- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Of course, now we know that inbreeding is very harmful so there's a further scientific reason not to engage in incestuous behavior.
I would participate in the poll but I don't know what "distact" is.
I would participate in the poll but I don't know what "distact" is.
You suck for making me think of incest right now.
*vomit*
BOOOOOO
Incestuous relationships were extremely common in Ancient Egypt and in Europe among the monarchs. Though in Europe is was generally cousins.
That's the thing. There's no higher risk of having birth defects in children conceived between first cousins than there is in a woman having her first child after the age of forty. The risk of birth defects simply does not justify the primal disgust that the violation of the incest taboo entails.
Damn, I actually hadn't read this post before making my post about the heightened risk of birth defects for children of older mothers. You just had to beat me to it.That's the thing. There's no higher risk of having birth defects in children conceived between first cousins than there is in a woman having her first child after the age of forty.
Incestuous relationships were extremely common in Ancient Egypt and in Europe among the monarchs. Though in Europe is was generally cousins.
I don't think incest is actually illegal in most- if any- places in the US, as long as both parties are of age and consenting.
I think close relatives just aren't allowed to be legally married.
Depends on how close you're talking about. And, the only reason people may not find their close relatives sexually appealing is because they're told they shouldn't. If they didn't KNOW they were close relatives, they most certainly could/would. So, it's not a biological or "unnatural" thing at all. It's a social thing.It is not an example of eugenics in culture. Incest is unnatural as far as Im led to believe as family members generally are not sexually attracted to each other. I dont think it qualifies.
Oedipus style?
I wonder if Immediate family that had never met each other would be sexually attracted to each other. Without some sort of evidence one way or the other I wouldn't know. I assume they wouldn't be.
Oedipus style?
I wonder if Immediate family that had never met each other would be sexually attracted to each other. Without some sort of evidence one way or the other I wouldn't know. I assume they wouldn't be.
It is not an example of eugenics in culture. Incest is unnatural as far as Im led to believe as family members generally are not sexually attracted to each other. I dont think it qualifies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?