 |
| Elsa Lowenthal and her first cousin (and husband), Albert Einstein |
To what extent can it be said that her cousins were merely replicating a social practice that was the norm in their family and were, therefore, not entirely guilty of any crime? Is there a universal moral injunction against rape? Is there one against sex between cousins? Are these moral laws that may be used to judge all human beings in all time periods? What other moral laws fit into that category? Can you think of any challenging test cases for such laws?
Do you think the following scene from the 1964James Bond film Goldfinger suggests anything troubling about the dynamics of forced sexual contact?
It's hard for me to imagine that anyone would think sex between cousins is ok. However, I have no idea what life was like living on a plantation in that time period and I don't know what it's like to be so uneducated. I do know that any human should know that forced sexual contact is wrong. I understand people married young then, but it should be a given that you should not force sex on a child. It's hard to say how wrong it was back then because things were a lot different. Today, we know the effects of being inbred and we know how wrong it is. The same can be said for the child abuse the Lacks children recieved. It was a different time then and it was more acceptable. Simply spanking your child is frowned upon now.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Hicks
I agree with Morgan in that it is hard for people in modern times to imagine that inbreeding is in any way the norm. As norms change, society's view of past norms also changes. In some ways, the Lacks cousins were imitating and duplicating the actions of the older men who raised them, but like Morgan also said, the cousins should have had enough sense (educated or not) to know that forcing sexual contact upon others is wrong. I think that both the book and the clip from "Goldfinger" suggest that most women gave into their suitors at a certain point and simply accepted the actions of the aggressor and reciprocated them.
ReplyDeleteEmily Davis
Simply doing what you know does not leave you crime free. Yes, it lets us understand the "whys" and "how coulds", but that in NO way removes ANY guilt. Ignorance is not bliss. Zakariyya knew no better, the judge understood and reduced his sentence, but he still was guilty and received 15 years. I think that the earliest recorded knowledge of rape being wrong was in biblical times, way before laws or even the Bible being a book. That leads me to think it's instinctual to understand when someone resists, it is wrong. However, a universal moral I don't think exists. Some cultures see it as a right to find the woman you want, rape her, and she becomes your wife. Again with cousins, it's unnatural and complications arise in children, but some cultures (like royalty) see nothing morally wrong. I can't think of any law that is universal. This did remind me of an episode of House (most are based on real doctors experiences) where a young married couple discovered through a biological illness that the husband's father had an affair with the wife's mother. They were siblings. This is the only time I've been confused on whether or not I'm cheering for incest.
ReplyDeleteMy belief is that any sex outside of marriage, whether forced, consented, between cousins, or anyone else is wrong. Just as Emily and Morgan said, though it was custom for cousins to get together, does not mean it made it right or that they did not know it was not right. As for a universal law against it, I don't beilive there is one, however, I do belive everyone (especially women) should have more self respect for their bodies and when possible not allow such things to happen to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI do not know whether or not her cousins are reciprocating any kind of social practices, but if they are they are the wrong social practices. And calling them such doesn't make it any less a crime. There are cases of incest around the world, and they do cause children to be born with defects. Probably not all of them, but enough that couples thinking about it should absolutely reconsider. As far as universal laws go you would think it would be understood that that's probably wrong but oh, well. I won't even comment on Goldfinger because it's James Bond.
ReplyDeleteTell Jordan
U.S. laws regarding marriage between first cousins vary widely from state to state. The science about the degree of genetic risk involved when relatives produce offspring also presents something of a slipper slope. What degree of risk would you consider acceptable? Do you think this is the principal reason for disallowing marriage between relatives, however distant? Would your view on this question change if the consenting adults involved were not interested or not capable of producing offspring?
ReplyDeleteIn many countries around the world, marital rape (in which one married partner rapes another) has only recently been recognized as illegal. Why do you think condemnation of this form on non-consensual sex has been such a recent development in human history?
ReplyDelete