PDA

View Full Version : If you found out your spouse was your sibling...



JoNightshade
01-17-2008, 02:22 AM
...what would you do?

This is inspired by the age-difference thread over in the novel forums. I'm curious to see what people think they would do if this issue came up.

And I'm talking FULL sibling here, not half. You were separated at birth. :)

althrasher
01-17-2008, 02:24 AM
Since I don't have a spouse, (and I DO have a brother,) I'd have to say...

RUN.

Very fast in an opposite direction.

And spend a lot of money on Listerine.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 02:25 AM
I don't know. Let me ask my twin...

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:26 AM
...what would you do?



Wonder why my kids turned out so pretty and not a bunch of buck-toothed bettys playing banjos on the bayou. That's what.

SpookyWriter
01-17-2008, 02:27 AM
I don't know. Let me ask my twin...Hands on the table when you say that....hahahahaaaaa.....

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:28 AM
I don't know. Let me ask my twin...


Oh. You would just love to marry yourself, wouldn't you, Narcissus! No wonder you were banned from mirrors.

Angelinity
01-17-2008, 02:28 AM
...what would you do?

This is inspired by the age-difference thread over in the novel forums. I'm curious to see what people think they would do if this issue came up.

And I'm talking FULL sibling here, not half. You were separated at birth. :)

loaded scenario. what would you do?

Bubastes
01-17-2008, 02:29 AM
Didn't this actually happen in the UK? I thought I read a recent news article about this scenario. Twins separated at birth or something.

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:29 AM
Didn't this actually happen in the UK?


Honey, everything happens in the UK.

My-Immortal
01-17-2008, 02:30 AM
Didn't this actually happen in the UK?
Yes. They got their marriage annulled. I don't have a link - I'm sure someone could come up with it though...

Judg
01-17-2008, 02:31 AM
That scenario turned up in the Silmarillion.

I would be too stunned to know what to do. Would probably have to go away somewhere to think about the whole thing.

Why do you ask?

Silver King
01-17-2008, 02:32 AM
This happened in Britain recently between twins that were separated at birth. They had been married for a while before the discovery was made, through blood work, I think. They were seeking an annulment.

ETA: MeowGirl beat me to it.

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:32 AM
That scenario turned up in the Silmarillion.

I would be too stunned to know what to do. Would probably have to go away somewhere to think about the whole thing.

Why do you ask?

Because we have just found out that you are married to your brother. You better tell the kids and theys Daddy-Uncle.

Judg
01-17-2008, 02:32 AM
OK, here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7978185

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:33 AM
This happened in Britain recently between twins that were separated at birth. They had been married for a while before the discovery was made, through blood work, I think. They were seeking an annulment.


OOKie. Do you think they consummated?

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:34 AM
OK, here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7978185


I will not click it. I will not click it.

Judg
01-17-2008, 02:35 AM
Because we have just found out that you are married to your brother. You better tell the kids and theys Daddy-Uncle.

LOL! I will have to get a picture of my husband and my brother side-by-side so you can fully appreciate the absurdity of that!

Maryn
01-17-2008, 02:40 AM
FWIW, The Kid was an anthro minor quite recently, and learned that the "truism" of genetic mutation from makin' babies with close relatives is not nearly as true as science long thought. IIRC, she said the likelihood of cousins producing a damaged baby was right about the same as non-cousins.

I don't know about siblings, just thought I'd toss that in.

Maryn, whose brother isn't nearly so terrific as Mr. Maryn

KTC
01-17-2008, 02:42 AM
FWIW, The Kid was an anthro minor quite recently, and learned that the "truism" of genetic mutation from makin' babies with close relatives is not nearly as true as science long thought. IIRC, she said the likelihood of cousins producing a damaged baby was right about the same as non-cousins.

I don't know about siblings, just thought I'd toss that in.

Maryn, whose brother isn't nearly so terrific as Mr. Maryn

Do not shatter the stereotype, Missy. You want all the sibling AWers to start making babies! THINK, DAMMIT!

JoNightshade
01-17-2008, 02:44 AM
loaded scenario. what would you do?

I'd stay married. I'd want to adopt rather than having children (although what someone said is true-- risks of genetic problems are not great unless you do this for a couple of generations), but I don't think it would bother me that much. If we'd had totally different childhoods and upbringings, then the only thing that marked us as siblings would be our genes.

I think it's sad that two people would let something like that ruin a marriage.

Silver King
01-17-2008, 02:45 AM
OOKie. Do you think they consummated?
I'm sure they did and enjoyed it thoroughly at the time. It was only later when they may have felt a twinge of disgust.

I can't fathom the odds of those two, separated at birth, raised by different families, then meeting as adults, only to fall in love and get married. It's tragic and pretty damn sad.

Angelinity
01-17-2008, 02:45 AM
I'd stay married. I'd want to adopt rather than having children (although what someone said is true-- risks of genetic problems are not great unless you do this for a couple of generations), but I don't think it would bother me that much. If we'd had totally different childhoods and upbringings, then the only thing that marked us as siblings would be our genes.

I think it's sad that two people would let something like that ruin a marriage.

you're brave.

JoNightshade
01-17-2008, 03:07 AM
you're brave.

Not brave. I just honestly don't get what the big deal is. :)

reigningcatsndogs
01-17-2008, 03:10 AM
OMG!!!! What if his family (the one he grew up with) was also really my biological family?????:e2faint:

I don't wanna have Dysfunction Junction stamped on my birth certificate!!!

I would look for the tallest cliff I could find and fling myself over it!!!

Angelinity
01-17-2008, 03:18 AM
Not brave. I just honestly don't get what the big deal is. :)

it is because (even secretely) we desire to fit into the society-at-large and society-at-large does not accept in-breeding.
society at large would frown upon it -- sibling-couples would be immediately and irrevocably shunned.
sibling couples would not endure except whithin their own little world which would itself crumble in the absence of acceptance by society-at-large.

Zelenka
01-17-2008, 03:24 AM
If I found out my husband was my brother? I could go home to my old village, knowing I'd finally be accepted into the local community? ;) Seriously though, I think I would freak out, and spend a long time sitting in the shower.

Kind of glad I'm not married now, having read this thread.

Marian Perera
01-17-2008, 03:28 AM
Eww. My brother's seven years younger than I am and the baby of the family. That would come closer to pedophilia than to incest.

Plus, he's not hot IMO, though he is very nice. So I guess I'd wonder why I couldn't be like some V. C. Andrews or George R. R. Martin character and at least end up with an attractive sibling.

Lyra Jean
01-17-2008, 03:32 AM
I thought there was bloodwork done before a couple got married (at least in the States) to rule out being related and diseases and stuff?

escritora
01-17-2008, 03:35 AM
I'd stay married. I agree with JoNightshade. It's not a big deal. That said, the moment I got tired of his sorry *ss I would use the we are brother and sister excuse to file for an annulment.

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:37 AM
No bloodwork here in Canada. I'm guessing UK is the same...since they copy us on EVERYthing. There is a list of people you are not allowed to marry...but you don't have to put forth evidence to prove you're lying...if you're into marrying your sibling, that is.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 03:37 AM
I know in HK you have to do that blood work before you get married... still, the shock... that you've been dating/sleeping with your sibling. Ewww.

That's why I'm very much against concealing biological identities of adoptive children or test tube babies... the chance of error is just too much to bear...

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:39 AM
that you've been dating/sleeping with your sibling. Ewww.


You are talking about pre-marital sex. That simply does not happen in this day and age, Mister.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 03:41 AM
Abstinence is awesome.

;)

I am saving myself for my future bride.

Ray, a virgin

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:44 AM
Abstinence is awesome.

;)

I am saving myself for my future bride.

Ray, a virgin

I know how hard you struggle with that goal every time you catch yourself walking past a store window. You poor thing.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 03:46 AM
If I don't love me who is going to? The world hates me guts.

Red-Green
01-17-2008, 03:48 AM
Yeah, I'd probably stay married, because I'm completely lacking in some of the more old-fashioned "morals." Did I mention I once made out with my step-brother?

I don't think I'd tell people we were siblings, though. Hell, I tried to deny it about my step-brother. Jerk.

truelyana
01-17-2008, 03:48 AM
Didn't this actually happen in the UK? I thought I read a recent news article about this scenario. Twins separated at birth or something.

Yeah, it did.

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:48 AM
If I don't love me who is going to? The world hates mY guts.


The world can't see your guts, what with all that chocolate. Sweet pants can't conceal ugly guts, can they?

rugcat
01-17-2008, 03:49 AM
I'd stay married. I'd want to adopt rather than having children (although what someone said is true-- risks of genetic problems are not great unless you do this for a couple of generations), but I don't think it would bother me that much. If we'd had totally different childhoods and upbringings, then the only thing that marked us as siblings would be our genes.

I think it's sad that two people would let something like that ruin a marriage.A lot of people here are focussed on the ick factor, but those two poor kids in the UK have a really difficult thing to face. They met, they had no idea they were related, they fell in love, and then were hit by this.

And we're talking a psychological and cultural taboo here. As long as they didn't know, their relationship would be considered natural and healthy. Then, due to a dna test, it instantly becomes disgusting and unnatural?

It's sad indeed.

truelyana
01-17-2008, 03:49 AM
...what would you do?

This is inspired by the age-difference thread over in the novel forums. I'm curious to see what people think they would do if this issue came up.

And I'm talking FULL sibling here, not half. You were separated at birth. :)

I wouldn't do anything, I'd still continue to love my spouse the same way.

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:51 AM
A lot of people here are focussed on the ick factor, but those two poor kids in the UK have a really difficult thing to face. They met, they had no idea they were related, they fell in love, and then were hit by this.

And we're talking a psychological and cultural taboo here. As long as they didn't know, their relationship would be considered natural and healthy. Then, due to a dna test, it instantly becomes disgusting and unnatural?

It's sad indeed.


It truly is a disaster of monumental proportions. That is not lost on me. A nightmare neither will ever ever get over.

truelyana
01-17-2008, 03:51 AM
A lot of people here are focussed on the ick factor, but those two poor kids in the UK have a really difficult thing to face. They met, they had no idea they were related, they fell in love, and then were hit by this.

And we're talking a psychological and cultural taboo here. As long as they didn't know, their relationship would be considered natural and healthy. Then, due to a dna test, it instantly becomes disgusting and unnatural?

It's sad indeed.

Yes indeed. It's the way the situation is portrayed biologically in todays society, that makes it out to be some unnatural thing. It's definetly not.

SpookyWriter
01-17-2008, 03:52 AM
How do you suppose Egypt survived so long with a tradition of sibling marriage?

KTC
01-17-2008, 04:03 AM
How do you suppose Egypt survived so long with a tradition of sibling marriage?

Lovely food and an inviting climate?

Foinah
01-17-2008, 04:11 AM
Hmmmm, let's see. I'd probably move to place where it wasn't taboo -- like Gresham? Just kidding. Local Portland joke.
The same joke applies to County Kerry in Ireland (the poor butt of many a joke back home), but I will refrain ;) out of sympathy for my Irish bretheren...

If we had kids it would be a much harder question. I do feel bad for those two. Imagine going through life with the moniker, "Sib diddler."



What's that old phrase : Nothin' says luvin' like yer first cousin?

Judg
01-17-2008, 04:55 AM
No bloodwork here in Canada. I'm guessing UK is the same...since they copy us on EVERYthing. There is a list of people you are not allowed to marry...but you don't have to put forth evidence to prove you're lying...if you're into marrying your sibling, that is.
KTC, that's in Ontario. In Saskatchewan at least, a medical examination is required before a marriage certificate is issued. This is another thing that falls under provincial, not federal jurisdiction.

And yet another case of Ontario taking itself for the whole country.

*ducks and runs*

Finni
01-17-2008, 04:58 AM
If this happened to me I would seek immediate therapy for the devastation and heartbreak, and I would find a monk to help empty my mind of all the sex we had.
And I would boil my body in bleach to get the 'ick' off.

Thank God my girlfriend is 3 months younger than I am...there is no way she could be my sister.

Silver King
01-17-2008, 05:01 AM
I suppose part of the decision to divorce would depend on how long they were married, and certainly how much they loved one another.

If I found out I was related to my wife, I don't think it would change how I feel about her. I love her too much, and we've been married too long, to let anything come between us. Even if she were my sister, and we didn't find out until recently, she would never feel like a sister because we had never known one another as siblings. She'd always be my wife, first and foremost.

I doubt that I'd go around announcing our discovery to anyone, and it would be best to keep it a secret between the two of us.

eldragon
01-17-2008, 05:04 AM
I don't know, but I have a friend who is gay, and has an identical gay twin.

I always kind of wondered if they .............

Shady Lane
01-17-2008, 05:08 AM
I don't know, but I have a friend who is gay, and has an identical gay twin.

I always kind of wondered if they .............

Twincest!!

Silver King
01-17-2008, 05:12 AM
I don't know, but I have a friend who is gay, and has an identical gay twin.

I always kind of wondered if they .............
The chances are most likely the same as heterosexual siblings. Some have and would, but most don't.

Devil Ledbetter
01-17-2008, 05:13 AM
Twincest!!Shady, you must put that in Singleton.:ROFL:

reigningcatsndogs
01-17-2008, 05:15 AM
KTC, that's in Ontario. In Saskatchewan at least, a medical examination is required before a marriage certificate is issued. This is another thing that falls under provincial, not federal jurisdiction.

And yet another case of Ontario taking itself for the whole country.

*ducks and runs*
No blood tests are required in Alberta, and it's been that way for over 25 years now. None required in Manitoba either, and when they did do blood tests, it was only to determine rH factor to make sure there would be no problems should the couple have a baby. They never tested to see if you were related, cause that would cost a fortune.

Finni
01-17-2008, 05:22 AM
I don't know, but I have a friend who is gay, and has an identical gay twin.

I always kind of wondered if they .............


Do you wonder the same thing when it is male/female twins and both happen to be straight? Or is it the fact that they are both gay that makes you think they are somehow different in terms of cultural norms and sex?

Gay people feel the same for their siblings as straight people ya know.

Finni
01-17-2008, 05:27 AM
The chances are most likely the same as heterosexual siblings. Some have and would, but most don't.

Chances are gay people and straight people only differ in what gender their mate is.

Silver King
01-17-2008, 05:33 AM
Chances are gay people and straight people only differ in what gender their mate is.
Chance are I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Could you elaborate, or should I just assume a note of sarcasm and leave it at that?

Shady Lane
01-17-2008, 06:05 AM
Shady, you must put that in Singleton.:ROFL:

I think it is in Singleton!

awww, it's not :(

I'll have to put it in once I stop convulsing at the very thought of that ms...

Unique
01-17-2008, 06:38 AM
Am I whack?

I'd keep him. But I'd make SURE we had no kids.

Now twenty years ago - I might not have said that.

Is that what you meant by age difference?

If I had grown up with my brother ... no way. And I can't explain the difference. Give me a few days to think about it.

ETA: oh, good. i'm not the only one.

Susie
01-17-2008, 06:46 AM
I'd say, "No wonder why I get along so well with Mr. Susie, bro/hubby. :)

Silver King
01-17-2008, 07:31 AM
Think about this for a moment: Say you met your twin for the first time. Wouldn't there be an instant attraction, one that you couldn't explain yet were drawn to from the sheer force of believing you had met your double without realizing that in fact, you had?

It's such a strange and interesting circumstance, and one that would make for a unique love story. In the end, though, my characters would end up together. I'm a sucker for happy endings. :)

Many years ago, I read a novel about a man who was reincarnated and ended up marrying his daughter without realizing what happened until later in the story. I'm too lazy to Google, but I'm pretty sure it was called, The Reincarnation of Peter Proud.

Bravo
01-17-2008, 07:58 AM
Yes indeed. It's the way the situation is portrayed biologically in todays society, that makes it out to be some unnatural thing. It's definetly not.

it definitely is actually.

even among animals, incest is incredibly rare.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 08:01 AM
Seriously, though, if I met someone who's just like me, I'd run away as far and as fast as possible. I am bad news.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 08:02 AM
it definitely is actually.

even among animals, incest is incredibly rare.

No it's not. Hamsters, guinea pigs and many rodents, for example, practice incest all the time. And if you separate the animals and then later group them together again, all bets are off. They WILL mate.

KTC
01-17-2008, 08:08 AM
Am I whack?

Yes. But lovely dawling, you're in faboo company. I'll sit and sip martinis with you in our matching adironacks any ole day you wish, you smashing whack sillypants, you.

Bravo
01-17-2008, 08:08 AM
No it's not. Hamsters and most rodents, for example, practice incest all the time.

what do you mean by "all the time"?

according to most scientists incest frequency in the animal kingdom is less than 1%.


eta:

here's one such study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4J8JVRW-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=794c9fc79220f244625bf7323b8756e0).

i'm sure there's tons more like that.

the number i've always heard is less than 1%.

Bravo
01-17-2008, 08:11 AM
And if you separate the animals and then later group them together again, all bets are off. They WILL mate.

maybe, maybe not (http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/arm046v1) (note the last sentence of the abstract).

but that's not what i was disputing, i was arguing against the idea that incest should be viewed as something that's natural and acceptable.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 08:11 AM
Study smudy. I have hamsters. Trust me, they will mate with their siblings and parents. All the time.

If you don't trust me. Breed a litter of hamsters. And see what happens.

All. The. Time.

(guinea pigs as well. If you don't separate the mother with the babies and the babies with the siblings in time, they WILL mate. I guarantee you.)


p.s. human sexuality is very complex. We can't just lump them with sheep or cows.

Bravo
01-17-2008, 08:12 AM
no wonder theyre so dumb.

Madison
01-17-2008, 08:40 AM
(back to the siblings thing) It'd be sort of like Oedipus, who married his mother (and killed his father)...but to his credit, he didn't know

Finni
01-17-2008, 09:01 AM
Chance are I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Could you elaborate, or should I just assume a note of sarcasm and leave it at that?


That was my attempt at agreeing with you while I was still confused by eldragon's post. Yes, there was sarcasm, but not directed at you, just at the situation of having to explain something obvious.

Joe270
01-17-2008, 09:08 AM
Didn't this actually happen in the UK? I thought I read a recent news article about this scenario. Twins separated at birth or something.

This is a story put out there by a guy trying to change the adoption secrecy laws in England. He has offered absolutely no verification of this supposed marriage.

It's worse than an urban myth, it is a lie to promote his agenda.

Fun to speculate about, yes. True? I seriously doubt it.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 09:11 AM
But you do have to wonder, how likely it is now that adoption and surrogacy are rather common....

benbradley
01-17-2008, 09:11 AM
I heard in the news decades ago of a similar situation of two people (at least one of them adopted at birth) getting married and it was later found they were brother and sister (I don't recall if they were twins). The doctor who found it out decided not to tell them, since it would be so emotionally disruptive to their lives. I believe this was on the national TV news (it would have been NBC Nightly News which I used to watch religiously), perhaps in the '70's or '80's.

No blood tests are required in Alberta, and it's been that way for over 25 years now. None required in Manitoba either, and when they did do blood tests, it was only to determine rH factor to make sure there would be no problems should the couple have a baby. They never tested to see if you were related, cause that would cost a fortune.
I'm not sure if it's a fortune, but that's what I was thinking, it would be expensive enough that it wouldn't be required. A few years ago I heard a paternity test (to determine if a man is the father of a child) costs about $600, but Google brings up many $99 tests, so maybe it IS reasonably affordable now.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 09:14 AM
So... another question RE: blood test.

Would you want to know?


Or should people do blood tests before they date each other? ;)

Silver King
01-17-2008, 09:20 AM
That was my attempt at agreeing with you while I was still confused by eldragon's post. Yes, there was sarcasm, but not directed at you, just at the situation of having to explain something obvious.
Thanks for clarifying your position. :)

Mom'sWrite
01-17-2008, 09:54 AM
I remember reading somewhere (Scientific American? National Geographic? Sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the source) that our closest primate cousin, the bonobo or pygmy chimp will initiate sexual intercourse with each other regardless of age, gender or parentage. Our closest cousins really dig mating with each other. Humans really dig mating with each other. I seriously doubt a societal construct against incest is enough to wipe out the impulse.

Paichka
01-17-2008, 10:23 AM
It's interesting that almost every culture in the world considers incest to be one of the worst taboos. Native Americans especially -- the Iroquoian tribes would kill those who had committed incest (even unknowingly) to assuage the anger of the gods.

I'm thinking...and the only society I can recall which did not have those kind of strict laws against incest was ancient Egypt. I could be wrong, I'm a physical anthropologist by training, not a cultural one.

Personally I think the reason the taboos exist is because OVERALL, close mating is bad for the gene pool. One or two closely related pairs can likely mate with little concern (unless they share alleles for some genetic disease) but close-mating is unhealthy for an entire population...not even necessarily because it results in a higher percentage of genetic diseases, but more because it would eventually cut down on genetic diversity. Populations which are too genetically similar are at a greater risk for extinction should the environment change -- it restricts the species' ability to adapt.

Intellectually, I don't see what the big deal is. My gut, however, finds the idea of mating with one's sibling a little ooky. ;)

Foinah
01-17-2008, 10:26 AM
It's interesting that almost every culture in the world considers incest to be one of the worst taboos. Native Americans especially -- the Iroquoian tribes would kill those who had committed incest (even unknowingly) to assuage the anger of the gods.

I'm thinking...and the only society I can recall which did not have those kind of strict laws against incest was ancient Egypt. I could be wrong, I'm a physical anthropologist by training, not a cultural one.

Personally I think the reason the taboos exist is because OVERALL, close mating is bad for the gene pool. One or two closely related pairs can likely mate with little concern (unless they share alleles for some genetic disease) but close-mating is unhealthy for an entire population...not even necessarily because it results in a higher percentage of genetic diseases, but more because it would eventually cut down on genetic diversity. Populations which are too genetically similar are at a greater risk for extinction should the environment change -- it restricts the species' ability to adapt.

Intellectually, I don't see what the big deal is. My gut, however, finds the idea of mating with one's sibling a little ooky. ;)

Wow, I like you. You had me with ooky! Smarty pants ;)

Finni
01-17-2008, 11:46 AM
Personally I think the reason the taboos exist is because OVERALL, close mating is bad for the gene pool. One or two closely related pairs can likely mate with little concern (unless they share alleles for some genetic disease) but close-mating is unhealthy for an entire population...not even necessarily because it results in a higher percentage of genetic diseases, but more because it would eventually cut down on genetic diversity. Populations which are too genetically similar are at a greater risk for extinction should the environment change -- it restricts the species' ability to adapt.

Intellectually, I don't see what the big deal is. My gut, however, finds the idea of mating with one's sibling a little ooky. ;)

If you know mating with very close relatives can cause low genetic diversity, which has major consequences to a population, why don't you "see what the big deal is" intellectually?

In ancient Rome the upper class Patricians married only with other upper class Patricians (not that many families held this title). It is believed this caused major problems in terms of infant mortality and developmental disability among this group. (I wish I could remember the source of this but I cannot remember what books or what professors spoke to me about this. I will try to remember and post it.) This is what happens after several hundred years of a few families inbreeding, can you imagine the consequences over time if they allowed siblings to mate? It would have been devastating. Its a good thing they eventually allowed intermarriage with the Plebs (non-patricians).

Knowing this, and knowing what happens when a population doesn't have genetic diversity, I cannot say intellectually I don't see anything wrong with close relatives breeding.

JoNightshade
01-17-2008, 12:24 PM
Knowing this, and knowing what happens when a population doesn't have genetic diversity, I cannot say intellectually I don't see anything wrong with close relatives breeding.

There's a big difference between one isolated case... and doing it regularly. One incident in ten thousand or even a thousand isn't going to muck up the gene pool. Doing it over and over again WILL.

I did a little research this afternoon. :) Apparently many populations in history have practiced incest, willingly or not. It often happens in close, isolated groups. Incidents I read about included Samaritans, Egyptians, small African tribes (several of which practice father-daughter marriage), and of course the entire European royalty, most notably the Hapsburg line.

The Hapsburgs are what happen when excessive inbreeding is practiced. The last of the Hapsburgs (Charles something of Spain) was mentally retarded and physically deformed. This wasn't just because his parents were brother and sister (they weren't). This was because multiple branches of his family had intermarried multiple times, over and over. And even then he was STILL allowed to rule an entire kingdom (sort of).

So anyway, my conclusion is that one incident here and there does not a genetic disaster make. Even if it was as socially acceptable as marrying a complete stranger, it probably wouldn't happen enough to create a problem.

Paichka
01-17-2008, 01:51 PM
Finni,

Perdoname, I should've spoken more clearly. I find the concept of incest and close breeding ooky (I thought that bit was clear enough?). And in the case the OP is talking about, where a brother and sister married...yeeeargh. I can't really wrap my mind around it.

Jo said it better than I could have. Isolated cases of near-relatives breeding doesn't perturb me as an intellectual exercise. We do it in animals all the time, to selectively breed traits that we find desirable (dogs, horses, etc). It's when you don't have a large enough population to dilute the gene pool that you begin to run into problems...when it's done regularly over a long period of time. You've only to look at the problems with purebred dogs to see the issues that can crop up -- hip dysplasia in German Shepherds, blindness in Dalmatians, and so on. In an isolated case, it's not going to do any lasting harm to the gene pool, again, as long as the two parents don't share any recessive alleles that may combine to bad effect in their offspring.

I didn't mean to imply that I think brothers and sister should start marrying with abandon. Sorry if that's how you took it. :)

Shweta
01-17-2008, 02:08 PM
Thank the gods I don't have to worry about this one. My husband and I haven't shared ancestors for a long long time -- yay for cross-cultural matches (plus when we hold hands, the brown and white skin together make such pretty contrasts).


FWIW, The Kid was an anthro minor quite recently, and learned that the "truism" of genetic mutation from makin' babies with close relatives is not nearly as true as science long thought.

As Paichka said, the problem is not that mutation increases, but if they're already carrying a problematic allele in that bloodline, it's more likely they share it with a close relative than a stranger.


Personally I think the reason the taboos exist is because OVERALL, close mating is bad for the gene pool. One or two closely related pairs can likely mate with little concern (unless they share alleles for some genetic disease) but close-mating is unhealthy for an entire population...not even necessarily because it results in a higher percentage of genetic diseases, but more because it would eventually cut down on genetic diversity. Populations which are too genetically similar are at a greater risk for extinction should the environment change -- it restricts the species' ability to adapt.

I agree, and think the real kicker is when it happens for multiple generations in a row. Thus the social taboo factor -- if the taboo is not there, one would see families inbreeding for generations, if only to keep their property/inheritances within the family. With bad results.


Intellectually, I don't see what the big deal is. My gut, however, finds the idea of mating with one's sibling a little ooky. ;)

Ditto. I have an aunt (well, my father's cousin) who married her cousin (not my father, thankfully). The only real thing there is to show for it is that the kids' eyes are blue. But it's still, well, ooky.

Finni
01-17-2008, 02:56 PM
Clearly we are all misunderstanding each other.

I wasn't implying that YOU were implying that people should start sleeping with siblings, and I did get that you found it 'ooky.'

'ooky' to me sounds like an emotional response, so I got that you found it disturbing enough to not agree with it in some type of way other than a truly logical way.

I was only addressing the 'intellectual' part of your comment. I was wondering why you don't see it as a big deal in a logic-based, intellectual sense. I didn't mean for it to sound like an attack or an accusation of some kind, and if that is how you took it I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am only looking for a friendly discussion about how we make opinions based on what we know.

KTC
01-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Or should people do blood tests before they date each other? ;)

Yes. They should stab each others' eyes out with a blunt spoon. If the spilled blood tastes familiar they should go their separate ways.

Robert Toy
01-17-2008, 04:17 PM
I was under the impression that pre-marriage blood testing, which has been going on forever was for disease detection. DNA testing is very recent and time consuming. The standard blood test will not determine lineage.

kalel32
01-17-2008, 05:36 PM
What if your sibling husband was Orlando Bloom?

eldragon
01-17-2008, 06:07 PM
Do you wonder the same thing when it is male/female twins and both happen to be straight? Or is it the fact that they are both gay that makes you think they are somehow different in terms of cultural norms and sex?

Gay people feel the same for their siblings as straight people ya know.

There is no such thing as male/female identical twins, for starters.

They are sister and brother, that's all.

But having an identical twin, and you are both gay - would be something like making love to yourself, no?

Nevermind the fact that they are black and date only black men. And since I know them quite well, and they confide in me, I can say that they are quite active sexually. One brother told me he "lives with a hard-on."

eldragon
01-17-2008, 06:13 PM
That was my attempt at agreeing with you while I was still confused by eldragon's post. Yes, there was sarcasm, but not directed at you, just at the situation of having to explain something obvious.

It's not obvious. Especially not when I posted regarding specific brothers who are so sexually inclined.


One brother told me that he often entertains straight men, and that he can lure them away from their female companions with his sexual talents.


So no, it's not obvious.

kalel32
01-17-2008, 06:21 PM
So disturbing.

maestrowork
01-17-2008, 06:27 PM
Thank the gods I don't have to worry about this one. My husband and I haven't shared ancestors for a long long time -- yay for cross-cultural matches (plus when we hold hands, the brown and white skin together make such pretty contrasts).

Maybe that's why I like to date non-Asians. Take the guessing game out. Besides, we Asians all look alike -- it's really kind of like dating your own sister sometimes. Ooky.

K1P1
01-17-2008, 06:35 PM
Since the reason for marriage existing at all is property rights and the children's legitimacy (i.e., who legally inherits the property), I think that the traditional restrictions against marriage to close relatives relate to property. On the one hand, you want to keep the wealth in the family, so it makes sense to marry someone you're related to. On the other hand, you want to form alliances with other powerful families/tribes and gain access to their wealth, so it makes sense to marry outside your immediate family. As to sons marrying mothers, we all know what problems THAT causes.

Lyra Jean
01-17-2008, 07:06 PM
Thanks for clearing up the blood test question. I knew it was for diseases but I also thought it was for familial relationships as well.

I was attracted to my step-brother at one point. But it was weird and I think it was because he defended me from his mother.

What if it was your cousin and you didn't know. Like your first cousin. Wasn't this scenario used in one of Orson Scott Card's Ender's series book? They found out they couldn't marry because they were half-siblings?