On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 08:05:16PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> I read what you wrote.  Incest, even with someone who is not a parent
> causes harm that is disporportional to any harm caused by consensual
> sex with a non-related partner.  Incest is not about sexual desires.
> When it is brother-sister, its often about power.  With adult/child it
> can be a product of significant sexual dysfunctions (often caused by
> being incest victims themselves, and usually involves power too.

I believe people have said the same thing about homosexual sex. While I
agree that what you say is frequently true, how do you explain a case
where brother and sister did not know they were related, certainly
sexual desire is possible in that case (unless you claim some pheremone
is released)? Judging from my own and others reactions to thinking these
thoughts, most people's genes probably have been selected to make that
behavior quite repulsive to them, how can you claim that it is ALWAYS
the case?

> One of the worst things about incest is that it violates safety.  Even
> if consent is given, incest violates one of the most important home
> rules: kids are safe there and will not be used for by others.  The
> vulnerability one has at home makes any violation of such a trust
> damaging.  We all have psychological needs while we are growing up.
> Manipulating them for one's own pleasure causes harm.  The asymmetry
> of power within a family results in direct long term damage.

In that case, it wouldn't be consensual by the definition I
explained. Most children are not sophisticated and mature enough to
consent.

While I admit I find it quite distateful (millions of years of natural
selection in my genes?), I don't think a 21 year old man should be
banned from having sex with his mother because he would be unsafe in
his home. Although, as I said in my initial email, there are likely to
be other circumstances going on there. So we seem agree about it being
complicated.

> It is, indeed, a subject I'm close too.  But, Teri's attack by her
> father would have automatically fallen in the not OK bin, since she
> was only 5 at the time.  I've based my understanding on reading, and
> long conversations with psychotherapists in the field.  If you are
> right, virtually everyone who works with incest victims and survivors
> is wrong.

I still don't think you understood what I wrote. Would you care to tell
me specifically where you think I wrote "ignorantly"?


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>       http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to