related to maintaining a patriarchal structure; while it is true that there are examples of societies that allow for male-male relations and still maintain a patriarchy/male-dominated society (ancient Sparta, yadda), in this case it interferes with the kind of power structure they're trying to set up. Control, control; and to be a "man" means something very specific and important; it cannot be tainted. likewise, this is why there's far more emphasis on chastising women for being whores or adulteresses than for having sexual relations with other women--Paul is the only one in either Testament who mentions the possibility at all as far as I know. basically, the penis is what matters; it must not be sullied by impure relations. QED.The reason we don't most of us adhere to such standards -now- is, we don't live in a tribal Middle Eastern nomadic setting 2000 years ago; there is such a thing as "old habits which no longer serve us." Mainstream U.S. culture is partially based on so-called Judeo-Christian values, sure; there are however a lot of other influences in there, some from "outside," some which developed in the interim, some which continue to develop even as we type. If one believes in a fundamentally small-d democratic society; if one is aware that in fact -under-population is not our biggest problem here; if one believes in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then that is to a certain extent -not compatible- with the worldview that puts a taboo on relations between consenting adults; they are in fact pursuing their happiness as well as their liberty to do so; it is not getting in the way of anyone else's; QED. Abuse of power is where the whole "consent" business gets complicated; the reason this is a problem is because it DOES in fact violate the basic tenets of "liberty, equality, etc. etc;" one person is obtaining his/her happiness at the expense of someone else's. This is, of course, a fairly new concept; certainly it's not one that's terribly highlighted in the Bible; for instance, consider Lot and his daughters, or the offer of the daughters instead of the (male) guests for the pleasure of the Sodomites. Women as property, see. Daughters included, which yep allows for incest in some cases. We don't really tend to hold with that, these days. Mostly because propagating the tribe and upholding the power of the patriarch isn't our first concern.
so, I understand the taboo from a relativistic standpoint, yes. I still come at it from the standpoint of the ethics and morals of the society I was raised in: to wit, you let other adults make their own individual decisions about who they're going to have sex with and make a life with; this is not hedonism, this is based on the notion that these -are- consenting free adults, of sound mind and yadda yadda; this is part of how we maintain a -democratic- society. It ain't perfect, and there are sticky parts to it, the whole "consent" business (yes, one could imo make a better case for that wrt abortion, but I am not interested in going there right now, that's a whole separate can of worms); imo teh gaysex ain't of 'em, however.
btw, i believe we or at least I am making certain assumptions about where you might be coming from on this based on your handle, "jesuschick," and on past interactions with people, usually coming from a conservative evangelical perspective, who started in similar ways and were not in fact simply asking open-ended questions in good faith, but were attempting to prove a point. if that is an incorrect assumption on my part, I apologize; i admit I know nothing else about you or where you might be coming from.
belledame222 thank you for your comprehensive response and gracious words. i would place myself in the conservative evangelical camp; but at the sme time feel the need to distance myself from a good many conservative evangelicals. go figure. i do not strive to be "disingenuous" but apparently have a knack for it. this whole thread has been a bit of a whirlwind; my. . head. . . hurts. . . must have gin and tonic. . .
i did want to point out belledame222's cogent response to the incest thing further up, but at the time, i was in the throes of PMS which cranked me up so high i lost my temper. oh, well.if i remember from my sociology courses, we define community as a defined set of 'people' who have decided to share certain commonalities of practice, tradition, interests and identity. for instance, my early baptist community was so because of our chared belief system, value system and religious practice, as well as a racial/ethnic identity (at first.) that was my community.but that wasn't my only community. there was also my family community, my class community and my education community. there's also the community i share with my political cohort and my feminist cohort, as well. all these communities (and their conflicting practices and traditions) can be held within one subject.and...what about abortion? is it a taboo? a prohibition? what?(see? there you go again, JC, throwing something in before we've even finished talking about something else...)and, again, belledame222 - too right.
One rebuttal to something jesuschick said two days ago: (1) heterosexual relations are clearly different from homosexual relations –just from a mechanical standpoint. Only on the count of P-in-V intercourse. Gays, lesbians, and straight folks engage in varying degrees of oral and anal sex and manual stimulation. Plus overall touching and kissing—seems to me that het and homosexual "relations" have a lot in common.In one episode of "30 Rock," Tina Fey's character and her new boyfriend discover that they're third cousins, and both recoiled with "ick" reactions. Me, I think third cousins are distantly related enough that there's no incest taboo, second cousins are iffy, and first cousins, siblings, and parent/child pairs are off-limits. The movie Lone Star (which is terrific, BTW) makes a compelling argument for half-siblings who never knew they were related and weren't going to have kids, though.
orange - to your point about there being more in common between straights and homos than just mechanics, i think we use those mechanics as a way of falsely holding up difference.and i don't mean that in the 'there is no race but the human race' way, either. i mean that we ... uh...huh. i'm trying to get my mind to say what i want it to say and i'm tangling my own self up.i'll have to come back to this when i'm less bloated.
and, yes, Lone Star is really good.(and i think there was some academic article that came out recently about 1st cousins not being so genetically horrific after all?(because of all this talk about incest i can't help but remember the awesome X-Files episode about the Peacock boys in the 'Home' episode. shudder. their mother lived under the bed!)
Post a Comment