MovieChat Forums > Womb (2011) Discussion > Having sex with a copy is artificial inc...

Having sex with a copy is artificial incest or not?


Hi, just watched "Womb" - I've a few questions and people who watched this intriguing movie, please share your thoughts....
Tommy being the clone of the actual boyfriend - when they did "it" that was incest right?
How could Rebecca segregate the rearing of the child Tommy from that of waiting for Tommy to grow up and become her lover. ?
The young girl with the rabbit - She was the mother of the woman who carried her. Why would anyone want to bring their mom back ?
And finally, maybe if i were to clone myself, carry the term and then after 30 yrs my clone carried me etc... would that be everlasting life? would my clone's clone remember me ? :D seriously this is so mind numbing - say i were to clone myself(my version 1.0) and raise her and then my daughter (my version 2.0) would raise my copy (my version 3.0).

reply

"Why would anyone want to bring their mom back?"

You got me on that one, LOL!!! Very funny! I've made a few comments elsewhere here in the last few days - may address some of your questions. I'm too lazy to write them over again!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

hiya! that's alright, I've only recently seen this movie, and that's why I have all these questions - I'll look up your comments, thanks anyways!!

reply

Well if Tommy 2.0 is indeed a clone; the answer is no, artificial or otherwise. He shares zero DNA with Rebecca. She is only his womb mother. Now the pschological implications are something else entirely.

reply

So does that mean it's okay for a parent of an adopted child to have sex with it?I still call that incest. The socialised relationship is extremely significant. AND she gave birth to him.

reply

Legally-speaking, that depends on the society/government. I don't have a reference, but my understanding is that in some societies, marriage to a sibling-by-adoption is legal. When it comes to cloning...that brings up all kinds of questions. Like when a surrogate mother decides not to give up "her baby", and sometimes the law is with her (regardless of the surrogacy contract), other times it is not.

It's a complex ethical situation, which is basically the point.

reply

i can't believe it. I've finally found someone supports woody allen's actions towards his stepdaughter/wife.

reply

😛 I don't support his actions. Dating a woman while having sex with her adopted daughter is pretty reprehensible. But from a legal standpoint, I don't think that there's anything prosecutable because Woody Allen didn't adopt Soon-Yi, and he wasn't married to her mother.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you on all of that. But Tommy always having Rebecca as his mom and to me means he was more in the wrong of what he did then she did since she always knew he was a clone and she love her lover very much. But Tommy 2.0 being a clone could he have these thought coming from within from Tommy 1.0? Could a clone be that connected to there first 1.0 self maybe. I remember he said something to his 1.0's mother when she came to the beach house and was old and they were staring at each other and he said something to the fact like he knew her but didnt. he was confused. It was because that was Tommy 1.0's mom or should I say mum.

reply

Hi there,

just watched the movie myself. And here are some ideas about the questions you put:

"Tommy being the clone of the actual boyfriend - when they did "it" that was incest right?"

I would say, it all depends on the definition of incest. In the strictest sense, incest is having an intercourse with a person whom you share genetic information with (parents, siblings, children and other relatives). Some, however, would extend this to your spouse's relatives (e.g. a husband's brother). If you accept this extension, and consider the fact that a clone is basically the same as an identical twin, only conceived artificially and born at a different time, and most likely, from a different woman, then the answer is yes, this was incest in the sense that she was effectively sleeping with her lover's twin.

Then there is the fact that she actually gave birth to the clone. If, again, you are willing to accept it as incest, when a parent, who raised the child, but does not share genetic information with him/her (e.g. step-parents or, in this case, the clone's parents), sleeps with that child, then the answer is again yes, it was incest, this time in the sense that she was effectively sleeping with her son.



"How could Rebecca segregate the rearing of the child Tommy from that of waiting for Tommy to grow up and become her lover. ?"

This directly ties in with whether incest includes a step-parent sleeping with the child she brought up. I saw a couple of threads claiming this was not the case of incest. But I find it hard to imagine how you can possibly NOT feel as a child's mother, after carrying the baby inside for 9 months, feeding it with your breast, watching him grow, etc. Even if she thought of him as her lover in the beginning, I cannot imagine how she would still think of him that way after literally becoming his mother. That is why I found it very sickening how she treated the little boy - basically as her underage lover. I would go as far as consider such a person mentally unstable.



"The young girl with the rabbit - She was the mother of the woman who carried her. Why would anyone want to bring their mom back ?"

Khm, that's a subjective question to ask, I guess. I understand that the idea of mothering your own mother (!) seems extremely bizarre. But if you view the process of human cloning as "bringing someone back", then it is possible to understand why someone would want their mother back - it is not unusual when people actually love their parents very much ;)



"And finally, maybe if i were to clone myself, carry the term and then after 30 yrs my clone carried me etc... would that be everlasting life? would my clone's clone remember me ?"

What you are talking about is referred to as genetic memory - the idea that a clone would have memories of its "original". Since human clones have not (yet) been created, we do not know if it is possible. I personally believe that it is not. However, such a phenomenon is often used in science fiction, such as this movie.

reply

discussion aside you just f ucked up part of the story line for those of us who haven't seen it yet, try thinking of the word ***SPOILERS*** before posting next time!

reply

Honestly you should never visit a film board for a movie before watching it, this is on you and no one else so don't try to blame anyone else for it. This is where people discuss the movie in question so to assume there will be no spoilers is foolishly on your part.

~XTC

reply

She gave birth to him so of course it is incest.

"Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater."

reply

So the genetic child of a man and a woman using a second woman as a surrogate wouldn't be incest with its genetic parents?

reply

Hello from 2016! Your reply doesn't follow at all from what they said.

reply


I love how there are so many 'official' answers to the 'what is incest' question....and they are all different. ;)

Apart from any religious significance, I personally feel that incest would be having sexual relationships with a blood relative, with the ultimate concern that any contraception could have significant consequences in the area of birth defects.

In this case, Rebecca has no shared DNA with Tommy2, and thus no incest could occur, as Rebecca's womb was basically just the taxi that carried the embryo to fruition. As they waited until, we assume, the legal age of consent, there were no laws broken.

Birds do it, Bees do it, ...even closed Sheep would do it.

I do love how this movie is making people think and also wrestle with moral and ethical questions. Great film making.

Fred, Atlanta

reply

Well... I think at the start of any of this discussion, morally, legally, or psychologically we have to define what incest truly is.

It's religion disguised to be biology.

Why is incest wrong? What is drinking alcohol wrong? Why is smoking cigarettes wrong? Why is eating chocolate wrong? Why is polygamy wrong? Why are homosexual and bisexual relationships wrong?

The best and most substantial non-religious reason for incest being "wrong" is the biological repercussions for the offspring. They say there is a higher chance of defects. That's true but most people don't understand quite how insignificant this truly is. Say for instance your family has a historical propensity for kidney cancer. You have it. Your father had it. Your father's father had it. Etc, etc for as long as your family tree was recorded. If by your doctor's absolute best medical guess he could put it in the range of 5-10% of you or your sibling's offspring having kidney cancer, incestual offspring between the two of you would be 7-12%.

And that's about it. The rest is religious and social based. And they say the same thing today about incest that they used to about homosexuality, bisexuality, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, etc etc etc. Academically speaking, why are we stopping people from loving one another? Who are we to tell people what's good and evil?

reply

um, i'm sorry, but are you really comparing incest with drinking, smoking, and gays? really?! wow, dude... did you mother hug you, too much???

It's mercy, compassion and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality...

reply

are you really comparing incest with drinking, smoking, and gays?


Personally I think smoking and heavy drinking are very bad ideas and extremely unhealthy things to do but there is that issue in which a lot of people would also consider the idea of a man putting his penis inside another man's butt as quite repulsive. So yeah, I think comparing incest to gay sex is a fair comparison, especially when you consider that gay sex is socially accepted in many western societies while incest is STILL shunned. I certainly do see a double standard here. If you can explain in detail as to why butt sex between two men is perfectly normal and incest is somehow abnormal that would be most appreciated.

reply

i can't do as you asked because i personally do not approve of any anal sex for that matter, whether gay sex or not....
that being said, i can see levels of "normalcy" and i would still rate incest as more abnormal than homosexuality (beastiality i think is worse than incest, but still it depends because most incest is child rape, not consensual adult sex and pedophilia is another vile one; i digress) ...
i see nothing, nothing normal about two familial relatives engaging in sexual activities (the closer the familial lines, the worse: 3rd cousins is weird, but mother and son is plain fvcked up)...

i barely skimmed over my first response (to which you replied) and i haven't reread the other posts; it's been a while since i was on this topic so long story short if it's an argument or battle you're looking for, or justification for incest, i'm afraid i cannot give either to you right now :)

but yes, there's enough people in the world you don't have to boink your sibling :)


It's mercy, compassion and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality...

reply

i personally do not approve of any anal sex for that matter,


Any particular reason why? If you're against it then you are probably against gays too.

i can see levels of "normalcy" and i would still rate incest as more abnormal than homosexuality


I still don't quite understand this though. I mean, looking at this reasonably, is it really that much more "nasty" or "gut-wrenching" if a girl does something sexual with her brother or cousin than it is for two guys to anal sex each other? Besides that... it is legal to marry your first cousin in like 14 states and it's legal in many countries too.


but still it depends because most incest is child rape


How do you know this though? Do you actually have any stats to back this up? Of course no one in their right mind would support child rape but still... is it "REALLY" that bad for a legal aged girl or guy to do something sexual with a parent or is just a knee jerk reaction when people think it is?

but mother and son is plain fvcked up


But why? Is is simply because you find it repulsive or is there some other reason why? I may not like the idea of a mother doing something sexual with her son or vice-versa, father/daughter but am I just reacting this way because of my natural response of "wow, that's gross" or is there some other reason? I think most horror movies are gross but I wouldn't be an advocate for banning them.

if it's an argument or battle you're looking for, or justification for incest,


I'm not trying to justify incest, I'm just wondering why gay sex gets a free pass now days but incest doesn't.

reply

i just said i don't agree with homosexual lifestyles either...
mothers should not have sex with their children because it is wrong, period... can't compare the grossness of it to movies because movies are not real...
no i don't have any statistics but i have common sense: majority of consenting adults would not look to their own parents or siblings for sex... of those who do, those are the rare "lightning in a bottle" cases, and is not at the norm... when you hear of incest, it almost always involves an older family member molesting a younger family member...

all that being said, gay sex and incest are apples and oranges: both fruit but completely different varieties...

and i does sound like you're trying to justify incest now.... some things are just inherently wrong, you don't need a thesis statement to explain, it just is... incest is just plain wrong (like i mentioned earlier, even this to varying degrees... most the closer the relative, the worse it is)....


It's mercy, compassion and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality...

reply

mothers should not have sex with their children because it is wrong,


I still say the ONLY reason you think this is because you think it's "icky and gross" and no other reason.

can't compare the grossness of it to movies because movies are not real..


I can name plenty of things that are REAL that I find repulsive but I wouldn't say they need to be outlawed or banned. For example, I think abortion is sick but I wouldn't say it should be illegal.

it almost always involves an older family member molesting a younger family member...


Does it?

i don't agree with homosexual lifestyles either


Then why is it such a big deal to compare incest to gay sex? In your first post you made an issue over it.

i does sound like you're trying to justify incest now.


How? I never said I approve of it. I just said is there really any reason why we should be "grossed out" by it?

some things are just inherently wrong,


I'll have to disagree with this. It's quite obvious that when you do something against the will of another person that is wrong but what about when two people agree to do it? Is it still wrong simply because I think it's gross?

incest is just plain wrong


But the law in many states and countries disagree with you. Cousin marriage is legal in many places.

reply

i don't know how many times i can say the same thing... gay sex and incest cannot be compared because they are not on the same level.... if you jaywalk, it's a crime yes... will you sentenced to prison, like someone who committed murder? no... why? because they are two different levels of crime... would you punish a litterer? probably not the same way you'd punish a car thief... why? because they are not the same, although both are crimes...
aaaaaand with that i'm finished... please don't reply to me anymore, i'm tired reiterating the same thing... if you wanna go boink your cousin or mother or whomever, have at it... i've already explained that "grossness" as you say aside, incest is not natural or normal because lines and relationships of family members is not nor never is of a sexual nature... while something like breastfeeding is intimate, it's in no way sexually intimate, so no, it's not normal for a mother to want to fvck her son....

omg already i'm typing too much, got better sh!t to do than argue with some random internet user who seems bound and determined for me to justify incest....

please, i beg of you, do not reply to me; i've made my point, you've made yours.... hope you have a good day....


It's mercy, compassion and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality...

reply

gay sex and incest cannot be compared because they are not on the same level.


Then why make a statement about it? I mean, unless you think gay sex is not repulsive and the gay lifestyle is perfectly fine, there would be no reason to make a comment about it.

because they are two different levels of crime


But incest is legal in more places than gay sex is.

incest is not natural


but gay sex is?

relationships of family members is not nor never is of a sexual nature


The laws in many countries disagree with you.

while something like breastfeeding is intimate, it's in no way sexually intimate


some women would disagree with you. I've talked to several girls that said they do, or did, become sexually aroused during breastfeeding but it was nothing they would actually act on.

it's not normal for a mother to want to fvck her son


A lot of things aren't normal, like gay sex, abortion, etc..etc.. but they are legal in many parts of the world.

got better sh!t to do than argue with some random internet user who seems bound and determined for me to justify incest


I never was trying to justify it, those are your words. I'm just wondering why you took such a strong stance in favor of gay sex then turned around and said you're against gay sex? Hmmmm... very odd....

i beg of you, do not reply to me; i've made my point, you've made yours.... hope you have a good day


Okay, fair enough... good day!

reply

This is the most convoluted, disgusting post I have ever seen. And it's just plain WRONG. What kind of moron do you have to be to write and believe this nonsense?

Incest is wrong because it entails someone of power influencing or overtaking a child that does not and cannot comprehend any sexual act.

I'm sad that I would even have to type this out. Pull your head out of you a$$

reply

Well, if we take non-genetic in the story than genetically speaking its no incest but still you are the parent, the child perceives you like a parent..so you are in an incestuous relationship.. Woody Allen did this to his adopted daughter and ended marrying her.. -which is sick and is an incest but somehow the scum walks on earth as a free man.

If the artificial copy is raised by someone else and you somehow manage to seduce her/him after they reach an adult age or at least older-teenage age-16-18 i guess it would be okei-but waiting for 18 years to seduce a person is a sure sign of you going mental..

reply

Technically speaking, and believe me when I say that I'm not normally one to defend Woody Allen, he didn't adopt Soon-Yi, his girlfriend did. Emotionally, yeah, he should have been acting as a kind of stepfather, but obviously he didn't see it like that. Doesn't make what he did any less scummy, but the facts mean that he walks free because he didn't break the law with Soon-Yi.

reply

Remember Woody Allen. Anyway, to me it was incest...with Womb and with Woody.

reply