Incest, orgies, porn and homosexuality!

[aquaruis15000]

I didn't know where to put this.

Why is (consensual) incest generally unacceptable in bourgeois society when it was not only accepted but sometimes even the norm in past modes of production? Does incest endanger the bourgeois family?

That's generally the left wing thought of why homosexuality is attacked in this mode of production when it was fine in past social forms (see - Rome, Greece, China of past years, where it was totally normal). Same for orgies and porn. But why is it that the bourgeoisie is accepting this now, even in reactionary bastion that is America? And why did states in places like Scandinavia accept this so much earlier? And why was it okay to have orgy parties in ancient Rome, while such a thing would get you scorned from society in modern Italy?

Denmark was cranking out porn while America was banning it. Gay men were openly loving each other in the street of Nordic nations while they were being killed in America.

What's going on here, and how does this relate to capitalism as a mode of production?

[Rusty Shackleford]

not that i really care for orgies and incest but its not because of capitalism that such situations are taboo or outlawed.

it may have more to do with the development of property relations early on in human social organization than it does with some random rubberstamp policy of capitalism (and might i add, the nordic/scandinavian countries are also capitalist).


men acquiring property, men wanting to secure a line of inheritance along the male line (in terms of property and abstracts such as name and family hierarchy) and a long path from that point to heterosexual male-dominated monogamy which can bend at the will of men (not without public criticism of course)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Gay men were openly loving each other in the street of Nordic nations while they were being killed in America.


wait, since when? Homophobia is no less of a thing here.

[aquaruis15000]

wait, since when? Homophobia is no less of a thing here.

States in Europe were some of the first to recognize same-sex couples, outlaw prejudice against homosexuals, and enshrine equal rights for homosexuals in law.

IIRC, a president of one of the Scandinavian countries either was or is a lesbian (I don't mean that she "changed" orientation, I mean, I don't know if she is still the president, and I can't remember which country). Can anyone imagine that happening in say, Singapore?

In America, the president only just a few weeks ago finally came out in support of equal recognition for same-sex couples under the law.

[Kenco Smooth]

By far the most parsimonious and best supported explanation of the incest taboo is one of genetic fitness and evolution.

[Lynx]

There may be a materialist explanation, it just won't have much to do with capitalism.

[individualist]

I didn't know where to put this.

Why is (consensual) incest generally unacceptable in bourgeois society when it was not only accepted but sometimes even the norm in past modes of production? Does incest endanger the bourgeois family?
What do you mean with incest, Sibling Incest, parent child incest or cousin incest? These are all wery different things. Cousin incest, altough illegal and discouraged in the united states, is far form universially considered immoral among advanced capitalist countries. As for sibling incest and parent child incest, it has been considered taboo in almost all socities regardless of mode of production, with only a few exeptions.


Denmark was cranking out porn while America was banning it. Gay men were openly loving each other in the street of Nordic nations while they were being killed in America.
This is not really an accurate picture, stereotyping of gays is still wery common in the nordic countries.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Homophobia could be related to certain religious moral lines of which are left over in the post-enlightenment world. I'm not sure, but I do know that Christianity features a lot of homophobia and Christian morality still has its roots in aspects of modern, western society. Not necessarily materialistic, but then religious as a moral framework isn't in itself, its a social creation just as views of sexuality are.

[aquaruis15000]

There may be a materialist explanation, it just won't have much to do with capitalism.

Oh yea? So this is the ONE aspect of society that is not related to material reality? This is a special mystical region? According to who? A priest?

Of course sexual relations, social forms and all the rest are tied into the structure of any mode of production.

Engels wrote a book about it. You might want to check it out.

In past social forms, people lived communally, there was no patriarchy, women had multiple sexual partners, who fathered a child was unknown. Later, manhood was praised, homosexuality and even pediastry was practiced as a part of apprenticeships and warrior bonds (Japan, China, Rome, Greece). Then later still, women became the property of men, homosexuality was criminalized.

This is absolutely related to underlying social changes. It's a shame you are so influenced by Victorian puritanism that you are too ashamed to even discuss it.

[aquaruis15000]

By far the most parsimonious and best supported explanation of the incest taboo is one of genetic fitness and evolution.

Falsehood. As selective breeding of animals shows, incest need not lead to any genetically inferior offspring. In a way, modern society is based on incestual relations between animals forced by men.

[Tim Cornelis]

I really don't give a fuck about the politics of lifestyle issues like orgies and porn, and I sure as hell resent the idea that it somehow needs to be tied into questions of class warfare. As for questions of incest, I'll list that along with debates over the "age of consent" as just another sketchy as fuck issue for some weirdos who want to politicize their own sexual fetish and think that the revolutionary left is the place to do it.

In other words, Jesus, no, don't care.

OP is merely asking whether there is a materialist explanation for the arising of new taboos. This is an interesting question, but you can't see past sexually charged words.

[Leftsolidarity]

To OP, idk why some users here are giving you so much shit for this thread when it is a very understandable thing to ask. There are changes of sexual expression along with changes of the modes of production.

If you want a really good book on sexual repression I highly suggest "The Roots of Lesbian and Gay Oppression". It talks about sexual repression and the link it has to class society.

[aquaruis15000]

Really? That sounds great. I was wondering why I couldn't find anything like that. Is it coming from a Marxist perspective?

[Kenco Smooth]

Falsehood. As selective breeding of animals shows, incest need not lead to any genetically inferior offspring. In a way, modern society is based on incestual relations between animals forced by men.

I suppose zoo keepers go to great hassle to bring in out-group individuals for mating just for the fun of it then? Inbreeding depression is a very well observed and understood force. Hell the principles that drive it are the same ones that led to sexual reproduction.

[Leftsolidarity]

Really? That sounds great. I was wondering why I couldn't find anything like that. Is it coming from a Marxist perspective?

Yep, it interlinks the struggle of all queer people along with the struggle against class society. Hold on I'll try to find a link for it.

Edit: I can't find it at the moment. I'll continue to look later. I have it paperback so I've never looked for it online.

[Lynx]

This is absolutely related to underlying social changes.
It's related to social changes, but not capitalism.

[aquaruis15000]

I suppose zoo keepers go to great hassle to bring in out-group individuals for mating just for the fun of it then? Inbreeding depression is a very well observed and understood force. Hell the principles that drive it are the same ones that led to sexual reproduction.

I don't think you've ever been involved in strain breeding for pure lines. If so, you'd know about lines, line crossing, etc. The best way to preserve and bring out particular features is to pair offspring showing the desired features back with the father or grandfather.

http://www.guppysa2z.com/clubs/sjgg/linebrd1.jpg

[aquaruis15000]

And that still doesn't touch the question of why incest was acceptable in nearly all past social forms but forbidden today. Egyptian Pharoes married their sisters to preserve family line for example.

[aquaruis15000]

It's related to social changes, but not capitalism.

Really? So Engels called it the BOURGEOIS family just for kicks? It's just a coincidence that it rose up with the bourgeoisie and its need to transfer property to heirs?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Off topics posts deleted. Please remain on topic and focus on the OP's question or I will lock this thread.

[Lynx]

Really? So Engels called it the BOURGEOIS family just for kicks? It's just a coincidence that it rose up with the bourgeoisie and its need to transfer property to heirs?
Historical evidence is insufficient to explain trends that are occurring now. I don't believe modern capitalism requires the family, sexism, or bans on homosexuality. If it did, there would be a great resistance to change.

Incest is viewed as a crime where I live. I would make a distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, but the law does not. I don't see this changing, but I don't see how this relates to capitalism. The usual reasons given are genetics and the Westermarck Effect.

[aquaruis15000]

I'm really wondering why for example homosexuality could have been so widespread in a place like ancient Rome while bonehead homophobes today exist and in fact run things! We say it's "progressive" that Obama claims he's down with same-sex relations in 2012, but he's only just caught up to a society that existed thousands of years back. No one else is interested in this and its relation to wider society??

[aquaruis15000]

If it did, there would be a great resistance to change.

Which of course there is. Which is my question.


Westermarck Effect.

If this was real, we wouldn't need laws against incest. Right?


but I don't see how this relates to capitalism

So you think this is one part of human relations (perhaps even the most fundamental!) that doesn't relate to material society? That's strange. Why do you think then that certain things were tolerated or even normal in past societies but forbidden today? How do you explain Victorianism, banning homosexuality, censorship of pornography and more? Just some random prudes in office all of a sudden? :confused:

[Lynx]

I'm really wondering why for example homosexuality could have been so widespread in a place like ancient Rome while bonehead homophobes today exist and in fact run things! We say it's "progressive" that Obama claims he's down with same-sex relations in 2012, but he's only just caught up to a society that existed thousands of years back. No one else is interested in this and its relation to wider society??
If the Romans had been able to blog about their daily lives and we had access to that material then many of those questions would be answered.

[Raúl Duke]

And that still doesn't touch the question of why incest was acceptable in nearly all past social forms but forbidden today. Egyptian Pharoes married their sisters to preserve family line for example.

We're not living in Game of Thrones...social acceptability of incest may never come back (if it ever was acceptable, where's your source for Egyptian incest?) and I doubt any socialist gives a shit about making it socially acceptable.

But to be serious, there's also a psychological factor to consider.

Something called the Westermack effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Were those Egyptian siblings raised apart?

[aquaruis15000]

Game of Throne

Don't know what that is.

Westermarck Effect is bullshit. If it existed there would be no need to outlaw incest. Surveys show many people had their first sexual experiences with siblings. Ever hear of youth experimentation? Also studies show that relatives who don't grow up together are more attracted to each other than almost any other group of people.

Common knowledge about the Pharhoes. Any basic book about social relations in Egypt should fill you in. Incidentally, incest can be seen throughout royalty in many past societies: English, Incas, Thai, the Wittelsbachs, and the list goes on.

Here:

"All the male rulers of the dynasty took the name Ptolemy. Ptolemaic queens, some of whom were the sisters of their husbands, were usually called Cleopatra, Arsinoe or Berenice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty

Ever hear of a little place called Iceland? Incest was very common there throughout its history. There were simply no choices though. So it's a bit easier to explain.

[Lynx]

Which of course there is. Which is my question.
There's no great resistance to homosexuality in Canada. Meanwhile, the 'family' is subordinated to the needs of employers, although not to the extent that it is in the US.

If this was real, we wouldn't need laws against incest. Right?
Laws against X don't stop people from engaging in X. Few people engage in incest compared to other illegal activities.


So you think this is one part of human relations (perhaps even the most fundamental!) that doesn't relate to material society? That's strange. Why do you think then that certain things were tolerated or even normal in past societies but forbidden today? How do you explain Victorianism, banning homosexuality, censorship of pornography and more? Just some random prudes in office all of a sudden? :confused:
The acceptance of these things varies through geography and time. There are historians and sociologists who can come up with explanations yet we cannot be certain that these are 'just so' stories.

[aquaruis15000]

Laws against X don't stop people from engaging in X.

You're missing the point. Why would there need to be a law against incest if people were naturally repulsed by their siblings (which is what Westermarck claims).

As far as I know, there are no laws against eating horse shit. Even though it would be bad for business, the bourgeoisie doesn't need to enshrine that particular bit, because a little something I like to call the Aquaruis15000 Effect - people really are repulsed by the thought of eating horse shit.

[Raúl Duke]

Do you have siblings?

I'm repulsed by the idea of sexual feelings about my sisters...thus, Westermac effect.
Of course, this is just a personal anecdote.
But you keep claiming "Westermack effect is BS" but not back up that claim (besides saying "if it were true, why is there a law?" that's not a real disproving argument. Legality of things and psychology are 2 separate realms) either so...

There are laws for many things that most people don't usually do, like murdering others in cold-blood for no reason.

[Lynx]

You're missing the point. Why would there need to be a law against incest if people were naturally repulsed by their siblings (which is what Westermarck claims).

As far as I know, there are no laws against eating horse shit. Even though it would be bad for business, the bourgeoisie doesn't need to enshrine that particular bit, because a little something I like to call the Aquaruis15000 Effect - people really are repulsed by the thought of eating horse shit.
Forcing someone to eat horseshit is illegal (except on this forum). Incest is not viewed as consensual.

[Raúl Duke]

Also, even if we didn't have laws, there's and will probably remain a near-universal cultural aversion to incest between close family/nuclear family kin.

Most cases of people that I heard who want to marry their sister usually involves that they were separated as children.

For example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315307/Ive-married-sister--having-second-baby-Siblings-defied-law-plan-start-new-life-abroad.html

In those cases, I guess it's all up to them. Laws won't make it any better.
But I doubt any socialist wants to waste time promoting incest acceptance.

[aquaruis15000]

Do you have siblings?

I'm repulsed by the idea of sexual feelings about my sisters...thus, Westermac effect.
Of course, this is just a personal anecdote.
But you keep claiming "Westermack effect is BS" but not back up that claim (besides saying "if it were true, why is there a law?" that's not a real disproving argument. Legality of things and psychology are 2 separate realms) either so...

There are laws for many things that most people don't usually do, like murdering others in cold-blood for no reason.

Fair play. But that wouldn't explain why there is so much incest through history. And why it was the norm from tribal societies (where in fact people didn't even know who they were and weren't related too much of the time, nor did they care) up to Asiatic and even Feudal production modes.

But seriously, why would you have to outlaw something that no one would do. Clearly incest happens.

[Raúl Duke]

Who said there will be a law?

There's a law now, in bourgeois society. A law that goes back perhaps to religious traditions, etc.
I don't care if there's one or not in the future.

[electrostal]

Really? So Engels called it the BOURGEOIS family just for kicks? It's just a coincidence that it rose up with the bourgeoisie and its need to transfer property to heirs?
Wait, did Engels really claim that family rose up with the bourgeoisie?
I mean I read his "Origin of..." but I don't remember that being said in the book. Source please, thanks.

[aquaruis15000]

Source is the book dummy.

[Kenco Smooth]

I don't think you've ever been involved in strain breeding for pure lines. If so, you'd know about lines, line crossing, etc. The best way to preserve and bring out particular features is to pair offspring showing the desired features back with the father or grandfather.


I don't think you understand what the discussion is....

Yes, selective inbreeding is good for bringing out certain traits, what it's not good for is maintaining a gene pool which can prosper in the face of existing or new selection pressures. There is a difference. Again why do zoo keepers go to great hassle to bring in external mates if inbreeding depression is not an issue? I suppose the numerous health problems displayed by pure bred dogs are simply coincidence and nothing to do with inbreeding?


And that still doesn't touch the question of why incest was acceptable in nearly all past social forms but forbidden today. Egyptian Pharoes married their sisters to preserve family line for example.

You're going to have to back that claim up there.

[aquaruis15000]

Again why do zoo keepers go to great hassle to bring in external mates if inbreeding depression is not an issue?

Of course inbreeding depression is EVENTUALLY an issue, if you never change lines. That's never happened with people though. Not much of a risk of people ONLY coupling with their siblings and at that for a long enough time for the line to collapse! Why is it illegal for a pair of siblings to couple ONCE, when it wasn't in a past mode of production. or better yet, why can't cousins marry now in most of the world when only 50 years ago it was not only accepted but common?


You're going to have to back that claim up there.

Already did. Read the thread. Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility

By the way, I like that every post at one has been aimed at criticizing me for even raising these questions and/or trying to shut down the discussion. No attempts at any kind of materialist analysis at all.

[Kenco Smooth]

Of course inbreeding depression is EVENTUALLY an issue, if you never change lines. That's never happened with people though. Not much of a risk of people ONLY coupling with their siblings and at that for a long enough time for the line to collapse! Why is it illegal for a pair of siblings to couple ONCE, when it wasn't in a past mode of production. or better yet, why can't cousins marry now in most of the world when only 50 years ago it was not only accepted but common?


If you payed any attention before jumping on your persecution train you'd notice I highlighted genetic and evolutionary reasons as the cause of base the incest taboo. NOT the laws around it which are most likely born from it. On an evolutionary time scale inbreeding in small groups WILL be selected against in a strong enough way to potentially lead to the formation of a psychological avoidance of incest.

But hell you want analysis? Possibly due to the tie between moralistic institutions and political power in the emergence of the modern state. If you're going to ban something on moral grounds then the ick factor of human incest would've been as good as any other. It'd also do well in keeping it on the books, incest is nasty, people will rationalise reasons to ban it on those grounds. But I'm making this shit up on the fly who so the hell knows.



Already did. Read the thread. Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility


Christ almighty, first line of the wikipedia section you link:

"Royal intermarriage was often practised to protect property, wealth and position"

Well look at that. A perfectly good reason it was a formal and legal practicefor a small and non-representative group of people. Now provide me some evidence that incest was the norm in the actual population. You've got a lot of modern evidence to overcome so better make it good.




By the way, I like that every post at one has been aimed at criticizing me for even raising these questions and/or trying to shut down the discussion. No attempts at any kind of materialist analysis at all.

It hasn't been. But nice persecution complex there.

[aquaruis15000]

Forget incest then (which you say is "icky" great way to approach the question - my grandma says that about gays). Why was it normal for guys and young boys to have sex in ancient Rome, ancient Japan, ancient China, ancient Greece?

[Engel]

Forget incest then (which you say is "icky" great way to approach the question - my grandma says that about gays). Why was it normal for guys and young boys to have sex in ancient Rome, ancient Japan, ancient China, ancient Greece?
Because they didn't have the social concept of being "gay" back then. For them, it was just wasn't a big deal. Especially in Sparta, it was quite common for the adolescent males in the military barracks to practice homosexuality with each other and older males.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Codes against incest are relative to the number of people available for breeding. Lot slept with his daughters when they were the only members of their tribe remaining. Social rules for sexuality are very situational it seems.


Falsehood. As selective breeding of animals shows, incest need not lead to any genetically inferior offspring. In a way, modern society is based on incestual relations between animals forced by men.

You know, many animal breeds do suffer from various diseases which have been bred into them.


Westermarck Effect is bullshit. If it existed there would be no need to outlaw incest. Surveys show many people had their first sexual experiences with siblings. Ever hear of youth experimentation? Also studies show that relatives who don't grow up together are more attracted to each other than almost any other group of people.


This is a bit of a weak argument. People may have instincts and "natural tendencies" but these tendencies change over age and can be very malleable.



Common knowledge about the Pharhoes. Any basic book about social relations in Egypt should fill you in. Incidentally, incest can be seen throughout royalty in many past societies: English, Incas, Thai, the Wittelsbachs, and the list goes on.

Pharaonic, Incan, and other forms of royal incest is something completely different. They did it to contain political and sacred power within their families. That did not mean that these were widespread in the rest of the population. Many of these royal families saw their family lines as divine and "perfect" and could not be polluted, or at least wanted to present that image to the people. That was after all an age where sacred power held much more power. I don't know if it exactly had a positive impact on these places like Egypt either.

[Kenco Smooth]

Forget incest then (which you say is "icky" great way to approach the question - my grandma says that about gays). Why was it normal for guys and young boys to have sex in ancient Rome, ancient Japan, ancient China, ancient Greece?

I was using it as short hand for writing out "is perceived as taboo by most of society". Thought that was clear.

Don't know, wasn't posting about homosexuality but incest because I don't know the history of homosexuality particularly well.

[aquaruis15000]

Because they didn't have the social concept of being "gay" back then. For them, it was just wasn't a big deal. Especially in Sparta, it was quite common for the adolescent males in the military barracks to practice homosexuality with each other and older males.

So why did later ruling classes come up with that concept?

[aquaruis15000]

Pharaonic, Incan, and other forms of royal incest is something completely different. They did it to contain political and sacred power within their families. That did not mean that these were widespread in the rest of the population. Many of these royal families saw their family lines as divine and "perfect" and could not be polluted, or at least wanted to present that image to the people. That was after all an age where sacred power held much more power. I don't know if it exactly had a positive impact on these places like Egypt either.

Fair play. Incest between cousins and occasionally siblings was common among workers and farmers in many place, also native americans.

In matriacal tribal socities (primitive communism and Engels called it) no one knew who their father was, and the connection wasn't always made between sex and birth, or carrying a baby and being its mother. Everything was communal, including the sex. So why did this "taboo" that some try to claim in biological not exist then? Not only did people bang their siblings and parents, they didn't even care to know who was and wasn't. Why would a brother and sister having sex now have such an impact on society that the bourgeoisie has to go after them with all of its state power?

[Engel]

So why did later ruling classes come up with that concept?

To do just what being a ruling class entitles, to rule. It was a matter of social control really that led later leadership to demonize homosexuality.

[Rafiq]

as far as a materialist explanation goes for incest, the Ironically Idealist bastard leeb rocks has the most sufficient answer. It's use in the Bourgeois family structure is obvious, though.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Some education about the ancient's "sexual affairs" with young men...


In classical Greece (c. 500-300 BC), the sexual desire of adult men for boys was considered totally natural and quite compatible with marriage and having children. Some writers heaped the highest praise on such relationships, claiming that the ‘heavenly love’ between members of the male sex was far superior to the ‘common love’ between men and women. All were agreed that no stigma was attached to a grown man who fell in love with, courted and sought the sexual favours of a beautiful boy. The erotic vase paintings of the sixth and fifth centuries BC depict relations between men and boys in which ‘every point on a scale of intimacy is fully represented’. Many famous literary and political figures, as well as gods and heroes in mythology, were lovers of boys, and a pair of male lovers were credited with the final overthrow of tyranny in Athens. In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical dialogue in the form of a dinner-party conversation about love, one character explains that

the reason why such love, together with love of intellectual and physical achievement, is condemned by the Persians is to be found in the absolute nature of their empire; it does not suit the interest of the government that a generous spirit and strong friendships and attachments should spring up among their subjects. 17
Yet the classical Greek attitude, especially at Athens (the politically and culturally dominant state) was fundamentally ambiguous and apparently contradictory. As the same character went on to say, after describing the high esteem in which lovers of boys were held at Athens:

But when we reflect that the boys who inspire this passion are placed by their fathers in the charge of tutors, with the injunction not to allow them to have any communication with their lovers, and that a boy who is involved in such communication is teased by his contemporaries and friends.. . we are led to the opposite conclusion, and infer that such love is reckoned among us to be highly disgraceful.18
Another puzzling piece of evidence is the speech of Aiskhines, a politician who in about 346 BC prosecuted his enemy Timarkhos in an attempt to have him disqualified from citizenship for the affairs he had had with men when he was a boy. It has been, argued that this shows that the Greeks really disapproved of relations between men and boys, at least outside the intellectually and socially elitist circle of Socrates, Plato and their friends.19
It seems clear, however, that what the Greeks disapproved of was the alleged willingness of a free-born boy like Timarkhos to submit to a man in return for money or presents. Willing submission was regarded as dishonourable for a future citizen, and the behaviour of loose’ boys, who invited lovers by speaking seductively, making eyes and crossing their legs was complained of in comedy. It is notable in this connection that Timarkhos’s later promiscuity in sexual relations with women was brought in as evidence of his bad character, whereas nowadays such evidence would be more likely to be taken as proving he was not ‘homosexual’.20 A double standard was at work here, in which the active, adult lover was approved, but the position of a boy as sex-object was regarded as at best ambiguous and at worst disgraceful. Several explanations of this have been offered.
To take these from the sex act outwards, as it were, we can begin with the question of child abuse: was this what the Greeks were really practising? Historians are usually vague about this, as the Greeks themselves were seldom explicit about the age at which a boy became a legitimate sex partner for an adult male, though most agreed that the first beard marked the beginning of the end of this phase. Athens had a law prohibiting men from hanging around the gymnasium where well-off citizen boys had their education, and the speaker in the Symposium already quoted says that men should be prohibited by law from forming connections with young boys, and that honourable lovers ‘do not fall in love with mere boys, but wait until the age at which they begin to show some intelligence, that is to say, until they are near growing a beard.’21 There were strict laws against forced sex with boys or women of any age, whether they were slave or free, and against procuring free boys or women for sexual use by men.22 All this would suggest that the Greeks were very anxious to distinguish between permitted relationships and abusive ones, and were not unaware of the dangers.
The whole relationship was a formal game of courtship with its inbuilt considerations of propriety and reputation, involving older teenage boys and adult men. Both visual art and literature suggest that a ‘good’ boy was not sexually aroused by his male lover, but granted his favours out of respect and friendship, while a courteous lover did not press for more than the boy was willing to give. Kenneth Dover has shown that anal intercourse was probably seen as one of the problems: it is never depicted between men and boys in the vase paintings, and the adult lover’s desire for it was seen as problematic for the boy. This was not because of any generalised disgust: women are frequently depicted having anal intercourse with men, and it seems to have been practised as a contraceptive precaution by courtesans and their lovers.23 An explanation frequently offered for the practice of sexual relations between men and boys is the low position of women, who had no political rights even in the most democratic states and were kept more or less in purdah at Athens. Sexual submission, in a male, was seen as lowering him to the status of a woman: Aiskhines accused Timarkhos of being unworthy of citizenship because he had ‘committed a woman’s transgressions’.24 But this leaves unanswered the question of why women’s status was so low in the first place.

Source: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=310

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fair play. Incest between cousins and occasionally siblings was common among workers and farmers in many place, also native americans.

In matriacal tribal socities (primitive communism and Engels called it) no one knew who their father was, and the connection wasn't always made between sex and birth, or carrying a baby and being its mother. Everything was communal, including the sex. So why did this "taboo" that some try to claim in biological not exist then? Not only did people bang their siblings and parents, they didn't even care to know who was and wasn't. Why would a brother and sister having sex now have such an impact on society that the bourgeoisie has to go after them with all of its state power?

It seems he's been banned, but I think it has to do more with the limited horizons which many small communities have. When you have 100 people in a village, these kinds of things will be more common. It becomes taboo when the alternative-having marriages with other communities-becomes possible to the degree where the costs of incest become too high.

[Kenco Smooth]

as far as a materialist explanation goes for incest, the Ironically Idealist bastard leeb rocks has the most sufficient answer. It's use in the Bourgeois family structure is obvious, though.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Christ did we just agree on something? :blink:

[Paul Cockshott]

Inbred likes of dogs suffer all sorts of ill health, and more generally will have a higher percentage of harmfull recessive genes.

[Regicollis]

The OP asks why European countries, especially the Scandinavian ones, have a more relaxed attitude to sexuality.

I see two factors that might contribute to this difference.

The first factor is that Europe lacks the religious fundamentalism the US have. There are many explanations as to why it is so. Maybe it is because European churches are more rooted in history and thus feel more secure and less combatant, maybe it is because all the religious nut jobs were pushed to America or one rather cynical reason could be that the state churches found in many European countries have actually smothered religion by providing for the dominant religion.

The other reason is the welfare states. A lot of religious extremism and bigotry comes from social despair. When the state makes sure there is a safety net people can relax more.

As for the claim that pre-capitalist societies were more open to homosexual relations I'm not convinced that this was always the case. The Celtic tribes were known to punish homosexuality harshly. I also think that there is a credible theory that many bog bodies found in northern European peat bogs were homosexuals. Also in Norse culture being "accused" of being the passive part in a homosexual relationship was considered a grave insult against a man.

[Leftsolidarity]

Well this thread was a lot shittier than it could have been. So much for discussion on why homosexuality and sexuality in general is accepted/repressed for different modes of production. Why we all decided to argue about why fucking your sibling is cool or not is beyond me.