Miscellany:Legalization of incestuous marriage

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search
I strongly suspect that if incestuous marriage had been legal and socially accepted, Ivanka would be the de jure, rather than merely de facto, First Lady
Why should father-daughter marriage be reserved for only the rich? As Delegate, I will end this plutocratic inequity, so that the beautiful, shapely legs of nubile daughters around the Commonwealth will be opened for the enjoyment of tight, virginal teenage pussy by fathers from all economic classes. #marriageequality

Legalization of incestuous marriage (by completely repealing Code of Virginia § 20-38.1) will benefit families by expanding the pool of available mates to include those within the family itself. One difficulty that sometimes arises with finding a suitable mate is information asymmetry, in which one does not know enough about potential mates to make a good decision. In familial relationships, they mate tends to be more of a known quantity.

A commonly-cited disadvantage of incest is the potential for birth defects in their offspring, but this is usually not a major problem if the two are genetically distant enough (e.g. father and daughter, assuming the mother was unrelated to the father). The major problem arises if inbreeding is carried on for too many generations. At any rate, there are plenty of couples, lacking a close blood relationship to each other, who have terrible genes but nonetheless are allowed to reproduce. A father and daughter with good genes (intelligent, healthy, attractive, etc.) might produce better offspring than a couple that has, for example, a lot of heritable diseases in their families.

Another benefit of father-daughter inbreeding is that if the father has a lot of good genes that he wants to pass on, he is ensuring that his grandchildren have 75 percent of his genes (rather than just 25 percent). At that point, it's almost like he's cloning himself. His grandchildren will probably ending up looking outside the family for mates, because their father will likely be dead or disabled from reproducing by the time they come of age.

Inbreeding can have some genetic advantages (such as diminishing recombination/segregation load and allowing the expression of recessive advantageous phenotypes), and at any rate, defective offspring can always be culled.

Consider also a situation, increasingly common these days because of feminism, where a man is married to a 40-year-old woman and wants more kids. He might have healthier offspring if he were to reproduce with his young daughter, who is in her fertile prime, rather than to pay for a bunch of fertility treatments for his wife so she can use her stale eggs and aging reproductive system (which by that point is basically the equivalent of a rust-covered 1979 Buick Skylark with 524,288 miles on the odometer and an exhaust system held together by duct tape) to try to have a kid.

In the manosphere, it is sometimes said that young women desire a father figure (even to the point of looking for a man who will spank them and/or have them call him "daddy"),[1] and that because of sexual differences in emotional attachment, the only truly sacrificial love that a man can expect from a woman is from his mother. It also seems logical that a parent might feel some attraction for a child who resembles the person they fell in love with and had children with. The potential to have incestuous relationships down the road could provide an incentive to produce offspring and to care for them as an investment in one's own sexual future.

A father will tend to be significantly older than his daughter, and therefore will be more likely to be a better provider, and less likely to beat her, than a man her own age.

As always, we can rely on natural selection to ensure that people have no greater tendency toward incest (or any other activity) than would be optimal. (I am referring here to selection of both genes and memes, as both can be passed on to one's children. People also tend to look at a family's level of prosperity, happiness, etc. in deciding whether to adopt that family's methods, practices, lifestyle, etc. in their own family.)

Although some of the ideas presented in Part 1, Chapter 3, Section 2 of The Lolita Method about father-daughter romances may not be thoroughly footnoted sociological research, they are certainly provocative:

Before you start condemning incestuous sex as "immoral" and "harmful," please recall that Western Society's taboos against intrafamilial sexual relations are a relatively recent development in human civilization. The "incest taboo" was developed by the landed and priestly classes a few thousand years ago as a means of preventing powerful families from indefinitely perpetuating their property-based wealth. In other words, incestuous dynasties kept all their wealth in the family, which prevented those beneath them from climbing the social ladder and approaching them as equals.

Father-daughter incest existed for millennia alongside concubinage, sexual slavery and war rape as the three means by which families perpetuated themselves and populated the various ancient empires of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Monogamous, interfamilial marriages were first dreamed-up by the priestly class to ensure that one particular family did not form a ruling dynasty powerful enough to challenge the worship of jealous local gods. This move, in turn, was supported by less powerful families who saw intermarriage as a means of wealth acquisition and social climbing. A few hundred years later, and the incest taboo became firmly rooted in religion, law and human consciousness.

Unfortunately for the morality police, the desire to have sexual relations with one's own children has never totally diminished from the human subconscious. Many fathers long to fuck their daughters as a very real expression of their love. Many daughters share similar passions, and the overwhelming majority of ALL father-daughter affairs are consensual, lifelong and highly rewarding for both parties involved.

Dad experiences what can arguably be described as the ultimate sexual high - fucking a creature of his own creation who will love him unconditionally for the rest of their lives. Darling daughter takes a partner who will always adore her, protect her, cherish her and truly LOVE her no matter what she looks like, what clothes she wears or how much money her family has.

Daughter Lolita almost invariably becomes a Gold Digger, using her position as sexual plaything to further her own material interests. If she performs her role as sex-toy admirably and Daddy reciprocates in kind, there is nothing at all abusive or exploitative about the relationship. No trust has been violated, no childhood has been scarred or ruined. Millions of such loving, consensual relationships exist clandestinely throughout the world, and their participants take these sweet secrets to the grave with them.

To those who argue that hedge fund magnate Bruce McMahan's marriage to his daughter didn't end well, I would point out that his previous five marriages to women other than his daughter didn't end well either.

Biblical arguments[edit]

Even feminist Judith Lewis Herman admits:[2]

In patriarchal societies, including Western society, the rights of ownership and exchange of women within the family are vested primarily in the father. These rights find their most complete expression in the father's relationship with his daughter. In every other relationship, the rule prohibiting the sexual use of female relatives is reinforced by the claims of other kinsmen. Thus incest with the mother is most strenuously forbidden, because it is an affront to the father's prerogatives. Incest with a sister is also an offense against the father's rights, which in this case do not include the right of sexual use but do encompass the rights of ownership and exchange. Similarly, the aunt and cousin are forbidden because they belong to the uncle; the sister-in-law and niece because they belong to the brother, the daughter-in-law and granddaughter because they belong to the son, and so forth. But the daughter belongs to the father alone. Although the incest taboo forbids him to make sexual use of his daughter, no particular man's rights are offended, should the father choose to disregard this rule. As long as he ultimately gives his daughter in marriage, he has fulfilled the social purpose of the rule of the gift. Until such time as he chooses to give her away, he has the uncontested power to do with her as he wishes. Hence, of all possible forms of incest, that between father and daughter is the most easily overlooked.

It is no doubt for this reason that the biblical injunction against incest omits any specific reference to sexual relations between father and daughter, while almost every other conceivable branch of the incest taboo is explicitly named and condemned . . . .

The biblical law is addressed to men. It is assumed without question that men initiate and women submit to sexual relations. The wording of the law makes it clear that incest violations are not offenses against the women taken for sexual use but against the men in whom the rights of ownership, use, and exchange are vested. What is prohibited is the sexual use of those women who, in one manner or another, already belong to other relatives. Every man is thus expressly forbidden to take the daughters of his kinsmen, but only by implication is he forbidden to take his own daughters. The patriarchal God sees fit to pass over father-daughter incest in silence.

See also[edit]


  1. For more commentary about the link between fantasy and roleplay, and real-life desire, see my essay, Legalization of child pornography possession and distribution.
  2. Herman, Judith Lewis (1981). "The Rule of the Father". Father-Daughter Incest. 

External link[edit]