My Conversation with a Professor (on queerness and consensual incest)

I wanted to share an experience which I found to be inspiring and insightful and is on topic. For the sake of privacy, I’m not going to give details like names or titles.

I was once part of a group of queer people that were having a discussion about intersecting identities and queer history. A professor that teaches queer theory and feminism was there to lead the discussions. At one point someone in the group mentioned that certain places in the world have bans on media. Among the list of banned subjects are Incest and anything LGBTQ. This person was really upset about this because they did not see how those subjects were in any way connected…

I was upset too, but for a different reason. Although it’s not surprising to me, it still bothers me deeply that I have to censor myself even in a space where we’re supposed to be sex positive and have rational discussions about oppression.

After everyone left the room for the day, I went up to the professor and asked if I could speak to them privately.

image

I began by saying that I was upset at the thing that the other person had said. I expressed that no one ever talked about this topic from a consent perspective and that when consent is involved, it is a whole other story… I acknowledged that incest is a very complex topic and that there’s a lot I still don’t know, but that I knew of people that were in consanguineous relationships (cousin couples for example). I expressed that it bothers me that this is never talked of, even when consanguineous relationships and marriages are everywhere in society (just hidden in many cases). I gave examples of the few I knew about in real life.

I was really nervous because I’m not the kind of person who is good at talking out loud about sensitive subjects…I prefer to write. And I had no idea what the professor would think of me.

I told them that I’ve been researching cousin/cousin relationships for awhile on my own for my writing, and that sometimes in queer spaces I feel like a ‘double agent’ because I can’t help but apply the things I am learning (about queer history) to the stuff I am learning about consanguineous couples – that while acknowledging there were differences, I couldn’t deny the similarities between them.

The professor was surprisingly open to what I had to say. They listened attentively to my breathless ramblings and told me that they didn’t have an issue with incest as long as it’s consensual and safe (Between adults. Or teens close in age). They said the only thing they don’t support is pretty much things that don’t involve consenting human beings or… toilet play (as an example of something that can cause health problems, is unsanitary and not safe).

They said one of the reasons people might have a strong reaction is because when the word “Incest” comes up, people automatically think of a man abusing a little kid.

The professor even went so far as to ask me if I’d like them to bring up the topic of incest (the consensual kind) with the other youth in the group. I said no, because it’s a sensitive topic for me (and I didn’t feel the others were ready to talk about it from that viewpoint). I thanked the professor so much for listening to me and left soon after, kind of shaking…. because I’m not used to talking about taboo subjects with people face-to-face. So that was scary for me, but also exhilarating.

The thing that moved me most was that the very next day (which was our last day gathering as a group) the Professor, while introducing our assignment, made note that we can use anything as research material except things like bestiality where there is NO consent, and that they are OK with anything that involves Consent. I felt like this was another reassuring comment directed to me, building on the private conversation we had the day before. The people didn’t seem to take anything by that comment (maybe they got what was meant, who knows.. lol) but I was so happy.

This incident was really special because not only was it the first time I dared to speak about it to a stranger directly, but because the Professor’s reaction showed me that there are leaders in the queer community that are intellectually consistent, people who would try to at least be neutral towards consenting incestuous couples and who won’t judge allies for their views, because they’ve already challenged their own minds and given it thought – as anyone who cares about human rights should.

This is also great for related couples because it means they DO have allies in the queer community after all, including allies who are leaders. That is pretty amazing.

[I have made the details of the professor vague on purpose to protect their identity for this post. This is still a taboo subject and I don’t want to negatively affect their career in any way.]

Buddhism and Homosexuality

I read this article about queer history some time ago and wrote up a reflection I wanted to share.

The original article: http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Generally, I find it very
hard to read about any religion without feeling anger; just idea that while
minorities are struggling every day to live authentically and with dignity, a
bunch of privileged people are sitting around discussing who gets to be the
final authority on morality.

Even in the distant past of
human history, it seems that sexually non-conforming people were reduced to
that one part of their identity—as though they were all about sex—with no other
dimensions to them.

The article “Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism,” written
by A. L. De Silva, exposes some of the major inconsistencies in social
attitudes towards this subject from religion to religion.

Compared with
religions like Christianity, Buddhism seems to take a far less intrusive approach to
morality, encouraging people to refrain from judging others based on their
actions, and to use reason instead of personal biases to determine whether or
not an action is harmful. De Silva writes, Buddhism is an “ethics based upon
reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo.”

image

Buddhism teaches that the knowledge we gain on earth (a combination of “revelation”, “tradition”,
“scriptures”, and even our life experience) cannot give us the authority to
decide what is right or wrong.

image

It offers an interesting perspective by respecting autonomy
while at the same time defining some basic guiding principles for ethics. There
is acknowledgement of the unknown so that no principle is inflexible, but most
importantly, it does not grant society license to punish an individual for not
conforming. This mode of thinking gives people the chance to choose their own
paths, explore themselves, and find empowerment as a minority. It embodies the
“Live and Let Live” spirit.

Buddhist values provide a strong basis on which to introduce the LGBTQ cause. The author
acknowledges this in his analysis of the core teachings:

“All the principles we would use
to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a
homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one’s
sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but
rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.”

Since Buddhism encourages
introspection into the self and meditation, I always wondered whether
meditation brought the Buddha some kind of advanced knowledge that other
religions lack, concerning the true diversity of human experience… if so, it would explain (from a spiritual standpoint) why Buddhist teachings are not as strict/limited in their definitions of “right” or “wrong” as other religions are.