Posted on 18 July 2008 23:43:54 by wagglebee

July 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An article narrated by an anonymous
woman who says she is "an academic," published in the London Times
this week, favorably describes at length and in detail the woman's
incestuous relationship with her brother. The article is entitled "I
had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty."

"Daniel is my brother," says the anonymous narrator, whose story was
transcribed by journalist Joan McFadden, "but since I was 14 we've had
a sexual relationship - and that's not something that many people
would feel comfortable with."

The narrator then relates, in increasingly explicit detail, the manner
in which her and her brother's close relationship gradually became
sexual during their early teenage years. The author repeatedly
expresses her belief that there was nothing wrong with the
relationship, other than that society was unwilling to accept it.

She explains that the topic of incest is frequently tied in with
sexual abuse, but that it need not be. "Incest is so often spoken
about in the same breath as abuse, but if you're close in age and
equal in relationship terms then it's entirely different," she says.
"There's no comparison between siblings close in age having sexual
feelings and contact and an adult forcing a younger member of the
family to do something they neither understand nor want to be involved
in."

She also suggests that incest should begin to be studied from an
academic viewpoint and disassociated from the topic of sexual abuse.
"As an academic I have a tendency to draw logical conclusions. I like
to see a pattern and resolution, so it does pain me that what appears
so lovely and natural to me would be regarded as abhorrent by most
people. It's not my subject, but I would be really interested to see a
study on incest done on these terms, moving it away entirely from the
concept of abuse."

She concludes by explaining that she and her brother have since ended
their sexual relationship, with her brothering having gotten married,
and she herself having met another man with whom she is having a
relationship. Nevertheless, she explains, "It's hard knowing that the
one person you love above everything is out of bounds. Perhaps worst
of all is the fact that you can't tell anyone, as his or her disgust
would ruin everything."

The subject of incest has been appearing more frequently in the
mainstream media in recent months, with its treatment becoming
increasingly sympathetic. Two recent court cases related to incest
have been reported on by LifeSiteNews.com.

In March of this year John Deaves and his daughter Anne pleaded guilty
to two charges of incestuous intercourse which produced two children.
One child died a few days after birth; the other was physically
healthy.

District Court Judge Steven Millsteed observed that the case was
unique, in that it did not involve the abuse of a minor; rather, the
relationship took place between two consenting adults. "This is not a
case where a father has violated his daughter and used his position of
authority to take advantage of her powerlessness. Rather, this is a
case of a mutually consensual union, formed by adults, who had
previously had little contact."

Because of her parents' divorce, Anne did not grow up with her father,
John. The two were basically strangers when they reunited in 2000 and
began their sexual relationship. Anne was in her early 30s and freely
entered into the relationship.

Judge Millsteed, however, went on to argue that "the offence of incest
exists not merely to protect children from sexual abuse."

"In my view," he continued, "other relevant factors include the need
to prevent the high risk of congenital defects of children born of
incestuous relationships and to prevent children who are brought up in
a family unit founded on an incestuous relationship suffering
psychological harm and social stigmatisation. Those factors assume
significance in this case," said Millsteed.

In February 2007, the German brother-sister couple, Patrick Stuebing
and Susan Karolewski, asked the Constitutional Court to overturn the
ban on incest. After giving birth to four children with his sister,
Stuebing freely opted for a vasectomy. With no threat of inflicting
physical or emotional harm upon future offspring, Stuebing and
Karolewski have asked what objections remain to their relationship

"The main problem is, of course, that the couple might produce
unhealthy children. But if they don't have children, then I see no
reason why not, in this day and age. But then, I'm a scientist, not a
moralist," stated Professor Roland Littlewood about the case.

Many pro-family commentators over the years have prophesied that, with
the widespread acceptance and state sanctioning of homosexual
relationships, it is only a matter of time before to push for the
acceptance of incest, pedophelia, polygamy, and bestiality begins.
While this notion has been vehemently denied by homosexual activists,
there are already significant indications that that process of
normalization of these types of sexual behaviours is well under way.

In his commentary "Nothing Wrong With Incest If Secular Worldview Is
True" (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041111.html)
LifeSiteNews.com staff writer Michael Baggot observed that, from a
secular perspective, Littlewood's moral assessment is unassailable.
If, as the neo-Darwinian narrative teaches, man is merely the
accidental byproduct of blind, unguided natural processes, then there
seems to be no reason for man to restrain his sexual desires, writes
Baggot. If there is no God, then there is no transcendent purpose for
sexuality. Man is thus free to follow and satisfy his sexual urges as
he sees fit.

As Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, appointed last year to lead
the Italian Bishops Conference, said when commenting on the Italian
government's initiative to legalize same-sex unions, family policy
must have a basis in natural law and the moral order. If it does not,
public opinion someday may justify the instatement of law that
sanctions destructive sexual relationships once believed
inconceivable.

Equally there is clearly some sort of mechanism at work that prevents
brothers and sisters from becoming attracted.  (The first case quoted
in the article is highly unusual in this respect).  I have read that
the early kibbutzim in Israel brought up their children communally and
hoped that they would in due course pair off and start a new generation.
Instead what happened was that the kids basically felt about each other
as brother and sister and simply didn't fancy each other.

I am not making any judgements, just stating facts.

All the facts stated above suggest that incest is uncommon because
children brought up as brother and sister, together from infancy, are
not sexuo-romantically attracted to each other; that is the 'mechanism
at work ' which was not there in the case of Anne and John.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

Some of you people are really on a knee-jerk opposition to anything
posted by SOT, and anyone who picked this issue should be
embarrassed.  Must be a really slow day.

With a quick bit of proddling the net, I've found it has a name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect

Apparently (and I am somewhat amazed by this) incest is legal
in many Western countries:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly

I guess this article
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,540831,00.html
explains why:
"Napoleonic France stopped punishing incest in 1810 in the wake of the
 declaration of civil and human rights during French Revolution that the
 law only has the right to prohibit such actions that are damaging to
 society. It's impossible, or at least very hard to prove that
 consensual incest does such damage."

Everything should be taken to be British or English untless proved
otherwise - The Football Association, the Rugby Union, the Amateur
Athletics Association, the Army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Mail. All
of these are older than the corresponding body in any other
English-speaking country. For the same reason, we are exempt from the
Universal Postal Union requirement to put the name of the country on
stamps.

--
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

-- Richard