Gurdur

No; this leaves Bookman's point unanswered.

Remember the hullaballoo - and the reasons for it - surrounding Woody Allen's last marriage ?
No genetics there.

Corwin

As book mentioned, these are issues in OUR culture, which Heinlein removed by placing people in a very different culture in the future.

In a way, it's logical. Look at how our own attitudes toward premarital and/or homosexual sex have changed just in the past 50 years... we don't know that this won't happen too. (We don't know that it will either... that's why science fiction is sometimes referred to as 'speculative fiction.')

Gurdur

Wrong.
Incest taboos are actually very widespread among many many different cultures throughout time.

Which you can also say about cannibalism, murdur, assault and rape for the sheer fun of it (A Clockwork Orange, A Boy And His Dog, Soylent Green, etc. etc.).

How ?

Incest taboos tend to be more widespread and less time-dependent than homosexuality taboos or premarital sex taboos.
Or whether we will fall screaming into a neutron star.
Or whether we will turn into hamsters.

D'uh.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Corwin

Oh gurdy.... show me two incest taboos that are exactly alike? Try it. You might be able to do it, but it won't be easy unless you've already done the research. The only thing that's consistient between incest taboos is that 'they (usually) exist.' In our culture we consider first cousins to be more or less taboo, 150 years ago this wasn't the case. In other cultures your maternal cousin is your preferred marriage partner. (One of the few people you can just about be gauranteed to have a genetic link to btw...) Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam.

Oh, and your little remark about speculative fiction? It bears mentioning. Not all fiction speculates. (A lot of it is understood to have never happened... or not be likely to happen at all... science fiction is really the first genre to ask 'what if...' although historical fiction does as well to an extent.)

elwoodblues

I'm arguing that this is a function of the genetics situation. Once the genetics factor is taken out of the equation, things may be very different after social inertia has worn off.

On a sidenote, incest taboos _have_ been overcome in some cultures to different extents. Take a look at the British royal family tree.

Because of the genetics issue. That's the strong force that perpetuates the taboo, and it's strong for a reason. Deformed babies are never seen as a happy occurence. However, homosexual and premarital sex don't have the same kind of results. Therefore, the taboos aren't as strong for them. Take away the root of a taboo, and Heinlein asserts that it will slowly wither and die. Not such an outlandish idea, is it?

How rational is the human animal? Do most people sit down and reason out the roots of their taboos, and then ruthlessly weed out those that don't make sense, don't fit, don't work? No. It's way too damned hard, way too painful. People heard about the Woody Allen thing and flipped, not because of genetics, obviously, but because of the taboo that genetics caused.

I'm maintaining that genetics is the root of the vast majority of the incest taboo. Take genetics out of the equation, and after a couple generations _at most_ things will be very, very different.

Bookman

I understand your argument and disagree. I've identified an aditional cause of the taboo. You assert that my cause is spurious, i.e. based upon genetics. I refute that.

Oh, and one more thing. If RH had investigated the taboo in a single work, examining it under the microscope of fiction to see what we could learn about it, your argument (made by both you and Corwin) would carry a bit more weight with me. However, it is a theme that appears in many, many places in his works, and not in every case is the "context...wildly different than our own". I am forced to conclude that RH, a product of our culture had a purient interest in the subject of father-daughter incest. Perhaps writing about it was his therapy; however, I do not enjoy reading what he wrote about that.

Bookman

elwoodblues

The point Heinlein was trying to make was that incest is NOT a big deal once you get past the genetics. When genetics WERE a factor, he went to great big lengths to spell out how bad it could be (I can think of two examples immediately: the siblings in 'To Sail Beyond the Sunset' and the diploid twins(?) in 'Time Enough For Love'). The fact that he didn't bend over backwards trying to analyze and discuss and pick apart the issue is just reflective of the idea that it's not worth talking much about once the genetics are taken care of.

We're also assuming, of course, a couple other things about the people involved. They're typical Heinlein characters, strong-willed, intelligent, assertive, capable. Two people with those kind of characteristics are NOT likely to create an unhealthy relationship. If we were talking about contemporary, average individuals... Yeah, the problem you're talking about would be very common. But that's not what Heinlein's talking about. Mrs. Grundy isn't the one doing this.

dangin

If you clone yourself, and make your clone the opposite gender(easily done for someone who can clone) then you sleep with your clone, is that incest?

GunnerJ

Hmm... more like very complicated masturbation.

elwoodblues

Actually a scenario that's examined extensively in 'Time Enough For Love'. Published three _decades_ ago. The man was seriously ahead of his time.

Interestingly enough, the incest taboo was strong enough to still be worrying the main character quite a bit (raised in 1930's Missourri of an alternate reality).

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: elwoodblues ]

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: elwoodblues ]</p>