BobbyBrandt
Virgin Wannabe
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2014
- Posts
- 1,931
I came across this illustration in some old files and thought others might benefit from its depiction of familial relationshipd
Table of Consanguinity
- Thread starter BobbyBrandt
- Start date
TheLobster
Comma Aficionado
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2020
- Posts
- 2,015
Nice but it doesn’t answer a very important question.
How many times removed the cousin has to be for the story to no longer qualify as I/T?
How many times removed the cousin has to be for the story to no longer qualify as I/T?
BobbyBrandt
Virgin Wannabe
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2014
- Posts
- 1,931
I believe that the legal definition for incest in most U.S. states limits it to first cousins. Anything beyond that level of relationship is likely pseudo-incest. Taboo, but not technically illegal.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,567
Maybe I'm being dense, but exactly what does this show? Not seeing a point to this.
Kumquatqueen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2017
- Posts
- 4,364
It'll vary by jurisdiction. I think all of the UK has no legal ban on first cousins, though jokes about "are you from Norfolk?" would be expected.
We also say 'great-nephew/,niece/uncle/aunt rather than 'grand-nephew', which I'd thought was a mistake until seeing it again recently. As in Great Uncle Matthew from Ballet Shoes, or the famous Great Uncle Bulgaria Womble.
We also say 'great-nephew/,niece/uncle/aunt rather than 'grand-nephew', which I'd thought was a mistake until seeing it again recently. As in Great Uncle Matthew from Ballet Shoes, or the famous Great Uncle Bulgaria Womble.
Kumquatqueen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2017
- Posts
- 4,364
Many people admit to confusion over what a third cousin, or cousin once removed, is. If you already knew, then this diagram won't teach you anything new.
Voboy
Sometime Wordwright
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2016
- Posts
- 5,843
OP thought "others might benefit from" the way these relationships are shown. They are frequently misunderstood; I got into a conversation recently with someone who didn't understand how Frodo was related to Merry. A table like this would help.
You are clearly not one of the "others" the OP was aiming this post at. There was no need for you to contribute, honestly. Those who find it useful can enjoy the thread.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,567
I was asking what it was about because I didn't understand what its really conveying. You can keep the snark, thank you.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,567
Yeah, Rhode Island! Knew I stayed here for a reason.
pink_silk_glove
Literate Smutress
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Posts
- 3,607
You're missing Alaska, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin (and Puerto Rico and American Samoa for that matter : P ).
8letters
Writing
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Posts
- 2,220
Googling, I came across this article about how closely related the Catholic church will accept people to be for marriage. Reading through the article, the Catholic church has never permitted marriage between immediate family members (mom-son, father-daughter, brother-sister) or grandparent-grandchild. There's not much discussion of aunt/uncle-nephew/niece marriages, but that seems to always have been forbidden with one exception. Other marriages were not acceptable if the degree of consanguinity wasn't high enough. The degree of consanguinity is calculated as the chart @BobbyBrandt posted. From the article:
So for the Germans under Gregory III, the closest a person could be related was First Cousins Thrice Removed or Second Cousins Once Removed.
Anglo-Saxons couldn't marry First Cousins, but could marry Second Cousins and First Cousins Once Removed. Ditto for Catholics in general after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
American Indians and Filipinos could marry Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews, and First Cousins.
8letters
Writing
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Posts
- 2,220
The ban on first cousin marriage is nearly meaningless. Michael Lee and Angela Peang who were first cousins living in Utah merely drove over to Colorado and got married, and then the state of Utah was forced to recognize their marriage due to Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (link).
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 45,567
'Looks up from taking notes"
Huh? What?
AwkwardlySet
On-Duty Critic
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2022
- Posts
- 3,797
Just imagine the possibilities with all those colorful Native American names. Sitting Bull. Arrow that shoots straight.
There has to be a "Lap-sitting doe" somewhere out there, or a "Bends over behind the wigwam" maybe?
There has to be a "Lap-sitting doe" somewhere out there, or a "Bends over behind the wigwam" maybe?
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2017
- Posts
- 7,423
The definition of incest is about as fuzzy as imaginable. The two main reasons for such a ban are genetic and power-based. The latter comes in as most incest is not a happy bro-sis or a consensual mom-son but rather a sexual assault on a minor.
Add to that religious rules and on top of that societal rules and expectations. (Not that those ever really mattered if one considers the Hapsburgs.)
Sometimes it just gets weird. In the Czech Republic, for instance, sexual relations between siblings is barred. OK, that's genetics, right? But so are sexual relations between step-siblings. No genetics there and presumably no power issues, either.
If it matters, Wikipedia has a table on degrees of consanguinity which, I find, will not reproduce here.
Add to that religious rules and on top of that societal rules and expectations. (Not that those ever really mattered if one considers the Hapsburgs.)
Sometimes it just gets weird. In the Czech Republic, for instance, sexual relations between siblings is barred. OK, that's genetics, right? But so are sexual relations between step-siblings. No genetics there and presumably no power issues, either.
If it matters, Wikipedia has a table on degrees of consanguinity which, I find, will not reproduce here.
colddiesel
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Posts
- 5,722
Legislation was introduced in the UK just before Christmas 2024 to ban first Cousin marriages. It drew criticism from the MP for Batley who objected on behalf of his Moslem community wherein such arranged. marriages are the norm.
When the book of Common prayer was published in 1662 by the Episcopalian church it included a "Table of Kindred and Affinity" which codified incest but did not include a ban on first cousin marriages. Most churches in the USA adopted the table and states extended it by legislation to make first cousin marriages illegal.
In OZ if you go into many public hospitals you will be asked about your ' breeding', This is to help identify inherited problems. It is due to the prevalence of such problems from some immigrant communities where marriage to close relations is the norm.
XerXesXu
Virgin' on literate.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Posts
- 1,743
The social practice of Great Apes avoids incest.
It's doubtful that the 'ban' on incest evolved after hominins became capable of language and cultural expression. In small hunter-gatherer groups, incest can prove fatal to a small gene pool. The incestuous die out, the non-incestuous survive.
Post language and the emergence of 'culture', when the gene pool of civilisations had deepened and widened dramatically, the reasons given for the ban appear to be scatter-gun, post-hoc rationalisations of an evolved practice, continued without any understanding of the reasons why. Where the line to be drawn between incestuous and non-incestuous, in a gene pool of thousands or millions, ceased to be clear cut - just kick out either all the young females or young males, and let them find another troop, and mate only with the displaced young of another troop.
The understanding necessary to draw rational lines of prohibition emerged only in very recent times.
It's doubtful that the 'ban' on incest evolved after hominins became capable of language and cultural expression. In small hunter-gatherer groups, incest can prove fatal to a small gene pool. The incestuous die out, the non-incestuous survive.
Post language and the emergence of 'culture', when the gene pool of civilisations had deepened and widened dramatically, the reasons given for the ban appear to be scatter-gun, post-hoc rationalisations of an evolved practice, continued without any understanding of the reasons why. Where the line to be drawn between incestuous and non-incestuous, in a gene pool of thousands or millions, ceased to be clear cut - just kick out either all the young females or young males, and let them find another troop, and mate only with the displaced young of another troop.
The understanding necessary to draw rational lines of prohibition emerged only in very recent times.
I think there are some places where first cousin marriages are allowed, but not double first cousins who are expressly forbidden from marrying. Double first cousins are cousins that would arise in a situation such as two brothers marrying two sisters, their kids would be double first cousins. The kids share one set of grandparents in common, and are genetically equivalent to half siblings. It could also happen if a man fathered two kids to two sisters, or if a woman had two kids sired by two different brothers.
I've actually used the rarely seen double first cousins in several of my stories to increase the taboo factors, like Ian and Jenny are double first cousins to Becky and Danny in my story 'Banging Cousin Becky In Blackpool' because their fathers are brothers and their mothers are sisters.
The IT readers however didn't seem impressed with the use of double first cousins in this or any other of my stories. Perhaps Karen Smith from Mean Girls might like it, she had some interesting ideas about cousins in the classic 2004 movie!
Bramblethorn
Sleep-deprived
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Posts
- 18,282
"Genetics" could be a reasonable argument for banning brother-sister relationships. But in a country where homosexuality is otherwise legal, it's harder to see a purely genetic argument for banning all sibling relationships.
If one accepts the proposition that the state ought to ban relationships with a high chance of producing children with genetic illnesses, that opens up some huge cans of worms. Should two people with family histories of hemophilia or cystic fibrosis be banned from marrying/sleeping together, unless and until they can produce genetic screening showing compatibility?
IMHO incest laws are driven just as much by social considerations: the idea that growing up with somebody (whether as their child or their sibling) is one kind of relationship, and sleeping with them is another, and putting the two together often ends badly. That can be a consideration even when no children are involved.
This would include your "power-based" reasons, but I think it's a bit broader than just power. There might be no power imbalance between twins but it might still not be an emotionally healthy situation.
Not necessarily, but power issues can arise. Sometimes when a parent remarries, the new spouse and the children of the new relationship are privileged over those of the old, Cinderella being the fairy-tale example. If one of the kids from the new relationship is minded to abuse one of those from the old, that can be a big problem.
SimonDoom
Kink Lord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Posts
- 19,033
I think there are several things at work here.
One is the utility of bright-line rules. Bright-line rules can be underinclusive or overinclusive and result in injustices in specific cases, but they're simple and easy to administer, and I think they resonate with people. "No incest" is a simpler rule than "no incest between males and females, but male-male incest is OK because no genetic deformities will result." It's at least possible that the adoption of the bright-line rule, because it's clearer, creates a net social benefit because of its clarity. I'm speculating, of course.
The contrary is the unappealing quality of non-bright line rules. Take your example, for instance, of people with family histories of hemophilia. Adopting a rule that burdens unions with people of such histories complicates things and subjects the following of rules to lots of complicated, subtle judgment calls. I think most people recoil against a rule like that, even if they can't exactly explain why.
On the other hand, non-bright line rules may become more appealing over time if the cost of administering them declines. What if genetic tests get to the point that a brother and sister can take a test and determine that in their case there is no risk of genetic deformity? Would it be OK for them to marry and have kids? Maybe we'll get to that point. We might not if we continue to believe, as you suggest, that the familial and sexual relationships are fundamentally incompatible, but the better our testing becomes the less persuaded we may be that anything is really "fundamental" or "essential." We may get to the point that we can costlessly evaluate specific cases on their own merits and throw off "one size fits all" rules.
RejectReality
Errant Smut Slinger
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Posts
- 4,998
You do know there are other reasons beyond incest that this might be useful knowledge, right? LOL I'm not far enough out just yet, but there's going to come a point with basically immortal dryads in my Magic of the Wood series where it might be useful to have the actual relationship available, and the chart demonstrates what a confusing clusterfuck it is. The upcoming generation is going to get into that confusing muddle of second, third, and twice removed stuff, and most of the family lives in the same general area.
Might be a nice little bit of trivia to throw in there and demonstrate just how broad the family tree stretches out.
Might be a nice little bit of trivia to throw in there and demonstrate just how broad the family tree stretches out.
Britva415
"Headhopping" my ass
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2022
- Posts
- 4,364
Some cultures have taboos about first cousins through one of the parental lines but not the other.
For example not where they’re a child of your aunt, but child of your uncle is OK. Or where they’re on your mother’s side but not your father’s side.
For example not where they’re a child of your aunt, but child of your uncle is OK. Or where they’re on your mother’s side but not your father’s side.
Similar threads
