|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This 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, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
After the biblical diagram, there's this line that remains without proper citation or explanation "Apart from the questionable case of the daughter [clarification needed]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Buddhism on incest
Section "Religious views: Buddhist" states in the opening sentence that "Buddhist societies take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular", then it elaborates that in Buddhism there are no specific rules on the subject and everything is "decided locally", according to famously vague Noble Eightfold Path and Five Percepts. To my impression it means that Buddhism doesn't take a stand on the specific subject at all. And the whole section contradicts itself or, at best, just isn't informative. So I don't know why it is even mentioned. I didn't put the "Section contradicts itself" template there because I'm kinda new here and I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate. Nazwa.ekranowa (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I watch this article but never looked that closely or edited the section in question. I believe you are right, it does come across as contradictory. The opening sentence even appears to be mostly cut-and-paste from the source, which is not only prohibited but puts the text out of context. It technically starts as "Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions" which is not the same thing, and the source seems not very authoritative considering it's a Unitarian Sermon delivered by non-Buddhists. I will begin researching better sources and modify this section accordingly. If you have any sources that seem reliable, please post them. I'm sure they will be helpful.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Does this source seem accurate? http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=484 Legitimus (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, I've only noticed some inconsistencies in the article. However, just out of curiosity, I read your link and followed the bibliographical citations and I've found out that when Buddha hears the story of a nun and his son, his answer is not quite about mother-son relationship only but rather general, quite hilarious warning, which states that supposedly all "forms of a woman" are "tantalizing, sensuous, intoxicating, captivating, infatuating, and as much of an obstacle to achieving the unsurpassed security from bondage". And this warning is followed by equally hilarious (from modern Western point of view, obviously) poetry. Anyway, read it for yourself. https://books.google.pl/books?id=Bf4Sn056puUC&pg=PA682&lpg=PA682&f=false
- The other citation which I found in your link also concerned only women. Of course it's authoritative and sheds some light on the matter, but as far as I understood the rules, we are not supposed to do actual research. And I really can't point to any trustworthy comprehensive source, sorry. Maybe you should consider deleting the whole section altogether? Nazwa.ekranowa (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated Main Argument
The main argument against incest in this article is that incestuous sex is inbreeding and congenital birth defects and therefore is soceitally taboo. However, a logical fallacy exists within that argument, that (all) sex is done for procreation purposes, which is simply not true... indeed, the reality is otherwise.
Without citing references, I would assert the majority of sex is engaged in by humans is not for procreation purposes, but for sexual enjoyment and pleasure. Many very sexually active couples do not want children and practice safe sex. Should non-incestuous sexual relationships be denigrated as well, simply because there is some off chance that one might past some potential and yet unsubstantiated statistical potential random genetic defect to an offspring of such a union, when neither is trying to produce offspring and taking precautions and active measures against it?
If an incestuous couple were to not wish to have children, as so many such couples do not (as so non-incestuous couples), and practice safe sex measures against it... the main argument against incestuous sex crumbles completely to pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
This article has some weasel words that need adjusting.