Will Switzerland allow incest?

[JackLuis]

What?

Yes they are considering decriminalizing incest.

But, but not with kids?

No, between adults.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/12/13/swiss_incest/md_horiz.jpg​

 

[sr71plt]

Quite timely if they do. Apparently Amazon.com is weeding incest works out of its offerings. They can go to Switzerland now, maybe.

 

[3113]

And will they be the most popular country because of it? That's the other question.

Oh, sorry, I meant "category" not country

Actually, scratch that. The "Loving Wives" country is always the most popular

 

[Bebeslut]

Quite timely if they do. Apparently Amazon.com is weeding incest works out of its offerings. They can go to Switzerland now, maybe.

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Incest is very relative, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun. Its definition varies from culture to culture.

Cross-cousin marriage/mating is a fairly common feature of social organization in societies with small populations; by categorizing everyone connected to you through a change of sex in linking relative (e.g. mother's brother' children or father's sister's children) as non-kin, it ensures that mates are available to everyone. The traditional Roman Catholic/European rule allowing marriage only beyond third cousins would rule out every one as a potential mate in a small population.

That used to be the rule in Quebec, but now marriage beyond first cousins is legal, and first cousin is possible with legal exemption. Sex with an in-law was always adultery in Quebec, but in Ontario it was classed as incest until near the end of the last century.

In strongly lineal social systems, the definition of incest becomes very different from bilateral social systems. Among the Kachin of Burma, for example, a first-born son inherits all his father's wealth, including his wives. That, of course, includes the son's own mother. He is expected to give her to an uncle, but since descent is exclusively patrilineal, she isn't considered a relative of his, and sex between them, though disapproved, wouldn't be considered incest. The inverse holds for the Trobriand Islanders, where exclusive matrilineal descent leaves a man in no kinship relation to his own children. Sex with his daughter would be considered greedy, taking two women from the same clan, but not incest.

Finally, in societies where the first-born inherits regardless of sex, but titles and wealth are possessed only by men, a first-born daughter may be required to marry and mate with her younger brother so as to preserve the family's status and wealth. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, among Polynesian nobility, and among the Inca. A variant of it is found in the Arab world, where a first-born daughter may marry her father's brother's son to keep wealth and status in the patrilineage.

Exceptions to traditional western rules have also been made, with Sweden allowing, after the fact, a marriage between siblings who had been reared apart and unaware of their relationship when they married.

 

[ravi64]

Incest is very relative, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun. Its definition varies from culture to culture.

Cross-cousin marriage/mating is a fairly common feature of social organization in societies with small populations; by categorizing everyone connected to you through a change of sex in linking relative (e.g. mother's brother' children or father's sister's children) as non-kin, it ensures that mates are available to everyone. The traditional Roman Catholic/European rule allowing marriage only beyond third cousins would rule out every one as a potential mate in a small population.

That used to be the rule in Quebec, but now marriage beyond first cousins is legal, and first cousin is possible with legal exemption. Sex with an in-law was always adultery in Quebec, but in Ontario it was classed as incest until near the end of the last century.

In strongly lineal social systems, the definition of incest becomes very different from bilateral social systems. Among the Kachin of Burma, for example, a first-born son inherits all his father's wealth, including his wives. That, of course, includes the son's own mother. He is expected to give her to an uncle, but since descent is exclusively patrilineal, she isn't considered a relative of his, and sex between them, though disapproved, wouldn't be considered incest. The inverse holds for the Trobriand Islanders, where exclusive matrilineal descent leaves a man in no kinship relation to his own children. Sex with his daughter would be considered greedy, taking two women from the same clan, but not incest.

Finally, in societies where the first-born inherits regardless of sex, but titles and wealth are possessed only by men, a first-born daughter may be required to marry and mate with her younger brother so as to preserve the family's status and wealth. This was the case in Ancient Egypt, among Polynesian nobility, and among the Inca. A variant of it is found in the Arab world, where a first-born daughter may marry her father's brother's son to keep wealth and status in the patrilineage.

Exceptions to traditional western rules have also been made, with Sweden allowing, after the fact, a marriage between siblings who had been reared apart and unaware of their relationship when they married.

Tio while i agree that incest is relative the genetic problems in such societies is higher then in those societies where the matings are relatively more conservative ,pun intended

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Tio while i agree that incest is relative the genetic problems in such societies is higher then in those societies where the matings are relatively more conservative ,pun intended

European nobility also constitutes a small population, and it essentially requires cousin mating. In this case, as in animal and plant breeding, 'incest' is considered valuable. The problem with close matingis in the increase in homozygosity; in itself, the mating does not create genetic disorders. Second-cousin mating, by the way, is fairly close to stranger mating in terms of homozygosity.

In small societies, of course, homozygosity can be a problem, but the alternative is extinction.

Incest is, of course, a socio-culturally defined issue, since kinship itself is socio-culturally defined.

 

[Handley_Page]

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I always thought that the "crime" of incest was more to do with the potential results of such a close mating; injuries, illnesses, and brain disorders, than the idea of screwing your cousin.
.

 

[ravi64]

European nobility also constitutes a small population, and it essentially requires cousin mating. In this case, as in animal and plant breeding, 'incest' is considered valuable. The problem with close matingis in the increase in homozygosity; in itself, the mating does not create genetic disorders. Second-cousin mating, by the way, is fairly close to stranger mating in terms of homozygosity.

In small societies, of course, homozygosity can be a problem, but the alternative is extinction.

Incest is, of course, a socio-culturally defined issue, since kinship itself is socio-culturally defined.

yes sir

 

[Recidiva]

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I always thought that the "crime" of incest was more to do with the potential results of such a close mating; injuries, illnesses, and brain disorders, than the idea of screwing your cousin.
.

I'd have thought that the knowledge of genetics would reinforce this.

Regardless of morality or taboo, scientifically It's A Bad Idea.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I always thought that the "crime" of incest was more to do with the potential results of such a close mating; injuries, illnesses, and brain disorders that the idea of screwing your cousin.
.

Actually it doesn't, HP. The mating itself creates no genetic change. If there are deleterious recessive alleles present, it increases the likelihood that a mating will produce a homozygote, an offspring with both alleles the same. Until the last century or so, no one really knew how reproduction occurred (reproduction, mind you, not intercourse), so the "biological" arguments were actually socially based. Thus, if you were low class, inbreeding "caused" imbecility, pimples, and all sorts of things; if you were noble, the same mating practices gave you strength of character. (At least until Monty Python introduced the "Upper Class Twit of the Year contest).

 

[Recidiva]

Actually it doesn't, HP. The mating itself creates no genetic change. If there are deleterious recessive alleles present, it increases the likelihood that a mating will produce a homozygote, an offspring with both alleles the same. Until the last century or so, no one really knew how reproduction occurred (reproduction, mind you, not intercourse), so the "biological" arguments were actually socially based. Thus, if you were low class, inbreeding "caused" imbecility, pimples, and all sorts of things; if you were noble, the same mating practices gave you strength of character. (At least until Monty Python introduced the "Upper Class Twit of the Year contest).

It has a tendency to reinforce negative traits. Creating no change isn't exactly true at all. There are several recessives that get worse as they get reinforced.

Just check out some of the screening for populations that tend to stick to their own. The Ashkenazi panel is a scary thing. The Pennsylvania Dutch also did not make out so well.

Sure, a small percentage of incest isn't really going to do that much harm in one generation. It's generation after generation that brings in the serious hurt.

Whether or not the historical precedent came from the "ewww" factor or "Look what happens when..." factor, the reality is that there's a serious drawback for future generations. But then again it's not illegal to breed while being a narcissistic asshole either. And that has serious drawbacks as well.

 

[trysail]

Recessive genes, alleles, hæmophilia and all that.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

It has a tendency to reinforce negative traits. Creating no change isn't exactly true at all. There are several recessives that get worse as they get reinforced.

Just check out some of the screening for populations that tend to stick to their own. The Ashkenazi panel is a scary thing. The Pennsylvania Dutch also did not make out so well.

Sure, a small percentage of incest isn't really going to do that much harm in one generation. It's generation after generation that brings in the serious hurt.

Whether or not the historical precedent came from the "ewww" factor or "Look what happens when..." factor, the reality is that there's a serious drawback for future generations. But then again it's not illegal to breed while being a narcissistic asshole either. And that has serious drawbacks as well.

Not "reinforced;" it doesn't get worse, it just gets expressed. Inbreeding is used to produce our high-yield farm animals (and plants) as well as our dog breeds. In general, though, homozygosity has negative implications for populations; reduced variability menas reduced adaptability.

And yes, continued inbreeding accumulates the load of deleterious allele a population carries. It is a significant problem for reproductively isolated populations. In the 1840s, a Tay-Sachs carrier moved into the Saguenay region of Quebec. By the 1960s, one in nine people in the region was a descendent of his. The frequency of Tay-Sachs, as a result, was far higher than would be expected by chance.

From a biological point of view, heterozygosity - diversity - is best, but, again biologically, inbreeding beats extinction as an outcome.

 

[Recidiva]

Not "reinforced;" it doesn't get worse, it just gets expressed. Inbreeding is used to produce our high-yield farm animals (and plants) as well as our dog breeds. In general, though, homozygosity has negative implications for populations; reduced variability menas reduced adaptability.

And yes, continued inbreeding accumulates the load of deleterious allele a population carries. It is a significant problem for reproductively isolated populations. In the 1840s, a Tay-Sachs carrier moved into the Saguenay region of Quebec. By the 1960s, one in nine people in the region was a descendent of his. The frequency of Tay-Sachs, as a result, was far higher than would be expected by chance.

From a biological point of view, heterozygosity - diversity - is best, but, again biologically, inbreeding beats extinction as an outcome.

That's really not true. There are several disorders that get worse as expressed through generations. Couples that are now going through PGD - pre-implantation genetic diagnosis before undergoing IVF have to deal with this. I reviewed a study about this with interviews with couples who have seen the genetic disorders in their family expressed through generations and having things get worse. I'm racking my brain to come up with the specifics, but there were several couples dealing with issues like variations of cerebral palsy, mytonic muscular dystrophy and others. Dammit, I wish I could remember the exact syndrome to which I'm referring.

There was a couple whose father had it a little, daughter had it a LOT and she'd had one child who was severely disabled, with the same exact genetic risk, and wanted to undergo PGD to prevent it happening again.

We don't know everything there is about genes. I'm not saying it's caused by telomeres, but it's similar to telomere function. Telomeres limit the number of times a replication can take place before no more replications are forthcoming. There appear to be genetic syndromes that with the same genetic risk, start out mild, and get progressively worse and ultimately result in inability to carry to term. Lots of victims of worsening genetic disorders will never be born at all.

I hate to say "take my word for it" but this is a new field and I covered a lot of ground and I can't remember exactly what the name of the disorder was. This is gonna haunt me.

Anyway, it's not "same risk" in a population. That'd be like having the same tool box through every generation. But it's the equivalent of a tool box that loses a tool every generation or so until all that's left is a box. This of course depends on the syndrome and epigenetic factors.

But incest is bad, m'kay?

 

[sr71plt]

Do you have a reference for this?

Ask Selena Kitt. All I've seen is forwarded messages. And since I don't write incest . . .

 

[Tio_Narratore]

That's really not true. There are several disorders that get worse as expressed through generations. Couples that are now going through PGD - pre-implantation genetic diagnosis before undergoing IVF have to deal with this. I reviewed a study about this with interviews with couples who have seen the genetic disorders in their family expressed through generations and having things get worse. I'm racking my brain to come up with the specifics, but there were several couples dealing with issues like variations of cerebral palsy, mytonic muscular dystrophy and others. Dammit, I wish I could remember the exact syndrome to which I'm referring.

There was a couple whose father had it a little, daughter had it a LOT and she'd had one child who was severely disabled, with the same exact genetic risk, and wanted to undergo PGD to prevent it happening again.

We don't know everything there is about genes. I'm not saying it's caused by telomeres, but it's similar to telomere function. Telomeres limit the number of times a replication can take place before no more replications are forthcoming. There appear to be genetic syndromes that with the same genetic risk, start out mild, and get progressively worse and ultimately result in inability to carry to term. Lots of victims of worsening genetic disorders will never be born at all.

I hate to say "take my word for it" but this is a new field and I covered a lot of ground and I can't remember exactly what the name of the disorder was. This is gonna haunt me.

Anyway, it's not "same risk" in a population. It's the equivalent of a tool box that loses one tool every generation until all that's left is a box. This of course depends on the syndrome and epigenetic factors.

But incest is bad, m'kay?

Incest is socio-culturally defined, not biologically defined. In Ontario, sex with your wife's sister was legally incest, and there is no genetic difference between them when it comes to reproduction. Inbreeding is a different issue, and it can be biologically defined. It is used positively in farming, but always comes with uncontrollable negative effects.

Telomeric deterioration occurs in the individual, not over generations; otherwise life itself would have died out from aging. And in cyanobacteria as well as many unicellular life forms, even through millions of years of mitosis, the telomeres are still intact.

Other epigenetic factors may be at work, but are not yet understood; that, however, is no reason to take even more poorly understood anecdotal observations and interpretations and treat them as established facts.

And, as a final note, I am not in favor of inbreeding, even for better milk yield or cute lap dogs; diversity is essential for life to continue, and I like the idea of life. As for incest, it is a social issue, and I'm not one to tell anyone who they should get it on or off with. And please note that for humans, sex doesn't have to result in reproduction (why do so many people, even scholars who should know better, conflate the two?). They can have sex without inbreeding; they just have to practice some form of contraception.

 

[Recidiva]

Incest is socio-culturally defined, not biologically defined. In Ontario, sex with your wife's sister was legally incest, and there is no genetic difference between them when it comes to reproduction. Inbreeding is a different issue, and it can be biologically defined. It is used positively in farming, but always comes with uncontrollable negative effects.

Telomeric deterioration occurs in the individual, not over generations; otherwise life itself would have died out from aging. And in cyanobacteria as well as many unicellular life forms, even through millions of years of mitosis, the telomeres are still intact.

Other epigenetic factors may be at work, but are not yet understood; that, however, is no reason to take even more poorly understood anecdotal observations and interpretations and treat them as established facts.

And, as a final note, I am not in favor of inbreeding, even for better milk yield or cute lap dogs; diversity is essential for life to continue, and I like the idea of life. As for incest, it is a social issue, and I'm not one to tell anyone who they should get it on or off with. And please note that for humans, sex doesn't have to result in reproduction (why do so many people, even scholars who should know better, conflate the two?). They can have sex without inbreeding; they just have to practice some form of contraception.

I think our ancestors were able to figure out how to breed animals and plants for desirable traits, and that regardless of knowing the mechanics behind it, were able to tell that when groups stuck to their own only, it didn't work out so well. Regardless of what religious or social overlay was used, the basics come from observation.

Yes, I was using telomeres as an example, not as the exact mechanic at work. I even said so. I agree that we don't understand it entirely, but regardless of being able to explain the results, the observed anecdotal reality should be enough to give one pause. I think the basics of group inbreeding has been understood for a good long time, resulting in the taboo. Thousands of years of farming and livestock with faster generational turnover than humans revealed a lot of truths.

No, sex doesn't have to result in reproduction. I'm expressing my reasons for thinking it's a bad idea. Legal or illegal. Nobody's going to enforce sterility upon incestuous couples. I'm fine with it being legal, as it's like with other things are legal, you just drive people underground and it happens anyway. I think drugs should be legal. Will I do them? No. I think incest should be legal. Will I do it? No. Would I be appalled if my kids shacked up together and started doing drugs? Well, yeah.

 

[Bebeslut]

Ask Selena Kitt. All I've seen is forwarded messages. And since I don't write incest . . .

Thanks.

Selena Kitt, are you listening?

 

[ishtat]

Cleopatra married two of her brothers and look what happened to her!

Abraham married his half sister Sarah their father was Terah.

 

[Pure]

query

tioIn Ontario, sex with your wife's sister was legally incest, and there is no genetic difference between them when it comes to reproduction.

any citation on this? and what year is referred to? since Ontario never had particular incest laws, your assertion, on its face, seems false, and the following citation of the federal def'n is found

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Incest.aspx

or do you just kinda type stuff out for posting and see if it flies?

==
as to the current situation

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/st...__PUBLIC_MORALS_AND_DISORDERLY_CONDUCT_872648


155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

 

[JackLuis]

This is starting to remind me of that song, "I am my own Grampa"

 

[3113]

Let's get to what's really important here. If I now write an incest story that takes place in Switzerland are readers going to shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?" Will this affect the popularity of the incest category?

 

[JackLuis]

Let's get to what's really important here. If I now write an incest story that takes place in Switzerland are readers going to shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?" Will this affect the popularity of the incest category?

Swiss incest has some extra holes in it, like the cheese.

 

[sr71plt]

Swiss incest has some extra holes in it, like the cheese.

I understand in Swiss incest couplings, they both yodel in harmony.