Is sex with a first cousin incest?
- Thread starter Eukaryote
- Start date
The possibility for genetics mistakes in children gets stronger as a woman gets older, but you don't see people wanting to ban 40ish year olds such as Sarah Palin from having sex, do you?
According to wikipedia, 10-15% of siblings at least touch each other (experiment), but that doesn't imply intercourse. The number is around 25-30% in single parent homes.
There was nothing about the genetic side of it. Without digging further, I thought I heard anything within first generation cousins is genetically risky. Anything 2nd or 3rd cousin or beyond wasn't so bad. Obviously the further out the better.
I would think most would go with the social acceptance of their family, rather than their sexual urges -- as any action between relatives WILL come out eventually, and there's nothing worse than having your entire family hate you.
I voted 'incest' per first cousin, and I probably would to 2nd cousin per family taboo. Genetically, I'd say 3 is the gray area, 4+ is fine.
There was nothing about the genetic side of it. Without digging further, I thought I heard anything within first generation cousins is genetically risky. Anything 2nd or 3rd cousin or beyond wasn't so bad. Obviously the further out the better.
I would think most would go with the social acceptance of their family, rather than their sexual urges -- as any action between relatives WILL come out eventually, and there's nothing worse than having your entire family hate you.
I voted 'incest' per first cousin, and I probably would to 2nd cousin per family taboo. Genetically, I'd say 3 is the gray area, 4+ is fine.
Eukaryote
Deity
Cousins, yes. Sisters, HELL NO! I don't mean to be rude though, I don't discrimanate aganist consenting adults.
*high five*
Perfection
The Great Head.
Only if it's homosexual sex.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The only cousin I have whom I'd consider even remotely attractive is adopted (I'm white, she's Korean), so don't think that could count as incest.
(Most people seem to find one of my other cousin's more attractive, but I never have, perhaps because our personalities don't mesh so well. She looks like a taller Julia Roberts, which to me makes Julia Roberts unattractive as well.)
From a biblical standpoint, it seems reasonable that what counts as incest would change as time goes by. Adam and Eve's children would have to mate with their own siblings, but the mutations causing the genetic disorders that make incest risky would not yet have occurred, so this would not be harmful at all. A couple thousand years latter there were defects enough to warrant some regulations against incest, but 4 thousand years latter much stricter regulations would be appropriate.
It would also probably vary based on the genetic diversity and prevalence of genetic defects among the society. I believe I've heard that unrelated Native Americans from anywhere in the Americas are all genetically closer to each other than fairly close (but probably not first) cousins from Europe or Africa. In general, Native Americans are less diverse that Asians, who are less diverse than Europeans, who are less diverse than Africans, but the least diverse races actually have far fewer genetic diseases than the more diverse ones.
(Most people seem to find one of my other cousin's more attractive, but I never have, perhaps because our personalities don't mesh so well. She looks like a taller Julia Roberts, which to me makes Julia Roberts unattractive as well.)
From a biblical standpoint, it seems reasonable that what counts as incest would change as time goes by. Adam and Eve's children would have to mate with their own siblings, but the mutations causing the genetic disorders that make incest risky would not yet have occurred, so this would not be harmful at all. A couple thousand years latter there were defects enough to warrant some regulations against incest, but 4 thousand years latter much stricter regulations would be appropriate.
It would also probably vary based on the genetic diversity and prevalence of genetic defects among the society. I believe I've heard that unrelated Native Americans from anywhere in the Americas are all genetically closer to each other than fairly close (but probably not first) cousins from Europe or Africa. In general, Native Americans are less diverse that Asians, who are less diverse than Europeans, who are less diverse than Africans, but the least diverse races actually have far fewer genetic diseases than the more diverse ones.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
What the hell is wrong with you people? Of course it's incest.
I don't care if you want to do it, it's none of my business, but it's definitely incest.
And no, I wouldn't screw anyone anywhere on my known family tree, and I know it certainly for at least three or four generations. If someone's related to me too distantly for me to have known about it, I don't care if they're related to me.
I don't care if you want to do it, it's none of my business, but it's definitely incest.
And no, I wouldn't screw anyone anywhere on my known family tree, and I know it certainly for at least three or four generations. If someone's related to me too distantly for me to have known about it, I don't care if they're related to me.
If cousins marrying is incest, everyone on this forum is a product of incest. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are committing incest.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Okay. It's still incest.
holy king
Deity
not according to a lot of legal systems. and since "incest" is a moral term anyway...
So why does your modern day ick reaction take precedent over the previous tens of thousands of years of human history?
1. That picture on the first page was clearly polygamy, not incest.
2. I have nothing against first cousins or more distant marrying. If siblings who grew up separately and didn't find out after they were married, decided to stay together and not have (biological) kids, that doesn't squick me, but otherwise it would.
2. I have nothing against first cousins or more distant marrying. If siblings who grew up separately and didn't find out after they were married, decided to stay together and not have (biological) kids, that doesn't squick me, but otherwise it would.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
CFC cousin dating site swaps FTW!!!
The disgust of incest is highly defined by genetic imprinting, so I guess it would depend on how huge the imprinting is. Which would mean how close the cousins are.
It really depends on upbringing. I would think sex with an adopted sibling with whom you grew up, even one of a different race, to be worse than sex with a first cousin you met as an adult.
No, only for naming any more babies that happen to be born in her family. In other words, Bristol should not let either of her parents have ANY input whatsoever into naming her baby when it's born.
mitsho
Deity
Classic Follow up question:
Is homosexual sex with a first cousin incest?
I mean, you can put away with all that biological technicalities, as there will not be any offspring. But what about ethics?
I see no problem this way. (biological arguments being the only ones disallowing "incestual intercourse")
Going further, heterosexual sex with your first cousin, sister, etc. (incest) would be ok as well, if you don't produce any offspring. Even love would be ok. Why not? (I'm not doing it
).
m
Is homosexual sex with a first cousin incest?
I mean, you can put away with all that biological technicalities, as there will not be any offspring. But what about ethics?
I see no problem this way. (biological arguments being the only ones disallowing "incestual intercourse")
Going further, heterosexual sex with your first cousin, sister, etc. (incest) would be ok as well, if you don't produce any offspring. Even love would be ok. Why not? (I'm not doing it
).m
Gilder
Deity
Yes it's incest. And no I wouldn't do it with any of my cousins. They've been either knocked up, or just not that pretty to even consider.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Merriam-Webster said:
Apparently, Rhode Island allows first cousins to marry, so sex between first cousins isn't technically incest in Rhode Island, although it is technically incest in 24 states.
To answer your question more directly, the way I would define incest, throughout those millennia of human history, all those cousins that were screwing each other were committing incest. The fact that they did it doesn't make it not incest.
The reason I feel particularly strongly about this is because I don't have any brothers or sisters, but I spent a lot of time with my cousins while I grew up, so much that some of them may as well be my siblings. We all agree that screwing siblings is incest, right? That's how I feel about my cousins, anyway.
Similar threads
