Consanguinamory is Not Abuse, Abuse is Not Consanguinamory

Vivian Diller, Ph.D. wrote at huffingtonpost.com “Breaking Yet Another Taboo -- Is it a Good Thing for Our Psyche?” She cites, in addition to other things, television shows from this past year that depicted consanguinamory.

Incest in the arts and literature is not new, going back as far as Greek mythology (Oedipus Rex), Shakespeare (Hamlet) and Victorian romance novels. But it was almost always disguised or implied -- what went on between the sheets had to be read between the lines. Now these twisted romances are depicted in graphic detail for all to see.

Twisted?

After lumping incest in with torture, she writes…

As scripted television experiments with increasingly inflammatory material, it comes as no surprise that incest has found its way up front and center on our screens.

Okay, so we get what her bias is.

No doubt, graphic display of taboos makes for intriguing TV. Deep secrets are revealed. Forbidden behavior is on view. According to psychoanalysts, these primitive urges lie hidden in all of us and are prohibited by our conscience in order to live in civilized society.

There’s nothing uncivilized about a man who goes to work, pays his taxes, is friendly with his neighbors, and loves his sister in every sense of the word.

While the incest taboo may have originally served to discourage inbreeding (and a greater likelihood of genetic deformities), most believe it remains in place to keep the nuclear family intact and protect its most vulnerable members -- children.

Well then we need to ban all sex so as to protect people from rape. There’s a difference between consanguinamorous relationships between consenting adults and an adult abusing a child, and using examples of 50-something-year-old men preying on preteen girls does not justify criminalizing consensual sex between sisters in their thirties. This is the problem with this entire essay.

Should intimacy among unrelated people living in the same household be considered illegal?

Not if they are consenting adults, or minors close in age.

If not illegal, immoral?

Someone can consider it immoral all they want, as long as they don’t go around bullying, discriminating, or prosecuting.

Should consensual sexual relationships between adults who grow up together, (but are not biologically connected), be prohibited?

Of course not. Talk about a slippery slope. What's next? Banning marriage between people who were neighbors?

A few facts:

About 20 million American children are reported to have been subject to incest by a parent.

That’s not relevant to sex between consenting adults.

40 percent of children who report being raped were victims of a family member.

Ditto.

Incest between father-daughter, step father-step daughter are most commonly reported.

Ditto, unless we’re talking about consenting adults, where it shouldn’t be an issue.

Prosecute for abuse. Don’t prosecute for consensual sex.

Most experts believe that consensual incest is never truly mutual and almost always involves a powerful, trusted individual who betrays a disempowered victim.

Ah, Discredited Argument #20.

She then moves on to the “prank” video.

With that said, I was disturbed by a video that recently went viral showing a high school prank in Minnesota.

So was I. But the problem isn't that the participants are related. The problem amounts to the potential for sexual assault, along the lines of leading a blindfolded lesbian to believe she's going to be kissing her wife and instead having a man kiss her.

Do you think breaking taboos on television is a positive or negative trend?

She didn’t explain what the problem is with consanguinamory, only with abuse. I think positive or neutral depictions of consanguinamory are long overdue on television.