Conference back40::soapbox

Thinking about the debate continuing in the Abortion Topic, I think that 
deep-rooted taboos subconsciously affect nonsexual as well as sexual 
relationships between people. For example, fear of incest taboos can inhibit 
or even prevent an affectionate, rewarding father-daughter relationship. 
Subconscious incest taboos and fears can also block or limit communication 
between parents and their children concerning sex education and open 
discussion of sexual matters. Taboos can likewise inhibit nonsexual friendships
and prevent loving, familial affections from reaching their full potential.

Objective examination shows that most negative views of taboos are themselves
irrational or mystical. Even negative views of the strongest taboos such as 
bestiality and incest are sometimes unfounded. But violating or performing any 
taboo can also stem from an unhealthy, neurotic, psychotic, or criminal base.

Forcible rape and child-adult sexual relations are not just taboos, but are 
criminal acts. For, they involve the violation of individual rights by force 
or coercion. A child lacks the experience, knowledge, as well as the emotional 
and physical independence to make valid free-choice, sexual-relation decisions.
Such a child can easily be forced or coerced into sexual acts by his or her 
natural dependency on the adult for survival. Adult incest with a child is 
equivalent to rape in violating that child's individual rights and well-being. 
When a child is involved, incest is a crime exceeded in seriousness only by
injurious assault, rape, and murder. Carrying out any taboo, sex act, or any 
action for that matter becomes criminal when (and only when) the action harms, 
diminishes, or endangers an individual's rights or life by force, fraud, or 
coercion.

But mutually agreed-on violation of other taboos can be from a healthy or 
"good-for-me" base. For example, most of today's vanishing taboos such as 
premarital sex, oral sex, enactment of fantasies, and the satisfying of 
fetishes are often (but not always) performed from a healthy base. Violating 
other taboos such as adultery can be injurious when involving deception or 
dishonesty. Also plural marriages are generally (but not always) too difficult
or demanding to be healthy, even if honest. Taboos such as homosexuality and 
bestiality are often thought to be violated from psychologically harmful, 
neurotic bases. But such is not the case when performed by genetically 
determined homosexuals or adolescents motivated by curiosity. One possible 
lure to non genetic forms of homosexuality is easy, low-effort, multiple
sexual experiences. But, the percentage of homosexuals affected or motivated 
by that lure is not known. Actually, much is still unknown about homosexuality.

Committing incest usually evolves from a neurotic or a psychotic base, but 
again not always. Incest between consenting adults, for example, is 
theoretically possible from a healthy base. Despite government laws, nothing 
in the nature of voluntary, adult-adult incest is inherently wrong or harmful 
in the act itself. But conception among close blood relatives can activate
undesirable, genetically recessive traits. The special problem of bearing 
defective children must be considered by closely related couples. The decision 
to bear children, however, always remains the right of the couple. But if they 
choose to bear children, they must be willing and able to assume full
responsibility to provide for and raise to independent adulthood any children 
they bear.

The inherent non-wrongness (can that be a word?) of adult-adult incest is most 
obvious in the case of adult orphans who unknown to each other are brother and 
sister and who by chance meet. They could quite naturally fall in love, have 
sex, marry, and have children without knowledge of their blood relationship. 
Incest in that case obviously can be from a healthy basis. Even known 
incestuous relationships between consenting adults are not necessarily 
unhealthy or neurotic (although they often are). Throughout recorded history, 
incestuous marriages, especially among the ruling classes, were accepted as 
normal and widely practiced in many cultures.

No sexual act between consenting adults can objectively be illegal, even if 
the acts are physically or psychologically harmful to the consenting 
individuals (such as injurious homosexuality, masochism, sadism). Only acts of 
force, fraud, or coercion that violate the individual rights of nonconsenting
people can be objectively illegal. Such criminal acts include forcible rape, 
adult/child sexual relationships, nonconsenting sadism, and any other acts 
that are physically or fraudulently forced on unwilling or unknowing victims.

Some of the more irrational government laws that violate individual rights are 
those dealing with sex. They range from the government sanctioning murder 
(e.g., I believe that some jurisdictions allow the husband to kill with near 
impunity the lover of his wife) to restricting the way one makes love to a 
consenting partner (e.g., in some states, couples can go to jail for oral sex).

    Well again "taboo" is a broad and ill-defined label.  Behaviourist
    Harlow differentiated between taboos instilled through culture or
    socialization and others that might actually be innate, such as those
    related to mating.
    
    A number of studies have shown that there even when children are in
    ignorance of a sibling, they are unattracted to them as a mate -
    similar behaviour is found in natural primate troops and lab studies. 
    There is some mechanism that we don't know about which works to prevent
    chance matings of related individuals.
    
    Taboo, fetish, and the like are woolly-words when it comes to
    describing behaviours.
            
    
    
    

    Tom:
    
    You also don't take into consideration the long term ramifications of
    any kind of act.
    
    Say for example my neighbors were into wife swapping with us....okay,
    what long term ramifications would this have on a marriage?  What will
    this do to the trust factor?  History would seem to point out that
    marriages of this nature do not last too long.
    
    -Jack

    Tom, do you advocate splunge if it includes a taboo?

Re: .351

I totally agree. Taboos are defined by people based on their own personal
belief and philosophy. However, these beliefs should not be forced upon 
others. The points I described as Taboo are just my take on what many in
society think defines Taboo. For example, if Jack wants to continue
wife swapping with his neighbor, why should anyone who disagrees with this 
action have any say whatsoever? I personally don't think this is a good idea,
but, you haven't seen my neighbor's wife!!  :)

Re: .352
    
>You also don't take into consideration the long term ramifications of
>any kind of act.

I'd be interested in what ramifications you are speaking of, that will result
from what I wrote. I assume you will give me a real scenario and not a create 
a tale.
    
>Say for example my neighbors were into wife swapping with us....okay,
>what long term ramifications would this have on a marriage?  

Is this a tale, Jack? Anyway, I don't know Jack, I'm an individual with whom 
this situation does not presently apply. What are the long term ramifications? 
Again, I assume you will give me a real scenario and not a create a tale.

>History would seem to point out that marriages of this nature do not last 
>too long.

History, Jack? I'd be interested in reading such a history . Would you point
out where I might find it?


Re: .353

>Tom, do you advocate splunge if it includes a taboo?

I always advocate Splunge!!  :)

Seriously, Taboo is in the eye of the beholder. What consenting adults do for,
with or to each other has no bearing, unless they use force coercion or fraud
to get others to participate.

    i like that word 'ramification'. does it have anything to do with
    beastiality?

    
    	Naaaaaaaaah.
    

  Tom is gawn, so we's fresh outa fill o' sophs.  Oddly, I miss the jargon.

  bb

    
    	"Oddly" fits you to a T, bb.
    

    RE: -1 
    love that p-name

    
    	I wish I could say I made it up.
    
    	Well, actually I COULD say that, but I'd be lying.