“Ick” is used to express our strong abhorrence of some object or person or event.  The expression or reaction is typically spontaneous and visceral, rather than considered.  It comes from the gut.  Where such a reaction is accepted as knowledge it is considered ‘embodied cognition’, something of which we are certain without the need for evidence or logical argument.

As examples, we have natural ‘gut’ repugnance for incest, polygamy, cannibalism and faeces.  Laws and regulations are intended to protect us from such things.  The prohibitions usually seem appropriate in light of evidence.  Incest carried the risk of genetic damage to offspring.  Cannibalism invites destruction and consumption of our own species.  Faeces are known to be dangerous to health.

‘Trust your gut’ is usually reliable advice, but it does not always accord with logic or evidence.  Sometimes our antipathy has more to do with culture or history than any practical considerations.  Only within the last few decades have North Americans considered eating insects.  Until at least the middle of the last century, homosexuality was viewed with revulsion by most, and was against the law in most Western countries.  Many people loathe snakes, even those considered harmless and benign.

So if an ‘ick’ reaction can be contextual rather than factual or logical, are there cases in which ‘Ick’ can stand on its own?   Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Consider incest.  If there is a possibility of procreation, incest remains a problem.  If one partner is a minor or can be unduly influenced by a disparity in age, the problem remains.  Suppose now that a brother and a sister of similar age and social standing choose to have sexual relations with each other, without possibility of procreation.  Those sexual acts are legally considered to be incest (and punishable be up to 14 years in prison).  But in what respect is that type of incest morally wrong?  Were the brother and sister to live together without sexual relations, such would occasion no social or legal comment.  Only the sex part of the relationship is problematic in this relationship, but it is unclear why it should be a problem.

Consider polyamory.  The distinction between polyamory and polygamy is illustrative of the cultural argument.  Polygamy is typically understood to involve an exploitative relationship where one man has more than one wife.  Much of modern society has a natural and defensible aversion to relationships which demand subservience of one person to another. Nonetheless, polygamy is practised in many countries, usually mandated by religious beliefs.  So our aversion to polygamy is contextual.  However, there is also a reflexive antipathy to polyamory.  Polyamory is gender neutral, and is understood as consensual companion and sexual relationships among several partners.  However, it is not a protected sexual practice: employers and courts can discriminate against practitioners.  When individuals live together in non-sexual relationships, society does not comment.  However, if it is known that there is polyamorous sex involved, then society tends to disapprove and discriminate.  Assuming full consent of all parties, disease prevention and birth control, it is unclear why there should be a negative reaction to this practice.

Consider cannibalism.  The instinctive horror in part stems from the violence implicit in eating another person.  There might also be fear of disease transmission.  Canada has no specific law prohibiting cannibalism, although it is probably covered by the prohibitions against indignities to a human body.  But the aversion does have a cultural aspect.  Cannibalism has been accepted in certain cultures. It is also understood and accepted in times of necessity.  If scientists were able to culture human flesh in the same way they create cultured beef, human flesh could be consumed without a human death.  In any case the act of eating a human placenta, placentophagy, is now endorsed among certain of the woke or the trendy.  With the appropriate health, safety and dignity protections, is there a valid reason for our aversion to cannibalism?

Consider faeces.  Here, at last, perhaps a genuine Ick.  The health reasons against handling, let alone consuming, faeces are well understood.  They are implicit in the insult “Eat shit and die.”  The instinctive repugnance for coprophilia appears health-based, not culture-based.  Anecdotal reporting suggests that that repugnance extends to uses of faeces for health-related purposes, such as fecal transplantation for the re-establishment of good intestinal flora.

So what makes a real ICK?  Justifiable abhorrence for a practice or an action should be based on the fact of causing hurt to the health or well-being of others.  It is still reasonable to react with revulsion to practices which lead to harm or exploitation of others.  But some of our gut reactions are based on cultural assumptions which do not apply to the actual facts of the situation.  These we should reconsider.