Taboos

[Pinkie-Dawn]

There's a scientific reason as to why marriage between first cousins is taboo. Constant in-breeding results in birth defects for their children.

 

[Esper]

There's a scientific reason as to why marriage between first cousins is taboo. Constant in-breeding results in birth defects for their children.

I think the growing acceptance of same-sex couples and couples who don't want to or can't have children will make this taboo less of a problem for people as time goes on. Besides, it's a little worrisome to say people shouldn't marry because of their genetics. Not the least for privacy reasons, and for other troubling implications i.e. eugenics.

 

[Kanzler]

I think the growing acceptance of same-sex couples and couples who don't want to or can't have children will make this taboo less of a problem for people as time goes on. Besides, it's a little worrisome to say people shouldn't marry because of their genetics. Not the least for privacy reasons, and for other troubling implications i.e. eugenics.

I don't think that's worrisome at all. Discouraging close relatives from having children for the sake of reducing the incidence of recessive diseases and the suffering that comes with that doesn't lead to eugenics. Eugenics is about manipulating human reproduction to "improve" the genetic features of a population and suggests that certain groups are superior and inferior to one another, but I don't see how preventing disease would slide to oppression.

 

[Melody]

I don't think that's worrisome at all. Discouraging close relatives from having children for the sake of reducing the incidence of recessive diseases and the suffering that comes with that doesn't lead to eugenics. Eugenics is about manipulating human reproduction to "improve" the genetic features of a population and suggests that certain groups are superior and inferior to one another, but I don't see how preventing disease would slide to oppression.

I do think that the taboo could be adjusted to result in the same end. Rather than considering it taboo for first cousins to marry; just consider it taboo for them to procreate a child, but not for them to adopt children. With a little bit of proactive education we can clarify and refine such a taboo to achieve its proper intended goal.

 

[Nagi]

For example, I'm Dutch and the Netherlands is known as a very tolerant country. This is especially true when compared to more conservative societies, like the US. Things that are considered controversial in the US are seen as completely normal here; for example, the use of the word '******' (neger) in Dutch. It's the most normal thing here, yet I'm pretty sure the word will get censored here. In fact, a prominent Dutch newspaper recently used the word, and was heavily criticised for it by the New York Times.
Let me know of your country's taboos down below!
EDIT: Yeah so it did get censored. For clarifactions, I meant the n-word.

I find that rather strange, since the word neger is considered offensive in German and in all Scandinavian languages. (A lot of Eastern European languages still use the word, though.) The French cognate nègre is also considered offensive, as is the feminine négresse.

just to rectify, 'neger' is indeed the Dutch version of this word, but it is in no way considered okay, and certainly not normal to use. i have not heard of the instance in which the word was mentioned by a prominent newspaper either, but i can understand the criticism. conversely, a chocolate-y snack that used to be called 'negerzoen' ('negro's kiss') was in fact renamed because of racism complaints. admittedly the word may not have as strongly a negative connotation here as it does in the US, but it's not something you should go around saying in public. and yes, i am Dutch as well.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I do think that the taboo could be adjusted to result in the same end. Rather than considering it taboo for first cousins to marry; just consider it taboo for them to procreate a child, but not for them to adopt children. With a little bit of proactive education we can clarify and refine such a taboo to achieve its proper intended goal.

But then you have a problem of wanting them to procreate a child in order to keep their family name/bloodline from going extinct, so long as it's not a close relative you're having a family with, so adoption might as well be the new taboo in our society.

 

[Kanzler]

Adoption isn't taboo and never has been.

 

[Esper]

I don't think that's worrisome at all. Discouraging close relatives from having children for the sake of reducing the incidence of recessive diseases and the suffering that comes with that doesn't lead to eugenics. Eugenics is about manipulating human reproduction to "improve" the genetic features of a population and suggests that certain groups are superior and inferior to one another, but I don't see how preventing disease would slide to oppression.

With having children, yes, it should be a consideration, but not with just marriage. And shouldn't it be a consideration for the parents and the doctors and no one else? I mean, I get the idea that you don't want to burden children or anyone with unnecessary suffering, but that gets to the idea of what is considered suffering. Some people would say that having Asperger's or autism is suffering and others (particularly, usually people with Asperger's or autism) would say that it's part of who they are and that it's just different and that the suffering is only other people being mean, etc. So what I'm getting at is, where would one draw the line on what is suffering and what is not? And where would it be appropriate to discourage people from having kids?

Adoption isn't taboo and never has been.

It can be, sort of, with some cultures/places/etc. Like when gay people want to adopt or single people want to adopt there can be negative reactions and resistance from people/institutions, but I guess that's more of there being taboos against gay people and single parents as a whole.

 

[Melody]

With having children, yes, it should be a consideration, but not with just marriage. And shouldn't it be a consideration for the parents and the doctors and no one else? I mean, I get the idea that you don't want to burden children or anyone with unnecessary suffering, but that gets to the idea of what is considered suffering. Some people would say that having Asperger's or autism is suffering and others (particularly, usually people with Asperger's or autism) would say that it's part of who they are and that it's just different and that the suffering is only other people being mean, etc. So what I'm getting at is, where would one draw the line on what is suffering and what is not? And where would it be appropriate to discourage people from having kids?


It can be, sort of, with some cultures/places/etc. Like when gay people want to adopt or single people want to adopt there can be negative reactions and resistance from people/institutions, but I guess that's more of there being taboos against gay people and single parents as a whole.

Generally speaking though, we should only consider it taboo for first cousins to create new children. I see no reason to prevent them from being wed, so long as they understand that they are responsible if they defy convention and risk creating a new child who could bear genetic defects. That said plenty of cases exist where first cousins DO end up being wed because they didn't know who their family members were. These don't end in calamity usually, and if the child is cared for well, who cares if they may have a genetic defect or two?

 

[zakisrage]

Generally speaking though, we should only consider it taboo for first cousins to create new children. I see no reason to prevent them from being wed, so long as they understand that they are responsible if they defy convention and risk creating a new child who could bear genetic defects. That said plenty of cases exist where first cousins DO end up being wed because they didn't know who their family members were. These don't end in calamity usually, and if the child is cared for well, who cares if they may have a genetic defect or two?

It's actually not guaranteed that children of first cousins will have genetic defects. It just makes it more likely. My aunt's kids don't have any genetic defects as far as I know.

The US isn't the only country to stigmatise first cousin marriage. It's also traditionally taboo in China, Korea, parts of India (however, Indian Muslims do practice first cousin marriage), and parts of Africa (such as Ethiopia, where even many of the Muslims avoid it).

I know in most Muslim countries, it's taboo for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, but a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. (Islam is passed down through the father, and the kids of an intermarriage are expected to be raised Muslim.) Both men and women are forbidden to marry Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, agnostics, or atheists.

Also, giving a Muslim child a European name is generally frowned upon, although it's common for non-Arab Muslims to use names from their own culture (like how a lot of Iranian Muslims give their kids Persian names). Some Muslims who grew up in the Soviet Union or Communist Bloc countries in Eastern Europe have European names because they weren't allowed to use Muslim names, although now that Communism is gone from that part of the world a lot of them are using Muslim names again.

 

[twocows]

Ethics is supposed to dictate what sorts of actions are tolerable or not. I think the idea of taboos is pointless and just distracts us from the core question of moral standing. Either something's morally wrong or it's not morally wrong. We don't need taboos to tell us that.

There's a scientific reason as to why marriage between first cousins is taboo. Constant in-breeding results in birth defects for their children.

A piss-poor excuse for a meaningless taboo.

The question of incest is a question of several separate but often related things:
1. Is it tolerable for related individuals to love each other romantically?
2. Is it tolerable for related individuals to engage in sexual behavior?
3. Is it tolerable for related individuals to have children?

The "scientific reason" only speaks to the third and yet it's used as an excuse to forbid the first two. This makes no sense. While child-rearing is often a natural extension of the first two, that doesn't have to be the case because they're separate things. A man can marry a barren woman or even another man (as of a few months ago). Such relationships are fine, are they not? So why is it illegal for a person to romantically love another family member or even marry them? And sex... people use birth control all the time. While the biological reason for sex is reproduction, in this age it's more common for sex not to produce offspring than for it to do so, mainly because we try to circumvent that. And again, homosexual sexual behavior is inherently incapable of conceiving, too. So why are those things tolerable but sexual behavior between related individuals not tolerable in today's society? The logic behind this makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, speaking specifically to the third point, there was a study done some half a century ago (since discredited, I believe) that established a nontrivial correlation between certain kinds of birth defects and children of incest. Putting aside my concerns about the validity of this research, let's just assume it's true. And while we're at it, let's go even more crazy with our assumptions, let's assume that instead of a mildly increased risk of birth defects, the child is a whopping 50% likely to have a birth defect. That's a ridiculous number that no one would ever try to argue, even the most hostile research on the subject only purports a few percentage points increase in risk above the baseline. But let's assume it's crazy high.

Since when have we started forbidding couples from reproducing on the basis of genetic disorders? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are people with terminal genetic diseases with an extremely high probability of transmission to offspring (for example, Huntington's disease comes to mind) who are allowed to reproduce knowing full well that their child has an extremely high risk of death. And we allow this. Why? Because it would be wrong to tell people they can't reproduce because their child might inherit something bad. And yet we're incapable of seeing how telling incestuous couples that a few percentage points increased risk of certain kinds of genetic disorders means they're forbidden from reproducing is a violation of their basic human rights. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

So in the end, we have this flimsy, questionable excuse that only addresses one aspect of this taboo in a way that is inconsistent with our approach to other couples with genetic risk factors being used to condemn an entire class of human behavior. Every time I come back to this issue, it strikes me as more and more unbelievable. I question how many people suffer needlessly as a result of our ignorant and selfish attitudes on this subject that are driven more by repulsion (and yes, that's the real basis for the taboo) than logic. We have a lot of growing to do.

 

[ElCabron]

Nudity is generally considered taboo except in certain select places and among certain groups. Even then you can't have children around. It's because most people equate nudity with sex so being naked (or for a woman just being topless) is "indecent" and when children are around it's sometimes viewed as some kind of child abuse. (Which is why many people are against breast feeding in public.) It's kind of immature, but not unexpected from a country that has trouble talking accurately and respectfully about sex and the human body. (Thank you, abstinence-only education!)

Breast feeding and calling it "child abuse" is really stupid.
However I see nudity as a no-no. Of course you relate to sex because that's what appealing in someone else. Otherwise, why we have sex. Whenever I see someone I judge as hot, things will go up. That is, I'll get aroused. It's normal and not immature and I do see the nude person being indecent. If you're getting nude in front of people you don't know and aren't in that place for this specifically, you're doing it to call attention and you know which type of attention you'll get. Don't go top-less in a beach that wasn't meant for this kinda of activity.
I am also really EW about that because females are often horrible and I'd rather see a glorious male!

Kidding, the world is really machist in that part because males CAN and the effect is the same for people that like male. I'd rather not see any sort of this if I'm not in the place meant for it. I dislike when I see it because I feel uncofortable, and it's honestly for both sex. Females because you'll see it bouncing and it's weird, and males because I like them and I'll get aroused.
I say again; If the place wasn't meant for it, don't do it. It's unrespectful.

Speaking of my country now, homossexuality is slowing getting more acceptable. It kinda is now, but religious people still want to ban it from here. It's kinda tiring, but most people don't give a damn anymore! What really bugs me out is how puberty effects is a taboo between families. If you're a boy, you can't talk about anyone else about how you're going with stuff, like struggles about sex and stuff. You have to go hiding because everyone else will think you're a dirty guy. Man, it's tiring! People speak about women's puberty with much ease, and I'd guess because women are much more fine speaking about it, whereas males here keeps to themselves if they're having problems because if you speak with your family you'll get a scold.
Those taboos about sex in general needs get rid. We're really much more smart than before to keep it as something "morally wrong" and something you keep to yourself and your "to be" partner. Cause if you don't have one, it's you and yourself!
PS: Speaking of myself though. When I was younger I didn't talk about it, I don't care much now, but I met a boy that was really lost because he woke up "wet". He spoke about it to his friends, I was listening, and they kept making fun of the little and also got really disrespectful as soon as they called him dirty little perv. And the boy was sincerely lost about it. Of course he won't speak about it to anyone else now. Kinda doubt. And knowing this happened because his family were those people that thinks sex is dirty and all is really depressing.

 

[Torshavn]

So in the end, we have this flimsy, questionable excuse that only addresses one aspect of this taboo

It's not a "flimsy, questionable excuse". It's been proven that inbreeding results in weaker offspring. All because of a little thing called "inbreeding depression" and it's very, very real, both in humans and other animals. Hell, even plants avoid inbreeding.

So why are those things tolerable but sexual behavior between related individuals not tolerable in today's society? The logic behind this makes no sense whatsoever.

With very few exceptions (such as royal families who had to preserve the royal blood), incest has always been taboo in many, many different cultures. From ancient China, to ancient Egypt, to ancient Rome, to the Islamic Empire... all the way to our modern, globalized society. It's not surprising to see that incest is universally despised, when you consider that, y'know... it kinda absolutely destroys the family unit. Whereas, for example, homosexual people don't destroy the family unit. They create a new one. You really can't compare the two.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. In my country, saying blasphemies is heavily frowned upon, and you can even get fined if you insult God in public.
Also, if you live in the South, don't mention the Mafia. Ever.

 

[Kanzler]

It's not a "flimsy, questionable excuse". It's been proven that inbreeding results in weaker offspring. All because of a little thing called "inbreeding depression" and it's very, very real, both in humans and other animals. Hell, even plants avoid inbreeding.



With very few exceptions (such as royal families who had to preserve the royal blood), incest has always been taboo in many, many different cultures. From ancient China, to ancient Egypt, to ancient Rome, to the Islamic Empire... all the way to our modern, globalized society. It's not surprising to see that incest is universally despised, when you consider that, y'know... it kinda absolutely destroys the family unit. Whereas, for example, homosexual people don't destroy the family unit. They create a new one. You really can't compare the two.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. In my country, saying blasphemies is heavily frowned upon, and you can even get fined if you insult God in public.
Also, if you live in the South, don't mention the Mafia. Ever.

Does incest destroy the family unit? If it's consensual I'd think it more reasonable to say that it brings the family closer...

 

[twocows]

It's not a "flimsy, questionable excuse". It's been proven that inbreeding results in weaker offspring. All because of a little thing called "inbreeding depression" and it's very, very real, both in humans and other animals. Hell, even plants avoid inbreeding.

They may "avoid" it (generally), but inbreeding is actually an integral part of many plants' and even some animals' lifecycles. They usually prefer more variation, but that isn't always the case and it's just a preference based on the fact that more genetic variation is usually good in the long run. There are plenty of circumstances in nature where inbreeding is necessary for survival, and in fact most species have even adapted to introduce variation in these cases; this is why genetic mutations are more common in cases of incest. In the short term, it tends to result in more offspring with issues, but the ones who don't have issues may be better adapted to survive; in this way, it's no different than normal genetic recombination except that the mutations haven't already been proven to be effective in the wild like existing genetic traits have been.

Anyway, the effect you're referring to only manifests to a significant degree after several generations of inbreeding. We're not talking about that, we're talking about singular, specific cases where two people love each other. The likelihood of serious genetic issues arising with one generation of inbreeding is only trivially higher than the baseline. Further, it's unlikely that their children would continue the effect by also inbreeding unless there aren't any other options available. Incest isn't a behavior favored by most people.

Regardless, I believe I articulated pretty clearly why genetics isn't a valid reason to prevent two people from having children, let alone just loving each other or marrying.

With very few exceptions (such as royal families who had to preserve the royal blood), incest has always been taboo in many, many different cultures. From ancient China, to ancient Egypt, to ancient Rome, to the Islamic Empire... all the way to our modern, globalized society.

I can't speak to that, but being common is not a valid argument. Ancient cultures had many screwed up values (child molestation was considered acceptable in several famous cultures, for instance); the difference between what we were like thousands of years ago and what we are like now is generally called "progress."

It's not surprising to see that incest is universally despised, when you consider that, y'know... it kinda absolutely destroys the family unit. Whereas, for example, homosexual people don't destroy the family unit. They create a new one.

Why exactly can't couples of incest create a new "family unit" in the same way homosexuals can? I can't think of any reasons why they can't start a family other than the potential for drama within their existing family, but that exists with homosexuality as well and it's purely a function of existing cultural norms that establish those two things "bad."

Moreover, why does this even matter? Creating a "family unit" is not a mandatory part of a relationship. People are and should be free to associate with each other for whatever reason they choose. If two related people want to enter into a relationship, they should be free to do that even if they don't plan to make a family. And if they want to start a family, I can't think of anything preventing them from doing that other than bad laws and bad cultural norms.

 

[ElCabron]

What sort of morals incestous parents can pass down to their children? If you're not opposed to even incestous relationships, then bro you might as well accept everything. Homosexuals relationship is totally ok, don't you try to mix things that aren't relatable at all. I'm not sexualising my own father or brother, it's that friend of my bro that happens to be my type. It's totally different. The other is kinda of... ****ed up.
You see, I have met a few people that were those """self-aware pedophiles""" when I was doing a work with a friend, and they said they have met several childrens (8 to 12) that happen to love them and they can't love 'em back like they wish they could because of a "cultural norm that establish this as bad". And why we can't allow it? After all, who knows, those children might love them and you can't blame a 10 year old to sexualise with older guys. We just can't because it is morally wrong and it's ****ed up because it's hard to think a man could fall in love with a children.
Besides, they do say they don't want to have sex with them. Most of the time it's a deep love; caring. They want the children to be part of their lives and don't want to do anything bad to them. The sex is just a "plus". Something that happens and most of them do enjoy.
They claim their love for children to be even more deep emotianally than what you could even figure out.
Same way I don't see how they can, it's hard to figure out how you could sexualise your daughter or son, your father or mother, your granddad or grandmother. It's really hard and I'd rather not have to accept such. And in that case specific, I'd assume the whole world would share the same mindset and not accept this, and where morality does plays and makes sense. Whereas prohibiting homosexuals relationships based on morals is not that ok because it doesn't hurt anyone, you're not having sex with a close relative (which you'd have to struggle in a way to defend that), and the difference between genders isn't that much of a thing and the whole world is struggling to finally take this stupid idea from all people, because it's really stupid to think a man is different from a woman and vice-versa.
It's even hard to argument about it because it's something you'd assume everyone to not tolerate at all because... Oh well. Would you **** your dad/mother?

 

[zakisrage]

Adoption isn't taboo and never has been.

Some conservative Muslims frown upon adoption as well. It's a common misconception (often perpetrated by critics of Islam) that Islam forbids adoption. However, adoption is allowed in Islam. (Still, most Muslim countries forbid non-Muslims from adopting Muslim children. That's why most orphans up for international adoption in places like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are ethnic Russians even though most people there are Muslims.) Muhammad had an adopted son, and adopting orphans is actually encouraged - and there's a lot of orphans in the Middle East due to the recent conflicts.