Why do so many stories have incest?
A majority of the pocketbook novels are filled with incest (and bestiality), but are you sure that it's true for just plain stories?
ETA:
There are 44,336 stories on SOL
8,490 have the incest code = 19%
8,289 when you remove the pocket-novels = 18.5%
Seems to be an ever increasing aspect of stories.
Usually, I will not even read a story with such a tag. Though I will give some of my preferred authors the benefit of the doubt that their story will rise above.
Possibly because writers may want to explore the darker side of desire, in fantasy, rather than in real life?
Statistically,child abuse is committed more by members of the same family or by individuals well known by the family, than by random strangers.
I have difficulty picturing two siblings under the age of majority willingly engaging in intercourse with each other as child abuse.
Why do so many stories have incest?
I suspect because it's one of the last cultural 'sins'.
Many of us grew up in rural communities where we knew what fucking was because we saw animals doing it. And when we reached the age where our bodies were telling us we were ready for sex, whether we were mentally or not, a lot of times a cousin or sibling close in age was also feeling the same thing.
It's a cheap way to create drama and suspense.
It's a cheap way to heighten kinkiness of otherwise vanilla sex act, breaking an obvious and almost universal taboo.
It's a cheap way to create otherwise hard to explain life arrangements with lovable, but restricted partners.
It's a cheap way to create shock and outrage.
It's a cheap way to portray otherness.
It's a cheap way to appeal to the darkest desires and freudian shit most have experienced, but too many unwilling to admit even to themselves.
It's a cheap way to explain why two lovers are best and 'destined' to each other: the same upbringing, the same values, the same hardships...
It's a cheap way...
...but if I ever will write anything to completion, I too will much likely flirt with it. Actually, I think it's much hotter if incestuous tension is present, but forever repressed, never consummated fully, or maybe just briefly. Then, I won't count family nudism situation as incestuous at all, but some might, the standards differ, as in everything.
In real life, it is of course betrayal of the trust and integrity of a family unit. Then, why children should learn art of sex from random strangers, often without even the most basic safety net? There's biological, but mostly cultural and power management reasons why it's such an universal taboo. In a world with readily accessible birth control and mostly dismounted family power structures, there's no reason for consenting adults (or siblings for that matter) to do whatever they please. Other than the consent is largely impossible in incestuous relationships. And that's the real issue. It is much easier to ban it outright than resolve unresolvable consent issues in every individual case. If it does happen, someone somewhere had fucked something up well before.
P.S. and don't we love stories about fucked up people and situations? So, yes, it's a cheap way to create a story.
It's a cheap way...
It is an effective way to create a scenario that readers find acceptable even if they are opposed to incest in the real world. You would have to explain what you mean by cheap; perhaps you actually mean easy. Just because it is easy does not mean writing the story is easy. The scenes have to be realistic in order to be accepted by the reader. I suspect many readers of an incestuous story fantasize about their having an incestuous relationship with a family member that our society told them was taboo.
Incest is a commonly accepted taboo in our society and illegal in many locations. However, if you were to research the history of incest within families, you would find it is far more common than most people are aware of. Of course history only documents the publically known relationships. There have undoubtedly been far more family members willingly engaging in incestuous behavior than the public is aware of because the participants didn't talk about what they did.
https://rapingincest.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/history-of-incest/
https://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-royal-families-riddled-with-incest/
You would have to explain what you mean by cheap; perhaps you actually mean easy.
Yes, I mean simple, readily accessible and universally understandable. In contrary to obscure and convoluted. English isn't a language I can speak, but the devaluation play on the word "cheap" was, besides everything else, deliberate, even if I don't actually agree with that myself, it was meant to increase the response. Yes, trolling, maybe, if you want to call it so.
I suspect most readers of an incestuous story fantasize about their having an incestuous relationship with a family member that our society told them was taboo.
That might or might not be the case. To my limited knowledge, many incest readers would never pursue such actions themselves.
Yet others, like me, may like the situations created by incestuous scenarios, willingly ignoring relative status of the actors. That's even while I have to admit to have had incestuous thoughts. Indeed I believe those who claim they haven't just better censor their own memories, both short and long term.
However, if you were to research the history of incest within families, you would find it is far more common than most people are aware of.
So it is and it doesn't surprise, because it sorta makes a lot of sense. Making sense however, doesn't make it right anyway.
Regarding royal families... it's a power management tool for them. I have even heard controversial opinions by alleged incest practitioner(s) that the whole taboo of it is only created just to not allow this tool to common folks. Then, that was just another online discussion, so...
the whole taboo of it is only created just to not allow this tool to common folks
From my understanding, the taboo is in place because incestuous relationships within a family over a long period of time results in the negative genetic traits becoming common within the family. A one time relationship with a family member resulting in pregnancy does not commonly result in the child having an inherited genetic problem.
Yes, that is the biological basis for the taboo. Sometimes it tried to be refuted on grounds that the effects are so minor and that ancients shouldn't have it observed. Supposedly, there's a whole island population of exclusively colorblind, taking ancestry from bother/sister storm survivors, and, the colorblindness aside, healthy. The flaw should be in the system to be revealed through incestuous accumulation of the repressed genes. Idealistic "perfect arians" with no genetic flaws could in theory practice incest to prevent their perfection from being tainted by the unworthy. Eventually a minor mutation may or may not kill them off, but it may take more generations than necessary for several world wide empires to rise and vanish sequentially. Most "pure" breeds of anything are created with systematic, controlled inbreeding. Yes, many have specific issues in addition to their values.
At the same time, the punny inbred 'hicks' families are so obviously fucked up it is indeed instantly obvious. The difference, the inbred people within otherwise functioning society are much likely subjects of being fucked up in more ways than one, incestuous relationships being rather symptom than cause, and perhaps least of their life problems.
However people do see those examples and make the, strictly speaking, correct assumptions: incest practised systematically is a fuck up. The same can be easily tested in animal husbandry.
And by the way, ancients were exceptionally observant, as they had much more free time on their hands, and did think on much greater scale much often. (E.g. Master carpenter cut a tree and prepared the material for his grandson, or appreciate's apprentice, to work with eventually, long after his own passing.)
So yes, the biological ground for incest taboo holds true, and might be the basis for the mostly instinctive repulsion. However, it isn't, and can't be, the basis for actual laws banning incest, especially in day and age birth control is readily and openly available. (It sort of was always there, for what you think their burned witches? For practice and teaching of 'women magic' among other things.)
The issue why governments have to have a say in this (if we do believe in even slightest pretense of benevolence in any government, and that's a valid "if") is the fucked up issues of consent in majority of real world observed incestuous relationships. Those cases that doesn't fuck people up doesn't make news and doesn't create drama and work for social workers, so governments could, and mostly do, successfully ignore those.
the basis for actual laws banning incest
What you need to recognize is in many countries, the country's religious beliefs strongly influence the country's legal code.
ETA: Religious beliefs are usually the basis for a culture's taboos.
ETA: Religious beliefs are usually the basis for a culture's taboos.
IMO that's backwards - religionists set a culture's taboos in concrete then continue to enforce them even after progress shows them to be illogical.
AJ
IMO that's backwards
If you think about it, you said the same thing in slightly different terms. The religious beliefs of the religionists are what motivated them to set their culture's taboos in concrete. People who are deeply immersed in the religious doctrines of their churches rarely allow facts to change their beliefs.
Chicken and egg. What comes first, a culture's taboos or the sacred text supplied arcanely by God to one of the culture's elders? I think the taboos come first.
AJ
Chicken and egg.
To start with, my original comments of the incest taboo being based in religion were based on recent history. As a reference, let us say recent being sometime after the birth of Christ.
There are numerous theories as to why society believes incest is wrong and became a taboo, but I haven't found anything about when incest became a taboo. From what I have read, incest was not taboo prior to the birth of Christ. Since churches and religious leaders came into being, they have expounded on what they believe is socially right and wrong. Incest is one of the things they say is wrong. Their objections to incest is one of the biggest reasons our current society says incest is wrong.
I'll go with religious leaders creating the society-wide acceptance of incest being wrong and thus taboo. Personally, I don't think either of us have the sufficient facts to support our positions. If you have a source that shows the taboo preceded the religious strictures against incest, I'll be happy to look at your source.
IMO that's backwards - religionists set a culture's taboos in concrete then continue to enforce them even after progress shows them to be illogical.
I'm 50/50 on this.
Religions are created around the taboos of the society that spawned it.
Cultures that adhere to a particular religion may not be the same ones who created the religion.
So culture CAN create a religious taboo, but religions can also later instill a "cultural taboo" into other cultures by spreading beyond its initial(founding) culture. To make it more vexing, as societies(cultures) change, and religions adjust to keep pace, you can get some weird hybrid scenarios that develop. Where the religion wasn't native, came to the area, brought new taboos with it upon arrival, and has been in the area long enough that the religions doctrines have absorbed some additional taboos which originated from the culture it is now part of.
Religions are created around the taboos of the society that spawned it.
Religions are all about control. Taboos are ways to dictate how people must behave. Where a Religion spreads into an area that has a well supported festival/ceremony the event is suborned and 'claimed'. The intent being to control what cannot be prevented.
For example, the pagan winter solstice became Christmas.
For example, the pagan winter solstice became Christmas.
Yes, but not quite the way this is usually meant. The two main celebrations in the early church were the Resurrection and the Annunciation. The choice of Dec 25th for the birth of Christ is because it was nine months after the celebration of the Annunciation.
This is from the Russian Orthodox perspective. Others may propose other rationale for the date, but given the history of the feasts, I'd say the calculation of exactly nine months after Annunciation is most likely.
And there's a kerfuffle about the actual day because of the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which some Orthodox reject for liturgical use (mainly because it skips twelve days which breaks the cycle of feasts).
What you need to recognize is in many countries, the country's religious beliefs strongly influence the country's legal code.
I used "government" in very lax sense there. Law setting able religion is always a tool of power, usually a tool of the ruling class, in relatively rare cases of the insurgency. Sometimes even for both, but religion is always a power tool.
Thus, religions can't afford to be truly and fully insane; most beliefs have to have some basis in reality, some usefullnessness in some historical context, at the least. Intent of belief systems and legal code are generally the same, to regulate behavior in hopes to create better conditions for most people. Even when those are clear tools to boost power of the government itself. No system believes it's evil intentionally.
And by the way, ancients were exceptionally observant, as they had much more free time on their hands, and did think on much greater scale much often. (E.g. Master carpenter cut a tree and prepared the material for his grandson, or appreciate's apprentice, to work with eventually, long after his own passing.)
Uh, they didn't have a lot of free time on their hands in ancient times. Everything was labor intensive, which meant it consumed time. That said, they were very observant and in particular as it related to animal husbandry, they eventually caught on to a number of issues which they also determined were relevant to us humans as well.
results in the negative genetic traits becoming common within the family
It's exactly the same with positive genetic traits.
The consequences if inbreeding of humans are the same as with inbreeding horses, dogs, cats, ...
We all know some dog breeds suffer from ignoring negative genetic traits.
With humans there is the 'Hapsburg Lip' aka 'Habsburg Jaw'.
The English Wikipedia has no separate entry and redirects to the general entry of the medical condition. The German, French, Italian and Polish Wikipedia do have separate entries: The Polish has the most pictures.
HM.
From my understanding, the taboo is in place because incestuous relationships within a family over a long period of time results in the negative genetic traits becoming common within the family.
Are you referring to the royal family? [snicker]
I think the origin is the Catholic church. Which is odd since there was incest in the Old Testament. (Hmm, does that make the Old Testament cheap?)
I think the origin is the Catholic church. Which is odd since there was incest in the Old Testament. (Hmm, does that make the Old Testament cheap?)
First Council of Nicaea was the effective formation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was predicated on the earlier Edict of Milan. Prior to that, there was a lot more strife and disagreement.
It was in those times where the official lines of no incest and no polygamy were drawn. It had been contentious before that, with one or the other groups espousing for or against.
Without the canons being agreed upon (which lead to later East-West schism) there could be no organized church.
All that said, I don't think it was Catholics that started it.
From my understanding, the taboo is in place because incestuous relationships within a family over a long period of time results in the negative genetic traits becoming common within the family. A one time relationship with a family member resulting in pregnancy does not commonly result in the child having an inherited genetic problem.
There are claims the biggest driver in placing the taboo on incest, or more particularly, broadening the definition of it, was the Roman Catholic Church so that it
1) Simplified inheritance matters
and
2) Made it more likely for things to "default" to them.
There are of course genetic reasons as well, but they're also overplayed. Animal breeders in particularly are fully aware of the limitations on incest, and that it can definitely be a problem if it goes on for too long. As has happened with the Royal Families of Europe with regards to hemophilia as I recall.
Then again, there is a school of thought that resists offspring from marrying a virgin...
"If she's not good enough for her own family, she's not good enough for you..!!"
Animal breeders in particularly are fully aware of the limitations on incest, and that it can definitely be a problem if it goes on for too long.
Yep it needs to be repeated over multiple generations before it's a problem and from what I understand, intergenerational incest will become problematic much faster.
If your mother is also your sister, you're probably okay. If your sister is also your great grandmother, you may have issues.
If your sister is also your great grandmother, you may have issues.
Any time a family photo contains fewer people than generations... Beware.!
Any time a family photo contains fewer people than generations... Beware.!
I think it all started when someone remarked, "That kid has a face that only his mother could love!"
It's a cheap way to heighten kinkiness of otherwise vanilla sex act, breaking an obvious and almost universal taboo.
This is a big part of it I think. Although there are "male fantasy" aspects present as well, even if I suspect SOL does but does not fully represent it here.
There is a sub-category of incest which is particularly relevant here: "Femmecest" or incestuous sexual relations between female family members.
You know, for the guy who wants to have kiny sex with a pair sisters, or even better, twin sisters? Mother/daughter sex is also on table, so long as "Mom is a milf."
From there, you're only a step away from what is probably the most common form of incest fiction in general. Brother hooks up "hot" sister(s), and possibly their "also hot" mother as well.
There is the (step)daddy-daughter (and sometimes mother) combination as well, which is probably coming from a very similar space.
It's about the fantasy, not so much because they lust after their actual sisters, or mother. It's because they've lusted after the sisters and mothers of other people they know, and they're putting themselves in those shoes to "live out the fantasy."
Where of course, since they're not related(those proverbial shoes aren't actually theirs after all), it's time to queue up that 70's porn sound track.
the most common form of incest fiction
I would guess the most common MC story (the protagonist acquires mind control powers) starts with a family member.
ETA: I stand corrected.
MC = 2,039
MC + Incest = 481
I would guess the most common MC story (the protagonist acquires mind control powers) starts with a family member.
ETA: I stand corrected.
MC = 2,039
MC + Incest = 481
And I would tend to think those also tend to fall into the "projection category" where either the author, or the reader, is "projecting" themselves "into the family full of hot women" where the MC becomes them vicariously living out the fantasy in what they'd "like to do" if they were in that kind of position(well, except they'd "know" they weren't truly siblings).
It's a cheap way to create drama and suspense.
It's a cheap way to heighten kinkiness of otherwise vanilla sex act, breaking an obvious and almost universal taboo.
Sorry for once again coming to the party so late, but ...
It depends on how you define 'cheap'. Why are stories about lesbians so popular? Is it because it's a 'cheap' way to get guys to read it, or is it—a way to tackling one of the last remaining barriers in romantic relations? Lesbians (and siblings) are now the modern-day Montagues and Capulets. Now that everyone routinely flaunts social norms, they're now the final 'forbidden romance' for so many.
In my case, many of my stories deal with pseudo-incestuous relationships, most often 'brother/sister', complete with air quotes. In each, the characters dance around the societal norms, yet there's NEVER any poser dynamics involved (i.e. there's no one is a position to unfairly influence the other). Instead, the characters are drawn together despite their reluctance to proceed. It's their avoidance which is the main draw. How can you build that dynamic with two well-established Italian-American families nowadays?
And yes, we all love stories of fucked up people, but what we love even more, is when those flawed individuals manage to rise above their situation, and manage to succeed despite the many pitfalls.
Lesbians (and siblings) are now the modern-day Montagues and Capulets. Now that everyone routinely flaunts social norms, they're now the final 'forbidden romance' for so many.
I would argue that a schoolgirl falling in love with her teacher and marrying him, something that was in the standard romance repertoire a few decades ago, now constitutes a bigger taboo than lesbians or (adult) incest.
I would argue that a schoolgirl falling in love with her teacher and marrying him, something that was in the standard romance repertoire a few decades ago, now constitutes a bigger taboo than lesbians or (adult) incest.
It was not so uncommon IRL. I had a 4 years older cousin who became the teachers aid to our school's language & arts teacher (small school - he taught elementary, middle & high school classes.) when she was in the 5th or 6th grade. She kept this up all through high school and married him shortly after she turned 18. They were married for 35 years until his death at age 75. Today, that behaviour would have been scandalous.
Lesbians (and siblings) are now the modern-day Montagues and Capulets. Now that everyone routinely flaunts social norms, they're now the final 'forbidden romance' for so many.
The "forbidden" one is gay (male-male) sex, it appeals to a large group of women, and gay/bi men, and that's about it.
Lesbians are popular because the potential audience is bizarrely large. It appeals to straight men, gay men can appreciate "the aesthetic" if nothing else, lesbians and bisexuals can go for it, and even straight women can be reasonably okay with it. (They might "roll their eyes" at it, but may continue watching. While if a straight male encounters male-male sex, they're probably gone)
Just to needlessly elaborate.
Let's say, there's a boy and a girl, close enough in age, knowing each other well, and generally liking each other. They are allowed, no, actually required, to sleep in the same bedroom, otherwise alone. Nobody even bet an eye if they skinny dip together. Sharing a shower is somehow too much however, and must be done in secret, when opportunity arises, but they occasionally do that.
However, somehow no one, not even themselves allow for a possibility they might have sex together. When that thought happens to cross the mind of one or another, it is immediately dismissed as wrong, at least initially. It is is a slow and painful build up to that, and then equally painful secret keeping when something actually happens, however little at first...
Now, if you can create that situation in believable and immediately recognizable ways without them being siblings or relatives or any kind, not even foster siblings (are foster siblings incest? I believe by law it is, or should be), then I will read that story with great interest, including a prime intent to borrow the setup.
The really amusing thing about the whole incest topic, is that the biggest revealer of incest these days is Ancestry...LOL... As more people take DNA tests and as the price of aforementioned kits come down, skeletons are being kicked out of cupboards left right and centre...
The Egyptian Pharaohs are known to have practiced incest regularly with the effect of maintaining power within one family and thus maintaining a dynasty. The Roman Emperors sometimes practiced incest for the same reason.
The Old Testament of the Christian Bible refers to occasional instances of incest (eg Lot and his daughters) but it is not common. In Deuteronomy, it says that if a man dies without a son, then his brother should lie with the widow and the first-born son would keep the original man's name so that the man's name/line is not lost.
The Old Testament of the Christian Bible refers to occasional instances of incest (eg Lot and his daughters) but it is not common.
IIRC, Sarah, Abraham's wife, was his cousin. Which means Sarah's sister would be as well. Of course, I guess it doesn't specify 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or other. But inter-marriage within the family lines was certainly a thing.
BTW, Onan's sin was not masturbation, it was that he wasted his seed through coitus interruptus, rather than impregnating his brothers widow.
BTW, Onan's sin was not masturbation, it was that he wasted his seed through coitus interruptus, rather than impregnating his brothers widow.
Or, more specifically, failing to do his required duty in his levirate marriage. The 'spilling of seed' was incidental to the actual sin of following his own will, rather than God's will.
Or so the story goes in Genesis.
Or so the story goes in Genesis.
Does that cover internal ejaculations too (a recognized medical problem)? Isn't that just 'depositing' it in the wrong body, which means that God would have punished him for something God did to him? That's similar to God condemning homosexuals for the sexuality he assigned them.
Does that cover internal ejaculations too (a recognized medical problem)? Isn't that just 'depositing' it in the wrong body, which means that God would have punished him for something God did to him? That's similar to God condemning homosexuals for the sexuality he assigned them.
Onan's story is about his failure to do his duty, not about sex. It's simply the proximate cause. As for your question, medical conditions are not sins (however defined) and wouldn't be a failure to do his duty. Successful copulation does not guarantee offspring (and the Bible even discusses situations like that).
Sodom and Gomorrah are about hospitality, not sex. Demands to have sex with the travelers is one facet of the lack of hospitality (and protection) that should be afforded travelers.
As for homosexuality, I see a condemnation of homosexual ACTS, not of homosexuals. I also see an equally harsh condemnation for any sex outside of marriage. Fornication is fornication, no matter who does it with whom. Adultery is adultery, no matter who does it with whom.
But I also see a God who loves everyone and who forgives sins, which are missing the mark of perfection, NOT a shattering of our relationship with God.
If you want to know the TRUE Christian position, read my series Good Medicine. I think you might be surprised at the very different take on Christianity from what most people know or profess. :-)
I don't think anyone can pin down 'when' incest became taboo. Animal breeding, and human breeding predated written history.
Written history is generally considered to have begun with Sumerian Cuneiform approximately 5,000 years ago. The oldest accepted example of a domestic dog is 14,200 years with some contested examples up to 36,000 years.
There are other examples of breeding and domesticated animals, but all are well before written history. There are also multiple archeological examples of humans with birth defects. Between the two, it's highly likely the effects of inbreeding would have been noticed. They didn't know of or understand the science, but the empirical results would have been in their proverbial face, if not literally.
As a result, it is my opinion the taboo very likely started well before written history.
As a result, it is my opinion the taboo very likely started well before written history.
Agreed. But there is something else to consider.
In terms of human evolution it is only very recently that a family does not share a single living space, in some parts of the world it still happens.
Whilst incest is possible of course, the more important and natural effect is that the children are present when their parents are copulating. Not only does this prevent any stigma, ridiculous notions of procreation being 'dirty' etc. It also means that by the time puberty arrives the young are fully aware of the process and outcome. They learn to love by seeing it happen.
In our more 'civilised' and 'moral' society it is more acceptable to have to inexperienced kids fuck around in the back of a car or wherever, after all, god forbid they should actually see adults fucking... People get locked up for that stuff.
Obviously that is a rather rose tinted view, the reality is that if the parents are not the ideal loving couple, the example they set teaches their kids a different attitude to intercourse. In some cultures things get taken to extremes, on balance incest (without abuse) is a drop in the ocean compared to say female genital mutilation.
The royal family.
I assume you mean the British Royals. But most royal families suffered from too little diversity. Hawaiian royalty suffered from a high rate of hemophilia as an example. European Royalty (including the English) all stayed in their little circle swapping daughters back and forth for alliances etc. It is lots of fun tracing Royal lineages. Oh what a tangled web they wove. It would be even more fun to go back and DNA test the bunch of them. (Story idea??) I am certain some of their lineages are not what is written.