Talk:Incest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kelly's Diary

I am not so certain this is an appropriate external link. Although it may very well be documenting actual cases of "positive" incest, the writing style is very sensationalized and erotic. Moreover, there is more than just incest documented. It openly advocates promiscuity, zoophilia, sex with minors, and possibly other paraphilias that I may have missed in a cursory overview of the site. I certainly don't intend to be the morality police here, I am speaking more to the link's relevance to the scope of this article, as well as the ability to verify whether or not the true stories are, indeed, true.

I figured it would be more polite to voice my concern here than to delete the link outright. --cogpsy 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an erotica site, and inappropriate. --Orange Mike 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as I had suspected, thanks. --cogpsy 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Vachss Quote

Can anybody give me a citation to the Andrew Vachss quote about incest laws give privileged treatment to child rapists who grow their own victim? I would like to see what he has to say on this more specifically. --Cardigan 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source I pulled it in from [1]. It is linked to this article as well. Anacapa 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's sick

It's sick and the article should clearly state that, saying "incest is a sick act" somewhere in the first paragraph. This isn't opinion it's fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.168.185 (talk)

• Can you cite that fact? If you can't and you made it up, then it's opinion. Psychade 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, since its very often rape, yeah, lets go with sick. If it makes you feel better we could phrase it as "abnormal".
    • "Very often" doesn't mean "all of the time." And you would also have to find out statistics which say that most of the time incest is rape, not consentual. But, the term "sick" is an opinionated adjective. It has no factual basis. This phrase - "incest is a sick act" should be left out. REscano 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• The term "It's sick" is completely POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I personally DO think it's disgusting, but the article does not need to have bias in it. Wildthing61476 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's only as sick as you want it to be. : ) ChaosAkita 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people find it the complete opposite of sick. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, if we reverse the birth process arent' all human beings the product of incest? Despite what one believes (creation or evolution), at some point someone had to be screwing 1) their family members to make a the large populations in teh first place and 2) bestiality if you have interspecies sex.

The incest avoidance between siblings probably only occurs in large populations, it doesn't make any sense that incest is wrong or disgusting since all human beings are the result of incest at some level.

Birth abnormalities are caused by this. It's just that the possibility of having birth abnormalities is extremely reduced in a large population, as everyone is a distant relative; only it isn't zero, so that's why abnormalities occur.--Orthologist 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Different people define incest differently. Muslims find that marrying first cousins as not an illegal thing but getting married to half-siblings, step-siblings and step-parents (other than our full-blood related family members). I'm not sure about how this would relate to Christians and Jews. After years of marriage, Adam and Eve's children grew up to be adults. Surely, there were not many humans around at that time - so they had no choice but to marry one another.

[My discusion starts here]It isn't sick at all if both sides are in love with each other. I have no siblings and would never do anything like this, but I have no problem with thoes who do. MJN SEIFER

i can see how in cases of rape you wold call it sick when in most states it isn't even illegal .... i mean yes the idea may be frowned upon you can say that but i dont think it is objective to call it sick in all cases calling it sick should apply to cases of rape but not to consenting married adults

incest is a very beautiful and meaningful event in a child's life. It strengthens the familial bond, as I can personally attest, my sister and I have never been closer. -Louis Maisel 31 McAlister Dr. New Orleans, LA 70118 lmaisel@tulane.edu

• • • ...Theres comes a point when bias is needed, your delusional if you think wikipedia was ever an encyclopedia. With all the lobbying and constant ,uninformed change its either a how-to manual or a piece of fan fiction, depending on the object of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2007 February 22

And incest is sick, no matter how you dress up the terms, nothing good comes of fucking your sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2007 February 22

Who are you to judge myself and my family's activities? -Louis Maisel 31 McAlister Dr. New Orleans, LA 70118 lmaisel@tulane.edu

you know you have lost an argument when you have to resort to the statement of unfounded theories as fact... saying incest is sick over and over again won't make you right Shaggy AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

non-contact Sexual activities

When the intro speaks of "sexual activity between close family members", does that include situations where two brothers or two sisters are masturbating at the same time in their shared bedroom but no sexual contact occurs. I can't recall ever seeing such a situation being referred as incestuous. I think if the siblings where brother and sister then that would be considered different. When the intro uses word "between" that seems to clearly imply contact or interaction beyond simply being in the same room. --Cab88 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to sexual activity, it can be defined as any intimate act involving sexual gratification. I'm sure one could argue that dirty talk could be a form of incest, if done for sexual gratification by at least one partner. Superwad 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Abuse-Box

I just wanted to post this on Template talk:Abuse, when I realized, that this page is properly watched by more people:

Does the link to Incest really belong in the Abuse-Box, and vice versa, does the box belong on this article? I really do not want to start a discussion on the topic in general, as the four (!) archived talk pages clearly indicate that it is a touchy subject. Neither do I want to make any statement on the morality, but my point is: Putting it in the box, directly under a heading and combined with Child sexual abuse none the less does exactly that. After taking only a short look at the sheer length of this article, one understands that it is a multi-layered subject, and putting it under the very clear headline of "Abuse" makes a statement, which I fear is far too bold for Wikipedia. I am not saying, Incest cannot be a part of abuse, or lead to abuse, but calling it abuse per se–and I feel Template:Abuse does just that—constitutes a gross oversimplification of a complex subject.

Therefore I suggest that the link to Incest be removed from Template:Abuse and the template from the article. I would welcome any thoughts on the idea. — Mütze 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could move it to By Offender and change the name of the link to Parental Incest. The majority of reported instances of incest are damaging and leave victims. Doesn't seem too bold to me to include it in this box. Pendragon39 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

reported cases do not make all cases. Wikipedia should be neutral, hence should not say Incest is abusive in all cases as it would imply.

so change it to Parental Incest and move it to By Offender. Pendragon39 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Overt vs covert

I think the article doesn't really explain covert vs overt incest very well. From a Google, it appears covert incest is e.g. when a parent relies on a child for emotional support that one would normally obtain from a partner. Whereas over incest I assume is sexual abuse? Someone with more understanding should improve it. How well accepted is the term covert incest? I've always thought of incest as involving sexual activity. Covert incest to me just doesn't sound like incest (I'm not saying it's not wrong, just that it doesn't fit my view of incest). Nil Einne 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of this article had more on Covert Incest. A lot of it was removed and I presume this was because the information could not be properly sourced. Pendragon39 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The covert incest stuff seems generally dubious for inclusion here. As I mentioned way back when whoever it was was all big on putting covert incest in this article, the most notable thing one can say about covert incest is that it encompasses acts which are not actually incestuous. The term "Covert incest" seems to be used enough to warrant an article, but it shouldn't warrant more than a very brief mention in this article. john k 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>Thee is a huge literature on parents seeking inappropriate emotional fulfilliment from children / debates within and around Freudian theory is full of it. I have never seen the term covert incest but if some people call it that, okay / however, I am sure that many people who do discuss this phenomenon do not call it covert incest. The point is simple / whatever the semantics, this is an entirely different topic from that of this article and discussion of it belongs in another article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It was User:Anacapa who added content regarding covert incest.Pendragon39 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The "covert incest" stuff should have never been allowed into the article in the first place. An encyclopedia article on such a topic as incest is not the place to advertise fringe theories from the areas of pop-psychology and the self-help community. Serpent-A 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor should it be included for personal reasons, as the archives will attest.Pendragon39 10:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I added this when I was pretty outraged about the topic and ran up against several editors who have no clue about covert sex acts...despite many movies about non-contact sex acts (such as phone sex or online sex) they seem to believe that sex has to always involve contact to be 'real' sex. To claim that the covert incest content is unsourced or irrelevant to this article is just plain POV. This was well sourced content in an article full of original research. I just found a new website on this topic [2] for people with NPOV minds. I believe covert incest should be included here with distinct distinctions between overt and covert so no one is confused about which is which and so that this ugly, well hidden, and all too common form of parent-child sexual predation sees the light here.

As for the so-called controveries about covert incest I suspect that is all original research added here by other editors who have their own strong opinions about the topic. I read a lot of psychological literature but I have yet to find professionals or others who have weighed in about covert incest from opposing POV's. Please fact check these so-called controversies so we can see who is asserting what about covert incest. Anacapa 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do and POV check

The article seems to be illiterate, poorly worded and ethnocentric.

Some time ago, I neutralised some of the language (removing the perp - victim speak from the 'parental' section under 'forms of incest'). Objectively, incest is a sexual interaction. A victimological model would have to be presented as a theory, not as the basis of the main text.

A felony criminal offense which is what parent child incest is deserves the use of perpetrator so I would ask that you check your POV here. Anacapa 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still a lot of work to do, in both clearup, neutrality and also representing a sociological take on the revulsion occasionally caused by incest, right through to the parent - child level.

It takes little effort to complain about an article. If you're willing to improve this article, then please do so. Regarding revulsion, do you believe the Westermarck effect is ethnocentric? Pendragon39 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do. I believe that it's brought on by social conditioning. 68.184.85.78 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think it might be helpful to link to the rotten.com article about this subject? They actually explain the motives very well.

Happens in every family on the planet

Husbands and wives commit incest all the time, yet no one is charged. The Wookieepedian 06:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Incest, from both a legal and biological standpoint, only occurs when the parties involved are blood-relations or within certain 'prohibited degrees of kinship'. Husbands and wives are typically not siblings or blood-related, biologically or by adoption. 207.216.10.130 10:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing his point, all human beings are related by common descent and ancestry, at some point we are ALL family and related. You can tell this just by looking at the shape of the human body it is fractal and the same throughout the entire human species.

For a better example of my own point, try the following: take a piece of paper and draw two circles (Mom and Dad). Color one blue and one green. Now draw another circle (This is you). Since every child recieves (roughly) half their genes from either parent, color this circle teal (blue-green). Now draw three more circles in the same way for your hypothetical 'wife' and her parents (Color her 'parental circle, oh...(abitrary choice) black and white, which would make your 'wife's circle grey) Now connect your wife's grey circle with your teal one, and draw a 'child' circle for them using the appropriate color.

Do you see what's happening? Each time you go further down through the 'generations' of this tree, your genetic connection becomes weaker and weaker, until it ceases to connect at all. Genetically, Shakespeare and I are about as related as a potato is to a mouse.

As for fractal shapes, fractals are a common mathematical occurance in almost everything (persisting, in some cases, to the molecular level), and are not reliable evidence of any kind of connection. 'Commonality of shape' is the result of evolutionary adaptation to a specific environment. For example: a tall, thin creature in a high-gravity environment likely wouldn't be able to support itself due to the center of gravity. Thusly, evolution would accomodate for this by producing stouter, stronger beings (quoted from http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-198794.html).

I will end my diatribe here. :P Sorry it's so long. 207.216.14.202 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there wasn't any single one first human.....

so your logic is flawed...

• Our ancestors developed in around the nile delta, they expanded outward from there, there was a brief genetic bottleneck during the last ice age, when the human population is thought to have thinned to as few as fifty thousand. ...this is kind of basic stuff here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stantz (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2007 February 22

Covert Incest

I have created a covert incest article. I do not know much about it, but I saw something written on this talk page and created it in case anyone who knows about it wants to expand upon it.

Great. Where is it? This seems to lead back to the main incest article. Anacapa 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chance of deformity

I have been looking throught the article yet this does not seem to be here. In a single generation of offspring bred through incest, by how much does the chance of deformity rise? This article did seem to be quite vague with this.

Krystel 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This article deals primarily with the sexual act of incest. The information you inquire about belongs more on the inbreeding article. Anyway, deformity, defined as "a major difference in the shape of the body or a body part compared to the average shape for the area in question", would happen very little in the case of children born of incest. The danger lies more with inhereting negative recessive genes, resulting in reduced fertility, lower birth weight, slower growth rate, ect... And even then it's very much dependant on the consanguinity of the people involved and for how many generations the inbreeding has been going on. The kind of deformity you're probably thinking of - extra limbs sprouting all over the place, ect - is mainly the province of cheesy horror films and has little connection to reality. Serpent-A 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to see more on the science of genetic deformation. After all unless another abnormal behavior was involved (rape, sexual assault, etc.) this is the only consequence of incest. 1Shaggy1 AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adult incest

I believe fictional references in this section ought to be moved to Fiction. There is one instance of duplication that I can see, Song of Fire and Ice. Pendragon39 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve incest

Perhaps that is why humanity is so messed up? The Wookieepedian 07:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is theorised by some that in those days incest were not dangerous due to the genetic composition of those days. --Adriaan90 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then in the beginning there were no genes other than those which came from Adam (since Eve was formed from his rib). The only difference would be the XY vs. YY sex determination gene pair shaped by G_d to make Eve a woman.--Orange Mike 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think this is a subject of belief rather than science. No one of us have been to the beginning so no one can say for sure how it was. We can however make speculations and theories. --Adriaan90 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as demonstrated in the Bible, Torah and Koran, Adam and Eve were not born to the same parents. God created them as adults. So, how can you say that Adam and Eve have an incestual relationship? There was no where in the three previously mentioned holy books that Adam and Eve were siblings, but as a man and woman. Adam saw that their other animals in heaven came in pairs - so God created him Eve - the first woman.

i think the idea behind adam and eve incest is that once adam and eve give birth to their children, who do their children have relations with? since there is no other parents to give birth to children, the only way for the population to increase would be incest.

This is about as constructive a point as we are going to get in this discussion. Nevertheless, it is just a dopey example - many people do not believe that the bible is to be taken literally or is a historically accurate text; some people who think it is have pointed out that while it does say that God created Adam and Eve nowhere does it say God didn't create other people; the text itself does not bring up the issue of incest until Noah where it is clearly a bad thing ... in short, this discussion can follow many different paths, but they will all lead to the same place: original research. Given our NOR policy, can we just drop this? Please? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some consider Adam, Eve and other such names to be names of TRIBES of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.157.255 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Random trivia

I've removed [[3]] some anime-related random trivia from the article. Though being an avid anime fan myself, I find this trivia to be redundant and not notable in the article's context.

Browsing through the article, I also have reservations against the "Incest in popular music" section. I believe it to be just a collection of random statements not adding into the article's quality or subject coverage. However, my proposed change would mean deleting a whole section. Being a new wikipedian, I'd like to ask the consensus for an opinion: does it really belong here? nullie 09:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Incest in music is, I believe, notable enough to warrant inclusion, but as per many other lists of songs, I think the proper place for this would be something like List of songs about incest. The move would also be a good opportunity to do some copy-editing, as some of the music section is very messy, difficult to read (because not in list format), doesn't include wikilinks and... shows no form of grammar I can recognize. I also think the Wagner character should be on this list; isn't Siegfried an opera? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved all popular culture references to a separate article. Feel free to contribute to it. nullie 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Adult incest Incest between adults occurs where there is no dependence on the adults as parent-child or sibling-sibling dependence precludes independent consent."

This doesnt make any sense. It seems to be saying that incest cant be consensual between adults due to power imbalances between the individuals concerned. A defendable hypothesis, perhaps, but POV, and I had to read it four times to work that out. Perhaps it should be replaced with something more matter of fact. e.g "Adult incest occurs between individuals who are close blood relations who have exceded their sociey's legal or cultural age of consent."

I've added your sentence in place of the problematic one. Other editors can tweak it if they like. Serpent-A 11:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent doesn't apply to adults. I would finish the sentence with ...legal or cultural norm. Pendragon39 14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cousin Marriage Laws

Apparently in Texas, since September 1st, 2005, cousin marriages are no longer allowed and is treated as a felony. Or something like that.

More info can be found here: http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=texas

As well as on the forums of that website. -MP, November 2006

Sibling Marriage Laws

Is sibling marriage legal anywhere in the world? Not necessary referring to marrying your siblings from your parents, but also half-siblings and stepsiblings.

Just writing a paper about it. In Poland half-siblings are under law siblings, but step-siblings (i.e. siblings which does not share mutual genetic parents – children from previous marriages) are not treated as siblings but as totally non-related people. So marriages between step-siblings (unless adoption occurred) are perfectly legal in Poland. Przepla 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Przepla and I respect your views. It's logical to say that half-siblings cannot marry one another since that they share mutual genetic parents. The feeling of marrying half-siblings is like marrying your full-blooded sibling - the genetic pool is too close and their children could go deformed (as you can see with the features of some of the ancient Egyptian royal families). However, I'm not sure these children can contract any diseases - do you know any? Although step-sibling marriage is legal in a nation like Poland, in my opinion, I still think it's inappropriate because if my step-sibling is being raised by my parent as their own child. It's just strange for my child to hear that their mother is also their step-auntie and that their grandfather is their dad's step-father. It sounds kind of messed up to me since that step-siblings and step-parent have "immediate family" relationships with me (although we're not blood-related). --Fantastic4boy 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Kind of messed" up really isn't a very admirable way to say something is wrong. I don't mean to say you're dumb, but I always feel angry when I see people using arguments that include "its just wrong" without providing a reason beyond personal religious or philosophical beliefs. Unfortunately, this topic itself is one of the greatest sources of such foolish arguments, and it may not change any time soon. This is an objective encyclopedia after all, not someone's soap box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.110.8 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Just as a sidenote, I also hate the "it's just wrong" arguement. Three worst words to hear in a discussion or debate. Probably because it strongly implies ignorant prejudice of the speaker. I also don't mean to call you dumb, just trying to advise I suppose that one should probably try at all costs to avoid saying that. If you find yourself on the verge of saying it, you should probably reflect on your own feelings on the subject...which is actually how I ended up on this page. After an arguement with my younger sister over pedophiles and their rights (we have strange and often random discussions), I ended up saying something along those lines late in the arguement, and (me being known quite widely among peers, friends, and family as a strong verbal supporter of gay rights) my sister immidietly jumped on me, saying that I was resorting to the the exact same argument that extremist homophobes use, and it wasn't a fair reason. She won that particular debate. Irish♣Pearl

While we're on the subject of siblings, just as an observation, both the "Incest betweeen cousins" and "incest between adults" sections of the article have areas and laws listed under them as to where the act is illegal and the punishment for it--but the incest between siblings section is noticably absent of such information. Is there any specific law prohibiting (consensual) incest between (blood-related) siblings? (I may have skipped over it if the information listed elsewhere in the article, I've got a feeling that I may have, so I apologize for asking if that's the case). Both the link and the majority of the article and external links seem to focus on parent-child incest, and maybe I'm ignorant of the fact that the majority of incest cases (not just reported) is that relationship, but is it just that there is a lack of information out there on sibling cases or is it just the article is focusing on the one (more often occuring?) situation? I don't mean to sound sarcastic or start an arguement or anything, I'm seriously asking the question. Irish♣Pearl 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on child sex abusers who commit incestous abuse

For the vast majority of child victimizers in State prison, the victim was someone they knew before the crime. 1/3 had committed their crime against their own child, about 1/2 had a relationship with the victim as a friend, acquaintance, or relative other than offspring, about 1 in 7 reported the victim to have been a stranger to them.

BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

unfortunately this says nothing about what percentage of incest cases are abuse. only about what percentage of abuse cases are incest. there is no correlation. 1Shaggy1 AKA Eli Bixby Portland Oregon 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Incest worse than bank robbery

Survey by evolutionary psychologist. Shawnc 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV of treatment specialists

Please in the future avoid muddying up the article by strewing it with POV from professionals (psychologists, etc) who treated individuals for depression "due to incest" or the treated individuals themselves and have an obvious bias due to an emotional connection. I suggest making a section to discuss treatment and try not to fluff it up with POV. It's indisputable that at least some people have needed treatment either directly (physical scarring, rape, etc) or indirectly (guilt, social pressure, etc) as a result of incest, but those treatment specialists are prone to making sweeping judgments about incest in general. Plenty of blind studies have shown that there are cases where incest caused no trauma. A red flag for POV should go up when you see words like "all", "every", "victim", "known", statements that don't qualify their information with discussing the scope of research and paragraphs of information based on studies of those in treatment for depression, etc. Please don't let this happen again, it wastes everyone's time trying to clean it up and I doubt I've even scratched the surface of what needs to be done. 68.184.85.78 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to be a victim of incest. It doesn't become "rape", "molestation" or otherwise "not incest" if it wasn't consensual. Are you trying to sanitize the term "incest" to only mean "consensual sex between relatives"? That would not be accurate. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole argument is unnecessary. The article speaks about incest NOT pedophilia, nor child sexual abuse. The only subject this addresses is incest and different cultural aspects of incest. Why are people trying to derail the discussion about incest with irrelevant arguments? Admittedly their are awful instances of children being sexually abused by parents or other relatives. But that is not the focus of this article. I despise pseudointellectual bullies.

--65.0.134.100 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be best if the term 'incest' were primarily used to mean consensual sex. Doing so is not 'sanitising' anything but attempting to be more clear with language. The current situation allows people to argure against both by only actually arguing against abuse. I believe that is what the above editor objects to. The way, the truth, and the light 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Incest"

Incest according to Wiktionary is:

1. Sexual relations between people who may not legally marry, especially between close relatives
2. The crime of having such a relationship

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of incest is:

1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Just thought I'd comment since Joie de Vivre seemed to slightly (and probably accidentally) imply the same kind of single-definition assumption of "incest" as the original commenter (only with the second version of the word). It's both possible to both be and not be a victim by engaging in incest, which should be kept in mind while editing the article. Irish♣Pearl 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that that an individual who is involved in incest may both be and not be a victim, at the same time? Or do you mean that some incidents of incest involve a perpetrater and a victim, and some do not?

I personally make a distinction between such a circumstance where an adult male rapes a child relative, and a circumstance where two adult cousins consent to sex with each other. I feel moved to state that I find both terribly unsavory, but that there may not be a victim in the latter circumstance. Joie de Vivre 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the different situations create different results. The adult male raping the child relative makes the child a victim and the adult the criminal. However, when it is two cousins, or even a brother and sister, where both are adults and both can and are consenting to the act, neither can be considered a "victim" even if both are by law considered criminals for doing so.

I did assume you made the distinction in the two different situations, but because your argument focused on the fact that there are situations with victims (which I don't blame you for since the previous poster had argued the opposite), I just wanted to make it clear to anyone reading that (because your arguement was more compelling than the initial commenter's) the ultimate conclusion to draw was different situations create different results.

There isn't a victim necessarily everytime the act of incest is commited, and sometimes it can be a very victimless "crime" with both people consenting, but just the same there are absolutely situations where a definate victim exists, and the crime can create horrible, traumatic results on the innocent person having been betrayed by a family member. Different situations, different results. That was all I was trying to make clear from your initial arguments (^_^;; although I must not have, and if so, I apologize for increasing the confusion!). Sorry if I made things even more difficult to understand! Irish♣Pearl 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition we use in this article is far from complete as you show above and as earlier controversies about the definition in archived discussion show. I am tired of fighting semantics with editors who seem to see no need to define this term using common definitions from other dictionaries and other encyclopedias. However, I urge anyone else who cares about the all too common rape of the language for POV purposes to tackle this because incest is a complex concept that needs a complete and comprehensive definition to introduce it. 128.111.95.138 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Going Crazy

Am I going out of my mind or this article is an advertisement for incestuous activities? 1st point. Let the children be children. 2nd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, start in childhood. 3rd point. Incestuous activities, in most cases if not all, are initiated by adults, or older family members. And, as two and two makes four, this is how we know it’s wrong. 4th point. Don’t confuse people by including scientific terms such as endogamy, or alleles. Those terms belong in botany and zoology. 5th point. According to whomever wrote this article, parental incest is inconclusive?? –meaning that it hasn’t been proven to be damaging to the child?? But “childhood sibling incest can cause serious psychological damage to the younger or less capable sibling according to researcher Richard Niolon.” 6th point. Incestuous activities that result from abuses of power are called CHILD SEXUAL ABUSES -and it is DEVASTATING TO THE VICTIM. The current article on incest needs to be replaced by a real one. Anakaren1 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to refer to the topic above this one for a related discussion. The short story is that some acts involve a victim and a perpetrator, but those that involve two consenting adults, while unsettling to many, may not. Joie de Vivre 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

However, most incest between consenting adults remains a crime in most jurisdictions. Incest between two consenting adults may or may not have consequences that affect other people such as inbred children who suffer deadly birth defects chosen in full knowledge by the adults. I suggest we go beyond the easy direct level of consent to consider ALL the possible consequences here so we can make distinctions between what is merely unsettling and what is truly criminal. 128.111.95.240 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Covert Incest content: Original research or sourced content?

Content at issue:

Many survivors of incest and others argue that a situation which does not involve physical, sexual contact should not be labeled incest.

However, the concept has been criticized as trivializing the acts which are traditionally known as incest. It has also been criticized as demonizing parents who, while they may have some emotional issues in their relationship with their children, do not engage in any of the acts which most people would label "incest". Critics charge that "covert incest" is not a concept associated with serious academic research; rather, it is a creation of pop-psychology.

This content uses what appears to be original research to make claims that seem to have no NPOV sources. This content closely resembles the personal opinions of a number of editors in controversial earlier discussions on this discussion page rather than well-sourced NPOV critics or controversies. This content is unsourced original research as far as I can determine. Therefore, I pulled it intact and clarified the remaining content.

Before anyone gets too hot under the collar about this, please be nice enough to provide the NPOV basis for this content. There might indeed by critics of and controversies about covert incest but we need to source them well otherwise this content merely reflects the personal prejudices of those editors who are uncomfortable with including covert incest in this article. Please response with NPOV sources that we can use to replace weasel-worded statements like "many survivors and others argue", please show us all where the concept is being criticized and who is doing the criticisms, and please show us who calls this a "creation of pop psychology"...that is other than editors on this discussion page. I personally have seen no articles or books showing these so-called criticisms or controversies so I've got to wonder about this content. Do those editors who feel so strongly about this content have NPOV sources to back this content with genuine research or is the usual wiki shoutout where Jimmy Wales' Maoist mob rules (see the lastest issue of Fast Company with Jimmy on the cover)? 128.111.95.138 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of that content is unsourced. I've added the "unreferenced-section" template. Joie de Vivre 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Joie de Vivre 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar content was present in this article last year until someone removed it. Looks like things have come full circle with regards to 'covert incest'. As I recall there was one psychologist who used this term. Pendragon39 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To all those editors who seem to have a perpetual problem with Covert Incest as a topic, there are now three books (Silently Seduced, Emotional Incest Syndrome and Married to his MOm) published on the topic from credible therapists. These therapists are far from 'pop psychologists'. They explain the topic using reasonable ideas in books that describe many aspects of the phenomenom. There may indeed be critics of Covert Incest but I have yet to see any other editors provide sources for the critical content on Covert Incest in the article so I am going to remove the unsourced critical content until someone offers sources. This critical content looks like original research that closely matches unsourced editors' opinions about CI on this discussion page. Where are the published sources that contain critical content about CI? Please bring in good critical/'controversial' NPOV sources or please allow this section to stand alone minus original research about 'controversies', 'pop psychology' or whatever. 'Many survivors of incest' may indeed 'argue' about covert incest but we need to use NPOV sources that show these arguments before we make weasel-worded claims about 'many' incest survivors.128.111.95.240 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now at least 8 sources that show covert forms of incest from many disparate authors. I have been able to find NO published critics of the concept so please spare us original research on the critical content. If other editors do indeed have critical content about covert incest please provide sources so that we can create some sort of SOURCED NPOV balance here. A few controversies among us is far from enough cause to suggest that this issue is highly controversial to anyone else in the general public.

• 1. Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners-Understanding Covert Incest, Adams
  2. The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life, Love
  3. Incest: Origins of the Taboo, Turner and Maryanski (table listing 18 covert versus 10 overt mother-son incest behaviors from Miletski)
  4. The Creative Mystique: From Red Shoes Frenzy to Love and Creativity, Kavaler-Adler, (many references to father-daughter psychic incest)
  5. The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers, Rosencrans, (shows covert and overt incest behaviors by mothers against daughters)
  6. When He's Married to His Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed men Open their Hearts to True Love and Commitment, Adams
  7. The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, and Vulnerability, Kipnis (apologetic references to both mother-child role reversals and incestuous (LOLITA-like) overt abuse of young men by so-called "kindly, older women")
  8. Iron John: A Book About Men, Bly (see psychic incest discussion below)

128.111.95.138 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical Emergency

Okay, is this supposed to be in the category of 'medical emergencies', or is this somebody's idea of vandalism? Thomasiscool 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked under the page list of medical emergencies and incest is not listed there, and there is no mention of it in the Wiktionary definition. Can somebody just clarify that this is indeed a mistake or vandalism. Thomasiscool 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that (with the exception of incest as forcible rape where violence occurs) that the incest survivor suffers severe psychological traumas that are unrelated to standard physiological emergencies and thus are not medical emergencies as such. Incest-related trauma often takes decades to surface because the betrayals of dependent children by adult caregivers are rarely reported during the time of the crime. Hope that helps but you might ask an ER doctor for a more authoritative take on this.128.111.95.240 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Twincest

There's a twincest article on Wikipedia. Should it be merged with this one? Nargrakhan 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Not under that name; but, yeah. The separate article looks a little fetishistic to me, but of course we must assume good faith. --Orange Mike 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge - Twincest is a fetishist term, which is why it should have its own article. Anchoress 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged to Incest in popular culture (formerly Incest in fiction) if anything, which is already a long list of these examples. By the way Twincest has been moved to Incest between twins and rewritten so that in has a similar format, so that merger would probably be a good idea. I added tags for it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Covert incest and emotional incest - section is unsourced

This entire section is unsourced. I have added the "unreferenced-section" template. The section should be removed if attributable sources are not found. Joie de Vivre 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.covertincest.org/index.html it appears that covert incest is a new term not yet widely known. The site does list three books. Pendragon39 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added all the known sources. These are credible and attributal professional sources. I know of no known 'controversy' within the counseling community or elsewhere in NPOV pubs about this topic or I would have pulled it in. 'New but not yet widely known' seems to be a good and reasonable preamble to this section but there is no justification to delete this content out of hand. 128.111.95.240 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is completely unsourced is the critical content about CI in article. I pulled that out for discussion as shown above. Please source that critical content from NPOV sources before you pull it back in. thanks 128.111.95.240 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now at least 8 sources that show covert forms of incest from many disparate authors. I have been able to find NO published critics of the concept so please spare us original research on the critical content. If other editors do indeed have critical content about covert incest please provide sources so that we can create some sort of SOURCED NPOV balance here. A few controversies among us is far from enough cause to suggest that this issue is highly controversial to anyone else in the general public.

• 1. Silently Seduced: When Parents Make their Children Partners-Understanding Covert Incest, Adams
  2. The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent's Love Rules Your Life, Love
  3. Incest: Origins of the Taboo, Turner and Maryanski (table listing 18 covert versus 10 overt mother-son incest behaviors from Miletski)
  4. The Creative Mystique: From Red Shoes Frenzy to Love and Creativity, Kavaler-Adler, (many references to father-daughter psychic incest)
  5. The Last Secret: Daughters Sexually Abused by Mothers, Rosencrans, (shows covert and overt incest behaviors by mothers against daughters)
  6. When He's Married to His Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed men Open their Hearts to True Love and Commitment, Adams
  7. The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, and Vulnerability, Kipnis (apologetic references to both mother-child role reversals and incestuous (LOLITA-like) overt abuse of young men by so-called "kindly, older women")
  8. Iron John: A Book About Men, Bly (see psychic incest discussion below)

128.111.95.138 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

POV issues: Censoring content about incest as a crime against children

Parent-child incest is widely considered to be one of the cruelest forms of child abuse if not the cruelest form of child abuse known. There are many credible sources that show how incest causes terrible damage to children. However, content from psychologists and others who deal with the survivors of incest first-hand seems to be being censored from this article for unknown reasons in favor of long abstractions about the science of incest and or inbreeding (which belongs in 'inbreeding' instead). To be NPOV, this article needs to reflect the ongoing research being done on incest by psychologists, sexologists, and even say Ev. Psych. biologists. I added the POV template to reflect this blatant bias against the science of how real PEOPLE relate to incest. Please consider content that brings the human story to this article so that NPOV balance is in fact the standard here. We need to show all aspects of incest in this article and especially those that have direct relationships to human beings because incest is first and foremost SOCIAL, CULTURAL, and LEGAL in nature. It is also an vile violation of the human rights of those who suffer of the crime. This needs to shown here to make this article NPOV and representative. To those editors who believe in an anything goes worldview about incest, I 'say fine show your stuff/sources but please refrain from censoring well-known sources that show the terrible sides of incest in the name of 'tolerance' for those who believe 'consenting' people (however immature) can do anything they damn well please' to or 'with' someone else. Please allow the facts about incest room to breathe here so all sides are presented in some sort of proportional (like global warming where no naysayer gets 50/50 space now) fashion that reflects known realities about incest now.

I took a moment and did some updating to the Parent-child section as a for instance. These sources show how much is missing on the human, and moral issues related to incest in this article. I ask all NPOV editors to take a look at this section and assist us to build a balanced article that represents the known research well. 128.111.95.240 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Incest perpetrated by parents of either sex against children of either sex is a crime as well as being considered a horror by most people in Western nations. Although rarely reported or acknowleged as a common crime, parent-child incest is considered one of the cruelest forms of child abuse by therapists who work with children [4],[http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Innocence-Incest-Devastation-Revised/dp/014011002X]. While father-daughter[5] incest is well-known in nations where women's rights are respected, father-son [6], mother-son[7] and mother-daughter [8] incest is rarely researched or reported. However, research is beginning to be done on these forms of incest which were heretofore seen as unthinkable, impossible or unbelieveable by most people. 128.111.95.240 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

confusing the facts

the article itself and the discussion of it is making five dangerous assumptions: 1- that any discussion of incest well never be treated as NPOV unless it condemns incest 2- that incest is the same as child sexual abuse. it is not. child sexual abuse can manifest itself as forced non-consensual rape of a close genetic relative, but not all incest is non-consensual, forced or done with children. 3- that incest brings a much higher margin of birth defect rather than health affect. 4- that incest is also something besides sexual contact. it is not. emotional abuse is emotional abuse. incest is incest. there is no such thing as covert incest no matter how credible and well documented the labeling source. incest is ONLY sexual contact. emotional abuse and sexual abuse are NOT synonymous with the subject. 5- that american views on incest are THE views on incest and that if no taboo exists for the subject at hand in a non-western or lesser developed country, then their cultural view is simply backward, discounted and non-academic.

example: the USA is the only country on the face of the planet that defines sex or marriage to ones first cousins as incest and has restrictive laws to exhibit this odd (my POV) view. FDR married his cousin, Eleanor. Einstein married his cousin, Elizabeth of England hers, and so on. in fact, the more wealthy and powerful one is, the more prevalent cousin-cousin and even sibling marriage is and has been throughout political families and private sector life and it is NOT incest, except by recent POV, but regardless of your obvious POV it is and will be practiced and remain accepted. to digress: it seems that first cousin and sibling marriage is something reserved only for elite bourge, while if practiced by the goy it labled anything that is convenient on part of the labeler and criminalized.

consider: in levi (tanach) incest is clearly defined. cousin relations did not make that list, and in fact not only did it not make the list, but cousin relations were not only approved of, but ordered.

it is suggested that you do your own legwork and research the facts for yourself. research, by the way, does not mean only going to sources with whom you agree with and ignoring sources you disagree with, nor does it mean that you have license to redefine anything for the public at large, or to foist xenocentric POV upon the majority of the planet from a bully pulpit or from the POV of western culture, while turning a blind eye to the facts of history that go beyond a scope that serve your POV.

74.195.223.201 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the exhaustively referenced Incest: Origins of the Taboo (2005) by sociologists J. Turner and A Maryanski to address some of these issues. They seem to report most of the overall science on incest that is available to date. They address many of the issues you raise above (in an attempt to make their particular parochial points about incest.) Here are a few fast responses they offer that appear to address your concerns about "confusing the facts".

There are a lot of other facts collected in this book. Could we discuss conventional facts with non-conventional facts to arrive at some sort of NPOV balance between the incest 'abhorents', the incest apologists and the incest romanticists?

• 1. "Breaking the incest ban strikes at the core of the family and society, if not the viability of the species (bf mine), and people's implicit sense of what is at stake makes this taboo especially formidable." Species viability seems about as 'dangerous' as one can imagine to me. They show how condemnation follows from this potentially catastrophic danger.
  2. They say there are indeed distinctions between incest and child abuse. They discuss these distinctions, related definitional problems revevant to the points they want to make about incest and some of what they see of the politics of these distinctions.
  3. under their section The Harmful Effects on Offspring of Incestuous Relations they say "The effects of inbreeding on humans are dramatic and immediate." They show conclusive research that inbreeding leads to horrible forms of human birth defects that are absent in normal human breeding.
  4. They show many forms of covert non-contact incestuous abuse found in the scientific literature. For mother-son incest (which they see as the most serious form of incest) they list 10 overt behaviors versus 18 covert incestuous behaviors (from other researchers) including "Making the son feel responsible for the mother's emotional well-being." For THEIR specific research purposes THEY decided to restrict THEIR definition of incest to one that is much more limited than the one that this article and most other encyclopedias use...that is they limit their working definition to include only acts that include "actual sexual intercourse" and exclude all other forms of overt, covert or homosexual incestuous activities.Their definition, while useful to make their parochial sociological case is much to narrow for a full treatment of all the literature on the topic.
  5. They say "Tales, myths, folklore, poetry, and both canon and civil law can be seen as addressing the potential problems of incest throughout most of recorded human history. We can assume, therefore, that humans were also thinking about problems generated by incest long before they could write those thoughts down." They use the rest of their book to show why.They also show the history of how MANY other cultures/civilizations have created and enforced the incest taboo.The "American" view of incest is, no doubt, partially a product of the West's Greco-Roman history so I ask that you review this history so you can better inform us about other non-conventional or alternative POV's in the literature.
  6. Incest between cousins is, indeed, a criminal offense in many jurisdictions in both the US and Europe if the earlier sources from lawyers on this discussion page are credible. We can of course show the contradictions in cousin incest statutes. However, cousin incest seems to be a side show since parent-child and sibling incest are far more serious and far more common forms of incest.

I did my legwork for you. I ask that you do your leg work for me too...facts do help to clear up confusion. I also ask that other editors who might take an apologist, or romantic view of incest offer us some good credible sources so that we can all better understand what these POV's are and who holds them. Thanks 128.111.95.138 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to preceding

Well the last anon editors put in an anti-incest POV, which is not supposed to be here. I tries to start fixing it. Also, I removed the Ohio law; I don't see why Ohio is more important than any other state, and in any case, such specific laws require citation. The way, the truth, and the light 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is supposed to be here is an explanation about the common points of view that exist about incest. Clearly, incest is an almost universally condemned form of conduct from any credible NPOV source. To show anti-incest facts about incest as part of the real story about incest is indeed NPOV if that point of view is common in most cultures. I ask that you discuss specific issues before your go about deleting them. I welcome pro-incest sources that are credible and reasonable. Please bring those sources in so we can see what you are so concerned about. I have read authors who have romanticized and apologized for incestuous behavior and I have no problem including them here in proportional balance. However this article is no soapbox for unsourced opinions of those who are pro-incest. Please offer some sources to back your positions. 128.111.95.138 02:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 128.111.95.138 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. I did not edit the 'Covert Incest' section, nor did I add any pro-incest opinions.

However, it is POV to want this article to be a condemnation of incest. The way, the truth, and the light 02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

User:69.138.226.246 continues to add an inappropriate citation to the sentence about Warren Farrell's research. That link is to a self-published web site whose sole purpose is to attack the men's rights movement, including Warren Farrell. I don't consider this an acceptable source. I question whether the sentence should even be in this article, unless it is neutrally expanded on to make it clear that the purpose of its inclusion is not to disparage Farrell. The way, the truth, and the light 20:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dropped 69.138.226.246 a note about their number reverts today. About that source, The way, the truth, and the light is right about that webiste - it isn't allowed under the external link policy becuase it is partisan. But the reference for the info is: , "Incest: The Last Taboo" Warren Farrel Interviewed by Philip Nobile in Penthouse, December 1977, Volume 9, Number 4. The sentence needs to be expanded because it seems to be misrepresenting the article and is selective of Farrell's points--Cailil ^talk 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is now gone. The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sibling incest studies

I modified the statement in the 'Sibling incest between children' section to reflect what I recall from that and other studies, even though I don't have the actual reference (there wasn't one before either). The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

added Psychic incest to Covert section

From a quick review of the literature it looks like father-daughter PSYCHIC incest has been a fairly hot topic in some circles. What seems to be missing, as usual, are non-sexist treatments of the topic. Here is Robert Bly's take in Iron John:

"Our culture has paid attention in recent years, and rightly so, to men's physical incest with their daughters, which is hideous and revolting in it's range and damage. And we have paid some attention to psychic incest as well between father and daughter. We are aware of a disturbing rise in the number of sons who report sexual abuse by mothers, as well as fathers, uncles, and older brothers; but the culture still does not take very seriously the damage caused by psychic incest between mother and son."

"Mari Sandoz in These Were the Souix mentions that the young Sioux boy never--after the age of seven or so--looked his mother in the eyes. All requests were passed through his sister. 'Would you ask Mother to repair these sandals?' 'Dumbo wants his sandals fixed', and so on. When the task was finished, the mother did not hand the sandals to the son, saying 'Here are your sandals', but again, the object went around a circuitous route. Much sexual energy can be exchanged when a mother looks a son directly in the eyes and says, 'Here is your new T-shirt, all washed'."

"Such precautions between mother and son seem absurd to us, unheard of, ridiculous, inhuman. And yet the Souix men, once grown, were famous for their lack of fear when with women, their uninhibited conversations in the teepees, their ease of sexual talk with their wives. We recognize that the Souix women were more aware of the possibilities of pyschic incest between mother and son than we are."

"I've mentioned that American mothers sometimes confide details of their private lives to their small sons, details that might better go to adults their own age. Frank disclosure is often better than silence, but it becomes harmful if the son feels he has to do something about it. The boy in many a kitchen gets drawn to his mother's side, and he says in some form those terrible words: 'Mamma, when I'm grown up, I am going to have a big house for you, and you'll never have to work again.'"

Bly goes on to show how American mothers often use their sons for 'fulfillment', for emotional satisfaction and for soul companionship. In short, she hopes he will become "a better lover to 'his woman' than his father was or is." "Who could 'his woman' be?" Bly asks.

Because psychic incest shows up in many sources, I added this term to complete the Covert section. 128.111.95.138 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and globalize templates

I removed these, since no one seems to be discussing either. Please feel free to reinstate them if you can state a reason for placing them there. Joie de Vivre

Re: incest in folklore

I have strong doubt about the validity of the reference to "Hon Vong Phu" in Vietnamese folklore. I'm a Vietnamese, born and raised in Vietnam and the only legend related to "Hon Vong Phu" (at least the most well-known one) is about a lady whose husband is a soldier. The husband is killed in action and never comes home but the wife waits for him with his newborn until she turns into stone. The legend is all about the loyalty of a wife to her husband and nothing to do with incest. This legend is very popular amongst Vietnamese as well as a number of songs written about it. 210.49.191.145 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon more researches, I found out that there is indeed another legend about "Hon Vong Phu", which is related to incest but I strongly believes that this second version is much less known in Vietnam. I would think the reason for that is incest was very much a taboo in ancient Vietnam, thus was not mentioned much in literatures, compared to other themes such as loyalty. Perhaps there should be a separate page for the legend as I believe most people who type "Hon Vong Phu" into Wikipedia would expect to see the first version of the legend. My reference: http://www.vietnamtravelguide.com/article_detail.php?cat=1&show_cat=1&sub_cat=1&article_id=303. 210.49.191.145 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Covert incest

I moved this to its own article. If it is notable enough to be in Wikipedia it can certainly be expanded. Since it's not a type of incest, it really doesn't need to be here. The way, the truth, and the light 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Exotics and inbreed

It's often heard, that the appearance of incest and inbreading is extremely high in circles of Asian and African immigrants in (Northern-)European countries. One of the, if not the, reason for this is, that the racial and cultural gap between Europeans and these immigrants is unnaturally big. In case other users know (scientifical) sources concerning this matter, after mentioning them, this item might be added to the article. James Blond 10:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Asians and africans are not exotic! How are they exotic you racist bastard! Punkymonkey987 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cause(s) of incest/inbreed

In this article the conclusion is mentioned, that with animals inbreed only occurs in extremely unnatural situations, such as having to live together in the same cage for years. This can be regarded as an indication, that it's about the same thing, that brings people to inbreeding incest. If they would live their natural live, which implicates, that they would stay in their own kind of biotope and use only natural food, they wouldn't come to such a perversion; on the contrary, they would be as averse of it, as (other) animals are in principle. [9].

Here as well goes, that if there are more scientific sources known, this item might be added to the article. James Blond 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Checked all the references. Removed three: one dead link, one link to an essay without author/source information, one link to an unpublished and very short essay on a therapist's website. Reformatted the remaining references, including four published articles and a statistical study. ZeroZ 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Forms of incest" section, sub section "Sibling incest between children," there is a quote that "10-15% of college students had childhood sexual experiences with a brother or sister." I found this really, really hard to believe, so I checked out the referenced website. Despite my concerns, the site seemed legit, and I found the source of the information without trouble. However, this cited quote is followed by an uncited: "only 5-10% of those included intercourse; and therefore most probably represent a form of child sexuality.[citation needed]" Now, I have no evidence that any of this is not true other than my personal misgivings, but I move that we should remove that second quote until we can get a proper citation. I just am in disbelief that the percentages are this high. Nothing to do with religion, politics, etc. I just assumed that this was far more rare than these quotes claim, and I'd especially like cited evidence on the second claim. Am I just being silly here? Thoughts? Clemenjo 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, That's not very surprising....children are experimentalistic....so they might have-for lack of a better word-"inappropriately touched" without any sexual motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknote (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Organizations

I was not the one who removed links to support organizations (they had already been removed, and the "enough of this" comment was already up). In fact, unless deleting them was a consensus decision, my vote is to keep such links, after checking to ensure the validity of each. ZeroZ 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's why I did it. People kept adding links to support organisations, and I feared that the list would become a mere directory, or used for spamming one's own organisation. I have no objection to having a few links to large and important organizations, but I think they should be discussed first. The way, the truth, and the light 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The links in question

I don't see why these shouldn't be here. I could understand if it were a list of links about party favors or something, but this issue is so serious and so devatating to so many people that I think that they should all stay. We should at the very least keep those that serve specific communities or survivors of a certain type. Joie de Vivre 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network National, toll-free hotline for victims of sexual assault: 1-800-656-HOPE
• VOICES in Action Victims Of Incest Can Emerge Survivors, an international organization providing assistance to adult and adolescent victims of child sexual abuse and trauma.
• The Awareness Center, Inc. The Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA)
• Making Daughters Safe Again Online resources for mother-daughter incest survivors.
• SASIAN Sibling Abuse Survivors Information and Advocacy Network
• SIA Survivors of Incest Anonymous World Service Office, Inc. links many independent SIA 12-step support groups around the world.
• Pandora's Aquarium An online support group, message board, and chat room for survivors of sexual violence, including incest, and their supporters.
• After Silence, A non-profit organization, message board, and chat room designed to support survivors of incest, rape, and molestation.

RAINN - national network. VOICES, another large organization. JCASA is specifically Jewish. MDSA - mother-daughter abuse. SASIAN - sibling abuse. Pandora's and After Silence, both are active message boards. I suppose we could trim the last two but as they are both non-commercial resources I don't see a reason to. Joie de Vivre 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think people needing this kind of service will be looking somewhere other than Wikipedia. Nonetheless, per your explanation, I restored all but the last two (which were also the two that I suspected of being spamming.). The way, the truth, and the light 01:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that lots of people will just search on Google. But here's something to think about: incest makes people feel ashamed. Really ashamed. It makes people feel like their deepest, darkest secrets were published on the front page of the New York Times this morning... every single day. They feel like everyone knows, they feel vile and exposed and filthy. So a survivor seeking information might feel too ashamed to just out-and-out type in "incest resources" into Google. However, they might not feel too ashamed to approach "academic research" on incest. They might be able to avoid the shame by considering it a research topic, and what better resource supply helpful links than our great encyclopedia? Joie de Vivre 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and trying to learn from more unexperienced editors. This is my first comment on a discussion page and I hope it will be of some value. Wikipedia is not a directory and its true identity should be preserved. However, the incest article has replaced RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network as the #1 Google hit for "incest" (and rape), so victims do and will stumble across this article when trying to find support and someone to talk with. I'm familiar with the subject we are discussing, which is why I try to monitor articles related to sex crimes, add information to them and revert vandalism as quickly as possible.

As Joie de Vivre pointed out, we should at the very least keep one or two resources that serve specific communities or survivors and that offer different information and services, while trying to avoid recourses with duplicate content. For example, RAINN Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network covers pretty much the same topics that the The Awareness Center, Inc. and VOICES in Action do, but more extensively. If we were to delete a resource or two, perhaps it should be a resource covering the same topics of one previously added. Instead, the exclusion of the last two links (which happen to be the two largest and most active support groups for victims of sexual violence on the internet) leaves the article with a number of resources offering the very same information but without a single resource for victims seeking to talk and reach out (as soon as they have finished reading the article, if they wish).

As way to prevent merely self promoting intentions, I suggest checking the profiles and contributions of these adding new links. Spamming intentions can be unmasked quite easily by looking at profiles (or lack of) and contributions. Has the person contributed to other articles on Wikipedia, has he or she taken the time to revert vandalism and add information, or has she/he merely added a link? In good faith, I re-added an active (non-profit, non-spamming) support group, After Silence,, where victims can find immediate help and support. Searching for Orion 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your argument. It didn't occure to me that people find us through Google, but I guess they do. Perhaps we should distinguish the two types of support links in separate sections? The way, the truth, and the light 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Support Organizations for Survivors" is a description that seems appropriate for resources like RAINN as well as support groups like After Silence. Perhaps we could distinguish them by placing RAINN (and similar resources) under National organizations for survivors and After Silence (and similar) under Support organizations for survivors? Searching for Orion 06:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to rearrange them according to whether they are national. The only one I recognized as national was RAINN. Joie de Vivre 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I think it is important to have some abuse resources on here. I understand that Wikipedia tries to stay neutral, so this shouldn't be either pro-incest or anti-incest, it should just mention the relevant issues and facts. However, some people who are involved in incest are abused so I think it is important to list these types of resouces.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. We are not here to provide links to support sites, we are here to provide information. I pared out some of the more specific groups focus on subsets of activities and also removed ones that were explicitly listed as forumns/communities and ones that seemed more like advertising vanity. I would actually receommend eventually yanking most of them and providing a link to one major site that links to others or, if that can;t be found, the Open Directory's support links section, assuming they have one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have a problem with a couple pertinent links but as you say, WP is not a web directory and WP is not here to provide help to survivors of non-consensual incest (devastating or not), but to provide information. The problem that arises with these links is that as other people come along they want to help others who have been molested/raped and add their own favorite help sites. Pretty soon, you end up with a massive, spammy, ever-growing list of external links that do nothing to help the article. This is not what WP is for. People looking to help themselves overcome trauma can easily hop on Google and find far more help than we could ever provide. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ doesn't have a page on incest unfortunately [10], though the blind search does turn up a variety of links including RAINN. I'll trim and see what comes up. WLU (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed links and replaced with two DMOZ - the first is to incest as a crime, the second to child sexual abuse in general. Many support sites are featured in the DMOZ links, including some of the above. I also removed the news stories that were external links - news stories make good sources but poor external links. They're generally short, focus on a specific allegation, and rarely have a broad overview of the subject that's useful throughout the world. WLU (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly organized

This article is very badly organized. Incest#Genetics is passable, but Incest#Endogamy and exogamy wanders through cultural traditions into Bible stories (which should be in the religion section), the awkwardly named Incest#Sexual relations between cousins and other distant relatives wanders into legal issues (which should be in the law section), while the Incest#Laws regarding incest section is too short. This article needs a serious overhaul. Joie de Vivre 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Support Orgs section looks much better after your work, Joie de Vivre. I have rewritten the Intro section to remove all weasel words and unsourced material. The Intro is now completely sourced to non-encyclopedic texts including studies by Durkheim and Levi-Strauss. Onwards! ZeroZ 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! In regards to your changes -- excellent work! The writing style is now cleaner and more straightforward. The intro stays on topic, and it provides reliable sources. Good job, ZeroZ!

I plan to restructure the Incest article according to my suggestions above, soon. I would be fine with it if you, ZeroZ, or anyone else felt inspired to make these changes before I get a chance to. Onwards, indeed! Joie de Vivre 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A general comment. It seems that this article in its present form is concerns mainly with the study of incest as a marital or consensual relationship. You seem to desire to talk about incest as a kind of abuse. That information should be in the article, since it is commonly called 'incest', but to include both while maintaining clarity and NPOV, could we start a new section titled 'Incest as abuse' or something?

I agree that somewhat more legal information would be welcome, but remember that we must not talk about any specific laws without a reference. The way, the truth, and the light 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the summary states: Incest is sexual activity between two persons related by close kinship. In some societies this is enforced with the legal or social prohibition to marry." So, is this trying to say that some societies force sexual relations to exist between close kin by prohibiting them from marrying ?-) Or does it perhaps mean that they use such prohibition to enforce the definition of the word "incest" - perhaps by forbidding anyone who doesn't use the official definition to marry ?-) Joking aside, this really needs to be fixed. 88.115.34.156 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Laws regarding incest section

The way, the truth, and the light -- you changed the language in a direct quotation from a published article. I restored the original quotation.[11] ZeroZ 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize while editing that it was a quotation. The way, the truth, and the light 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a historic timetable of the law implementations for this article..and a regional jurisdictional breakdown as there is inmost articles concerning law..for example I'd like to know when how and why "incest" of first cousins became illegal in specific states in the U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.189.97 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We split that part off into it's own article. See Laws regarding incest.

Legitimus (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sibling incest between children

I don't see the relevance of listing the infamous German siblings in this part. It is repetitive because it also appears in the adult section. If I understand correctly they did not even meet until they were adults and genetic sexual attraction is the likely cause for their relationship.

You're right, they don't need to be in that section. The way, the truth, and the light 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Condoned Bible Incest

There's nothing about the incident with Lot and his daughters that suggests that God "condoned," what happened except for his inaction. I don't think that "silence gives consent" is an argument style fitting for an encyclopedia and would strongly reccomend removing the statement from the article. Abyssal leviathin 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Presumably however, adam and eve's children were incestual since they were the first humans and no others were mentioned. If other people were especially created by god it seems they would be mentioned. Since assuming silence means something is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, then it seems that adam and eve's children reproduced incestually. User: Brazen Irish Hussy 06:44, 26 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.170.232 (talk)

Introduction

The first two paragraphs as they currently are appear to contradict each other. Are we defining incest as a general concept (as in the first) or as purely a cultural one (as in the second)? The way, the truth, and the light 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of incestuous acts

This article is completely void of images actually pertaining to the act of incest. So, in order to rectify this blatant error in the formatting of the article, I suggest pictures of obvious incest be placed in the article for improvement purposes. There are likely to be many sites on the web that have free-use incest images and if not, I, myself, will be willing to shoot some of my own (only if others can't be found of course). Thanks --GoatSmoke 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the people who view this article will already know what sex looks like, so it really isn't necessary to give an image of brother/sister sex. It's not going to look any different than the regular stuff. Besides, there's no real way to prove that the people depicted are related anyway, even if we do add an image. Maybe you could find an old painting depicting an incestuous relationship from mythology or something. I dunno, I just don't think the Incest article needs an illustrated how-to guide. :P -Abyssal leviathin 20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This person is clearly trolling (look at some of his other edits). I suggest we ignore him.

I agree, though, that a work of art might be appropriate, or at least not inappropriate, for this page. The way, the truth, and the light 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An obvious troll, certainly. There's a Lucas Cranach painting of Lot and his daughters that might be good. [12]. john k 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll cast a vote for definitely inappropriate!!!!!!! Are you all trolling?

64.174.68.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of Briton

"When Julius Caesar invaded Britain for the second time in 54 BC, he noted the customs of the Britons, remarking, 'Wives are shared between groups of ten or twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons; but the offspring of these unions are counted as the children of the man with whom a particular woman cohabited first."

As far as I'm aware when Caesar made this assertion he was speaking specifically of the men of Kent, not all of Briton. 70.187.156.140 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same thing as incest, anyway. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is historically inaccurate, in that it speaks of all of Briton rather then just the territory around Kent and since that as Slrubenstein said, the alleged cultural phenomena isn't actually incest I'm removing the text. Bloody Sacha 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweden/ France

In the article it says Sweden is the only European country allowing marriage between siblings sharing a parent, while under France it says adult incest is allowed. I presume the Swedish part is wrong, but if someone wants to clear that upInterpretivechaos 02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not. You see there is a difference between marriage and just intercourse. ;) France allows them to engage in incest but not to marry, Sweden allows them to marry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.72.172 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It has happened in Sweden, that half-siblings who didn't realise their kinship until after they fell in love with each other, has been given permission to marry. It is also legal to have intercourse with your half-sibling (though not with your sibling, parent or child). Marrying first cousins is legal as well. /Anneli

In Belgium consensual adult incest is not illegal either (although you can not marry). But there is a misconception about the law: in democratic country, the law does not allow anything it only forbits some things and what is not explicitly forbidden is legal. Consensual adult incest is not mentioned in the law. /olive

Article lead

"When the activity is non-consensual, it is considered a form of sexual abuse". Surely this is true of any sexual activity, and therefore irrelevant to the article lead? Oli Filth^(talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems appropriate for the lead, because most incest is non-consensual, with a significant majority of cases being father-daughter incest. The article will need some references about this, but it's so common, it will not be hard to find the sources. Here's one example:

National Center for Victims of Crime:

Research indicates that 46 percent (46%) of children who are raped are victims of family members. (Langan and Harlow, 1994.) The majority of American rape victims (61%) are raped before the age of 18; furthermore, an astounding 29 percent (29%) of all forcible rapes occurred when the victim was less than 11 years old. Eleven percent (11%) of rape victims are raped by their fathers or step-fathers, and another 16 percent (16%) are raped by other relatives. (National Center for Victims of Crime and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992.)

This incest part of the information can be integrated into the article when someone has the time... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That tells you how many people are the subject of unconsenting incest. It doesn't tell you that most incest is non-consensual. I also agree that these sentences are completely irrelevant to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jack-A-Roe on this...and feel that the above addressed sentence should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done an edit replacing the sentence Oli Filth mentioned, and adding Jack's statistics to the second paragraph.

Jack is right: the fact that most incest is violent, either physically or emotionally, and does devastating emotional harm, should be prominent in the introduction and the article as a whole. But that sentence was wrong and incoherent on so many levels you had to think about it for awhile to see all of them.

First of all its incorrect. Non-consensual intercourse between adults is rape, not sexual abuse. Second of all, Oli is right, the sentence says nothing about incest. But it sends the message that rape is just another form of sexual abuse. Even worse, it subtly implies that even defining non-consensual sex as sexual abuse might just be a matter of opinion (... is considered a form of sexual abuse ...)

Well, I may be reading too much into the last one. But, as I've noted below, I was really shocked, and even angered, by the fact that an article about rape barely mentions the important and uncontroversial reality about the profoundly traumatizing and emotionally devastating effects of parent-child incest, and in general, incest's association with violence, victimization,and mental illness. Why else would it be in the medical and psychological categories?

Fixing the introduction is the first step. The next is to start to put together what should be relatively large section on this topic, and make it the most prominent section in the article. IMHO SeattleJoe (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incest in Islam (more information needed)

Islam: The Quran mentions incest which prohibits a man from having sexual relationships with his mother, daughter, sister, paternal aunt, maternal aunt or niece. However, Islam allows for marriage with cousins and other more distant relatives. Only in case of marriage does Islam allow sexual relations between cousins and other distant relatives.

The paragraph has some missing information. It is also eternally prohibited to a muslim man to marry his 1- wetnurse (as she becomes his mother by breastfeeding), 2- milk sister, 3- mother-in-law, 4- stepdaughter (in this case the eternal prohibition is not active before a sexual intercourse occures between the mother and the father-in-law after their marriage), 5- daughter-in-law and 6- Stepmother.

These six mentioned females are considered as Mahrams =>(see link below at the bottom) in Islam and having sexual relationship with them can also be defined as incest in islamic religion.

The evidence is that Allah says in Quran (interpretation of the meaning):

Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters, your sisters, your aunts paternal and maternal, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your mothers who have given suck to you, your suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters who are in your care being born of your wives you have been in to -- but if you have not yet been in to them it is no fault in you -- and the spouses of your sons who are of your loins... (Quran, 4:23)

Also Allah says in Quran (interpretation of the meaning):And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper.( Quran, 24:31)

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=5538&ln=eng

• PS. the page of the link shows a hadith by prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) where he says: “...the same relationships of mahram are created by radaa’ah =>(this means breastfeeding) as by blood ties.”. This concludes that to a muslim man his wetnurse's mother and sister, both respectively turn into his grandmother and aunt.

Royal/noble incest

shouldn't something be mentioned about how royal families used to have to marry within their family they still kinda do but it's not considered family anymore but i mean back when they would marry their cousins i have no idea where to put it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal situation of incest in Germany

I have removed the following paragraph from said subsection:

"Contemporary newspapers (March of 2008) report that in the downwash of the Constitutional Court decision lawyers claim penalization a reminder to antiquated eugenics tradition of past centuries. With the bad experience of dispute on eugenics by lawyers in legislation during the Nazi regime just lawyers should keep their minds out of revision of such traditions. Noteworthy, a ratio of 2:2 of severe genetic deficiencies with offsprings in the reported case of 2007/2008 does not advocate for neglecting the eugenics aspect. Which society shall take the burden from such misleading legal evolution."

This is blatant POV and in no way encyclopedic, not mentioning the fact that no sources whatsoever were provided. In case this paragraph was a direct quotation of a notable personality (either the judges of the BVG or a spokesperson for a lawyers organisation, or a politician or religious leader etc.), please provide references and rephrase it accordingly. For now, it will stay out. Vargher (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible that there is no section on the devastating psychological effects of parental incest?

There is absolutely no discussion of the extremely serious psychological harm inflicted on a child by parent-child incest. This is not controversial, and the fact that there isn't a section on it in the article sticks out like a very sore thumb. Just noting that sex with daddy or mommy is "considered child abuse" isn't enough.

For one thing it isn't considered child abuse. It is child abuse. And, in fact, sex between any adult and a child, and especially with an adult who has authority over the child, and especially with the child's parents, is "considered", by many people and in many jurisdictions, rape.

It is as if we are trying to be so objective and neutral that we are afraid to state the obvious fact that parental incest is really, really bad for kids. Really bad.

OK, only a few will disagree that it is really really bad. However, how encyclopedic is to make value judgments on make an article a social commentary, rather than giving importance to defining the term 'incest'. In fact, most important thing I expect from an encyclopedia article is the definition of the term. Any peripheral information is valuble but secondary. I would even argue that ‘incest is bad’ is POV, although I personally believe that incest involving minors is really really bad. Then again, I do believe any sexual activity which involves a minor and an adult is bad. Then the problem is not really with incest per se but sex between a adult guardian and a minor which I am afraid is only one aspect of incest. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is an odd hesitancy to even use the term "rape", as in this very strange passage in the first paragraph:

When incest is non-consensual, whether because of the threat of or use of physical force or because of emotional pressure, it is considered a form of sexual abuse, and when one of the family members involved is a minor, incestuous activity is known as intrafamilial child sexual abuse.[1]

will work on something short to add fairly soon, or, preferably, someone better qualified might do it, but the article needs a real overhaul. A discussion of the psychological harm caused by parent-child incest -- psychological devastation, in fact -- as well as forms of treatment and recovery,should be central to the article.

As opposed to entirely absent.

Sorry to get all huffy. But Jesus! SeattleJoe (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. You're welcome to upgrade the article and I look forward to reading your contributions. One comment - I'm not sure how the definition of "rape" applies when the incest does not involve intercourse, that might need some differentiation based on references (legal or medical). Also, we need to separately mention the concept of consensual incest, though I think we'll find inthe references that that's much more rare than child sexual abuse within the family. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right about the definition or rape. I looked it up. The differentiation is simple and clear. You saved me some embarrassment.

As for consensual incest between adults, i think you're right that is rarer than parent-child rape, and is also far less problematic. But any form of sexual activity between an adult and a child is sexual abuse, and if it involves intercourse it is rape, by most definitions and in most jurisdictions. And imho. Even if the child "consents." SeattleJoe (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statutory rape is a whole 'nother discussion, but I disagree with classifying incest, child sexual abuse, and statutory rape as essentially the same. For one thing, incest can be sex between brothers and sisters, not just parental rape of a child. Secondly, statutory rape can be a simple case of a girl with an older boyfriend, such as a 15 yr old with an 18 yr old... which in some US states is still considered statutory rape. I have no problem with mentioning rape in an article about incest, but you should make it more clear that not all incest is rape. And there should be clearer definitons of the different types of incest. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi ErgoSum88. Are you talking about the two paragraphs I added after the first two existing paragraphs in the article? I think they deal with all your criticisms, except that I'm just calling adult/child sexual intercourse 'rape" without any discussion, and saying it is "usually called' statutory rape. I should say that it is a legal term. And there are some typos, so I will do it now.

I've never seen the definition of adult/child ses as controversial, so i just stated it as if it were an agreed upon fact. The unavoidable grey area is alway defining who is and is not a child, and there is no avoiding some arbitrariness in making that decision, which will be different in different cultures and different jurisdiction.

The simplest reason it is rape, I would say, is that children do not have full power of consent,and adults have too much power over children, necessarily, for intercourse not to be either a simple matter of coercion or a form of emotional manipulation that further diminishes the child's power of consent. If this is controversial, i guess we should make it a topic down here and discuss it.

And thanks whoever provided the footnote! I was worrying about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleJoe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did the edit. Identified "statutory rape" as legal term, fixed some typos. Also, an anonymous user changed 'child' to "minor" in one place, and i changed it back to "child". "Minor" is a legal term, but in this case it was a discussion about psychology. SeattleJoe (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to your edit. All I was saying, is that the introduction should have a wider view of the subject rather than simply stating "incest is rape." Clearly, there are types of incest that are not rape, such a adult siblings. The point of an encyclopedia is not to take sides, but to present a balanced, unbiased view.

The intro states: "When incest is non-consensual, whether because of the threat of or use of physical force or because of emotional pressure, it is a form of sexual abuse, and if involves intercourse, it is a form of rape." I think this is unnecessary... all non-consensual sex is rape, and I think everyone knows that. Perhaps a better statement would be: "In X% of cases, incest involves the parental sexual abuse (or rape) of children. And X% of incest cases involve the rape of siblings." Having some statistics and references to back up your claims will help in proving these statements. You shouldn't just add new information without backing it up.

It also says: "When it involves intercourse it is also a form of rape, as is all sexual intercourse between an adult and a child. The legal term for this form of rape is statutory rape." Which I do not agree with... sexual intercourse between an adult and a child is child sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse between an adult and an adolescent is usually referred to as "statutory rape" because minors are not allowed to give consent. A 5 yr old child cannot consent to sex because they are not sexually mature and hardly even knows what sex is... a 14 yr old adolescent is sexually mature and fully aware of sex but is legally restricted from giving consent to sex with adults on moral grounds. Calling child sexual abuse "statutory rape" is misleading, because they are two completely different things. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the use of the terms rape and statutory rape when it comes to children. Just ignorance on my part.

But I didn't say or imply that all incest is rape. I identified very specifically when incest is also rape. I think you should read those two very short paragraphs again. (I just removed the stuff about children and rape.)

As for brother sister incest, which you have mentioned a few times,the relative frequency and psychic impact of different types of incest is an interesting topic, and should be discussed in the article. But we are just beginning to talk about the psychological implications of incest in the article, and I don't see how that is nearly as important as a discussion of parent child incest.

A 'balanced view' does not mean giving equal weight to all possible points of view, or equal importance to all facts. That incest between brother and sisters (which can also be sexual abuse or rape) exists and is generally not as psychologically harmful as is sex between parent and child, is an interesting detail. It is precisely because parent/child sexual abuse has such a devastating impact, and because it is a huge and controversial social problem, that it has to hold the most prominent place in an article about incest.

It is the reality that is "unbalanced," and an encyclopedia article should reflect the reality. It is important in an article about incest to prominently address the fact that many, and perhaps all, forms of incest are not merely taboo but cause harm, and frequently devastating harm. It is not controversial, and it is the fact about incest that has the greatest impact in the contemporary world. It is not an "unbalanced view."

That is why I mention rape when and where I do. And when i do i am simply stating facts (except when I get it wrong!) because i think those facts are important.

In my very strong opinion, it is the current article that presents an extremely unbalanced view. It barely mentions the psychological consequences of incest. Which, aside from anything else, is kind of weird.

It's as if the previous authors were afraid that incest might be offended and sue. 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I really really want to thank ergosum for challenging me. I finally figured out what he was saying about my placement of rape in the first paragraph. I didn't see it because I put it there to try and fix the sentence before it, and didn't see that that sentence I was fixing was also in the wrong place. I've done a new edit to the first paragraph, and we'll see if that passes muster. SeattleJoe (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not currently conform to NPOV. What much of this article covers is actually illegal pedophilia, in which adults take advantage of children (who in this case happen to be related to them). And then it discusses the legal status of incest in various locations. It provides no coverage of incest between consenting adults, which behavior is much more significant to the topic as a whole. As written, the article is pretty much a bunch of POV and weasel words implying that incest is just a variation of child rape which is utterly preposterous (and then goes on to substantiate this claim by providing a bunch of links to self help programs). Nobody argues that child rape/molestation isn't horrible but incest does not = child rape. This article violates the NPOV policy wholesale and needs a great deal of work. 75.3.150.12 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article recently was more like you propose. But Wikipedia is ruled by the pedophilia-hysteria fanatics, so don't even think of trying to change it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith, that you did not intend your use of the term "fanatics" to apply to the people currently working to improve this page.

Regarding incest between consenting adults or consenting post-puberty adolescents, it's not the most prevalent form of incest, but no-one is trying to keep it out of the article. If either of you have information on that area of the topic that is supported by references, you are welcome to add it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

75.3.150.12 I tried to say the same thing, as you can see above. Its seems someone (namely SeattleJoe, no offense) recently have taken it upon themselves to change the the focus of this article from incest to child rape. I had no problem with the inclusion of child rape, I just didn't think it belonged so prominently in the introduction. We already have articles about pedophilia and child rape so I don't see why an article about incest can't be focused on sex between adult siblings. I watched as he changed the introduction from neutal to POV... but seeing as how I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on this article (I have other, less-controversial projects) I did not interfere. As a rule I stay out of hot-button issues because it seems to be a waste of time to try to keep those articles neutral... everybody and their mother wants to put their two cents in and make little tweaks here and there. So anyway.... good luck with that. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing to hear that the article was less POV once upon a time. When I have a few free minutes I'll log in with my account and get to work and hopefully we can all create something NPOV and informative. The large tracts of text about child rape don't really belong in the into, but would work perfectly fine in their own section within the article itself. Additionally, I'll add more about incest between consenting adults (which can include everything from siblings, cousins, etc.) Update: Here is my account in case someone needs to discuss on my talk page. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid issue for discussion, and the article can be improved. But simply removing referenced information as someone did today is not an acceptable way to address this issue. I've restored that information, and have moved it to a separate section so it is not providing undue emphasis in the intro now.

In reply to ErgoSum88 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC): "We already have articles about pedophilia and child rape so I don't see why an article about incest can't be focused on sex between adult siblings." - pedophilia and child sexual abuse don't specifically address the aspects of abuse that occur in the context of incest. Incest can be mentioned in those articles, but likewise, those aspects of incest can't be omitted from the incest article.

That said, I have no disagreement at all with expanding this article to include discussions of consensual incest between adult siblings or other family relations.

I've added a section heading for adult sibling incest, though I had no content for that section, so for now it's empty. You're welcome to proceed with adding that info when you find the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I never said it should be omitted. Anyway, the only reason I have this page on my watchlist is because I created the navbox you see at the bottom of the page (Template:Sexual ethics). Nice eh? Do you think I left out anything? Hmmm, well other than that, I really have no interest in editing this page, although it is fun to (attempt to) participate in keeping it NPOV and such. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I think someone else removed that information, I did not mean to imply that was you. About the navbox, yes I noticed it - good work! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking much better already. The only question I have right now is about the "Parental incest" heading. I changed it to "Adult and child incest" because the former seemed too narrow for that subtopic. I was hoping to create a heading that would include not just parental but uncle/aunt/other-adult-relative non-consensual incest as well. Thoughts? The Quiet Man (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that for a while before changing it back, and concluded that "parental incest" is an important heading because while it's not the only form of adult-child incest, it's by far the most prevalent, the most reported, the most researched and the most damaging to the child. It's so much more common that I've had a hard time even finding solid references about other kinds of adult-child incest. I'm sure we can find those other references eventually, and when we do we could add another section for incest abuse involving non-immediate family as you suggested. The same concern comes with regard to "childhood sibling incest". There are cases of cousins abusing younger cousins, but it's far less prevalent than within the nuclear family, and harder to find references about it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine. I've begun adding to the consensual section, and included a reference for the small bit I've added so far. I'm not gonna throw the templates back up on the page, but that doesn't mean the page isn't still a work in progress. :-) The Quiet Man (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Incest perpetrated by an adult of either gender against a child is called "intrafamilial child sexual abuse". The most-often reported form of incest is of this inherently abusive form." This is not NPOV, especially since unsourced. 193.229.194.39 (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Freud reference

There are several problems with the following statement that had been removed and was then restored with

this diff:

Sigmund Freud believed that incestuous desires were an innate part of the human psychological makeup, and that the social taboo was based in a desire to conceal subconscious desires. He stated that

Groups only prohibit what individuals really desire. Behind the laws that structure human society is the horror of incest, and behind that horror are the desire for incest and the murderous capacity to act on that desire.

• The text presented as a quote from Freud is not a direct quotation. It is a paraphrased interpretation from someone at the Library of Congress who wrote the description for their web page. The LOC in general is a reliable source, but to use the interpretation, the text would need to be rewritten to show it's not a quote from Freud, rather the interpretation of an unindentified Museum curator.

• A Google search on the phrases of the quote brings up only one other web page besides the LOC page: THROUGH SILENCE WE SPEAK: APPROAHCES TO COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH CANADIAN FIRST NATION CLIENTS. That page has a copyright notice and named authors, Arthur W. Blue, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Brandon University, et al - showing what appears to be the source of the text that was used on the LOC page, as follows:

In Totem and Taboo, Freud (1912) set out to give an account of taboos and of prohibitions in general. He was guided by the idea that groups only prohibit what individuals really desire. Behind the laws that structure human society, he said, is the horror, and behind the horror is desire and the murderous capacity to act on desire.

However, the word incest does not appear on this page by Dr. Arthur Blue, therefore the connection of the idea of incest to Dr. Blue's intepretation of Freud's comments was added by the unnamed author of the other web page.

• Dr. Blue also gives us the original reference to Freud that generated the paraphrase in question: Totem and Taboo, Freud (1912) The link here is to Google Books, that has the full text of Freud's book.

The focus of the book is not incest, but rather "taboo". That's what Dr. Blue's paraphrase is addressing, such as for example, the text on pages 53-55, where Freud discusses the desire to transgress taboos - but in general - not specifically about incest. Incest taboo is discussed in the book in depth, but not the action of "incest" itself, but rather the taboo and its effects specifically in what Freud calls "savage" societies.

It's possible that there might be some information about incest in Fred's 1912 book that could be useful in this article, but to find it would require further study of the book. The paraphrase listed above is an inaccurate interpretation by an unknown author, of the work of a second author who did not mention incest in his paraphrase of the Freud material, so it does not provide reliable information about Freud's comments on incest.

And, aside from all that, the topic of Freud's book is not incest, it's about the phenomenon of "taboo" and generally off-topic for this article. It may be of use in the incest taboo article. If a specific quote is found in the book that clearly applies to actual incest, the topic of this article, then that quote could be used here; but so far, we don't have that.

Based on the above, I've removed the statement misattributed to Freud. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incest laws

This article is probably going to get pretty long. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to create a separate article for the Incest laws section and provide a paragraph with a "see main article" here? The Quiet Man (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, there certainly is enough meat there to fill an entire article. Just be sure to leave a short (referenced) summary of the laws before removing the entire section to another article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do eventually. For now I think I'll leave it here so we can work on improving all of it, then as the article becomes huge I'll move it. The Quiet Man (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

reference moved from article for discussion

This text moved here from the article for discussion:

• "Incestuous desire is a very old phenomenon, as is the societal taboo that surrounds it."

• - based on this reference: Hipp, Dietmar (2008-03-11). ""German High Court Takes a Look at Incest"". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I question the use of this text for the following reasons:

• The source is unreliable and imprecise for scientific use. It's a newspaper article about a legal controversy. The author states: "The phenomenon of incestuous desire is ages old, as is the taboo surrounding it." - however: we do not know the qualifications of the author and the author supports his statement with no footnotes or references, so it appears to be simply his opinion or his understanding, but he's not a recognized authority so the source is not reliable for this use. It would be reliable to use for reporting about the legal debate in Germany, in that section of the topic page.

• Lack of clarity - there is no context for what is meant by "very old". It's a vague unscientific statement that's not of much value to the article, and not supported by scientific references.

• relation to consensual/non-consensual incest: though the article is worded imprecisely, it can be seen that the sentence quoted is referring to consensual incest because the author stated that point following a section in his article with the heading "consensual Incest", he wrapped up his paragraph with this sentence: "It's impossible, or at least very hard to prove that consensual incest does such damage."; and, the entire article is about legal issues regarding consensual incest, not about child abuse or forced incest. The only mention in the reference of non-consensual incest is to state that such incest is treated legally under sexual abuse laws, not under incest laws, thereby emphasizing that the reference is specifically exploring only consensual incest.

Since the source is unreliable for scientific use, it should be used only for reporting on the news issue, the German laws. If it's used at all, it should only be used with regard to consensual incest, since that is what the news article is about. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this analysis. The statement is not vague: it is what it is and I've applied it accurately as it appeared in the periodical. We don't require hard numbers in each and every case and in this particular case, nobody can possibly know how long incestuous desire and the related societal taboo have been around, so the sentence is truthful. Der Spiegel clearly fulfills the requirements of WP:RS. It's one of the most widely distributed and well-known periodicals in all of Europe. Reliable Sources don't have to be from scholarly sources. The introduction is currently heavily POV in favor of the non-consensual variation of the topic and it must be balanced to provide a correct overview of the article, which covers two very distinct forms of incest. This sentence is a small step towards that NPOV goal. The Quiet Man (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the periodical it was used regarding consensual incest only. That much is clear, so even if the reference is used, that needs to be reflected in the text. The rest is vague though - what does "old" mean? Does it mean a couple hundred years, or does it mean thousands of years? The periodical is reliable, as regards reporting events. But as an interpreter of science, would need references to support. Since your concern is that the intro is not balanced, that it is tilted towards non-consensual incest, why insist on using a passing statement by a newspaper reporter? Surely there must be many scientific sources you can bring. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: when I moved the reference here for discussion, I didn't see that it was also used in other sections of the article. I've restored the reference for those other statements, regarding laws and the court cases, for which the reference is reliable as noted above). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, reliable sources don't require additional verification... good journalists do their homework and if something is considered a reliable source it just is. As stated, old means old. Nobody knows how long it has been around so that's the hardest figure anyone can come up with. For now, I'm going to bed though. The Quiet Man (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Non-consensual sex" vs. "child sexual abuse"

I get that people want to make the case for "consensual" adult-adult incest. Fine. Wonderful. This is the internet.

But it is far, far, far more important not to dilute the significance of the fact that nearly all incest is between an adult and a child, and, therefore, nearly all incest is a particularly nasty form of child abuse. And, not entirely parenthetically, a large proportion of rape is incestuous.

The line that cannot be allowed to be crossed here, or fudged at all, is the one that separates consensual, adult/adult whatever from any advocacy of, or even any apology for, sex between adults and children -- including "consensual" sex, and especially "consensual" incest, between an adult and a non-adult.

The word "non-consensual" gets used in this article in a very misleading way. I guess this is to help make the case that there is a thing called "consensual incest" which grown-ups should be allowed to engage in. Fine, but the problem is that the words "between adults" are left out, and, simultaneously, child sex abuse is defined in terms of being "non-consensual." This definitely crosses the line.

"Non-consensual sex," "child sexual abuse," and "rape" have distinct definitions, and in a discussion of incest it is important that the distinctions be strictly maintained.

- Any sexual activity which an adult performs with a child is "child sexual abuse." I.e., "consensual" sex between an adult and a child is still, very definitely, "child sexual abuse."

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." American Psychological Association (from Wikipedia article Child Sexual Abuse)

- Non-consensual sex between adults is rape. Non-consensual sex between an adult and a child is one particular form of child sexual abuse. (I always assumed it was rape by definition, but I was corrected.)

(This is less important, but the section on "child-child incest" is the one case where the notion of of consent is actually pertinent)

- sexual contact between children is generally considered non-problematic

- sexual contact between children becomes abusive when it is "without consent, without equality, or as a result of coercion." (from the wikipedia article Child-on-child sexual abuse

All I am interested in here is that the difference between adult/child sex and consensual adult/adult sex be clear and sharp; and that the real-life facts about incest (mostly adults abusing children; mostly men abusing girls;etc.) not be whitewashed. SeattleJoe (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think thats all any of us wanted. The issue here is the difference between parent/child rape and incest between adult siblings. While the former may be more common than the latter, they both are incest... and the difference between them is immense. I applaud your efforts to keep this article balanced in favor of the more weighty side of the issue. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with you here, just trying to keep this from becoming an article focused solely on child rape. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, ErgoSum88.

It's not just that it's the more "weighty" side of the issue, it is that, as everyone seems to admit, "consensual incest" is rare, incest between adults and children (which, i will repeat, can NOT fall under the category "consensual incest") is what most incest consists of. To make consensual incest between adults the focus of the article is a distortion of the reality.

And it is a distortion that constitutes a form of advocacy, and Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy.

So I will continue to be a pain in the ass. SeattleJoe (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, nobody here wants to dilute the fact that child abuse is awful. The article already pretty well covers that. Indeed, all I (and it seems a few others) are interested in is a clear distinction between what is consensual and what is non-consensual (i.e., child rape). What we want to avoid is simply ending up with a sub article to the child sexual abuse article. We can do this by drawing these clear distinctions between what is consensual behavior between two adults and what is child abuse. The Quiet Man (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems to me that some people here do not accept that there is no such thing as "consensual" sex of any kind between adults and children, and that all sex, and especially incest, between adults and children is a form of child abuse that is, and ought to be, criminal; that is always pathological; and that is always a vicious and damaging attack on the well-being of the child.

To repeat that reference from the APA:

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." American Psychological Association (from Wikipedia article Child Sexual Abuse)

If anyone's got a problem with that, if anyone thinks that "consensual sex" between adults and children is OK and only "child rape" is harmful, then, I'm afraid, that makes them utterly contemptible and pathological sexual predators who should go fuck themselves, rather than their, or anybody else's children.

If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops.

And I don't mean the Wikipedia cops, I mean actual, real life, law-enforcement.

That's what they're there for. To protect children from those who prey on them, sexually or in any other way.

SeattleJoe (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very shrill post. You're not getting it. NOBODY is here to advocate for sex with children. I can quote a whole pile of WP policies that apply here to your post, including WP:THERAPY, WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, not to mention you're making legal threats, which I'm in the process of reporting you for. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this article through some links. I think some people are giving knee-jerk reactions here. This article already seems to overly indulge in child abuse by relatives. There is also a lot of information (stats) on such matters that are borderline relevant here. Some of the contributors are assuming that parent-children relationship always involves a minor. This is NOT true in general. In both sibling-sibling and parent-child incest, it is possible for both (or all) parties may, in general, be consenting adults.

There are also some unreferenced claims that "the most overwhelming form of incest is adult parent with minor child". This may not be true. Because of the very nature of incest, consentual incest between adults (siblings or parents-offsprings) may not be known in public, but that does not allow us to make such claims without references. Make no mistake: I am all against child abuse, but that is hardly the issue here. This is an article and needs to be less biased.

Overall this article spends a LOT of time discussing child abuse and creates a very POV image. Little mention is made of real-world practice of incest (contemporary or historical). It's like the article was written with the mental note that "incest=evil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.162.10 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We're working on that. We recently moved the laws into a separate article, so it shrunk a bit. We also rewrote the lead. I was planning on adding more about anthropology and various royal families. I don't think of it some much as evil (when between adults) so much as it has some...side-effects. "Yes, hello! Who are you? You're a plumber. What on earth is that?" Legitimus (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this text belong in the intro of this article?

I would like to get some input from other editors on whether or not the following text should be in the intro of this article:

Adults who who were incestuously victimized by adults in their childhood tend to suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction; and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.(Trepper, Terry S. (1989). Systemic Treatment of Incest: A Therapeutic Handbook. Psychology Press. ISBN 0876305605. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))(Kluft, Richard P. (1990). Incest-Related Syndromes of Adult Psychopathology. American Psychiatric Pub , Inc. pp. p83, 89. ISBN 0880481609. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help))

Although the word "incest" does appear in the reference titles (as Jack-A-Roe pointed out in his edit summaries), the text itself does not directly deal with the topic of incest, which should be the focus of this article. This material would be quite appropriate for the "Child sexual abuse" article, but looks out-of-place here. The passage talks about "adults who who were incestuously victimized by adults in their childhood," not people victimized by their relatives during childhood. Thus, this text should, at the every least, be removed from this article, and possibly be added to the CSA piece.

What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good in what sense? As in this text belongs in this article, or that the objection stated above makes sense to you? Clarification would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good in the sense of belonging in the article. This is because it is both ref'd and highly relevant to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But how is this text relevant to this particular article - an article that focuses on the topic of incest, and not on child sexual abuse? ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, its relevant in the sense that most incest is, in fact, child sexual abuse. Therefore, discussions of child sexual abuse should feature prominently in the article. As it stands, it is "consensual incest", which is quite rare, that seems to be being emphasized in this article, which is inappropriate and, in fact, not acceptable.

Perhaps you fellas who want to talk so much about "consensual incest" should start a separate article.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The information should remain in this article and be expanded with the addition of a full section exploring effects of incest abuse on children. There is of course overlap with CSA, but overlap between related topics is not unusual. The reason this needs to be covered in this article is that the effects of forced incest on a child are more damaging and wider ranging than effects of sexual abuse by strangers or by adult acquaintances who are not close relatives. The amplification of the damage is even more extreme when the abuse is perpetrated by the parents, where not only does the child suffer from the abuse, but the suffering is multiplied by the breaking of the most basic trust in the dependency relationship. (All of this can be sourced to solid references). It might be good to add a paragraph about that in the CSA article as well, and link it to this article for the expanded section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this should be in the article (which I'm still not convinced is the case), this info should be in the body of the text, and not in the intro - seeing as this is getting somewhat off-topic, and the material is not directly related to the narrower subject of adult-child incest. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo. I'm not 100% convinced this information is pertinent to the topic. We have a great deal of information here that shows the negative effects of child sexual abuse as it relates to non-consensual incest, but as I've stated several times, the article heavily covers the non-consensual form already and we don't need to keep bloating it with more. I don't think anyone really debates that child rape doesn't have a terrible affect on its victims. Personally, I think that if that information DOES stay, it should be taken out of the lead and moved to the body someplace. The lead shoud be a NPOV summary of the complete topic. The Quiet Man (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear me, I'm afraid I cannot concur. Most incest is child sexual abuse, and this should be discussed extensively in both the introduction and in the body of the text. Personally, I would say that "consensual incest between adults" is so exceedingly rare that it should not even be mentioned in the introduction.

But I won't insist.

Live and let live, that's my motto.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me start by saying this information belongs in this article. However, it does not belong in the introduction. The Manual Of Style states that an introduction should be a summary of the information contained in the article.... and that the introduction should not cover any information that is not already in the article itself. This information is too specific to be discussed right off the bat. Therefore, it does not belong in the introduction. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, agreed. This is good info, but it belongs in the body of the article. The best thing we can do here is follow MOS and WP guidelines. This can only result in a good article. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rape statistics returned to introduction

I have moved the rape statistics back to the introduction. If anyone removes it, I will move it back. If anybody doesn't like it, tough.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you do not own this article, and your actions are pretty darn uncivil. As I mentioned above, the Manual of Style guidelines pretty much say that the introduction should be kept clear of any specific stats or information, and it should be a general summary of the article itself. Perhaps you should cool down a little and discuss any changes you make before making any more edits. I understand your passion for this subject but it seems your goals are to conform this article to your point of view which is not how it works. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ErgoSum88. As stated about a billion times now, WP articles must follow the guidelines. It's not a billboard for advocacy groups or a public service announcement and nobody anywhere with any decency thinks that this article is advocating sex with children. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Consensual incest' changed to "Incest between consenting adults"

I have changed "Consensual Incest" to "Incest between consenting adults" throughout. If anyone changes this, I will change it back. If anyone doesn't like it, tough.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, as stated above you are violating WP:OWN and you are probably also violating WP:SOAP. There is no consensus for that change and it's going back. Nobody here is advocating for sex with minors and your insistence that we are is absurd. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While the original at the time before SeattleJoe's edit (if I recall correctly) felt a bit misleading, I think the current revision, namely "Consensual incest is sexual behavior between adult blood relatives" is acceptable. Legitimus (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do too, children cannot consent, obviously, so incest between an adult and a child is per se child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The more precise statement is "Incest between consenting adults" and I see no reason not to use that. "Consensual" or "consenting" is of no matter, either is OK with me. But it is necessary to include "between adults" in the phrase to be clear that no child is involved. The reason this is important is that most people, and in fact, most professionals working in the field, when the word "incest" is used assume that it describes abusive incest between an adult and a child or young adolescent. That's the crux of the problem we've been discussing about the article; there is no match in prevalence between abusive incest and non-abusive adult consensual incest. One is prevalent and the other is rare, so the terminology needs to be very precise to avoid confusing the two. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I posted on Jack's talk page, I'm completely fine with that heading change and it can stay. The entire section is meant to made a clear distinction between child abuse and behavior between consenting adults, as anyone reading the section should be able to determine. What I wasn't fine with were the other section moves and assorted sneaks that Joe had stuck in there that kept getting put back wholesale and made the article look terrible. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement on this. I haven't review those other changes yet so don't have comments on those at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As usual, usage should follow sources. While I personally agree that children in my own country are not capable of consent, this is not a universally held view. Also, people in different societies disagree as to when childhood ends and when adulthood begins. Also, people in different societies (just to finish out the point) disagree as to the boundaries that define appropriate sexual behavior, and "sex" period. In each of these areas there are likely to be more than one view. As always we need to distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority, and fringe views, and attribute the view to the person or group of people holding the view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be getting beyond the point of that section. We say "between adults" and leave it at that, so that the reader can formulate in their own mind what an adult is, based on their background. We also don't bother defining "sexual behavior" for this purpose, as a definition outright would be difficult to agree on. Legitimus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with going into greater detail about individual societies laws (if we can find references), but I actually think it's better in this case to have a more general lead. We may have to change the wording somehow, but it's best to let individuals determine what constitutes a legal adult in their jurisdiction (seriously, we could write an entire article on individual jurisdictional legal consent/adulthood that would be many times the size of this article). The Quiet Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stay calm in collaboration

I've seen some harsh words start to appear on this talk page today by several people. This is a general comment, not to any one person.

Please keep the discussion calm and collaborative.

This appears to be a difficult and charged topic. We all need to be extra careful to work with mutual respect so this page does not become a battleground like some of the other pages related to child sexual abuse have become.

If you disagree with someone, certainly, express your arguments and your debate points. But please re-read posts before hitting the save button and choose to omit any comments that could be seen as antagonistic.

Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The legality of incest as is applies to the article

I will go on record as saying that I do NOT advocate for sex with minors and my edits to this article have NOTHING to do with trying to say that there can be "consensual sex between minors and adults." Legally, children are incapable of consenting. Therefore, consensual sex between children and adults is impossible: it is always punishable child abuse. What I've tried to do is improve the article by adding a new section about behavior between CONSENTING ADULTS, and then I tried to improve the overall style of the article to conform to WP style guidelines. I just want to improve the article. I'm here to help create a balanced, informative encyclopedia. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I never thought you were advocating anything like that, so no worries at all on my end.

As I see it, we have a few differences about undue weight on some aspects of the topic - but that's just editing and not personal in any way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Phobic avoidance reactions

Is anyone here knowledgeable about psychological terminology? Phobic avoidance reactions is currently redlinked in the intro but we must have something on WP that relates to it and is just under a different title. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the reference "Healing the Incest Wound"; here's some wikilinks that contain related info:

• Avoidant personality disorder
• Avoidance response
• Agoraphobia
• Post-abduction syndrome#Syndrome
• Anxiety disorder#Phobias

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make it link to something in Wikipedia. I figured we would already have an article that is about that topic but just under a different title and it's not redirected. Maybe the anxiety disorders would be okay for our purposes. Like this Phobic avoidance reactions. The Quiet Man (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with vocabulary. However, the psych world is rife with strange terms that more or less mean the same thing (i.e. "Psychic Dependence" being used for the concept of "Addiction"). That term is an odd one though, because it mixes a few concepts together (avoidance, phobia, and defense mechanism). It may even refer to what is known as a "fugue" state, where something triggers the mind to "withdraw." Do you have some context for it? Legitimus (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the reference, does someone else? Maybe we'll have to write an article. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

lead

I just modified the first sentence. I am not satisfied with the edit i made, but given the rest of the paragraph it seemed like the best solution, as the first sentence was flawed. The article began defining incest as any sexual behavior between close relatives. The problem is, there are societies where some forms of sexual behavior between close relatives (as they understand "close relatives") is not considered wrong and not considered incest. Therefore, for the first sentence to comply with NPOV, we either have to cut "any form of sexual behavior" or we have to add that it is sexual behavior that is considered inappropriate. As I said, I chose the second option because it seemed to fit better with the rest of the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you are getting at. The trouble is even formal definitions are little hazy in whether "incest" automatically implies "inappropriate." For example, Random House Unabridged Dictionary has "sexual intercourse between closely related persons." That's it, which technically makes it all incest whether it's ok or not. However, the American Heritage Dictionary has, "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." Maybe we could work alone those lines Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AHD def. sounds reasonable but perhaps still too a little too vague or broad. A society can consider one form of sexual behavior to ve incest and violation of custom, and another form of sexual behavior appropriate. I am just saying, we need to be careful about over-generalizing here. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to avoid undue weight regarding unusual customs of nations or societies that we have not specifically identified and sourced. Yes, perspectives and views of all peoples on this are valid and should be covered in the article - if we have references about it. We should use the definition from the mainstream references as the main lead; then if there are references showing exceptions to that definition in some cultures, we can call that out as a special case and address it with appropriate weight according to the sources.

At this point, this is vague. What countries or societies are we considering who have definitions of incest that differ from the basic definition (ie, the AHD version)? What sources support the inclusion of that information? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein may have missed the "persons who so closely related" part. To be incest under this definition, it requires both: Blood relation, and violation of law/custom. I will offer an example though, in fairness, where custom does not quite jive with Western values: in a region of Pakistan, marriage between first cousins is not against custom, and is common. However, this area is also plagued by certain autosomal birth defects, like microcephaly.[13] This is a pretty small population though, and likely shrinking due to the medical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I suggested creating a separate article for the legal information on this topic. I think it would be beneficial to have broad coverage, but doing so here would bloat this article beyond recognition. I do think the lead is better if we use more general terms and it looks like we do have a sentence there that mentions how different locations have different rules. But that's just me. The Quiet Man (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of literature on societies where it is considered proper childrearing for a mother to fondle the penis of her male infant (which by their and our standard is a close relative) to the point of arousal, and stop. Well-known examples are the Balinese, as described in an essay in Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind, and an Inuit group, described by Jean Briggs in Never in Anger - both books have reamined in print for a very long time and are considered anthropological classics, so the views are by no means fringe. They are also about societies that are really unconnected and in different environments, i.e. quite different from one another. Childrearing practices are not my specialty so I did not go out looking for these cases; they happen to be in books that are of more general interest. I bet that a search specifically of literature on childrearing practices would show a variety of similar practices in other societies. So we either get rid of "any form of sexual behavior," or modify it to "sexual behavior considered inappropriate by that society," or limit the article to incest in the US and Europe or something like that.

The phrase "undue weight regarding unusual customs of nations or societies" is infelicitous. We should not give undue weight to a particular view. But there is no universal or objective standard for "unusual" customs, the word has meaning only in a subjective and relative sense - a custom in one society is quite likely to be unusual in another societies. Once you acknowledge that not all societies are the same, you are acknowledging that you will find many customs unusual. But that is your own point of view and should not enter into the shaping of this article. The customs I have described are not at all unusual to the people who practice them. If this article specified, incest in the United States and Europe, this would not be an issue. But if it makes universal or general claims about incest, as the previous first sentence (or the AHD def.) did, then it has to apply to societies unlike the United States and Europe. Otherwise we are indeed giving undue weight to a particular view.

To be crystal clear, I am not advocating that we mention specific examples in the introduction, or have several specific definitions; I have no opposition to a general definition. But it must be worded to comply with NPOV and if we wish the definition to be general, it must be worded so that it applies to such a wide variety of cases. The definition befor my edit sounded very specific and absolute. It didn't mention any specific locations, yet seemed tailored to the US and I imagine several European countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the trouble is we are crossing disciplines here. Is the word meant as a legal term (example: barratry), the name of a taboo in general (example: adultery), or simply a descriptive scientific term (example: consanguineous intercourse)? Maybe it will be better if we start vague and then break it down. Here's an idea:

“ Incest is defined as sexual relations between closely related persons such that it is either illegal or socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons varies by culture, and by jurisdiction. ”

Legitimus (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, I like the new wording by Legitimus. In the meantime, it would be really good to include these two instances you've mentioned (maybe we need an entire new "Anthropological" or "social" section?). The Quiet Man (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording suggested by Legitimus is OK with me as a starting point for improved focus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack reverted the changes to the lead. Ok, but I don't see any other way around this worldwide view issue other than renaming this article "Incest in the USA and Europe" or something like that. In my view, the lead (and the article and topic) should be broad in coverage and not place the US legal and moral viewpoint above all. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend a blanket reversion of your work. And I didn't revert your first change to the initial definition as had been agreed on the talk page. I reverted the remaining changes because at least one of them changed a statement directly based on a reference and it was combined with others so couldn't be reverted separately. Also, other changes were not supported by sources and seemed controversial, so we need to discuss them. I've started a new section below.

As far as "US legal and moral viewpoint", that's not where I'm coming from. I coming from reading the science. It's not our job to re-interpret science and say that we believe it only applies in the west; we have to report what the sources state. If you have references that show sex between close relatives is considered normal in other cultures, sure, that can be included. But there's a big difference between a traditional child rearing practice of some genital rubbing of infants and a father having intercourse with his 6 year old daughter. If you have references that show the latter is something practiced in any society and not considered harmful, that would be surprising, but if it's a reliable source, it could be included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think Legitimus's proposal for a new first sentence is good. I agree that incest may be defined differently not only from society to society, but also by the state (and legislatures, lawyers, etc); social workers; and social scientists. I think Legitimus's proposed first sentence handles this well. I certainly agree that there is a difference between a father having intercourse with his six-year-old daughter and a mother rubbing the penis of her infant son, and from what I know both the Inuit and Balinese would agree. But some people may not, and the originl (meaning, two days ago) wording of the first sentence was worded so broadly (any kind of sexual behavior) that one might reasonably believe the definition included both.

Apropos Jack-A-Roe's comment above, here is an interesting little tidbit, well-known among anthropologists: according to Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the fathers of modern social anthropology, the Trobrianders (islands near Australia) have a clear concept of incest, the word for this is suvasova and it describes sex or marriage between anyone one might call "blood relatives" (e.g. between a mother and her child). However, they do not (or did not) consider the father to be a blood relative, therefore sex between a father and his six year old daughter would not be considered suvasova (The Sexual Life of Savages 1929 page 533). Now, this does not mean that the Trobrianders considered sex between a father and daughter okay; indeed, according to Malinowski it too is forbidden and considered morally repugnant - it simply is not forbidden on the grounds that they are close relatives (Malinowski provides two different explanations for the moral repugnance: (1) there is a general sense tht people belonging to the same household should not have sex with one another, although obviously this does not apply to husband and wife ... and (2) the father is related through his marriage to the mother, and thereby becomes identified with her; since sex with one's mother is suvasova, a more general taboo extends to him). Anyway, this shows us that, beyond incest, non-Western peoples may have categories for inappropriate sexual relationships or behaviors that we don't have. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a change to the lead again (towards the end). I'm not sure if I'm getting it though... it's late and I'm tired. Revert if you disagree with my change. I do think it would be interesting and informative to discuss some of these additional behaviors in the body someplace. It just goes to show that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and wrong is all. The Quiet Man (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal fork

I heard a suggestion that there be a separate article specifically for the legal aspect of incest. It seems like an OK idea, and I'm willing to do the job of getting it started. Is this appropriate based on other articles on wikipedia? Is there a precedent? Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure this is done all the time. Look at some of the articles about major countries, like the UK, USA, etc. and you'll have all kinds of subarticles about law, culture, etc. I was going to do it myself eventually, but as most can see, I'm not here especially often lately (busy at work). So go for it. Maybe keep a small section here with a summary and then a "main article" interlink. The Quiet Man (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with separating the legal section to a new article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

lots of lead changes at once

There were a lot of changes to the lead at once today. It's hard to tell how much of the changes were appropriate, but there was at least one that mischaracterized a reference and needed to be reverted: [14]. The edit stated this: "The majority of non-consensual incest cases reported in the mainstream media are between adults and prepubescent or adolescent children, and particularly between fathers or other male relatives, and girls. " - however, the reference is about scientific reports, not media reports, so the text needs to follow the content of the reference.

There has been much study of incestual child abuse; it is a prevalent and significant problem. There has been very little study of incest between consenting adults, because, it hardly ever happens. As others have stated here on the talk page, in some societies, perhaps mothers rub their infant child's genitals as part of child rearing; whether or not that would be considered incest is unknown at this time and needs to be sourced to solid references. By the definition of incest that includes " that it is either illegal or socially taboo." - it would not be incest if it's not taboo and is part of child rearing, so it would not apply in this article; maybe that definition needs further adjustment.

Since there appears to be differences among editors on this page about how to present the information, we're going to need to carefully follow WP:V and WP:NPOV - including WP:UNDUE - and in particular that means that controversial statements will need to have reliable sources to remain in the article.

In developed nations sexual use of children by adults is defined legally-medically-socially as child abuse. This is easily sourced. Countless scientific references show that the most common forms of incest are child sexual abuse, and that most child sexual abuse occurs within the family, making it incest. The two topics overlap.

While we will - of course - follow NPOV and include information in this article about forms of incest that are not child abuse, and incest in non-developed nations or tribal areas, the article must not give a false impression of balance between different forms of incest that is not supported by references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Muslim values

Can anyone corroborate the edit added about Muslim countries and incest not being taboo if they are married? I know Pakistan has something like that, where some marry their first cousins by tradition (hence that area holds the world record for microcephaly) but I have no idea if this has anything to do with being Muslim.Legitimus (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Incest in Austria

I have the news that a father imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years and had 7 children through her. This is a repeat of Oedipus Rex and it's considered incest. And it happened in Austria. You should add that to the article, because here's the story: Man imprisoned daughter, fathered her 7 kids --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's incest, yes. It's also kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, child abuse, neglect, and unfathomable mental illness. I don't think it is of much use here. This almost belongs under serial killers and related, or even it's own article.Legitimus (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Guardian quote edit

I have changed the quote format due to undue weight. I have also added more of the article to the quote to attempt to more accurately represent the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This was incorrect and I have reverted it. There is no undue weight in the quote or in that section. The quote was from the person being interviewed in the article, not from the article in general. Adding more from the article made it appear as if the person interviewed was saying more than he said, which is misleading and incorrect. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the quote, clarifying the source of the rest of the quote. It is undue weight to pull one quote from an article to represent the entire article. IMO, a cquote definitely gives one person undue weight. I agree with user Ed Fitzgerald making both quotes in the article blockquotes. The section also does not represent the view of incest from the majority view and more references are needed to do this. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I support this change and concur with both points, ie, that cquotes give undue weight by graphic emphasis, and that the Guardian article includes more than one perspective and must not be cherry-picked to show only one aspect.

Even after the above edits, the quotes are still too long and give too much weight to the one Guardian story; they should be further pruned, or better yet, paraphrased as a summary. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. It does not represent the article, it represents the person quoted. The "Undue" policy does not apply because no undue weight is being given to anything there. You're using Undue as a club to push your own version of the article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. The Guardian article has far too many lines in the Incest article as a whole. The Guardian article itself presents a variety of points of view, which should be shown to not give one undue weight. The idea that incest in our culture is acceptable is at best a minority view, if not a tiny minority view. It may be undue weight to even leave the first quote in the article itself. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

minor accuracy revert

Most of the recent changes were good. I reverted two short parts for accuracy.ResearchEditor (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim removed

I've removed the claim that abusive incest is the most common kind reported in scientific studies. A quote from p. 9 of "Effects of Child Sexual Abuse," a 2007 master's thesis by: "The most discussed type of incest is between father and daughter (Herman & Hirschman, 1981). In actuality, the most frequently occuring type of incest is between brother and sister." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I find the claim that 20% of women have had an incest experience by the time they turn 18 quite surprising. Would it be possible for somebody to check that source and define precisely what is meant by "incest experience"? Right now it seems to be claiming that 1 out of every 5 women has had sexual intercourse of some kind with their relatives, which I have a hard time believing. Shinigami27 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on page 16 of the book that's footnoted in the article. The book cites studies by Russell, 1986 and Wyatt, 1985 and states in particular that the Russell's was a "methodologically rigorous large-scale study". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that Diana Russell, an anti-porn activist, has ever performed a "methodologically rigorous large-scale study." The source cited in that book is her non-peerreviewed The Secret Trauma. "Intercourse" is not part of Trauma's definition; non-contact abuse and the like are included. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the studies please. The claim is extraordinary. forestPIG 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched the studies though if you want to see them, they're listed in the book that's referenced. My comment in this section was simply a reply to Shinigami27's question about the source of the statement in the article - I looked at the book from the footnote in the article and reported what it says. After that, based on the comment above I got curious and checked out Diana Russell, author of the study cited in the book. It turns out she is well-qualified as a reliable source for Wikipedia. An excerpt from her bio:

Dr. Diana E. H. Russell is a Professor Emerita of Sociology at Mills College, Oakland, CA. She is the author, co-author, editor or co-editor of 17 books, most of which are on sexual abuse and sexual violence against women. She was co-recipient of the 1986 C. Wright Mills Award for outstanding social science research for her book The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women.

She's also authored 60-some published papers in a range of journals, including the American Journal of Psychiatry and has various other qualifications and awards - there's more, but that's sufficient.

Regarding the question of intercourse, some definitions of incest use that word but most include any form of sexual relations between relatives. With regards to incestual abuse, professionals do not exclude sexual relations that don't happen to be intercourse. That's not unique to Russell, it's the wider usage.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Her figures appear to be extreme for this area. I would use her as a reliable source for her own opinion, and cover the diversity.

Without looking further, I would hesitantly describe her as an author who works from a feminist agenda. forestPIG 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be best if we could find more sources to come up with the best information. I don't know anything about Russell other than what I found when I looked at the source for this discussion. I also don't know what the correct number is for that prevalence -I'm not defending any of this, I was just checking out the source mentioned in the footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one that might prove useful:

• The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science By W. Edward Craighead, Charles B. Nemeroff (2000) indicates incidence is usually measured at are around 10-15% when using an inclusive definition of incest (meaning it includes oral, fondling etc.) among a non-clinical population, whereas in studies limited to strictly to intercourse estimates are around 2%.

Legitimus (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've removed the article from category Rape, which seemed inaccurate and redundant to other categories. But on further reading, the categorisation scheme seems very convoluted in this subject area, and this article is listed in several parent / child and sibling combinations (see WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT for guidelines on this). I wonder if we might make an attempt to gain consensus as to which cats are appropriate? For reference, I've listed the category hierarchies with parent cats on the left and subcats on the right, and bolded each cat that the article is currently in.

Sex Crimes - Incest
           - Rape
           - Sexual abuse - Rape
                          - Child sexual abuse
Family - Family law - Incest
                    - Child abuse - Child sexual abuse
Interdisciplinary fields - Anthropology
Sexology - Sexual acts
Sexuality - Human sexuality

Based on the above, I'd suggest removing this article from Sex crimes, Sexual abuse, Family law, and Sexology, since in each case the subject is also in a more specific sub-category, although in some of those cases there might be arguments for keeping it in the parent cat. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, there is room for flexibility, so I suggest leaving it in some, but not all, of the ones you listed.

I recommend keeping it in these cats even though they overlap: Incest, Sexual abuse, Child sexual abuse, Rape

I recommend removing from "Sexual acts" because incest is not a particular sexual act. I agree it's also not needed in Family Law

I've no recommendation on the other listed cats. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

delete OR

I have deleted a phase from the intro that was recently added that is unnecessary and OR, as it duplicates info in the next line. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cousins

I have changed the section on cousin "incest" as it was misleading and US-centric, equating practice in the US with "Western culture" in general. As far as I am aware, marriage between cousins is legal and not considered incest in most Western countries other than the United States. I am not sure my rewrite is ideal but it's at least a start.Clerval (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One Man marries two sisters

What if one man marries a women and has a child with her and then later on divorce then maybe two years later this same man gets married to another woman and has a child with his 2nd wife but the thing is that his 2nd wife turns out to be the sister of his ex-wife now how are this two children related to each other because of this???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the society. In the US they would be half-sisters as well as cousins. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Two second cousins marry two siblings and the children of these two cpouples

What if two 2nd cousins one male 2nd cousin and one female 2nd cousin the male 2nd cousin marries a women and has a child with her and then the womens brother later on gets married and has three children with his own wife and it turns out that the brothers wife is the 2nd cousin of his sisters husband now how are the children of these two couples related to each other because of this????

In which country did this happen? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well i am not sure if this ever actually happened or not i am just asking personally what the relation would be between these children if this were to ever happen???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In what country? Different societies have different kinship terminologies, there is no one correct answer. Also, if it didn't happen, what is its relevance to this article? Talk pages are for improving articles. Do you see a way to improve this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know do you possibly know a way to improve it???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Relation on both sides

What if One Person has a step-father meaning a man who married the persons mother which also means the mothers second marriage and this step-father has a second cousin and it turns out that this second cousin of the persons step-father marries a half-first cousin of the persons mother because they would share the same grandmother but two different grandfathers and the second cousin of the step-father and the half-first cousin of the mother both have children of there own what would the relation be between this person and the children???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC) This person and the two children would be maternal half-2nd cousins / double step-3rd cousins Evan though this one person is not biologically related to the step-father and would not be related to anyone in the step-fathers family but in this case the persons mother would be blood related to the two children and so would the step-father and thus this person would be blood related to the two children as well but only through their maternal family tree. But in terms of cretin relations of varying degrees of aunt/uncle/niece/ nephew and finally those of just cousins one would consider the fact that these half-first cousin wives and second cousin husbands would be more often described as more then just half-first cousins and second cousins to one another. Maybe if the persons mother and step-father have a child of their own meaning the persons younger half-sibling then this younger half-sibling and the two other children would then be blood related through both the maternal family tree and the paternal family tree which would make them Maternal half-second cousins / double paternal full third cousins.

If these four people have children of their own what would be the relation between these children????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well for example the oldest child of the subject who's a male has a child of his own and if the 2nd the youngest child who`s also a male has a child of his own then these two children would be paternal half-third cousins / double step fourth cousins to each other. And if the younger half-sibling has a child of his own then these two children would be Paternal half-third cousins / double paternal full fourth cousins to each other simple as that.

Family tree showing the relationship of each person to the orange person. Cousins are colored green. Family tree showing the relationship of each person to the orange person. Cousins are colored green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Christians?

Should it be mentioned that the Bible implies that the first relationships on Earth happened between faily members? Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Cain had to have relations with some of his kin, and the children of Adam and Eve had to engage in incest. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like original research. Who makes this claim? If this is a notable POV from a reliable source maybe it belongs in some article, I would suggest maybe the article on Genesis if you can find a notable source (I know Speiser is famous for an essay on the sister-wife complex in Mesopotamia) ... but I do not see how it fits in here, I know of no notable researcher on incest who has drawn on or addressed the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It gives a lot of weight to the Bible, which is the holy text of only a portion of the world and therefore gives bias towards Christianity. It would be original research without a source. It's an essentially fictional book about a myth. It sounds kinda listy. It'll probably piss off a fair number of readers and editors. It's only an implication, they can always pull out the God/miracle card. But mostly it'd be unsourced. Without a pressing reason from a reliable source, there's not a whole lot of merit to it that I can see, but a lot of reasons why it's not necessarily a good idea. WLU (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no reliable source, I was wondering if it had come up previously. You have to admit, it makes sense... :P Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a Creation myth/narrative, not fact. It is allegorical, not literal. There are many of them, no reason to bias towards one religion. Not really appropriate for an article on incest. Atom (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make any sense to me. And I do not think it gives any weight to the Bible - in fact, it seems to give no weight to the Bible says nothing about incest in the first generations of humankind (and the Bible is not shy about depicting incest on other occasions) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"This sounds like original research. Who makes this claim?"

Well, the narrator of Genesis implicitly makes the claim, if you reason that only two humans are mentioned (Adam & Eve) and that they a few pages later have a grandchild. C d h (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for clarifying it, it is clear cut violation of NOR. This is your interpretation. The narrator of Genesis does not make the claim, you are insertain several of your own assumptions into the text. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely add this matter as Sephiroth storm wrote and, together with it, there was incest in the case of Noah: he, his wife and his children were the only human beings alive so there must have been an incestuous relationship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.169.67 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAW?

Why is this article under the jurisdiction of this WikiProject? This article has little to do with pedophilia, or child sexuality. Sephiroth storm 23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The tag was here before I ever saw this article, but I believe it falls under this jurisdiction due to the majority of modern day incest being child sexual abuse. A child, after all, has not matured sufficiently to understand social taboos or laws, and make easy targets.Legitimus (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

POV in an historically relative way

The article is heavily weighted against ancient and primitive customs although their practices would most certainly be described as incest by us. The lead says that in order for it to be incest it must be illegal: Incest is sexual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo. However, in ancient Egypt it was neither illegal nor socially taboo, at least as a royal practice, yet it was still incest. The article also seems heavily weighted towards the emotional effects on child victims of incestuous abuse, which does not deserve such heavy weighting in such a general topic article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the definition in all modern dictionaries. Take a look and that's what you'll find. In modern society, incest is very uncommon, almost non-existent, other than child sexual abuse within the family; and that, unfortunately, is not rare. That information is based on reliable sources and is presented with due weight.

You have a good point that in some ancient societies, sexual relationships and marriages within nuclear families was more common than it is today (though even in those contexts, usually, but not always, limited to nobility). That is mentioned in the last paragraph of lead section; maybe it needs a bit more attention there than one sentence. Also, there is a history section in the article that addresses it further. There's plenty of room for expanding that part of the article and you're welcome to do so. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It says "illegal or socially taboo." If it is not illegal or taboo, it is not incest. Incest is not the same thing as inbreeding, you seem to be confusing the two. Inbreeding is a biological concept and can be measured in any historical or cultural situation. Incest is a social concept and different societies have different understandings of what is and is not incest. That said aside from ancient Egypt I donot know what evidence exists to suggest that sexual relations and marriage within the nuclear family were more common in ancient societies. Also bear in mind that what is considerfed sexual also varies from one society to another, from one time period to another. How is this article weighted against non-Western societies? I do not understand your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I'm not sure from the indentation if you're replying to my comment or the one above, by Doug. In case my comment was not quite clear, I agree with what you wrote here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I was primarily responding to Doug. But you wrote, "in some ancient societies, sexual relationships and marriages within nuclear families was more common than it is today" and I do not know what evidence there is for that.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think I was writing too fast and also trying to offer benefit of the doubt; that if such information exists in reliable sources, then that part of the page can be expanded. But without the sources, no, it should not be added. Mostly I was referring to Egypt, some of the early Biblical tales, the stories of Caligula, and the inbreeding that resulted from the royal intermarriages in the early/middle ages. But in considering this further after reading your comment, it seems those examples are either simple incest and violating the taboo of the times - and so fit within the way the term is defined in this article - or in the cases of the royal marriages, more accurately described as inbreeding as you noted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oky, it sounds like we are on the same page. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism did allow cousin marriage earlier. Arjuna married Subhadra (Krishna's sister) who was Arjuna's cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.72.232 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Incest supporters

I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever created a group that supports legalizing incest. No info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.94.233 (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Same here I support it. I have had relations with my Mother and my sister and our family dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.133.179 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

academically speaking, I support all consensual sex! Incest laws between consenting parties are totalitarian population control that criminalize human and what should be civil liberties! I don't know where all this criminalization of natural choices comes from mostly religion I guess and probably backlash to people who engage in non consensual sex and then falsely claim it was consensual! Marriage and reproduction are totally different but not quite separate issues from consensual sex! Beyond protecting the human and civil rights and of individuals, the world community should end government controlled family planning! Currently this article is totalitarian, and does not present the issues and facts thoroughly, probably a good start though! Keep working on it try to stay current with the full range information! Also When does POV become NPOV on wikipedia it seems to me everything is POV or based on consensus POV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.189.97 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, people are failing to understand what "incest" means. Everyone keeps think it means relations between related individuals. It does not. It means relations between individuals that are taboo in their specific jurisdiction and/or culture. It is a relative term. If the relationship is not taboo, then it is not incest. The oft-quoted example of Islam, wherein first cousins may marry, is not incest because Islam does not forbid it. In places where there is no legal prohibition against certain pairings, these pairings are no incestuous because there is no law against them.

Incest can encompass forcible rape; the label is moot because the important matter to focus on is the fact that it was rape. The label of incest can also be applied to parent-child, such pairings can also fall under child sexual abuse, making the label of incest largely irrelevant. Well, perhaps in this case it is still partially relevant, as incestuous child abuse is more damaging than that committed by a stranger. Legitimus (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Incest avoidance

I removed a short section for two reasons: first, it provided one hypothesis out of context for a complex set of issues already covered in the article on the incest taboo. Second, it relies on a paper publicized by a university, not a peer-reviewed journal i.e. it just wasn't established science. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Biological Consequences of Incest?

I was reading the article looking for the research into the actual biological effects of incest on humans yet found nothing here! I know that there are articles all over Wikipedia that discuss this in bits and pieces (like the pedigree collapse article and the inbreeding and inbreeding depression and its related articles on the Vadoma and Ulas family) yet it appears that a comprehensive (for Wikipedia at least) review of the biological consequences of inbreeding is absent from this article. I know that the topic of biological consequences is large enough to break off into its own article to match the size of this one, and the fact we can make a small stub of that major article to outline some of the major biological causes. the need for such an article is simple: many of the studies on the ethical, religious and legal views on ethics are based on an understanding of the consequences of incest. now, i also know that some folks may object on the grounds that this would better fit under inbreeding rather than incest because incest is usually a culturally defined activity as opposed to inbreeding which is its biological similar... ok, i still believe some biological background on this article in the way of a section would be useful, and a similar background in the inbreeding article (both articles could then point to a main article on the biology of it) would help provide valuable information in this topic

I would gladly start the article myself, but am in the middle of my midterm reviews and don't expect to contribute in a meaningful way until late December, but in case anyone else has something they can throw in regarding this, i think it would make a fantastic contribution to the article. Of course, failing that, i shall strive to contribute around the stated time...

some notable studies on it may include: Cavalli-Sforza and Walter Bodmer (1971) "The Genetics of Human Populations" where he discusses the incidence of lethal gene equivalents in human populations. W.H. Durham elaborated on Cavalli-Sforza's data by showing rates of lethal genes anywhere from 20% to 45%.

another is Lander and Botstein's 1987 Science article titled "Homozygosity mapping: a way to map human recessive traits with the DNA of inbred children" not so much for its procedure but for the background it provides (it has some good articles i haven't yet finished reading, but hope to).

there are more articles which can help outline the biological consequences of incest and as i said, if someone has the time, it would definitely help. --Skaaii (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I put in something basic. It would be good to add more but we need to be careful about NOR - we need to add material related to incest and explain the relationship. This is important because there are many societies in which what people consider incest is not really inbreeding, and in which what we would consider inbreding occurs and it is not considered incest. My guess is most research abount inbreeding that is directly concerned with incest is linked to Western definitions of incest. Nothing wrong with this, but we shouldn't write from a Eurocentric perspective that assumes that research in the US or Germany is directly applicable or relavant to all other societies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam section: Editing & cleanup needed

".but some of Islam sheikh argued that a man is allowed to Marry if the woman in question was for example his illegitimate child Quoting the opinion expressed by Dr. Mohamed Almaser, a seniorat Al-Azhar and Professor at the Faculty of Theology and advocacy: its legal for a man to marry his illegitimate daughter's, and for the illegitimate son to marry his illegitimate sister" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.177.173 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse

Strangely there is no article on False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse. This could be added as achapter in the incest article as False Allegation of Underaged Incest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.173.132 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, it's right here: False allegation of child sexual abuse

Legitimus (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Strange I could not find it by searching. Would it be appropriate to add a “see also” section and add a link to that article in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.165.77 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not necessarily. "Incest" is a legal and cultural term. It can describe specific incidents of child sexual abuse, but there are also many forms where it is not (see parts about between consenting adults). Likewise not all CSA is incest (e.g. by strangers). The concept of "accusations" in largely exclusive to child sexual abuse (whether incest or not). That is to say, adults don't run to the police or press to accuse close adult relatives of having consensual relations with them. Now, sometimes other people will falsely accuse a pair of related individuals of being in an sexual relationship, though it's pretty rare by comparison.17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Incest and Abortion

I think that there should be some frank discussion on the relationship between Incest and Abortion. Many bishops in the Catholic Church, not all but many, consider Incest to be not as bas as Abortion. In recent times, this has raised controversy, see for example José Cardoso Sobrinho. ADM (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose brief mention is alright for Christianity, in that "incest" is sociopolitical and cultural in nature, rather than scientific (such as consanguinity and inbreeding). But any more than that is straying off-topic.Legitimus (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay adoption and Incest/Pedophilia

There is a popular belief that Gay adoption will increase the chances of incest, but this has been dismissed by many people who are in charge of this right now. Anyways, it would be a good idea if we could find solid evidence and statistics on this. ADM (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those concerns were based on misinterpretation of both popular cases and the nature of child sexual abuse offenders. Groth and Birnbaum (1978) and numerous subsequent studies discredited the idea that homosexuals are more prone to be offenders in that they found that nearly all child sex offenders with same-sex victims were heterosexual in their adult relationships and self-identification (many were married to adult women). Regarding popular opinion, the US is still rather homophobic, and so news media tends to strongly fixate on same-sex offenders despite them being such a small population. The vast majority of offenders are adult men with young girls.Legitimus (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Both soulwork.net and ethicaltreatment.org, I think, fall short of RS. The Squicks (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

German Siblings

I added some more info about the German siblings. They are from Sachsen, a federal state of Germany, not from Austria as mentioned before - probably a mix-up with the (in)famous Fritzl case in Austria that emerged in the same time frame.85.177.108.176 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch with that. I'd not noticed it. I looked into that case further and added more details, including that the man was technically separated from his family for 20 years since age 3. The sister wasn't even born, and they'd never met their whole lives nor formed any familial identification. This is the case the vast majority of the time with adult sibling relations. I noted in the article that the sister is also somewhat mentally handicapped, not sure if it should be mentioned.Legitimus (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Half sibling incest?

What about half sibling incest which can also link to child abuse? Why is there no mention of this? Is it cause it is "rare"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marylandcookie133 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would thing it was largely implied by the wording in this article.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)