Incest

[Pirate Utopian]

a while ago a brother was arrested for incest with his sister, who is also his wife, with wich he has 4 children.
he was abonded by his mother and raised in by a fosterfamily, when he fell in love with his biological sister he had no idea she was his sister, now he does know but he still wants to stay with her and so does she.

should they be allowed to have a sexual relationship?
should the man have been arrested?

im asking this because i noticed a few people takin' light stances on things like animalsex on this board, how much is this acceptable?

[apathy maybe]

Basically any sex between consenting adults is acceptable. There are differing opinions when it comes to younger people.

You might also be interested in this thread on the same topic
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47107&hl=incest

[Political_Chucky]

I don't think its really based on a moral issue(not primarily anymore in any case), but more on the issue of genetics and how harmful it could be to their children. For one, isn't retardation a much more bigger risk with persons of close relation? Also the psychological and possibily the physical effects the children would endure could be taken in consideration.

But personally, I still find this practice unhealthy.

[Whitten]

Its causing unfair harm to their children.

[KptnKrill]

1) The man should not have been arrested, he didn't purposefully do anything wrong and couldn't have easily prevented it. He should still be allowed to stay together but I think common sense would say that at least one of them should voluntarily have themselves sterilized.

2) It should also be pointed out that the mother abandoned the son, this is unnatural behavior and probably a result of poverty in one way or another. For example, perhaps she abandoned the baby because she didn't feel she had the resources to raise him, this could have also coincided with some form (however strong or mild) of anti-social disease caused by the alienation and separation of consumerist society.

I posit that this entire situation wouldn't happen under a communist society.

As for bestiality:
a) it violates the right of the animal
b) most of our diseases (not just sexually transmitted ones) come from our close contact with animals.
I would posit that bestiality is a product of capitalist society as well. I agree it's wrong to discriminate against a person who has sex with an animal as they aren't able to control the circumstances under which they live. But I don't understand where this "leniency" comes from.

[TC]

I don't see anything wrong with it and think it should be legal (other couples with even more highly elevated risk of birth defects can have sex and children legally), but feeling of disgust towards incest within the immediate family is natural because of a phenomenon where people raised together as children are incapable of finding each other sexually attractive as teenagers and adults, even if they are not genetically related. This is called the Westermarck effect and was first documented in Israeli Kibbutz.


I believe the case that you're probably responding to is this one as covered in the slate:


A German brother-sister couple is challenging the law against incest. Details: 1) They were raised separately. 2) They met when he was 23 and she was 15; they began living together a year later. 3) They have four kids. One has epilepsy; two have "special needs"; three have been put in foster care. 4) The brother has served a two-year sentence for incest. 5) He recently got a vasectomy. Couple's arguments: 1) The law is outdated. 2) It violates our civil rights. 3) We're not hurting anyone, so just leave us alone. 4) The law lets couples with genetic risks (due to advanced age) or hereditary diseases have kids, so why not us? 5) If we live together and don't have more kids, how can the government prove we're having sex without becoming dangerously invasive? http://www.slate.com/id/2161289/

Given that they were raised separately they didn't develop a Westermarck effect revulsion towards sex with each other, so its less gross from their perspective than among most people's siblings.

[WUOrevolt]

They are two consenting adults, what they are doing may be hard for some people to handle, but it is their business and nobody elses.

[Demogorgon]

Well it is not a good idea to have children by incest. Obviously what consenting adults do is their own business, but they shouldn't be having children. That isn't fair.

As for this case, it is difficult because he already has children, but no, he shouldn't have been arrested.

[apathy maybe]

Wait a minute, why are we discussing if the man should be arrested or not? Why not the women?

After all, she is just as guilty of incest as he is.

[Sentinel]

Obviously they should have every right to live together in a relationship like any couple, claiming otherwise can't be anything but semi-superstitious moralism. Needless to say I'm against incest laws such as the one in Germany.

However one naturally wonders why this couple chose to have children of their own as the odds of siblings having healthy offspring has been proven to be slim -- and indeed does one of this couple's kids have epilepsy (according to some sources the kid had at the age of five still to learn to speak and talk properly) and the others 'special needs'.

I fail to see any justification for society to intervene other than through advice though, as legislative intervention would immediately raise lots of more dangerous questions, such as which inheritable diseases should then prevent people of having children legally etc. Basically it could potentially open an eugenics debate of a very malicious sort I'd rather avoid in a society.

Was society supportative instead of hostile here I'm sure couples like this would in 99% of the cases choose adoption as a natural alternative to children of their own, to avoid the heath risks.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:58 pm
1) The man should not have been arrested, he didn't purposefully do anything wrong and couldn't have easily prevented it. He should still be allowed to stay together but I think common sense would say that at least one of them should voluntarily have themselves sterilized.

2) It should also be pointed out that the mother abandoned the son, this is unnatural behavior and probably a result of poverty in one way or another. For example, perhaps she abandoned the baby because she didn't feel she had the resources to raise him, this could have also coincided with some form (however strong or mild) of anti-social disease caused by the alienation and separation of consumerist society.

I posit that this entire situation wouldn't happen under a communist society.

As for bestiality:
a) it violates the right of the animal
b) most of our diseases (not just sexually transmitted ones) come from our close contact with animals.
I would posit that bestiality is a product of capitalist society as well. I agree it's wrong to discriminate against a person who has sex with an animal as they aren't able to control the circumstances under which they live. But I don't understand where this "leniency" comes from.
LOL!?? wait a minute now.. how can you blame bestiality on capitalism??? LMAO! :D

[RNK]

Was society supportative instead of hostile here I'm sure couples like this would in 99% of the cases choose adoption as a natural alternative to children of their own, to avoid the heath risks.

yes, but there will always be fringers who decide to go ahead and have children anyway. Although, in their defense, genetic problems usually do not occur until several successive generations of inbreeding.

[redcannon]

it'd really be best if the gov't stayed out of peoples personal affairs. I do have a problem with the harm it does to their children though, even if they didn't know they were siblings.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 10:58 am
Wait a minute, why are we discussing if the man should be arrested or not? Why not the women?

After all, she is just as guilty of incest as he is.
that's what i thought at first too, but she wasnt arrested

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+March 19, 2007 02:34 pm--> (Big Manifesto @ March 19, 2007 02:34 pm)
apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 10:58 am
Wait a minute, why are we discussing if the man should be arrested or not? Why not the women?

After all, she is just as guilty of incest as he is.
that's what i thought at first too, but she wasnt arrested [/b]
That's because she was underage when they initiated the relationship and her brother was first sentenced -- she does however risk charges now that she isn't anymore.

[TC]

The whole 'they can fuck but just not have kids' take on it is a cop out and an appeal to use whats viewed as as science to justify the gross factor...

The chances of healthy siblings having healthy children actually aren't 'slim' at all, they're most likely, its simply that the chances for birth defects are elevated if they are carries for recessive genes that could cause birth defects anyways. Genetic counseling can determine whether or not a sibling couple is genetically incompatible, in both being carriers for a genetic disorder, but in fact many (even if a minority) of sibling couples are likely not to have genetic risks...should those not have kids cause its icky?

Or, for that matter, even if both siblings were carries for a dread genetic illness, there would always be only a maximum 25% probability that their offspring would be afflicted with it, in other words they could expect 75% healthy offspring even under those conditions (since both parents provide 50% of their offspring's genes, and carriers of recessive genetic disorders have at most one allele rather than a pair for that genetic disorder, and to be affected the offspring would need to receive the allele from both parents, so a 25% chance at most).

No one seems to object to couples with a proven genetic risk (those who have already had children with genetic disorders) having more kids even though they risk the same degree that such siblings would, so should those people be prohibited as well or do you want to maintain a double standard for some reason?


Or, consider the fact that any healthy couple, including siblings believed to be at risk for passing on genetic illnesses to their children, can when using IVF have their embryos screened with preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is already a standard practice, and then only have proven healthy embryos implanted. Would it be okay if they had children that way, having no more risks for genetic defects than anyone else, or would that still be too gross?



I mean, i think its really gross too, but i don't think we should legislate on the basis of what we think is gross.

[Sentinel]

TC, who you are talking to? I'm against any legislation concerning incest (between consenting adults) whatsoever, like I already said:


I fail to see any justification for society to intervene other than through advice though, as legislative intervention would immediately raise lots of more dangerous questions, such as which inheritable diseases should then prevent people of having children legally etc. Basically it could potentially open an eugenics debate of a very malicious sort I'd rather avoid in a society.

And I think society should help couples like this one in every way possible. As the risk of birth defects and various ilnesses is considerably higher for offspring of close relatives I'm sure most would welcome the opportunity of adopting a healthy child just to be safe -- this was not an option for these two as their entire relationship was banned.

But when I said society should offer advice I meant all the expertise available. Should genetic counceling reveal that having children is relatively risk free on some occasion, or any other method eliminate the risk, the advice should then be go a head! Otherwise inform of the risks present.

Considering something to be 'gross' is obviously not a valid objection to anything.

[Forward Union]

As TC said, there's actually nothing unhealthy about a certain degree of incest, continual inbreeding over several generations is not a good idea, that can lead to deformities, defects and sterility... but the consiquences would be the same as any child born with an inherant handicap. And the problem certainly wouldn't be able to persist past that last generation.

I don't want to have sex with my sister at all, but if a couple of siblings do want to do it, I couldn't care less. Unless they're hot twins or something. :lol:

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:25 pm
LOL!?? wait a minute now.. how can you blame bestiality on capitalism??? LMAO! :D
Oh that's easy. Give me something harder, I'll still find a way :)

[Inithias]

It's kinda wrong to have sex and kids with your sister, so yeah, arrest him,
but actually, the dude didn't know that it was his sis !

did he get a punishment ? jail ? .. or nothin' ?
is ignorance bliss .. or not ?

Greetz,
Ini.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:54 am
It's kinda wrong to have sex and kids with your sister, so yeah, arrest him,

What is 'wrong' about a brother and sister having consensual sex?

And why should only the dude get arrested for it?

[Palmares]

I think TC is pretty on point here, at least in the sense that the pseudo-scientific, moralistic view against incest argues that defects in the possible resulting offspring would be much more likely than in similar non-related relationships.

Indeed it is true that is it higher, but the difference is quite minute.

For it to be the considerable difference that is generally pervaded, the incest would have to be over generations.

[Purple_Soul]

I think it was never their fault to fall in love because they didn't grow up together and they didn't even know they were sister and brother. It's ok that they married, but I think they should have had children. Being brothers, their kids could have a lot of problems if that is not the case already.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 18, 2007 06:56 pm
a while ago a brother was arrested for incest with his sister, who is also his wife, with wich he has 4 children.
In what country was this?

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 28, 2007 01:29 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ March 28, 2007 01:29 pm)
Big [email protected] 18, 2007 06:56 pm
a while ago a brother was arrested for incest with his sister, who is also his wife, with wich he has 4 children.
In what country was this?

Luís Henrique [/b]
I'm not entirely sure we are all talking about the same case anymore. :wacko: The couple me, TC and others were discussing lives in Germany. They were never married as far as I know though.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:54 pm
It's kinda wrong to have sex and kids with your sister, so yeah, arrest him,
but actually, the dude didn't know that it was his sis !

lol, wow, you think "its kinda wrong" so "arrest them", thats like, the social conservative argument against everything they don't like. Don't break anything trying to come up for a reasonable argument!

[Pilar]

I don't know about legislating against it, presuming they are of whatever age of consent is agreed upon, but I have a different spin on it.

It should be discouraged because it comes at a loss of the sibling relationship which offers something enduring that is not sexual, but is its own unique relationship.

Treating such things as normal conditions children to view their siblings as possible sexual interests. This would be harmful.

This also appears to be one of those things that is not related to socialism v. capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

It isn't related to socialism versus capitalism. It is freedom versus oppression. It is you can do what you like with your body versus you cannot do these things.

We should not be discouraging anything like this. What people do with their own bodies is their own business.

Who cares if you can't have a sibling relationship because you are in a sexual relationship? Why is one better then the other?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:24 pm
I don't know about legislating against it, presuming they are of whatever age of consent is agreed upon, but I have a different spin on it.

It should be discouraged because it comes at a loss of the sibling relationship which offers something enduring that is not sexual, but is its own unique relationship.

Treating such things as normal conditions children to view their siblings as possible sexual interests. This would be harmful.

I don't think theres anything morally wrong about post-pubescent sibling incest, but it could never be normal in the statistical sense of the word because, as i described earlier, the vast majority of people have biologically determined negative psychosexual reaction towards sex with people they've seen their parents take care of as young children or who they were raised with from an early age.

Saying that theres nothing wrong with it doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to do it, just like teaching kids that theres nothing wrong with homosexuality isn't going to turn straight kids gay.



This also appears to be one of those things that is not related to socialism v. capitalism.

Socialism entails emancipation from all arbitrary social constraints though.

[Pilar]

One is not better than the other. They are simply different, and a sexual experience with a sibling should be discouraged, as the sibling relationship would be harmed by sex. That is, it would be altered to a different relationship.

I'm against that happeneing. i don't know to what extent I'd support post-Revolutionary rules against it however. Ask me after the ervolution.

But your "oppression versus freedom" argument is for shit.

I fully intend to "oppress" a capitalists by taking from them their "freedom" to contract with others. These words are relative and we can play games with them all we like.

A 19 year old brother, aware that society would allow him to sexually enjoy his 10 year old sister once she was, let's say 16, would cause him (if he were predatory by nature) to view his sister sexually as she matured during those 6 years. When he would be 25, and she 16, let's say your view of society allowed for such conduct. I don't know that she was all that "free" during those 6 years, as she looked to him for care, sibling love, and the protection an older brother gives a younger sister.

Again, I do not relate this to economics.

[RedArmyFaction]

sorry but i think incest is unacceptable if you are blood related

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:59 pm
sorry but i think incest is unacceptable if you are blood related
Unacceptable? What do you then think should be 'done about it'? Do you agree with the german incest law we are discussing? And further, how do you propose a post-revolutionary society should deal with consenting adults, who are related to each other and choose to have a sexual relationship?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:59 pm
sorry but i think incest is unacceptable if you are blood related
whats really unacceptable is trying to impose a private morality on the public by dictating what people can or can't consent to do with themselves. To make judgements along those lines at all is to abandon materialism in place of bourgeois and patriarchal morality.

Someone with a materialist understanding of social relations understands that what is disturbing to them has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

The same for that matter is true of what feels natural, plenty of things that feel natural to many people are exploitive or oppressive in their material reality.

You need to learn to analyze the moral values of the current social order.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18, 2007 07:06 pm
Basically any sex between consenting adults is acceptable. There are differing opinions when it comes to younger people.

You might also be interested in this thread on the same topic
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47107&hl=incest
Oh oh... a bit slow there. Children of biological siblings would leap at a higher risk to be born with defects which could make them suffer. That is a common fact. I do not say that we should prohibit that kind of behavior, but that it would be cruel to procreate individuals with an enhanced risk of being born with diseases.

But of course, it is an extremely small minority we are talking about.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:03 pm

Oh oh... a bit slow there. Children of biological siblings would leap at a higher risk to be born with defects which could make them suffer. That is a common fact. I do not say that we should prohibit that kind of behavior, but that it would be cruel to procreate individuals with an enhanced risk of being born with diseases.
This is just not true in general scientifically. Frequent incest on a population wide level would probably produce more genetic disorders, but on an individual level, the outcome of any pairing between two people depends not on how close they're related but the particular combination of their genes. The chances of a risky ,combination are only relatively, not absolutely higher between siblings then between distant relatives or unrelated people.

The only reason why its statistically more dangerous for siblings to reproduce is because the chances of them both having rare recessive alleles for undesirable traits is higher, so in some couplings their chances of producing offspring with undesirable genetic traits can approach 25%, but...this is equally true of people who are unrelated to each other who have recessive alleles for undesirable traits, and it is not true of siblings who do not have such an issue.

In any case, the genetic argument is clearly an attempt to justify ones disgust at incest with something other than the 'its icky!' argument. The fact is that many (if not most) siblings can have children with minimal risk for genetic disorders and plenty of unrelated couples have a high risk of producing children with genetic disorders but no one seems to want to regulate that (thankfully). Clearly then it has really nothing to do with the real basis for the objection.

In any case, if you were worried about people passing on genetic illness, on a statistical level you'd probably be better off condemning genetically blind or deaf people from reproducing with anyone than condemning siblings for doing it with each other. Clearly that would be unacceptable, but your logic would justify it better then what you're arguing.

And in any case, any couple legitimately worried about having children with genetic disorders can reduce the chance to zero, regardless of whether they're both blind siblings or whatever, by having pre-implantation diagnosis in ivf treatment.


also: newsflash: sex isn't typically about reproduction anymore.

[The New Left]

The issue of child abuse could be brought up as well. They now know that their children could have a disability and if a sexual relationship continues they now know that they can cause great harm to their new born. And it could affect the current childrens well being and perception towards being a functional family (which is pretty much messed as as it is).

[bootleg42]

This sort of reminds me of a friend of mine who had a secret relationship with his cousin. Now I know cousin is different than sister but still, he had it and it was a secret. I found out by walking in on them making out and since I was mature, I told no one and I told him that whatever he did was his busniess and I had not right to regulate what he and she can do in the bedroom. We were all 16 and she was 17. They broke it off. It would have been hell if everyone knew.

I wouldn't do it myself but who am I to stop others if they're consensual adults or of the same age range??

As for what to do in the German case............their relationship should be legal. BUT since the chance of having children with disabilities is high, the state has a right to require some sort of birth prevention (make him or her sterile, something). Why bring a child into the world if you know (before intercourse itself) that it will turn out the way it will?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:59 am
sorry but i think incest is unacceptable if you are blood related
Why?

[Black Dagger]

So you think that older couples should be banned from having children as well because their is a chance

What about people who have histories of diseases or genetic conditions that may be inheritable?

etc. etc.

Should all should people be similarly banned from having children?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:59 pm
sorry but i think incest is unacceptable if you are blood related
As opposed to...what other type of incest is there in the western world?

This statement is on a par with the Australian minster who said "Traditionally most of our imports come from abroad".

On the actually topic, it is very rare that I find myself agreeing with Maoists, but Tragic Clown does appear to be talking a lot of sense.

Devrim

[Dr Mindbender]

Id like to think that under socialism, the sort of social conditioning and alienation which causes people to engage in unhealthy or damaging forms of sexual deviance (beastiality, paedophilia, incest etc) will no longer occur to such an extent and will therefore be less of an issue. Also, with a more socially responsible hysteria perhaps the kind of hysteria which is so counter productive will no longer play the same role it does now.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 07:33 pm
It isn't related to socialism versus capitalism. It is freedom versus oppression. It is you can do what you like with your body versus you cannot do these things.

We should not be discouraging anything like this. What people do with their own bodies is their own business.

Who cares if you can't have a sibling relationship because you are in a sexual relationship? Why is one better then the other?
People here will probably call me a biggot for this, but...incest is wrong and fucked up&#33; If you are going to use the argument of "hey...its their body, they can do whatever they want&#33;" you could also say they could have sex with children as long as those kids dont say no <_<

We shouldnt discourage incest? Oh hell...it should be discouraged...the taboo of incest is probably one of the few taboos which is found in practically all cultures. Only royal insects seems to have been an exception of this, and in many cases this would only be in marriage and not sexual contact.


So you think that older couples should be banned from having children as well because their is a chance

What about people who have histories of diseases or genetic conditions that may be inheritable?

etc. etc.

Should all should people be similarly banned from having children?

And you think every guy should be able to have sex with his sister if they would just like that to happen?


whats really unacceptable is trying to impose a private morality on the public by dictating what people can or can&#39;t consent to do with themselves. To make judgements along those lines at all is to abandon materialism in place of bourgeois and patriarchal morality.

Yes the ban of incest is a giant bourgeoise conspiracy...THEY DONT WANT YOU TO EXPAND THE GENEPOOL&#33; IT WOULD ENDANGER THEIR OWN GREED&#33; right.... :wacko:


This sort of reminds me of a friend of mine who had a secret relationship with his cousin. Now I know cousin is different than sister but still, he had it and it was a secret. I found out by walking in on them making out and since I was mature, I told no one and I told him that whatever he did was his busniess and I had not right to regulate what he and she can do in the bedroom. We were all 16 and she was 17. They broke it off. It would have been hell if everyone knew.

There are many cultures in which sexual relationships with cousins isnt viewed as incest, however they have this concept of "cross cousins" and "parallel cousins". Parallel cousins are the mother&#39;s sister&#39;s kids and the father&#39;s brother&#39;s kids, sex between those would not be possible. Cross cousins however (father&#39;s sister&#39;s kids and mother&#39;s brother&#39;s kids) would be ok. There are also cultures out there who do that the other way around. Or what about moiety?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:25 pm
I don&#39;t think its really based on a moral issue(not primarily anymore in any case), but more on the issue of genetics and how harmful it could be to their children. For one, isn&#39;t retardation a much more bigger risk with persons of close relation? Also the psychological and possibily the physical effects the children would endure could be taken in consideration.

But personally, I still find this practice unhealthy.
Same here.

[Pawn Power]

Why should one care if consenting "mature" indiviudals fuck? How does it effect you? The only reason that I can think of and that people are expressing is "morals," many of which I presume derive from religion.



So you think that older couples should be banned from having children as well because their is a chance

What about people who have histories of diseases or genetic conditions that may be inheritable?

etc. etc.

Should all should people be similarly banned from having children?

Easy solution. Everybody should stop making babies.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by MilitantVL+July 04, 2007 09:48 pm--> (MilitantVL @ July 04, 2007 09:48 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 07:25 pm
I don&#39;t think its really based on a moral issue(not primarily anymore in any case), but more on the issue of genetics and how harmful it could be to their children. For one, isn&#39;t retardation a much more bigger risk with persons of close relation? Also the psychological and possibily the physical effects the children would endure could be taken in consideration.

But personally, I still find this practice unhealthy.
Same here. [/b]
Are we talking about people having sex or having babies? Sex does not equal baby.

[BOZG]

There really are some social conservatives on this site. I agree with TC 100%.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 04, 2007 11:34 pm
Id like to think that under socialism, the sort of social conditioning and alienation which causes people to engage in unhealthy or damaging forms of sexual deviance (beastiality, paedophilia, incest etc) will no longer occur to such an extent and will therefore be less of an issue.
Firstly, by whose definition is it "deviant"? Obviously it&#39;s your defintion, but I&#39;d like you t explain how that defintion has come to exist and why you accept it?

Secondly I do not understand nor accept that incest is a form of social conditionng or caused by alienation. Could you please elaberate on that assertion?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:05 am
.incest is wrong and fucked up&#33;
Why?


"hey...its their body, they can do whatever they want&#33;" you could also say they could have sex with children as long as those kids dont say no <_<

No you couldn&#39;t.

Children cannot by their conditoning or perhaps even by their nature cannot consent to something they a) do not understand because of lack of education or b) do not have the mental capability to understand.

Consenting sex between two adults is not at all the same as an adult having/forcing sex with a child.


We shouldnt discourage incest? Oh hell...it should be discouraged...the taboo of incest is probably one of the few taboos which is found in practically all cultures.

Regardless of your opinion, I don&#39;t see how you could practically enforece such a rule in a communist society?

Also, there are alot of variables? What quantifies as incest and why? Why is that important for society, collectively or individually? By what and whose standard is incest wrong?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Avtomat_Icaro+July 04, 2007 11:05 pm--> (Avtomat_Icaro @ July 04, 2007 11:05 pm) There are many cultures in which sexual relationships with cousins isnt viewed as incest, however they have this concept of "cross cousins" and "parallel cousins". Parallel cousins are the mother&#39;s sister&#39;s kids and the father&#39;s brother&#39;s kids, sex between those would not be possible. Cross cousins however (father&#39;s sister&#39;s kids and mother&#39;s brother&#39;s kids) would be ok. There are also cultures out there who do that the other way around. Or what about moiety?



[/b]
Yes, there are many cultures where cousins marry, for example the US:
Originally posted by [email protected]
First-cousin marriage without restriction is permitted in nineteen states—Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia—and the District of Columbia.

Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only if both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility; North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line); Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The other states with some, but not absolute, limits on first-cousin marriage are Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

In fact many famous people were married to their cousins including Darwin, and Einstien
Wiki

Some cousins who have married:
edited to take out a load of Royals, and others
* John Adams and his third cousin, Abigail Smith
* Johann Sebastian Bach and his second cousin, Maria Barbara Bach
* Charles Darwin and his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood
* Albert Einstein and his first cousin (through his mother) as well as second cousin (through his father), Elsa Löwenthal née Einstein
* Rudy Giuliani and his second cousin, Regina Peruggi
* Jesse James and his first cousin, Zerelda "Zee" Mimms
* Thomas Jefferson and his third cousin, Martha Wayles
* Jerry Lee Lewis and his first cousin once removed, Myra Gale Brown
* Edgar Allan Poe and his first cousin, Virginia Clemm
* Muhammed and cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh
* Franklin D. Roosevelt and his fifth cousin once removed, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt
* Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and her first cousin, Prince Albert
* H.G. Wells and his first cousin Isabel Mary Wells
* Catherine the Great and her second cousin Peter III of Russia
* Queen Elizabeth II (granddaughter of King George V and Queen Mary) and her second cousin once removed (through Christian IX of Denmark), as well as third cousin (through Queen Victoria), Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
* Juan Carlos I of Spain and his third cousin Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark


Actually, my ex-wife&#39;s parents were cousins. It is reasonably common in Turkey, but getting less so.

Devrim

[Devrim]

On the risks on genetic defects:

Originally posted by Wiki
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report authored by a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, which showed that the potential risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins was slightly higher than the risk associated with a non-cousin couple. The report estimated the increased risk for first cousins is only between 1.7 to 2.8 percent on top of the base risk of about 3%, or about the same as any woman over 40 years of age, or a man even younger than that (see paternal age). To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 (roughly 6%) rather than at 30 (roughly 3%). Banning first cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.

Other studies, however, contradict this view. A BBC report[2] found that Pakistanis in Britain, of whom 55% marry their first cousin, are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. Thus, Pakistani-Britons, who account for roughly 3% of all births in the U.K., bear "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses.

A second cousin mating has an additional risk of birth defects agreed on by many authorities of only approximately 1 in 100, which is the same risk of a woman aged 35 years giving birth, or, again, a man even younger than that.

Personally I think I have more faith in &#39;the Journal of Genetic Counseling report authored by a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors&#39; than the BBC.

Devrim

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Hmm, its no use debating this...Im probably a far right conservative in the eyes of some here. But when we do have our happy little communist paradise we can all fuck our brothers and sisters&#33; YAAAAAAAAAAAY&#33;&#33;&#33; :P

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:16 pm
Hmm, its no use debating this...Im probably a far right conservative in the eyes of some here. But when we do have our happy little communist paradise we can all fuck our brothers and sisters&#33; YAAAAAAAAAAAY&#33;&#33;&#33; :P
I don&#39;t think that anybody is advocating that.

Most people are genetically hard-wired not to be sexually attracted to people they grew up with. This was pointed out before with relation to the studies done of Israli Kibbutzim.

The guy who the original post was about didn&#39;t grow uo with the sister, and didn&#39;t know it was his sister.

On a purely personal level you have to feel, sorry for this guy, and his sister. He was married/in a relationship with a woman, had four children, and then somebody comes along, and tells him it is his sister. They both must have been absolutely devasted. Can you imagine how they must have felt?

The second point is about policing people&#39;s sex lives. I find the idea of having sex with my sister disgusting. I also find some people&#39;s sexual practices such as urinating, or defacting on each other disgusting.

One of my neighbours thinks that homosexuality is disgusting, and they should be &#39;put down&#39; for the good of society.

Whose job is it to police people&#39;s sex lives? I would argue that whatever consenting adults want to do in their own bedrooms is their own business.

Devrim