By Matt Underwood When perusing the day’s news, one doesn’t expect to encounter a headline as startling as “Kentucky Republican Pushes Bill to Make Sex With First Cousin Not Incest.” But on closer examination, this headline, and the uproar it’s causing, are not only about first cousin relationships but also throw light on some bizarre inconsistencies in our legal statutes and society.
I remember sinking into a stunned silence when I first came across this news. So deeply rooted are our societal norms against incestuous relationships that the mere implication of trying to legalize sexual relations with a first cousin immediately elicited a visceral response from me. Countless memes and jokes immediately spring to mind: “Tell me you have sex with your cousin without telling me you have sex with your cousin,” or the cliché about the sound of dueling banjos.
However, it then became clear that this was not as black and white as it first seemed. The politician in question, Nick Wilson, who I recognized from the reality TV show Survivor, claimed that the removal of first cousins from the incest statute was inadvertent. He promptly caught this error and withdrew the bill within 24 hours, demonstrating a commendable degree of responsiveness.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to ignore the inevitable recoil at the very suggestion of legalizing sex with one’s first cousin, despite the immediate aftermath of the mistake. It’s perplexing that Republicans—who are quite decent at expressing outrage about perceived sexualization of children through books in schools—can inadvertently overlook such details. This, to me, seems to expose the party’s hypocrisy.
In reality, consensual sexual relationships between first cousins are legal in 26 states, a fact that is typically glossed over. Many European countries and much of the world don’t stigmatize such relationships either. It might be a taboo in some communities, sure, but it hardly ranks as a pressing societal issue deserving of major political attention.
What was even more bewildering was the realization that American laws currently differentiate between incestuous intercourse and incestuous sexual contact. The original purpose of Wilson’s HB 269 was to bridge this absurd gap and categorize unwanted sexual touching within familial relationships as incestuous, which would then be deemed a Class D Felony. For victims under the age of 12, the charge increases to a Class C Felony. It’s indicative of a dire issue needing legislative attention and reflects a manifestly flawed system that differentiates between non-consensual touch and intercourse within families.
What the initial outrage does highlight, however, is how moral repugnance, often based on ingrained societal or cultural norms, can skew our interpretation of legal changes.
While I share the overall disgust and am relieved that Wilson had the presence of mind to promptly correct his mistake, this incident leaves me contemplating the darker facets of our social inhibitions that are often not addressed.
Despite the seemingly absurd and comedic aspect of the headline, this entire episode underlines the importance of keeping our collective instinctual recoil at bay—to grasp the bigger picture, understand the underlying intentions, and not let knee-jerk reactions cloud the real issues needing attention.
That said, the irony of Wilson’s gaffe and the ensuing uproar is hard to Ignore: the same thoughtless blunder that exposed a ridiculous loophole in our legal framework also demonstrated the uncanny ability of the human mind to prioritize disgust over analyzing the substance beneath the shocking headlines. The news article sparked a wave of memes, off-color jokes, and even some stark pointers on the current political climate, particularly with regards to the priorities of the GOP. The suggestion, whether inadvertent or not, of making sex with a first cousin legal, drew attention away from pressing issues like gun control, safeguarding democracy, and our voting systems.
The legislator at the center of this controversy, Nick Wilson, claims his proposal was meant to address the problem of familial and cyclical abuse that he perceives as being rampant in Kentucky. He argues this issue has been overlooked for too long due to the misconstrued priorities and shortsightedness of his political counterparts. Despite the veritable storm of negative public attention drawn by the bill, Wilson stands by his conviction that it is fundamentally a good bill, and he intends to resubmit it with corrected language.
In diving deeper into the topic and disregarding the visceral reactions it elicits, I found it odd that first cousin relationships, while considered taboo and morally repugnant to many, are indeed legal in 26 states. This disparity in societal norms and legal boundaries prompted me to reconsider my own immediate reaction to the headline.
Could it be possible that our moral compass, guided by societal norms and stigmas, is often skewed when it comes to assessing certain situations objectively? Are we too readily swayed by our ingrained prejudices that we fail to differentiate between news that truly impacts us and news that’s framed to shock, entertain or merely generate traffic?
Being aware of these biases and how they impact our processing of information is crucial. Objectivity in interpreting news, especially those that play on our deeply ingrained beliefs, is of paramount importance.
While Wilson’s gaffe put him under a negative spotlight and gave his critics plenty of ammunition, it also inadvertently raised awareness about a far more pressing issue – the need for more encompassing laws against incestuous behavior. Despite the backlash and ridicule, this incident reminded everyone of an often overlooked loophole in our current incest laws and started an uncomfortable, yet necessary conversation on a hushed topic.
However, the question still remains – amid the pressing issues we face as a nation, is incestuous relationships between first cousins – consensual and between adults – really a priority? Are we, as a society, ready to challenge and redefine the taboos we’ve lived with for so long? Or will we let the shock value of such a proposition overshadow the actual pressing issues needing attention?
As amusing or shocking as the headline may be, beneath it lies the reflection of our own prejudices, the question of societal norms versus legal boundaries, the often overlooked issue of familial abuse, and the balance each of us must find between irrational disgust and analysis. It’s a wake-up call for me to look beyond the sensational aspects of what’s presented and dig a bit deeper to find the real story.
There’s a famous saying that goes, “believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.” Especially in this era of sensationalist news and subjective reporting, these seem to be words to live by.