Incest on Lifetime Network

[Guest]

Dirt and Box: you do know that 99% of TV execs are men, don't you? And that even if the products sold via commercials are for women, the execs behind them are men too. It's not so simple as you present. Consumerism (which is basically what American TV is all about) is a vicious circle and the public gets what it's made to think it wants or needs.

Dirt, re. "you women", please don't do that. I'm not in there, nor are most of the AH women. Yeah, we bash men amongst ourselves, it's fun, a comic relief, but that's all.

Perdita (greatly appreciative of the male)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Dirt and Box: you do know that 99% of TV execs are men, don't you? And that even if the products sold via commercials are for women, the execs behind them are men too. It's not so simple as you present. Consumerism (which is basically what American TV is all about) is a vicious circle and the public gets what it's made to think it wants or needs.

Dirt, re. "you women", please don't do that. I'm not in there, nor are most of the AH women. Yeah, we bash men amongst ourselves, it's fun, a comic relief, but that's all.

Perdita (greatly appreciative of the male)

Hi, Dita. I must say, I prefer your previous AV over the current one.

I know most TV execs are men although I doubt that it is as high as 99%. My gripe, as I said, is that so often men are negatively portrayed, in shows and in commercials, especially white businessmen. If women were consistently put in such a bad light, the networks would be picketed by women and they would be calling for boycotts of the sponsors.

I realize that the women on AH often bash men, me in particular, I don't remember ever bashing women, in general, though.

 

[minsue]

This is a gripe I have always had. On most "women's movies", men are portrayed strictly negatively, as lechers or idiots or insensitive cads. On sitcoms, men are usually total idiots and lacking in any good qualities. Women are not usually portrayed all that well but at least there is usually something to like besides their tits.

Yeah, their ass.

 

[Guest]

Box, you mostly repeat yourself. Can't you take a stab at explaining or imagining why men are portrayed the way you note? I tried.

Perdita

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you mostly repeat yourself. Can't you take a stab at explaining or imagining why men are portrayed the way you note? I tried.

Perdita

TV networks are in the business of selling advertising time but in order to do that, they need something that people will watch. They have to entertain watchers and to do that, frequently people must be portrayed as buffoons or lechers or crooks or all of the above. If women are consistently portrayed in this manner, there will be howls of outrage from woman's organizations, picketing and organized boycotts, and men will support women in these endeavors because men tend to be protective of and supportive of women, if they know what's good for them.

Whereas, if men are portrayed so negatively, they will just laugh and not take it seriously and do nothing except maybe gripe like I am doing. Men seldom watch shows that are aimed at women and will probably not even be aware of a lot of the negative images. No organized demonstrations or boycotts or any other actions would be organized because people have better things to do, and women would not be supportive anyhow, telling the men to stop fooling around and grout the bathroom, mow the lawn, etc.

THe people who run TV are aware of this, that men, especially WASP businessmen are a safe target and they can say anything they want or portray them in any light, and get away with it.

 

[Guest]

Box, that was better. I just read your last post on the pancake thread - you're so off-the-wall, but you're growing on me.

Perdita

 

[Dirt Man]

Dirt and Box: you do know that 99% of TV execs are men, don't you? And that even if the products sold via commercials are for women, the execs behind them are men too. It's not so simple as you present. Consumerism (which is basically what American TV is all about) is a vicious circle and the public gets what it's made to think it wants or needs.

Dirt, re. "you women", please don't do that. I'm not in there, nor are most of the AH women. Yeah, we bash men amongst ourselves, it's fun, a comic relief, but that's all.

Perdita (greatly appreciative of the male)

Yes, I'm well aware of the trends of todays business, and their agenda's. I'm also all too aware of how easy it is for people to slip into character after watching these idiotic sitcoms. Now I'm not saying that we need a revival of Father Knows Best with an all black family cast, but I am sick and tired of parents being the assholes, and the children portrayed as if they were college graduate students from MIT when there are two parents. With the mother barely just smart enough to make dad look like a complete mental midget. And don't get me started on the single parent sitcoms where the dad has skipped out on the family. Why can't we have have normal people go through extrodinary mishaps without denuding them of their intelligence? It would be twice as entertaining, and more trueful to the humanity of us all.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[rockysucks]

The three mainstream movies that stick out the most in my mind are Godfather 3 (cousins), Back to the Future (mother/son), and The Grifters (mother/son).

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think the "Lifetime" movie would be considered incest even by the definition you gave. If a man and a woman have never known each other, and a parent of one maries a parent of the other, and they have no real relationship, but start meeting sometimes at famiy gatherings, and have an affair, I wouldn't think that could be called incest. How about Woody Allen with his stepdaughter? He always claimed he had no fatherly relationship with her, so it was not incest, and I am inclined to agree with him. I believe they actually got married so it wasn't legally incest either.

Having sex with your step-bother is pretty much forbidden by custom were I am from. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'custom' and what you mean by 'forbidden' (somewere between storngly discouraged and punshable by death i suppose)

Because incest is partially defined by custom, I think that if it considered incest, it pretty much is. It is not customary to sleep with your step-daughter so I don't think that claiming you had no 'fatherly relationship' necessarily you off the hook. *Perhaps* it was a case of incest that was not *wrong* but it's still incest as far as I and many others are concerned (ie, according to custom)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Having sex with your step-bother is pretty much forbidden by custom were I am from. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'custom' and what you mean by 'forbidden' (somewere between storngly discouraged and punshable by death i suppose)

Because incest is partially defined by custom, I think that if it considered incest, it pretty much is. It is not customary to sleep with your step-daughter so I don't think that claiming you had no 'fatherly relationship' necessarily you off the hook. *Perhaps* it was a case of incest that was not *wrong* but it's still incest as far as I and many others are concerned (ie, according to custom)

I think the closeness of the relationship, both physical and emotional, would be the determining factor. If they had known each other since infancy, and had been raised together, that would be one thing, but you said this was not the case. If they had met each other when they were in their twenties and NEVER had any kind of a brother-sister relationship, that would be quite different.

In the second case, it might raise some eybrows but not all that many and it would be legal, at least in the US.

In the case of Woody Allen, I think more people took issue with the fact that she was in her early twenties and he was about 60. It was legal but frowned on because of that.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Gender portrayal in the Media I

I think men are protrayed as idiots and woman are portrayed as smarter than men (usually on sitcoms) because *it goes against type* therefor is considered funny. In additioin it's safe because it's 'pollitically correct' but I think (honestly and truely) that that is a secondary consideration. The stereotype still exists that men are more intellegent than woman. (Men are 'logical' and woman are 'emotional' right?) In fact, I believe that many of the men who complain about this relatively new phenominon do believe this stereotype and are somewhat threatened by the depiction of woman as constantly 'one-uping' the man or being smarter than he is.

(Rembember on married with Children how the hot housewife was always chasing around the not-so-hot hubby who was always avoiding her. It was funny because it's the *opposite* of what you'd expect. Everybody *knows* that men want to have sex all the time with big breasted red-heads right? The point is in commmedy, we either play the stereotype or we play against it)

Now look at how woman have been portrayed throughout the history of tv. Lots of dumb blonds, lost of sexpots (but they didnt' have kids or responsabilities or respectable jobs) lots of housewives.

Then, lets look at how woman are still portrayed today on tv. NoT on the programs, but on the advertisements- women are cleaning, taking care of the kids doing very traditional things or they are rolling around in mud to sell beer. You will note that a woman will be in the ad using the cleaning supplies, the voiceover telling you about it will be a man. (9 times out of ten) How many ads do you see a man vacuming or washing dishes? (Occasionally and usually for comic effect- again, against type.)

IN the old commercials the woman would be in the kitchen, upset because she just didnt' know WHAT she was going to do about these coffe stains or her counter, when a male voice would boom from above, giving her the solution. IF you think this is simply nitpicking- it's not, advertising exects do every little thing for a reason. It's subtle but its not a coincidence.

Now look at how woman are portrayed in porn. Some may say that this doesn't count- but I say it counts more. Porn is marketed toward men, and reflects there wants, desires and beliefs. Woman there are portrayed as horny body parts. Men are not focused on much. But the woman are there for one reason- to please the men. There only desire in fact is to please the men- it's what turns them on the most. Even lesbians are doing it to get the men hot- and of course most of them would certainly take your cock if you offered it. They are only lesbians because they are so horny they have to do it whether there is a man available or not

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Gender portrayal in the Media II

On to the reason that men are portrayed as bastards on Lifetime- ie. drama. the key to drama is that it is something that you can relate to, and must have conflict. Sadly, most men can relate to the situation of a woman or girl being abuses, used, or mistreated by men. It's emotional, it's relatable and it's dramatic (conflict) LIfetime mostly has focused on the 'woman in jepardy' genra were the woman is somehow victimized (usually) by a man, but then somehow fights back or escapes. Personally, I can stand this type of made for tv movie in small doses, but as the only theme of an entire network, it's old. Fortunatly, from what I've seen of Lifetime lately, I think that they are moving away from that. (People have started noticing and criticising there 'formula' so they are changing it. Once you 'see' the formula, it doenst' work quite as well after all.) However, women's main conflict often comes in the form of the opposite sex, and since it's the woman's point of view, I think you can probably still expect men to be 'the bad guy' on a fairly regular basis. Just as on Spike, you can probably expect the woman to be 'available' (willing to do any degrading thing at the drop of a hat) large chested and not the smartest bulb in the box.

Finally, lets not pretend that woman are no longer portrayed in a negative light in the media and that only men are being negatively stereotyped. Last I checked, Howard Stern, The Man Show, WWE and plenty of other shows of there ilk are still on the air, still portraying woman in shallow degrading ways, and no amount of protesting is shutting any of that quality programing down anytime soon.

**stepping off soapbox.

 

[MaleMacNY]

Wasn't the Blue Lagoon and the Return to Blue Lagoon incestous?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: Gender portrayal in the Media I

I think men are protrayed as idiots and woman are portrayed as smarter than men (usually on sitcoms) because *it goes against type* therefor is considered funny. In additioin it's safe because it's 'pollitically correct' but I think (honestly and truely) that that is a secondary consideration. The stereotype still exists that men are more intellegent than woman. (Men are 'logical' and woman are 'emotional' right?) In fact, I believe that many of the men who complain about this relatively new phenominon do believe this stereotype and are somewhat threatened by the depiction of woman as constantly 'one-uping' the man or being smarter than he is.

(Rembember on married with Children how the hot housewife was always chasing around the not-so-hot hubby who was always avoiding her. It was funny because it's the *opposite* of what you'd expect. Everybody *knows* that men want to have sex all the time with big breasted red-heads right? The point is in commmedy, we either play the stereotype or we play against it)

Now look at how woman have been portrayed throughout the history of tv. Lots of dumb blonds, lost of sexpots (but they didnt' have kids or responsabilities or respectable jobs) lots of housewives.

Then, lets look at how woman are still portrayed today on tv. NoT on the programs, but on the advertisements- women are cleaning, taking care of the kids doing very traditional things or they are rolling around in mud to sell beer. You will note that a woman will be in the ad using the cleaning supplies, the voiceover telling you about it will be a man. (9 times out of ten) How many ads do you see a man vacuming or washing dishes? (Occasionally and usually for comic effect- again, against type.)

IN the old commercials the woman would be in the kitchen, upset because she just didnt' know WHAT she was going to do about these coffe stains or her counter, when a male voice would boom from above, giving her the solution. IF you think this is simply nitpicking- it's not, advertising exects do every little thing for a reason. It's subtle but its not a coincidence.

Now look at how woman are portrayed in porn. Some may say that this doesn't count- but I say it counts more. Porn is marketed toward men, and reflects there wants, desires and beliefs. Woman there are portrayed as horny body parts. Men are not focused on much. But the woman are there for one reason- to please the men. There only desire in fact is to please the men- it's what turns them on the most. Even lesbians are doing it to get the men hot- and of course most of them would certainly take your cock if you offered it. They are only lesbians because they are so horny they have to do it whether there is a man available or not

The logical-emotional may be a stereotype but there is a lot of truth to it. Men have always been shown to be better at math, which is pure logic while women are better at inter-personal activities, which are emotional. Why do you refer to the dumb man-smart woman thing as "a new phenomenon? This goes back to the sixties and even further. Not all shows, but the majority of the shows when there were a man and a woman as the main characters. If the stars were all me, like "The Odd Couple" or all women like "Golden Girls", this would not be so.

I always enjoyed "Married with Children", even though Peg was always outwitting her dumb husband, but I think it is a bit too over the top to talk about here.

There have always been sexpots on TV, Male and female. Actors and actresses tend to be good looking; it is something of a requirement. There is more eye-candy for men because men are more visually oriented but there are plenty of male hunks also. A lot of the male hunks are dumb, also, such as Ted on "Mary Tyler Moore" or Jethroe on "Beverly Hillbillies" and probably more if I wanted to think hard about it.

Women are portrayed in kitchens a lot more than men are because women do more household chores than men do. This has nothing to do with stereotypes; there is plenty of research to back up the difference. Even when chores are shared, women are seen as the persons who select what products are used so a detergent maker will show a woman being impressed by the product. The voice-over is a man's gentle, affectionate, non-threatening voice because of its appeal to women. When men are shown in the kitchen, they are usually burning or spilling something or otherwise making a complete mess out of everything until a woman can save the day.

Commercials aimed at men show men using the product, such as beer, lawn mowers, tools, razor blades, etc. Cologne may be aimed at men but it shows women in the ads gushing over how sexy somebody smells because the idea is to enhance the male sex appeal.

I have to agree with what you say about porn but I don't see how it is germane.

 

[angela146]

RE: TV Sitcoms portraying men as buffoons (sp)

This is nothing new. It's been going on since before I was born.

Watch the "TV Land" channel or any of the other channels that carry the sitcoms of the 1960's. You will see plenty of shows where the men/boys are clueless and need women/girls to keep them in line.

Examples: Flintstones, Honeymooners (OK 1950's), Brady Bunch (the kids more than the parents), Bewitched.

Example in the other direction: That Girl

Of course, those of you who actually remember the 1960's can cite some examples that aren't being carried on modern television. Are the ones being carried on today's cable channels reflective of the ones that aren't?

Please note that I am resisting the temptation to refer to this as a "historical perspective".

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Gender portrayal in the Media I

The logical-emotional may be a stereotype but there is a lot of truth to it. Men have always been shown to be better at math, which is pure logic while women are better at inter-personal activities, which are emotional.


Why do you refer to the dumb man-smart woman thing as "a new phenomenon? This goes back to the sixties and even further.

men are more visually oriented

Women are portrayed in kitchens a lot more than men are because women do more household chores than men do. This has nothing to do with stereotypes; there is plenty of research to back up the difference. Even when chores are shared, women are seen as the persons who select what products are used so a detergent maker will show a woman being impressed by the product. The voice-over is a man's gentle, affectionate, non-threatening voice because of its appeal to women. When men are shown in the kitchen, they are usually burning or spilling something or otherwise making a complete mess out of everything until a woman can save the day.

Commercials aimed at men show men using the product, such as beer, lawn mowers, tools, razor blades, etc. Cologne may be aimed at men but it shows women in the ads gushing over how sexy somebody smells because the idea is to enhance the male sex appeal.

I pretty much don't agree with anything you've said.

Certainly it's not that men think logically and woman think emotionally just because they may have more aptitude in those areas, and additionally there continues to be the question of nature vs. nurture. IF we are going to have a dicodomy of men and woman thinkng differently, then it should go- woman think with there heart, and men think with there genitals. In otherwords, we are both *equally* illogical. Of course, with men making the distinction, and men valuing there attributes higher, they would probably argue that thinking with there genitals WAS logical. Men and woman are both equally capable of logic, regardless of math tests.

It may be accepted to say that 'men are more visual' but I think it's a total crock. Women are just as visually oriented as men. We're just taught *not* to stare and oggle other people. Men have excuses of 'biology' or 'evolution' to back up all of there bad behavior while woman are constantly being socialized to supress there natural instincts, told that we don't or shouldnn't have them or act on them and blamed for everything from our own bad behavior to mens. Woman who don't look at porn don't not look because they are not visual, they don't look because they've been taught that it's distateful, disgusting, wrong, and something that you just don't do' it's depraved, immoral, ect, ect. The rest of us who ignore those messages will all tell you that we are every bit as stimulated visually as we are stimulated in any other way. Looks may not be the only think that matters, but a buff naked hottie will not fail to turn us on. IN fact, half of all porn viewers are woman and couples. (so again, why is it all aimed for men)

I like your spin on the cleaning products thing I just don't agree with it. It's something of a self perpetuating stereotype. Thee may be *more* woman cleaning and buying cleaners, that doesnt' mean that there arent enough men who do it to market to them. (just like with the porn example. the invisible market.) Yeah, women tend to do *more* total housework, but most men are doing at least *some* and most men do at least *some* of the grocery shopping as well.

Yes, woman need a gentle soothing man to tell them what to use to clean with. I much prefer a gentle soothing man doing the cleaning myself. How about the woman looks around, sees the mess and says- "Oh, I really don't want to clean this?" and the buff hunky guy comes into the room (rather than just speaking from heaven) and starts cleaning with said product. Now that's motivative advertising. The real reason for the male voice is it represents authority. We trust the male (who doesnt' even use the product) because we've been socialized not to trust other woman.

Sure, ads aimed at men show men using the product. That comercial with Beyonce for Pepsi or whatever shows the guy with the pop can in his hand. That ad with Britney Spears (aimed at men) barely even showed the product.some ads show men using the product and some don't.

I probably should have just let it all go though, as none of it really has anything to do with incest shown in mainstream entertainment.

 

[Sarastro]

In my opinion, one gender is not fundamentally more logical, emotional, visual, domestic, whathaveyou than the other. It turns out (acc. to a TV science program I saw recently) that there is experimental data showing adult women to have more connections between their brain cells, which indicates a more unobstructed flow of emotions, but even so - even so! - I believe any mental/emotional differences between men and women are all owing to cultural gender roles bred into us during our upbringing. Women become more emotional because they are inducted into a set of social roles that teach and expect them to identify with society's idea of femininity, and the same is largely the case with men and masculinity.

At any rate, it is unscientific to conclude anything else, as long as we don't *know* the genes to have any particular effect on mental development. In science, the environment must always be given the benefit of the doubt.

I believe that the current emotional/rational/etc. differences between the genders (which, due to cultural nurture, do exist) will level out as gender equality increases. When that happens, men and women will understand each other much better and their sexual desires will be more matched.

~Sarastro

P.S. This thread is so off-topic now that it might be a good idea to transplant this subject into a new one...

 

[Dirt Man]

Dirt and Box: you do know that 99% of TV execs are men, don't you? And that even if the products sold via commercials are for women, the execs behind them are men too. It's not so simple as you present. Consumerism (which is basically what American TV is all about) is a vicious circle and the public gets what it's made to think it wants or needs.

Dirt, re. "you women", please don't do that. I'm not in there, nor are most of the AH women. Yeah, we bash men amongst ourselves, it's fun, a comic relief, but that's all.

Perdita (greatly appreciative of the male)

Okay, so I guess I was wrong to vent my opinion here. After all I've lived with the same woman now for close to thirty years. Sometimes I do the cooking, cleaning, or what have you, and sometimes she does. Do I think I'm superior to her in any way other than body mass? No. Does she think she's superior to me in any other way than that she can bare children? No. Is she underpaid for what she does outside of the home, am I? Who isn't? All I know is that the money we both bring in goes to pay the bills first, and our wants second. She knows how much I make, and I know how much she makes, and that's enough to get by on. I'm not always right, and neither is she, but when it comes to our specialties we go with the one who know more about it. Marriage is team work, and too compromise, but there are two superstars here that make up the whole team. Yes, we do often argue, but that is just us getting out life's daily frustrations, and we both know it. I liked her as a person long before I fell in love with her. No we don't agree on everything, but then no two people on earth ever do. The thing is, we only get physical in bed, and never abusive. And though we don't always agree on things we respect each other's judgement as much a we respect each other. We've lived through good times, and bad, and forged a oneness so complete that we are literally envied by our contemporairies. Do I still look at other women? Does she look at other men? You bet! And so what? We are only human after all, but when we go home, we go there together. I don't believe women are from Venus, and men are from Mars. But I do believe with the right combination they make heaven here on Earth. The problem as I see it is that all too often the male, or female involved isn't ready for the true test of life. And therein lies the real conflict, and oneupmanship contest.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah, I think that is what I was trying to say- right down to the part about getting back on topic.

In my opinion, one gender is not fundamentally more logical, emotional, visual, domestic, whathaveyou than the other. It turns out (acc. to a TV science program I saw recently) that there is experimental data showing adult women to have more connections between their brain cells, which indicates a more unobstructed flow of emotions, but even so - even so! - I believe any mental/emotional differences between men and women are all owing to cultural gender roles bred into us during our upbringing. Women become more emotional because they are inducted into a set of social roles that teach and expect them to identify with society's idea of femininity, and the same is largely the case with men and masculinity.

At any rate, it is unscientific to conclude anything else, as long as we don't *know* the genes to have any particular effect on mental development. In science, the environment must always be given the benefit of the doubt.

I believe that the current emotional/rational/etc. differences between the genders (which, due to cultural nurture, do exist) will level out as gender equality increases. When that happens, men and women will understand each other much better and their sexual desires will be more matched.

~Sarastro

P.S. This thread is so off-topic now that it might be a good idea to transplant this subject into a new one...

 

[sweetnpetite]

That is downright beautiful dirt man!




It would be nice to see something like this reflected more on tv.


ONe example that people might site (for male negative stereotypes) is "Everybody Loves Raymond" because his wife is always right, and he's made to look like an idiot. But it's also very stereotypical toward her- Debra doesnt' work, she does all of the shopping and housework (even though according to her mother in law, she can't even do that right) she's supposedly a terrible cook but when do they ever show Ray cooking? It's a funny show, but I wouldn't say that it shows the better side of *anybody* male or female.

Although some might disagree, I think Dharma and Greg is a pretty good example of a show were sometimes he's right and sometimes she is, they disagree, they use teamwork, they sometimes comprimise and sometimes fight, they are sometimes ok with each others attractions to other people and sometimes threatened or jealous. But they try to accept each other for who they are. They each change somewhat as a result of being together but they don't try to change each other. Unfortunatly, they stopped making the show, so I have to be content with re-runs.

Okay, so I guess I was wrong to vent my opinion here. After all I've lived with the same woman now for close to thirty years. Sometimes I do the cooking, cleaning, or what have you, and sometimes she does. Do I think I'm superior to her in any way other than body mass? No. Does she think she's superior to me in any other way than that she can bare children? No. Is she underpaid for what she does outside of the home, am I? Who isn't? All I know is that the money we both bring in goes to pay the bills first, and our wants second. She knows how much I make, and I know how much she makes, and that's enough to get by on. I'm not always right, and neither is she, but when it comes to our specialties we go with the one who know more about it. Marriage is team work, and too compromise, but there are two superstars here that make up the whole team. Yes, we do often argue, but that is just us getting out life's daily frustrations, and we both know it. I liked her as a person long before I fell in love with her. No we don't agree on everything, but then no two people on earth ever do. The thing is, we only get physical in bed, and never abusive. And though we don't always agree on things we respect each other's judgement as much a we respect each other. We've lived through good times, and bad, and forged a oneness so complete that we are literally envied by our contemporairies. Do I still look at other women? Does she look at other men? You bet! And so what? We are only human after all, but when we go home, we go there together. I don't believe women are from Venus, and men are from Mars. But I do believe with the right combination they make heaven here on Earth. The problem as I see it is that all too often the male, or female involved isn't ready for the true test of life. And therein lies the real conflict, and oneupmanship contest.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[sweetnpetite]

Incest-- Back on topic

Joe Dirt (I don't think anyones said that yet)


I think if you get too technical with what is or is not incest, you sort of miss the point.

I mean, if my dad has an affair with a married woman (when I am 3 years old) and gets her pregnant. This child would legally be considered the child of the woman's husband (at least in my state). So legally we would not be related. I think it's pretty clear that a sexual relationship between the two of us (once we've reached adulthood, naturally) would be considered incest. The legal and techincal definition is useful if you want to be legal or techincal but in everyday life, it's pretty much incest if it involves anyone that you consider family.

Anyone notice that the category name has been changed here on lit?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: Incest-- Back on topic

Joe Dirt (I don't think anyones said that yet)


I think if you get too technical with what is or is not incest, you sort of miss the point.

I mean, if my dad has an affair with a married woman (when I am 3 years old) and gets her pregnant. This child would legally be considered the child of the woman's husband (at least in my state). So legally we would not be related. I think it's pretty clear that a sexual relationship between the two of us (once we've reached adulthood, naturally) would be considered incest. The legal and techincal definition is useful if you want to be legal or techincal but in everyday life, it's pretty much incest if it involves anyone that you consider family.

Anyone notice that the category name has been changed here on lit?

I also believe we should get back on track, especially since we are basically in agreement.

I am unsure of what you mean when you say that the husband of the mother of your half-sibling would be considered to be the father of the child. Would this be so under any circumstances? If it is absolutely impossible that he could be the father, such as if he had been in prison for a year before the birth or if he had a vasectomy long before or some other absolute thing, would he still legally be considered the father, and be compelled to provide support? DNA might be a possibility too, but this is relatively new, and the laws might not allow for it. In the case you cite, I dought if it would be considered to be incest, although it would be, if nobody knew the parentage of your half-brother.

I still think incest is dependent first on blood, and then on the closeness of a non-blood relationship. If step-siblings were raised togehter since infancy, sex between them would be incest. However, consider this example: A young man and woman, both 18, have known each other for years. They establish a dating relationship and have sex regularly. The parents of both these young people are divorced and the father of one and the mother of the other decide to get married, and the wedding is to be on a Saturday morning. On the night before the wedding, the young man and woman have sex, but the next night, they can't because they have become step siblings. Would that make any sense to you? After all, they have NEVER had any kind of familial relationship. Suppose the son of my older brother, who is my nephew, gets married to a woman I have never met. I attend the wedding and the bride and I feel a strong attraction and, cad that I am, I get her drunk the next time I see her, a mlonth later, we have sex. Never mind that it is a rotten thing to do, and maybe even rape, is it incest? Legally, I would say no, but some people might think it is anyhow.

I think it is a good idea to change the name to get away from the legal definition of incest. A sexual relationship between step siblings who had been raised together might not legally be incest, but it would certainly be taboo, at least in the United States.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Incest-- Back on topic

I also believe we should get back on track, especially since we are basically in agreement.

I am unsure of what you mean when you say that the husband of the mother of your half-sibling would be considered to be the father of the child. Would this be so under any circumstances? If it is absolutely impossible that he could be the father, such as if he had been in prison for a year before the birth or if he had a vasectomy long before or some other absolute thing, would he still legally be considered the father, and be compelled to provide support? DNA might be a possibility too, but this is relatively new, and the laws might not allow for it. In the case you cite, I dought if it would be considered to be incest, although it would be, if nobody knew the parentage of your half-brother.

IF the man and woman are legally married, the husband is legally the father. Blood test is not allowed. The only way to change this would be to divorce, have the fathers rights terminated (volentarily or involentary) and then have the biological father *adopt* the child. Yes, I'm sure. (Well, I'm not sure if the divorce is required or not- there may be a way around that part)

I knew a woman who was legally married (yet seperated) and had lived with her boyfriend for years. When she had a kid by him, her husband was listed as the father on the birthcirtificate *immediatly* despite there protests. I don't know if they were able to legally change it or not.

I still think incest is dependent first on blood, and then on the closeness of a non-blood relationship. If step-siblings were raised togehter since infancy, sex between them would be incest. However, consider this example: A young man and woman, both 18, have known each other for years. They establish a dating relationship and have sex regularly. The parents of both these young people are divorced and the father of one and the mother of the other decide to get married, and the wedding is to be on a Saturday morning. On the night before the wedding, the young man and woman have sex, but the next night, they can't because they have become step siblings. Would that make any sense to you? After all, they have NEVER had any kind of familial relationship. Suppose the son of my older brother, who is my nephew, gets married to a woman I have never met. I attend the wedding and the bride and I feel a strong attraction and, cad that I am, I get her drunk the next time I see her, a mlonth later, we have sex. Never mind that it is a rotten thing to do, and maybe even rape, is it incest? Legally, I would say no, but some people might think it is anyhow.

I think it is a good idea to change the name to get away from the legal definition of incest. A sexual relationship between step siblings who had been raised together might not legally be incest, but it would certainly be taboo, at least in the United States.

I think I agree with most everything you say here. I think there are sort of degrees of incest. Most people I suppose think it's incest if it's wrong or illegal. (ie- incest=wrong) I think that if I love you and my mom loves your dad and we get married in a double wedding, it's not wrong, it's not really icky, but it is a little weird, and it could be viewed as somewhat (marginally) incestuous. No people aren't going to drive you out of town- but I bet that they will talk!

As for a story category, I think anything that *could* be considered incest (or marginally incest or with incestual overtones...) should be allowed to go in the category. Everyone is going to disagree to some extent on what *exactly* intails incest. Does a roll-playing story belong in incest (why not? Mine did quite well there) If it explores the theme of incest, from whatever angle, then it can go in incest. If people don't like it there, I guess they will vote it down.