Incest and its Discontents

Here's something to wrap your mind around.

At Dreher's Crunch Con, read Incest is best for me.

A British academic writes about her relationship with her brother:

"Of course abuse happens, but it can happen in any sexual relationship and there's an expectation that a family member would never hurt you in the way that someone else could. 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...I know this is meant to be wrong, but I've never felt anything so right."

The author then explains the tension occuring now that she and her brother have found other partners, but still keep a special place in their heart for each other.

Rod makes this killer point:

Here's my question, though: If God doesn't exist (that is, if there is no such thing as absolute moral truth), why shouldn't the woman have sex with her brother? They're careful not to risk reproduction, its always been consensual, they enjoy it, and they don't feel guilty. So what's the problem?

Ross Douthat responds:

I think this British essay making the case for incest being no big deal (the title, "I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty," more or less tells it) inadvertently makes a pretty good case for why incest is, in fact, a really bad idea - because it corrupts not only the siblings involved, but the lives of the people around them...

But this begs the question--what is corruption? Is it merely the manifestation of these feelings? It can't be that there has been some subtle weakening of a moral code or cultural order if those things are presumed to be social constructions. One might make an argument on purely pragmatic ground--namely, that childless incest creates a cultural precedent that would draw people from child-producing relationships, and, in the long run, contribute to population implosion and social decline. But if it's purely pragmatic, why the revulsion?

I remember in a philosophy class discussing what morality actually is. Some have argued that it's simply a gut-level, emotional response: I don't like that. And while I disagree, I think that when one forsakes both revelation and reason to define morality only in terms of personal preference, a visceral response is all that's left. Deny the soul, remove the head, and all that's left is guts.