Talk:Incest - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OeColonus (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 12 September 2018 (→Mother-Son: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:20, 12 September 2018 by OeColonus (talk | contribs) (→Mother-Son: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about incest. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about incest at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Incestualist and Incestophile

My recent revert was cut off due to some kind of technical problem so the edit summary is probably odd. What I was trying to say is that the sources for Incestualist and Incestophile appear to not be very strong. They do not provide any proof these are common, accepted terms. Furthermore,, Wible deliberately uses it in a sarcastic way in making an argument for acceptance of homosexuality.Legitimus (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Are those terms correctly formed? I guess we could include incestophobia as well. That would be someone that is opposed to incest. --41.146.63.190 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't really say if they're are correctly formed as I lack the needed knowledge of English linguistics, though I have noticed that the internet has created a variety of terribly mangled terms as well as corruption of existing words true meanings. However, most important is that these all appear to be made-up terms used by a handful of authors in a joking sort of way. I could not find any good scientific or reliable "serious" usage of any of them, including the one you suggested.Legitimus (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Professor Steve Jones material and WP:Undue weight

As seen here and here, I twice reverted content that Swingoswingo added. With that second revert, you can see that Swingoswingo changed the material so that it's not focused on the professor. For that second edit, I only reverted the "it is said to endanger the health of future generation" part. I reverted both times due to the fact that commentary from a lone professor in a section that is specifically about religious views is WP:Undue weight. Not only was the original content not speaking of any religious view, it was simply stating that it is common in the Muslim world for men to marry their nieces and cousins and that it endangers the health of future generations. Health with regard to incest is already covered in the article, with better/more appropriate sources. It's also covered in the lead. Readers know that incest can lead to genetic problems. We don't need the inclusion of professor Steve Jones stating that it endangers the health of future generations. Furthermore, that health commentary is vague.

The Emir of Misplaced Pages account re-added Professor Steve Jones's name; I'm sure he did this per WP:Intext.

I object to all versions. Thoughts? This is something that may need to be taken to the WP:Neutral noticeboard. I state this noticeboard because WP:Undue weight is an aspect of WP:Neutral and there is no WP:Undue weight noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I added the name as I believed that is was not a unanimously held opinion as it claims that Muslims marry nieces but above it says this is forbidden. Intext attribution should be used in this case. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In-text attribution is not what I object to; above, I was indicating that I understand why you added the name. But the in-text attribution in this case certainly signals WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to go to any noticeboard. We are enough here to solve it. Swingoswingo (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If and when we get additional sources for the same claim, intext wont be necessary anymore :) Swingoswingo (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What more I can think of is moving most of the Steve Jones words into the quote= parameter of the cite template. Swingoswingo (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

We do need to go to a noticeboard since the content is disputed and the matter is not resolved in any way here. It's not like I will be agreeing with the addition. So I will now be taking the matter to the aforementioned noticeboard; hopefully, some editors will weigh in on the matter there or here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: You reverted content being discussed here. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an unexplained removal by abn IP of sourced material in an article prone to vandalism. If a consensus is established here for a sourced change, feel free to make the change. I have no opinion in the matter, I am not following this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is Acroterion's revert. If no one weighs in at the noticeboard on the content, I'll simply start a WP:RfC on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Albeit cousin marriage is common in the Middle East as much more sources discuss in the article and in other pages, the claim that people marry their nieces is unfounded. There is no such claim except for his one guy. You can try to look in more sources like scientific journals or books. You won't find such claim. One hyperbolic claim by one guy who seems to have made it out of political inclination should not be seen as reliable. The source and the claim should be removed altogether. You can start a WP:RfC It's very easy to come to the conclusion that uncle to niece relationships are not just illegal but they are also not common in the middle east. CaliphoShah (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101063712/http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/Trusiani_presentation.sflb.ashx to http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/Trusiani_presentation.sflb.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Between adults and children

My changes to this section were recently reverted by User:Legitimus. There were no comments made on either my talk page or the article talk page, so all I have to go on re what the issue with the change was the inline comment re the update. The basic change to the article I am proposing is to note that when incest occurs between an adolescent son and a mother, it is sometimes the son is the abuser. This may be a disturbing conclusion, as are all conclusions in this topic. But it is supported in the literature, which is why I posted it. The primary reference (Courtois) does in fact have an online preview available, contrary to what is stated in the inline comment. That reference is available for preview at . Look at pages 71-72 for this particular topic. The secondary reference (Ward) is referred to by Courtois but may not have an online preview available. Is it necessary that all references be available for free online? There are certainly reliable sources that don't make all their content available for free. But in this case material supporting the statement I made IS available in an online preview. Also it isn't clear what the "variables" are that are unclear although based on another article that User:Legitimus reverted, this may refer to the age of the son. I will try to find out the exact age of the sons referred to in this study, and also wait for a response to this message. But absent a reason not to reinstate this edit, I will reinstate it in a few days after allowing time for a discussion. I will focus primarily on this article, not the other article that was reverted, as I see this article as the primary focus of the change. Dash77 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I made a judgement call on the revert. There is no need to act so offended by it. Remember, reverting is not a final decision. The combination of the claim being rather extraordinary and the text not explaining the issue completely suggested this might need some discussion first before including it.

Regarding the sources, no it is not necessary for them to all be online, but this sensitive topic and the unusual claim necessitated there has to be some kind of way of verifying it. When I clicked through wikipedia's link to google books, it came up empty for both books. Your link solved only partially that problem.

On the topic itself, there were things not made clear in the edit that are important. First is whether violence (or the threat of, explicit or implied) or impairment were involved. If the conscious mother went along with what happened without there being any threat or power imbalance against her, it sounds awfully suspect. Second is the age of the male. Obviously if the son is pre-pubescent, it casts serious doubt as to him being the "abuser" if the encounter is non-violent. After all, pedophiles since the time they were first studied have made false or even delusional claims of the child being the seducer. Courtois states that the source "Arroyo, Eth, and Pynoos 1984" claim a case of an 8 year old, but also use the term "sexual assault," implying there was some kind of aggression. Page 72 of Courtois will not load for me so I can't make further commentary. But these matters need to be made clear in the text.Legitimus (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical of the claim involving the 8 year old. Since it looks like you were able to access page 71, I'm referring to the "adolescents" mentioned in the previous sentence. In other words I'm referring here to boys young enough to still legally be minors, but old enough to clearly be physically capable of initiating an attack. Not 8 year olds. But I would like to nail down the exact age we are talking about here. I need to review the full original references which I haven't had a chance to do yet.Dash77 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got page 72 to load and have a better picture now of the topic. The reference to Ward seems to finally spell it out: They're talking about *rape* by sons. To explain, there is a subtle implication in the term "incest" that implies the encounter is non-violent or even consensual (i.e. between adults), but still "wrong." When violence enters the equation, it's rape/abuse, and the fact that it also happens to be incestuous is simply an aggravating factor. This is probably why terms like "son-initiated incest" sound so strange. A footnote on Page 236 referencing Ward supports this, claiming calling it incest "minimizes the reality of the violation." Legitimus (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on the quote above from page 236, she seems to be arguing that what is generally described as father-daughter incest would be more accurately called rape. After all, the title of her book is "Father Daughter Rape". As such, she seems to be mainly focused on the father-daughter situation, but seems to touch on other forms of intrafamilial sexual violence as well, including the mother-son situation. I want to be sure I'm representing her views correctly before quoting her again.Dash77 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I support Legitimus's revert of you here and at the Child sexual abuse article. Good to see you discussing this instead of simply reverting. Also good to see Legitimus working the matter out via looking over sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn I appreciate that and am currently working to research both references thoroughly before reinstating content. At the same time there is clearly content in both references relevant to this article so I expect to reinstate some content-not necessarily exactly matching my original edit-once I've completed my review of the references. User:Legitimus appears to have acted partly on the basis of the difficulty of accessing my references for free online and that doesn't seem entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages verifiability guidelines. But will wait until I thoroughly review both references before I make further edits.Dash77 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you propose the text here first before making the changes to this article or the Child sexual abuse article. Also, per WP:Lead, keep in mind that the lead is meant for summarizing the article. It is not meant for significant detail not first covered lower in the article.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to either article since they are both on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I am bending over backwards to act in good faith here. But there is no precedent either on this talk page or Misplaced Pages in general to back up your request that I first seek approval of my edits on this talk page. That is a highly unusual request. I will do everything I can to act in good faith here but will not be seeking preapproval of my edits on this talk page unless you can point me to a clear Misplaced Pages policy obligating me to do so. I also don't understand your comment re the lead. I didn't edit the lead in either article. Willing to act in good faith but you are asking more than is reasonable.Dash77 (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a highly unusual request. Do read WP:Consensus and WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Your edit was contested. It has now been contested by two editors. The information you are wanting to add is contentious. Legitimus has already identified problems with what you added. Any further text on this matter should have consensus on this talk page first. Or do you want to get it wrong again and end up being reverted again on the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Both Misplaced Pages links you mention say that one should attempt to address all editors' concerns. But neither you nor Legitimus have explained what your concerns are. You don't like what I said but haven't explained why. At most Legitimus said he/she couldn't access the references I provided for free online. I already explained per Misplaced Pages verifiability that isn't a valid reason for rejecting my edits. By no means am I admitting to getting it wrong. Quite the contrary: I am 99% percent sure I got it right. But I am currently doing the legwork to be sure that I am 100% percent sure before reinstating any edits. You say you are contesting my edits. What exactly is your problem with my edits? If you won't say how can we hope to achieve consensus?Dash77 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitmus did explain. His "20:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)" post is one example. And I agree with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus reverted first and didn't explain until much, much later. Not the right order to do things in. Nevertheless it is definitely my intention in good faith to incorporate Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42 into any new edits I make to this article. I certainly have an obligation to do that and I believe I already responded in a positive way to Legitimus comments of 11/27 20:42. I would ask you, with respect, to assume until proven otherwise I will address Legitimus' concerns in good faith when I edit this article again. I have been a Wikipedian for 12 years and have some familiarity with how things are done around here. When I edit this article again, do you personally have any concerns you want me to address beyond Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42?Dash77 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42 referenced "rape by the son". But so did my original edit to this article. It is an extremely uncomfortable topic. But I'm not clear where you think I "got it wrong"?Dash77 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To lay out my concerns in detail, the first sentence of the edit was: "While incest between adults and children is generally seen as child abuse, there are cases where mother-son incest is initiated by an adolescent son who is the abuser."

That way that is stated is what I see as problematic. As I said above, the word choice fixates on the matter of it being incest between an adult and a child, missing or failing to emphasize the fact that this is a actually referring to the violent rape of an adult by an nearly-adult. It comes down to the point you're trying to make. Parent-child incest usually involves non-violent psychological manipulation and an unequal power dynamic of parent and child. In this way, these two types of incident are completely different, with the only similarity being consanguinity. As an alternative, how about the following:

"While incest between adults and children generally involves the adult as the perpetrator of abuse, there are rare instances of sons sexually assaulting their mothers. These sons are typically mid to late adolescent and unlike parent-initiated incest, the incidents involve some kind of physical force. Although the mothers may be accused of being seductive with their sons and inviting the sexual contact, despite strong contrary evidence. Such accusations can parallel other forms of rape, where due to victim blaming a woman is accused of somehow being at fault for the rape. In some cases mother-son incest is best classified as acquaintance rape of the mother by the adolescent son."

Legitimus (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond, and thank you for proposing a constructive change to my proposed edit. As I mentioned a couple of times, with concerns having been raised I wanted to take the time to fully review the originals of both references I cited. Now that I've done so, I think I'm mostly fine with the change you propose, although I would make one small modification. I would say "mid adolescent to young adult" rather than "mid to late adolescent" as both Ward and Courtois, in referring to the relatively rare known cases, clearly note some cases involving young adult rather than adolescent sons. I will give it a few more days to see if others respond and then make the changes you suggest with my "young adult" modification.Dash77 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, though will also wait for other commentary.Legitimus (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Page updated as discussed above since there didn't seem to be any further input.Dash77 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Zoroastrian section

Openlydialectic, regarding this, why did you remove "Zoroastrianism," and why are proposing that this small section be made into its own Misplaced Pages article and suggesting that it be named "Xwedodah"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Regarding Zoroastrianism, I didn't remove it, I moved it into the second sentence. As to why I did that, that's because Zoroastrianism and Ancient Persia in this context are not synonymous. That is, Zoroastrianism developed after the ancient period of Persian history had already begun. So why did I put Ancient Persia there instead of Zoroastrianism? Because that's what's claimed in this book I used as a reference for that very sentence (page 21, second paragraph)

As for a standalone article, there's clearly enough material to write one (just type Xwedodah into Google Scholar), and we have standalone article for concepts of incest in other religions (e.g. Mahram) Openlydialectic (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, I understand going for accuracy. But Zoroastrianism aside (and with subsequent edits included), you changed material that was sourced. If there are conflicting opinions on the topic, it should be presented with WP:Due weight. Per Due weight, if one view is a tiny minority, it need not be mentioned at all. There is a lot I don't know about religious topics, though, which is why I might bring WP:RELIGION into this. As for splitting the section, I questioned you asking for a split because the section is small and the article should be created first. It is not ideal to split that small section off into its own article and have the material excluded from this article or have have a single sentence while the stub article details the rest. See WP:No page, WP:No split, WP:Spinout and WP:Summary style as a whole. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I think you deeply misunderstood the situation. The original sentence, which referred to Zoroastrianism instead of Ancient Persia, was referenced by that exact source. I didn't change the source.

As for whether the section should be splat, what I meant by adding that template is that perhaps someone more invested into the topic can make a standalone article about that peculiar tradition and make it bigger than the current section of this article because all the necessary research is there, just someone needs to invest the time to write a Wiki article about that. I am not sure that the current rules indicate that the split template should only be used to indicate that a section of an article is too big and therefore should be splat from it, or, at least in my experience tells me that that template is mostly used to indicate the same thing I used it to. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, this edit shows that the "Sex and Punishment Four Thousand Years of Judging Desire, Eric Berkowitz. pp. 21–22, 2012." source was already there. Whoever added it apparently added it to support the Zoroastrianism part. You changed the wording, and added a template/URL version of the source. Then you made other edits to the section. That is what I mean.

As for splitting the section, the template suggests that the section that is there now needs to split out into its own article. In my experience, that is how the template is usually used. Like I stated above, the section does not need to be split out at this point. Not in its current state. I feel that the tag should be removed. It will just sit there for years perhaps. I've seen such tags just sit there for a long time before eventually being removed. And if someone takes up the suggestion, they might just create a stub, taking the whole small section with them. But I understand you wanting to encourage someone to create a substantial article on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I "changed the wording" of the sentence because it incorrectly represented what's written in the book that sentence was sourced by: the book's sentence talked about Ancient Persia, but the sentence on Misplaced Pages, which I changed, replaced it with Zoroastrianism. As for the template, I'll replace it with Expand Section one instead. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mother-Son

New to Misplaced Pages editing but concerned about the following in the 5th paragraph of the between adults and children section: "Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants."

For such a sensitive subject, a casual reading of this seems to suggest that mother-son incest isn't psychologically damaging to the victims like other forms of adult-child incest or indeed doesn't have a victim. Especially given where that sentence is placed, just after the sentence about impact. The body of scientific evidence in this area seems to be against this implication. Indeed Margolin article starts by saying "The idea that mother-son incest is the most damaging form of incestuous behaviour has been commonplace in psychiatric and sociological literature for the last thirty years." and indeed the majority of recent studies since Margolin's seem to fall in line with this as well. Margolin's study does not even clinically asses survivors as other do but merely draws on "case material". It seems to be an article that goes against the grain almost for the sake of it and is at odds with the literature. It should not be the only reference.

I suggest either citing an article contradicting the Margolin article to counterbalance eg: or

Or, as I personally think is more appropriate we can remove the citation and sentence completely and just talk less controversially about rarity and under-reporting citing possibly: , letting the "impact" section stand to refer to mother-son incest as well. However, the underreporting bit would better fit at the top of the first paragraph, after the section on Father-son incest, so the 5th paragraph we could just leave as one sentence.

Happy to edit the main page myself but didn't want to just wade in on what must be a heavily monitered article.

OeColonus (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories: