Incest

This subject is in our darkest closet.
Should it remain there?
If so, why?
The whole of organic evolution is born of incest.
If it is natural, then why is it deemed immoral?
Who made the call?
If in-breeding leads to distortion, tell that to pedigreed animal breeders.
More important, how do the thousands born of an incestuous relationship cope with life?
Must they live in the closet and never publically acknowledge their parents?
What are the stats on this?

Lots of info on British Pakistanis via the google-search below :

google.com/search?hl=en&q=ma … gle+Search

Many brother cats or rabbits are willing to hump eachother when caged.

If you believe in Noa and the Arc, then yes… And in that case it was serious incest. Totally.

Morality need not be “natural”.

Your mom.

Are you suggesting eugenics? A different kind of eugenics! Because a will against “imbreeding” with family-members is eugenic!

um…

The above post was not at all helpful. In fact it raised more questions than I already have.

A lot of finger-pointing at the Pakistanis and none about the Brits themselves. This was so despite the fact that British royalty and European royalty in general have engaged in incest for generations - all the way back to the Pharoahs. So another puzzle is revealed. Why is incest accepted by the nobility and their behavior also accepted among their subjects, yet remain taboo among the lower classes?

The case against the Pakistanis who customarily engage in first cousin marriages, shows a racial bias that does not deal with the facts. Stats were given on the importance of variant genes and that via in-breeding Pakstanis have a greater risk of passing on illness than others. If that stat had any relevence to real life, then why is it, after thiousands of generations of inter-marriage, the Pakistanit have not long ago in-bred themselves to extinction, when in fact they are a proliffic and vibrant society?

The most interesting fact that came out of the link is that; since the in-laws of Pakistani marriages are close relatives, family bonds are imeasureably strengthened. All share the same family history and enjoy shared reminciences that all can relate to. As a result divorce and broken homes among them is rare.

Since nobody has, as yet, given me a sensible reply, let me throw out another question. I believe that incest is far more prevalent than homo-sexuality. When the gays came out of the closet it uncovered a festering wound in our social structure which is still trying to find healing. So what of all those thousands of children born of incest who cannot reveal their heritage? Is the national closet door to remain shut on them forever?

  • Incest exaggorates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the family bloodline. It can be bad or good, but it is an extremism, and if used, it should be used wisely.

  • Homosexual behavior is not a festering wound, because many animals practice this from time-to-time and it does not injur them. It’s mating without the production of babies. Guilt and shame are festering wounds, as are christendom-ideals.

  • If the doors stay closed and incest-cases are never disclosed, I don’t care. Everyone should be able to have secrets in their personal lives, because they should own their sexuality. Their penis is their own property. Suppression of homosexuality is no better than rape. Same old non-concentual intrusion upon individual bodyparts.

  • Marriages are legally recorded, so, goverment could trace and stop incest that way if it wanted. Also, friends/family are always watching. You may have wondered if incest happens more than homosexuality but I don’t believe it has yet, especially in humanity, because humans are more eugenic than most other animals.

It’s possible that the report could be a ’ Smear Campaign ’ designed to fracture the British Muslim Community.

Divide and conquer etc.

~

Regarding the thread title " INCEST " - It’s a very broad term, which encompasses father-child and brother-sister relationships. Are you condoning such sexual interaction? . . . I think you might need to clarify.

Also, so-called pedigree domesticated animals are regarded by most as mutants - especially toy dogs and the like.

Disappointing.

I thought you had grown wiser, Dan~.

I really liked the handmade gif in your sig . . .
i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/ … habout.gif

. . . but now I’m confused. :confused:

LOL! Oh my god. That gif was very educational, Dan.

You are not seeing it from the child’s point of view. And that is the point that really matters and which should be addressed by all of us.

Totally false. There is no registry. Society will not legalize incestual marriages.

And are forced to live with the lie as well.

Until an open census takes place, you can believe what you like. In the meantime your views on natural selection, whether man or animal, are fundamentally wrong. In any case, the taboo on incest began in the Bronze Age, for reasons that have nothing to do with eugenics.

I think it’s a real stretch to link the British to the Egyptian pharoahs. From my understanding incest was a taboo even among the Egyptians, but applied only to commoners.

To understand incest prohibitions we probably have to examine several viewpoints. First, close incest does have signifcant genetic ramifications. In all likelihood early humans recognized this and created the taboo (although it’s also possible that the taboo is an expression of some sort of instinctual aversion to incest). Given the much higher likelihood of genetic disorders and birth defects society is wise to reinforce this taboo.

Of course, what about instances where there’s no reproduction? If a father & daughter were both sterilized there’d be no chance of birth defects. But I suspect the act would still be considered morally repugnant to most. This leads to the cultural viewpoints of incest. The ability to follow certain societal norms is what allows us to fit into the world. And psychologically, a minor child doesn’t have the capacity to make informed choices about whether or not they should have sex with their parents, so obviously society considers this sexual abuse.

Sibling incest is probably proscribed not only due to health issues but because it’s damaging to the family structure.

As you get further removed from direct relatives the definition of incest gets murkier. In some parts of the world it’s custom for men to marry neices, but in the West this would be considered incest. Likewise first cousins can marry even in some Western countries, but in most of the US it would be considered incestuous. The genetic risks to children of cousin couples is higher than for nonrelated couples but not drastically so, so it’s hard to expand the definition of incest to cousins for strictly biological reasons. Most peoples definition of incest probably hinges on their concept of what constitutes family.

INCEST IS COOL BY ME 'ER US, JACK!

Human civilization began in the Fertile Crescent and spread west. Many Pharoahs married their sisters.

During the Bronze Age a bride price created wealth for the family. Virgins brought more capital. Thus incest became a socal taboo purely for economic reasions.

If that were so no specie would ever have evolved. Nature survives via incest. We were down to a handful of cheetahs in the 60’s now we have thousands, Same whith the white rhino. Same with humans after the coming nuclear holcaust if we dont get our act together. The whole idea of increst being unnatural, is unnatural.

You should read the post as it goes along. We have already shown that uncounted generations of Pakistanti in-breeding has resulted in insignificamt genetic disorders.

You are merely rambling on about artificially created social mores. Incest exists and probably always will. It affects thousands of childen. What are we to do about it except turn a blind eye or look down our noses? That is the question.

This is an interesting read.

It would be interesting if the example given was not seriously flawed to begin with.

To start with the article does not tell us what is wrong with incest, but asks why people think incest is wrong - and they do not have any clear reasons.

Let us take another scenario about a brother and sister making love. Let us say that they were never lead to believe that that incest is taboo. Why would they want to keep it a secret? What evidence in that scenario would prove that an instinctive sense of moral guilt would arise anyway?

That gif was a joke, though.
What are you confused about?

That’s what education is all about.

How and why would I go about doing that?

Also, besides one’s parents being legally recorded, one’s birthday and name is also legally recorded.

The taboo only began at the bronze age?
What’s your source for that information?

I guess you must’ve just skimmed it, so let me fill you in. They briefly explain the Westermarck Effect, which I’ll summarize with a short quote from the article:

“Westermarck’s theory can be summarized in three propositions. First, inbreeding tends to produce physical and mental deficiencies that lower Darwinian fitness. Second, as a consequence, natural selection has favored an emotional disposition to feel a sexual aversion to those with whom one has been raised in early childhood. Third, this natural aversion to incest creates moral disapproval that is expressed as an incest taboo.”

So Julie and Mark “know” it’s not considered socially acceptable, true, but they would normally be averse to it to some degree by nature. If you Google The Westermarchk Effect you’ll see that as a general rule mammalian behavior displays aversion to inbreeding. Obviously there’re instances where we see it, unsurprisingly, just as up to 10% of mammals display homosexual behavior (or behavior that one could view as such). For instance, buck/ram sheep will mount each other as displays of dominance. Some researchers have found that as many as 5-10% of college students polled have had sexual contact with a sibling in their youth, although this usually touching/fondling and rarely actual intercourse.

This theory explains a lot about attitudes toward incest. For example, say a man and a woman get married, and adopt a daughter. Say the man (let’s call him “Woody” :wink: ) begins an affair with the daughter. Many will consider it incest. Likewise, imagine you are raised with a sister. You probably will not have strong sexual desire for her. But imagine you learn at age 20 that you have another sister that you’ve never met. Suppose you meet her and she’s gorgeous, and begins to flirt with you. Do you imagine you’ll feel as sisterly towards her as you do towards the sister you’re raised with? Suppose you “hook up” at a club and only later find out she’s your sister?

The long and the short, for them not to be raised with the taboo is like being raised without names, or being taught language- possible, but unlikely. If incest is “wrong” (your word, your value judgement) then it’s probably wrong for the same reason murder and theft are wrong: it seems to cross the lines that evolution programmed into a species that evolved as a social animal.

You made mention of an aversive instinct in many animals.
Thanks.
Ofcourse you could see why I questioned and did not believe in MagnetMan’s statement about aversion to incest only beginning in the Bronze Age.

For humans sex is usually not about dominance.
People don’t make love in order to show who’s the boss.
Rape is about domination but that’s not the main thing ever done today, and it’s no-fun, in the long-run. So, homo behavior is probably about mates/partners, recessive drives arising, and it’s not a “festering wound”.
Rape is more injuring and that is usually heterosexual. So, he should be careful where he insults. Facts exist too.

Another interesting thing is that while incest was common in the for the ruling ancient Egyptians, there is almost no evidence that it was acceptable in the lower classes. The succession of the Pharoahs was matrilineal, meaning a male had to marry the right woman, ie one with divine/royal blood. Often this was your sister. Of course, the king has one Great Wife but many other wives, and concubines as well. You belonged to the family of your mother, so a for a boy of the Great Wife to marry the daught of his fathers other wife wasn’t even incest in the Egyptian defintion. More importantly though, I must stress that different social classes often have different mores and taboos.

My personal opinion, and this is just an opinion, is that most of what we call morality and religion derives from human nature & evolution, it doesn’t lead it. It seems that the more we learn about biology the more we find behaviors “hard wired” into us. Mores can be created and altered but some funamental ideas seem pretty universal. Every culture in human history has had some form of incest taboo, even if it doesn’t comform to the Victorian idea of the “sin.” A hundred years ago, it was legal to marry a first cousin in every state in the US; now around half prohibit it, and others limit it. In most of Europe I believe it’s still acceptable. I suspect that if that cousin was raised in the same household under the same roof, though, a romance would be met with shock and disapproval.

Your posts are very informative. But I think you have misunderstood the main point of my argument - the fact there there is no open discussion about incest and no knowledge of how many lives are being affected by it. That. in my opinion is one of factors that is “wrong”. I have used the gay issue as an example for showing that sexual behavior that was once kept in the family closet, and is now out in the open, has made that issue somewhat less damaging to those families who have to deal with it and society in general seems more healthy when discussiong it… I am suggesting that the same openess should be accorded to incest. Whether that is right or wrong, until such stage as we try it, and find out how deeply it affects familes and how many, who knows?

Westermarck’s theory, compelling as it is, does not address several key points that I have raised. It does not explain away how specie proliferate from the beginning. DNA reveals that we all have a single mother. Nor does it explain why the example of millions of Pakistanis, who have been pracing incest for countless generations, are not mentally deficient or physically deformed - or indeed extinct. In these respects I have tried to de-demonize incest and at least make the subject open for sensible argument.

Based on years of personal research in Africa, my claim that incest became officially taboo during the Bronze age will prove accurate under cross-examination. The bride price for virgin daughters was a major factor in Bronze Age economies. It remains so in some rural areas in Africa, where all early human societal action originated.