The context: my friend and I belong to a pro wrestling message board. On the board, there’s a series of articles called “the Hall of Shame.” These articles profile the dysfunctional lives of professional wrestlers.
Two “Hall of Shame” articles are mentioned in this conversation.
The first profile was on Davey Boy Smith, who allegedly drugged his wife, and then proceeded to rape her.
The second profile was on Jim Neidhart, who adopted Tyson Kidd when he was ten years old. Now Tyson Kidd and Nattie Neidhart (Jim Neidhart’s birth-daughter / Tyson Kidd’s adopted sister) have been dating for nine years.
Don't worry--the conversation's about 'incest,' and not really about 'pro wrestling.'
Without further ado...
FRIEND: What do you think of “the Hall of Shame” articles?
IAN: I like 'em quite a bit. You?
FRIEND: Not so much, actually.
IAN: Oh, no?
FRIEND: I mean, I'm not dissing how he's writing them, but I just don't like the concept. It comes off as too much "You have no redeeming qualities, you are a piece of shit." I think it's just too one-sided.
IAN: It IS an eighth-hand editorial, and if I remember correctly, it cites its sources. It seems bold in the ways an editorial should be, to me.
FRIEND: Sure, I guess. I'm just not a fan of 100% shitting on things. Even if it's one thing out of a a hundred insults, there should always be a "but."
IAN: That's legit--and I don't agree with you, in this case--but I can understand it. That said, ‘drugging your wife to rape her’ is pretty deplorable. So saying "he drug-raped his wife, but was a phenomenal wrestler" seems irrelevant to the thesis.
FRIEND: But maybe saying something like, "Jim Neidhart wasn’t a great wrestler, but without his charisma, Bret Hart would never have experienced success,” wouldn’t hurt.
IAN: Okay, but we have other articles dedicated to talking about how good people were in the ring. Like, it's fine to mention it, but that's a whole article, what you just said there--speculating the causality of Bret Hart's career, and what would've happened if he stayed in the WWF, and so on.
If you need compliments mentioned in an article, I’m sure the author wouldn't be opposed...it's a sentence. But it wouldn't dampen things like ‘drug-rape,’ and ‘dating your adopted sibling.’
FRIEND: “Drug-rape,” sure, I can understand. I'm not seeing how dating an adopted sibling is that bad though; it's a little crazy, but not really when you think about it.
IAN: It depends on context, I’d imagine. If he was adopted when he was, like, eighteen, not that crazy. If he was adopted before they all hit puberty, it's crazy.
FRIEND: Eh, maybe I'm more okay with it because FDR married his cousin.
IAN: ...or because 'cousin' is a different relationship than 'sibling.'
FRIEND: "Sibling" is a whole new meaning when the word "blood" isn't there at all.
IAN: But it's pretty close to the original meaning if the upbringing's the same. Like, literally the same, with the same parents.
FRIEND: But not really. No blood connection is no blood connection. If they're able to get over the stigma, I say “good for them.” Besides, it's not like they were sharing bunk beds or anything; he got adopted when he was, like, ten.
IAN: Okay, but the stigma isn't just something to "get over." It's not like something that some people follow and others don't. Incest is a taboo for more reasons than the biological aspect, and the fact that he was adopted before hitting puberty makes it doubly troubling.
FRIEND: Not really, I liked girls at age ten.
IAN: ...and the ten-year-old girls?
FRIEND: And the taboo is there because of the biological aspect, take that out and there really isn't much to argue about.
IAN: Except the psychological aspect, dude.
FRIEND: Like, it's weird to say, but in the end, not that weird when you think about it.
IAN: Imagine fucking [your sister]. It's not gross because you'd have mutant children. It's gross because your relationship is crazy strong, but hasn't been romantic.
FRIEND: You're assuming Jim Neidhart called him "son" and Tyson Kidd called him "dad.” You call [your step-father,] Elliott, “Elliott,” right?
IAN: Sometimes he prefers "step-dad," but mostly, yeah. But my relationship with him has been that of a father-son, and it would be messed up if we fucked, and it would be messed up if he had a daughter who I fucked.
FRIEND: So, who's to say it wasn’t more like, "I'm letting this kid stay at my house because I feel bad. Legally he's mine, but he's more like a friend of the family." We don't know. So it'd be foolish to assume that they saw each other as brother and sister otherwise.
IAN: I feel like you're bending over backwards to support something for the sake of arguing.
FRIEND: Not really, I'm justifying something I feel shouldn't be looked on as weird, because I don't know the type of environment they grew up in.
IAN: Do you imagine that most adoptions play out with the family "letting this kid stay at their house from ten-until-whenever," instead of "treating him like a family member?" That's a pretty specific set-up.
FRIEND: Really? ‘Cause [my family friend has] got two adopted kids that she took because their mother abandoned them, and she acts as their ‘guardian’ and not ‘their mom.’” So...it exists.
IAN: I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it's unlikely--especially when compared to people who adopt to become parents, or people who adopt AND become parents. I can't imagine adopting a kid and not, by process of providing, becoming a parent.
FRIEND: I've seen just as many guardians as I have "parents."
IAN: Maybe I don't understand the difference between 'guardian' and 'parent.' ‘A parent,’ as far as I understand, is the caretaker of a child. Typically, love is offered.
FRIEND: I'm not saying love is out of the equation, but a "parent" is planned and wanted a family.
IAN: Except not always planned, and not always wanted.
FRIEND: A "guardian" just has a good heart and found themselves in a circumstance where they couldn't let a kid they knew be abandoned. Usually it's a kid you know, they don't go to the adoption agency and pick one up. Tyson Kidd was friends with Jim Neidhart’s kids before he was adopted, so Jim learned of the situation.
IAN: Okay. So you're saying that Jim Neidhart didn't ‘become his parent,’ but rather, ‘he let Tyson Kidd sleep over for a few years, paid for his living expenses, and didn't love him like a son, but liked him juuuuust enough to where he wasn't a family member?’
FRIEND: Not really, you have to care to someone if you're taking them in, I'm not saying it was a burden. Look it's a stretch, a lot of things are, because both of us are going off personal feelings, ideals, and stories without actually knowing any of the details, how the house was run and whatnot.
It's a stretch to say ‘a poor kid from Akron, Ohio named LeBron was going to be anything in the world.’
Maybe it worked out my way, maybe they are as twisted and weird as they are in your way. It's God vs. Anti-God, neither of us is going to have the proof on this.
IAN: Fine, but facts are closer to my side on this. You're suggesting that they had a relationship that has an inhuman degree of nuance to it.
FRIEND: Facts are closer on your side from your experiences.
IAN: Living as someone's son and brother without being their son or brother for ten years isn't likely.
FRIEND: From my experiences, it can happen. There was a decent amount of it in the poor schools I subbed for. Like I said, it's your experiences versus mine--who knows how it happen?
IAN: Alright, I’m sorry, but I’m having more trouble with that.
FRIEND: That's fine, you're not used to it.
IAN: Hold on: one, they were children, not adults. IF they're able to be sons and brothers without having father-son and brother-sister relationships now, you don't know how it will affect them when they grow up.
Two, you were teaching. Unless you got to spend a significant amount of time with them and their families--like, an anthropological amount of time--then you can't know that.
Three, you were substitute teaching, which makes that amount of time even more unlikely.
I know you're more attuned to the poor and the common man, and if you want to stop debating, that's fine, but that's a patently ridiculous example.
FRIEND: Again with your assuming. Okay...one, kids will talk to you about anything if they see you're open to listening. Two, kids will talk to you about anything if it gets them out of doing work. Three, extra time spent with kids happens during planning hour or lunch because I'd rather have them inside than wandering the halls. They are constantly ignored in the school system, so the chance to have an ear, they jump on.
IAN: ...and this conversation revolves around their family dynamics and informs your thoughts about incest?
FRIEND: I'm not saying they all hook up, but it's happened on a case or two. I taught high school as well, you know.
IAN: Fine, even with all of this, and assuming it's the norm AND that the kids you've spoken to about this are perfectly okay with it--
FRIEND: I don't ask about it, they just tell me.
IAN: --you're still ignoring the point that they're kids, and can't know what ramifications this will have on their lives, psychologically.
FRIEND: Neither do you.
IAN: Buuuuuut statistics are on my side. Most people are scarred by incest. The vast majority are scarred by incest, even when it’s consensual.
FRIEND: Yes they are, most people in America are scared by Islam. As long as it's not blood, scientifically, there's no problem. Psychologically, I'm not sure.
IAN: This isn't 'fear of the unknown,' dude; it's adding a complicated new aspect to a very specific, very important relationship.
FRIEND: Look, if you and I aren't really mentally for it, that's us. If those two are stronger and can break through that, good for them. They might not have that block. You can't say that [our friend will] have problems with his spider-handling job just because you are afraid of spiders--he's not.
IAN: Like your case with [your family friend who adopted children, and functions as their ‘guardian,’ but not their ‘mother’], I'm sure there are exceptions. And I hope that Tyson Kidd and Nattie Neidhart don't have a problem with it, as I’d hope for everyone who's fucked their sibling...
...but the overwhelming majority of reported cases are traumatized. That is incontrovertible proof. And yes, maybe there are many more cases that aren't reported, because they enjoyed it and aren't traumatized.
FRIEND: Well, that's what it is. I'm sure there were an overwhelming number of dead fish that tried to breath air on land. Let's wrap this foolishness up.
No comments:
Post a Comment