Incest Game's Son

Incest Game's Son
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article has more focus on incest as taboo. It should also focus on legal validity of incest marriages and the legal consequences for the children born out of such marriages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.77.130 ( talk ) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The BCA section, more specifically the "lead" 3-level heading, seemed rather suspect - popular sources, lots of unnecessary footnoting, and "case studies" (more accurately, news stories). I've done a pretty extensive trim and rewrote some sections, what do others think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple / complex 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I've merged the archives from 6 into 2, and added material from this talk page. They were about 60k apiece, and standard is usually 250-260K. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple / complex 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The disambiguation sentence now says:
"This article is about illegal sexual contact between family members. For biological aspects, see inbreeding. For all other uses, see Incest (disambiguation)."

I really think the word "illegal" should be removed, since incest is not universally illegal, nor is it actually defined as illegal, there's nothing in the word implying illegality. Dex Stewart ( talk ) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

After some thinking I decided that I'm probably right, so I decided to go and edit the sentence myself, but then saw this note in the source text:

"Incest is a term relative to a culture. If the relationship between two people is not illegal or unacceptable in that culture, then it is not incest. Do not alter the lead of this article to say it's "sometimes" illegal or taboo, because this is implied already by the wording of the first paragraph."

I disagree with this, because I still believe that the dennotation "incest" does not imply illegality. I then thought that wikipedia is based on sources, so I decided to try and find some. I googled the word dictionary, took the first three results and typed in "incest". Here's what I got:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incest
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define_b.asp?key=39842&dict=CALD
http://www.yourdictionary.com/incest
In all three dictionaries the primary definition of the word does not imply illegality. It may say that marriage between the two is illegal, or it may say in another definition that intercourse itself is illegal, but the primary definitions support my arguments. I will not change it for now, but I really think it should be changed. Dex Stewart ( talk ) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I changed it. There is no need to repeat that it is usually taboo/illegal in the disambiguation sentence. -- George ( talk ) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

"Although it is seen by some as a victimless crime" .____. well DOI, I mean who on earth is the victim in consensual adult incest? and no, don't say the children as that's not part of incest itself it is incestual reproduction not intercourse itself... 92.20.231.173 ( talk ) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I couldn't find in this article why incest is bad except when it's rape or results in inbreeding. Is incest bad when two consenting adults use contraceptives? Is incest considered to be so bad because of the taboo and inbreeding (and possibly the abasement/trauma it would give the family) or are there any other reasons? Would a gay incestuous relationship be bad, since it does not result in an offspring? I think this article needs a "problems with incest" section to clear this up -- BiT ( talk ) 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

There was a recent complete rewrite of the section on Hinduism's view on incest. I know very little about Hinduism in general, but the new version seems suspicious. For one, it seems to refer to culture in India in a practicing fashion rather than actual religious teachings. Please if you are knowledgeable of Hinduism, can you look this over and/or find sources? Legitimus ( talk ) 12:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Am i dumb, or there is no link to Incest in Popular Culture page from this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.180.36 ( talk ) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Remember kids, as Wikipedia is not censored .. how about some images to help demonstrate this article? *satire Saveourcity ( talk ) 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

“Many jurisdictions in the United States and the Netherlands follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in some countries in the east, eastern Europe and some other places, the marriage between first cousins is allowed. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins particularly popular.” That make it sound like it is illegal in most of the word, were as it is not. How about we put it as:

“Many jurisdictions in the United States and the Netherlands follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in Australia, Canada, Mexico and most countries of Europe, Asia and Africa marriage between first cousins is allowed. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins particularly popular.”-- Lord Don-Jam ( talk ) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

"Marriages and sexual relationships between cousins are viewed differently in many cultures, in both law and religion. In most countries, marriage between cousins is legal, though some religious and cultural restrictions exist in these same nations. Some jurisdictions, notably many in the United States follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in Australia, Canada, Mexico and most countries of Europe, Asia and Africa marriage between first cousins is legal. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins being particularly common. Communities such as the Dhond of Pakistan clearly prefer marriages between cousins as they ensure purity of the descent line, provide intimate knowledge of the spouses, and ensure that patrimony will not pass into the hands of "outsiders". No nation today prohibits second cousin marriage."?-- Lord Don-Jam ( talk ) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

It might be of some value if the article could try to present sources on how often sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted through incest. In particular, I was considering the likelihood that deadly illnesses such as AIDS could be transmitted to children in the case where both parents commonly exchange needles and engage in same-sex relations. ADM ( talk ) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Reply [ reply ]

A recent entry has been added about the marriages of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. There is a possibily this is inappropriate for this article. These relationships are consanguineous and cousin couples , but do they count as incest ? As I frequently have to hammer into the ignorant, consanguineous does not automatically equal incest. It is only incest of it is illegal or otherwise forbidden by religious or social custom. I do not know enough about the details of these marriages to comment. If no compelling reply is received in a few days, I will remove it in the interest of erring on the side of caution. Legitimus ( talk ) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Why is it, that in USA the highest incest incidents are among ethnic English population
followed by Hispanic population. As English, we were able to keep this a secret here more so than Hispanics.
I wonder if this is an open issue in United Kingdom and if there is genetic connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.177.95 ( talk ) 08:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The article say: "One of the glaringly obvious features is that there is not a prohibition against father-daughter sexual activity; this was noticed even in classical times, and the Talmud claims it is missing from the Torah because it was too obvious to need mentioning." There IS a ban in the Bible, Leviticus 18:17 say: "The nakedness of a women and her daughter you must not lay bare." This cover both a man Blood daughter and Step-daughter.-- Lord Don-Jam ( talk ) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

At the stared it say: "Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages. However, in some societies, such as that of Ancient Egypt, brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son relations were practiced among royalty." That makes it look like it was only among royalty but down in History under Etymology it say: “It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages were widespread at least during the Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history.” So I think we shod add "and was later adopted by commoners." to the end. -- Lord Don-Jam ( talk ) 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

This section was removed March 28 2008, by Jack-A-Roe, He said he was moving this section to the inbreeding article, but it looks like it was just erased and not moved. I think it is useful scientific information for the incest and the inbreeding article, which both seem a bit lacking compared to the past information they have contained.. so I am posting it here, if anyone is interested to edit/add it back into the article.
cheers,
Jamie

04:47, 28 March 2008 Jack-A-Roe (talk | contribs) (41,497 bytes) (→Hypothesis of biological basis: inbreeding is not incest; this information does not mention incest - moving the text to to the inbreeding article) (undo)

Some researchers hypothesize that humans have a kin recognition ability that functions in part to enable incest avoidance between close relatives, thereby protecting the gene pool of the family or tribe from excessive damage by inbreeding; and, that this kin recognition system may form a biological basis for social and psychological prohibitions against incest. [15]

Presumably because of the genetic harm done, animals inbreed only in extremely unusual circumstances: major population bottlenecks and forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics.

Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity (the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair). This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing but, when homozygous, can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a nearly 100% chance of having hemophilia.

Leavitt has argued that inbreeding in small populations can have long-term positive effects: "small inbreeding populations, while initially increasing their chances for harmful homozygotic recessive pairings on a locus, will quickly eliminate such genes from their breeding pools, thus reducing their genetic loads" (Leavitt, 1990, p. 974). However, other specialists have argued that these positive long-term effects of inbreeding are almost always unrealized because the short-term fitness depression is enough for selection to discourage it. In order for such a "purification" to work, the offspring of close mate pairings must be either homozygous-dominant (completely free of bad genes) or -recessive (will die before reproducing). If there are heterozygous offspring, they will be able to transmit the defective genes without themselves feeling any effects. This model does not account for multiple deleterious recessives (most people have more than one) and multi-locus gene linkages. The introduction of mutations negates the weeding out of bad genes, and evidence exists that homozygous individuals are often more at risk to pathogenic predation. Because of these complications, it is extremely difficult to overcome the initial spike in fitness penalties incurred by inbreeding (Moore, 1992; Uhlmann, 1992).

Recent research shows that couples consisting of third cousins actually have the highest level of reproductive success: "The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who mated with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children."[16] It is hypothesized that third-cousin couples may represent a "point of balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding and outbreeding."

The genetic risks of inbreeding are often overstated. "[F]irst cousins are third-degree relatives, uncle/niece are second-degree, and sibling/sibling or parent/child are first-degree. 'Uncle/niece risk is somewhat higher than first-cousin risk, which is between 1.7% to 2.8% above the background risk,' said [Robin] Bennett [manager of the Genetic Medicine Clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center]. 'Risk in first-degree relations is 7% to 31% - based on limited studies,' she said. Following Bennett's reasoning, the genetic risk of morbidity (the relative incidence of disease) in uncle/niece relationships is somewhere between 2.8% and 7% above the risk of unrelated couples."[17] This risk is lower than the risk associated with becoming a mother when at or over the age of 47, something that can be legally done everywhere.[18]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk ) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I think this inbreeding information definitely can have a place in the incest article as it directly deals with the theoretical background of common issues around incest, for example one of the primary consequences of incest, inbreeding, and gives useful information on the genetic consequences of inbreeding, ie. increased homozygosity. Please leave it on this talk page so more people can read it and decide if it is valid info to include in the main article.
cheers,
Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk ) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I just wanted to thank whoever has written the section on Buddhism . I perhaps should go through history and find that person and give praise on the user's talk page, but i'm a bit lazy right now. It's a very clear and concise description and is written exactly as it should be. Beta M ( talk ) 07:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The USA Today article cited for the information on Catholic authorization of first cousins being allowed to marry is in absolute error. Catholic practice is governed by the Code of Canon Law ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM ) and impediments are discussed in the title on marriage, canons on diriment impediments ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM ) and impediments in general ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM ). Translated from legalese to English, Catholics related in any manner of ancestor-descendant relationship, be it biological, adoptive, step, or otherwise, may never marry. Catholics related in the collateral lines closer than fourth cousins are not free to marry each other without dispensation. Dispensations may be granted in individual circumstances at the discretion of the local bishop for second and third cousins to marry. Such dispensations are never granted by any authority for first cousins, nor is such a sin absolved except if one of the spouses is on their deathbed and requires final absolution! This applies to the natural line, the adoptive line, and the lines of affinity in varying degrees. Where the USA Today author got information to the contrary is debatable. The Code was promulgated in 1983 and is still binding. Genehisthome ( talk ) 03:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Pyromania1968 has issues with the neutrality of the article and the definition of incest, based on recent edits. Hopefully we can start a discussion of the issue of the article's POV/neutrality status here... Valrith ( talk ) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I agree with neutrality dispute, although the overall article may seem balanced to some, each section needs balance. maybe more correlation to Consanguinity. Maybe a sociological subsection to each category. Honestly i think it's time for a new word altogether and less about science, if we were talking about poetry, no one would mind references to emotion, not using it here indicates fear and creates more misunderstanding. How many times can the word abuse be used when we are talking about family without the word love.( Designanddraft ( talk ) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)) Reply [ reply ]

although it is seen by some as a victimless crime.[11][12]

There was a section on scientific reasons for incest avoidance. Unfortunately, this section provided a highly incomplete and biased view. It is true that there is an incest taboo in virtually every society. Wikipedia already has a pretty good article on that topic, and that article has a fully sourced discussion of the full range of different theories as to why. There is no point in repeating it here; the link is sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

The following paragraph from the lead needs attention. It contains too many footnotes for an overview in the lead, and many of them are incompletely formatted with no links and no page numbers, therefore difficult to check. I'm not saying that the text is wrong, just that there are questions about the content and sources that need to be resolved. I started to work on it and updated some of the text, found the Finkelhor source and added the ISBN and page #, but I didn't have time to go through them all. The sources should be pruned to only what is needed, and the text needs to be verified that it is correctly presenting what's in the sources. Some of it may be excessively detailed and better moved into one of the article sections. I'm posting this here to so interested editors can review and update this part of the lead. Thanks. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk ) 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Father-daughter incest was for many years the most commonly reported and studied form of incest. [1] More recently, studies have suggested that sibling incest, particularly older brothers abusing younger siblings, is the most common form of incest [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Some studies suggest that adolescent perpetrators of sibling incest abuse younger victims, their abuse occurs over a lengthier period, and they use violence more frequently and severely than adult perpetrators; [12] and that sibling incest has a higher rate of penetrative acts than father or stepfather inces
Wild Outdoor
Mature Toyboy
Video Young Boys Sex

Incest Game's Son

Report Page