Incest Has
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Incest Has
Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable.
Dashboard
Publications
Account settings
Log out
Advanced
Clipboard
Format
Abstract
PubMed
PMID
Format:
Summary (text)
PubMed
PMID
Abstract (text)
CSV
Subject:
1 selected item: 6839266 - PubMed
Format:
Summary
Summary (text)
Abstract
Abstract (text)
Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection
Name must be less than 100 characters
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again
Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again
Would you like email updates of new search results?
Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons
Yes
No
Frequency:
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Which day?
The first Sunday
The first Monday
The first Tuesday
The first Wednesday
The first Thursday
The first Friday
The first Saturday
The first day
The first weekday
Which day?
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Report format:
Summary
Summary (text)
Abstract
Abstract (text)
PubMed
Send at most:
1 item
5 items
10 items
20 items
50 items
100 items
200 items
Send even when there aren't any new results
Number of items displayed:
5
10
15
20
50
100
Page navigation
Title & authors
Abstract
Similar articles
Cited by
MeSH terms
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
J Henderson .
Can J Psychiatry .
1983 Feb .
Format
Abstract
PubMed
PMID
Denic S, Nicholls MG.
Denic S, et al.
Med Hypotheses. 2006;66(1):52-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.08.015. Epub 2005 Sep 28.
Med Hypotheses. 2006.
PMID: 16198502
Brown S.
Brown S.
Child Welfare. 1979 Jul-Aug;58(7):435-42.
Child Welfare. 1979.
PMID: 477457
Wells LA.
Wells LA.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1981 May;42(5):197-202.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1981.
PMID: 7217024
Immerman RS, Mackey WC.
Immerman RS, et al.
J Genet Psychol. 1997 Jun;158(2):151-64. doi: 10.1080/00221329709596658.
J Genet Psychol. 1997.
PMID: 9168585
Review.
Swanson L, Biaggio MK.
Swanson L, et al.
Am J Psychiatry. 1985 Jun;142(6):667-74. doi: 10.1176/ajp.142.6.667.
Am J Psychiatry. 1985.
PMID: 3890565
Review.
Ginsburg H, Wright LS, Harrell PM, Hill DW.
Ginsburg H, et al.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1989 Fall;20(1):59-71. doi: 10.1007/BF00706958.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1989.
PMID: 2766875
Grayston AD, De Luca RV, Boyes DA.
Grayston AD, et al.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1992 Summer;22(4):277-86. doi: 10.1007/BF00707669.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1992.
PMID: 1526193
Related information
MedGen
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Atypon
Format:
AMA
APA
MLA
NLM
Send To
Clipboard
Email
Save
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation Manager
[x]
NLM
NIH
HHS
USA.gov
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before
sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal
government site.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the
official website and that any information you provide is encrypted
and transmitted securely.
Classically, incest has been considered from both a psychological and sociological point of view to have harmful consequences. Genetic research, though by no means lacking controversy of its own, generally supports the notion that inbreeding has untoward genetic consequences. The psychodynamics of all three parties to father-daughter incest seem to indicate that people who become involved in incestuous behaviour are often psychologically damaged before the fact, so that if they show subsequent evidence of psychological impairment the incestuous behaviour can be as plausibly viewed as a dysfunctional attempt at solving problems as it can a cause of subsequent psychopathology. Girls involved in the father-daughter incest present in one of half a dozen frequent clinical syndromes. The presentation is influenced by the degree to which the girl may have participated in ongoing incestuous behaviour as opposed to being the presumed victim of an older adult's coercive actions or her own temporary suspension of a behavioural taboo. Research is inconclusive as to the psychological harmfulness of incestuous behaviour, and evidence is reviewed on both sides of this complicated and controversial question. Quite apart from the general issue of the harmfulness of incest, a number of indicators can be derived from the nature of the incestuous episode and the early response to therapeutic assessment which aid in the clinical forecasting of probable outcome.
MeSH
PMC
Bookshelf
Disclaimer
Help
Accessibility
Careers
Therapists
:
Login
|
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
Key points
Humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest.
Anti-incest mechanisms guard against the high chance that one's offspring from such an encounter will be born with a serious birth defect.
The argument to deny abortion even in cases of first-degree relative incest to protect the sanctity of life is an example of foolish consistency.
Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today
Get Help
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Members
Login
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
The question is not whether you’ll change; you will. Research clearly shows that everyone’s personality traits shift over the years, often for the better. But who we end up becoming and how much we like that person are more in our control than we tend to think they are.
Posted October 11, 2012
|
Reviewed by Lybi Ma
Mr. James Russell of Cashiers, North Carolina, recently justified meat-eating in the pages of Asheville Citizen-Times by arguing that humans are biologically classified as carnivores. His reasoning was simple. The consumption of animal flesh is morally right because it is natural.
Unfortunately, Mr. Russell got his facts wrong. Zoologists place humans in the order Primate (family Hominidea ), not in the order Carnivora . Furthermore, like rats, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. But more troubling is Mr. Russell’s belief that humans should look to nature for moral guidance. He justifies meat-eating in humans on the grounds that other animals eat one another. I suspect, however, that he does not approve of gang rape, adultery , cannibalism, and the consumption of feces, all of which are practiced in nature by our four-legged brethren. While moral codes exist in other species, humans have the capacity—and, indeed, the responsibility—to operate on a higher ethical plane.
On matters of morality , I generally agree with Katherine Hepburn who quipped to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen , "Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above." There is, however, an exception to my contention that humans should not turn to nature for moral guidance. It is the rule that says: “Don’t have sex with first-degree relatives.” First-degree relatives are the individuals you share 50 percent of your genes with—your parents, children, and siblings. Indeed, non-human animals have evolved a host of strategies to prevent incest ( here ). Even plants possess anti-incest mechanisms ( here ).
As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science , humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with mom or dad or bro or sis is upsetting to most people. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy ( here ).
This raises an interesting question: Just what’s so bad about incest? Sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross. But why? Some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. This explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees ( here ). Second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.
Why should mechanisms for avoiding incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? The answer is simple. The problem with having sex with close relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect. Take the results:
Percent of children with severe birth defects.
Source: A study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first-degree relatives. Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent mildly impaired mentally. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group—the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers’ relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect (Figure 1).
A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) ( here ). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first-degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first-degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect, or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent.
The profound negative effects of incest on unborn children raise the issues of moral consistency and of abortion politics . I understand the pro-life argument. If you believe that human life begins at the moment sperm meets egg, it is perfectly logical to oppose abortion. But at what point do reasonable people temper logical consistency with compassion and common sense?
During the 2012 Republican Party convention in Tampa, the Platform Committee struggled with an aspect of the argument against legal abortion . Just about everyone on the committee agreed that abortion should be banned. But committee
Cute Young Couple Sex
Vrm Spread Spectrum
Public Agent Sex Video