Dear KMB,

According to sociologist Ian Robertson, and I quote:

"Every society that we know of, past and present,
have an incest taboo, a powerful moral prohibition against
sexual contact between certain categories of relatives.
The taboo almost always applies to relations between
parent and child and between brother and sister.
Additionally, all societies apply an incest taboo to sex
between certain other categories of relatives - but each
society has its own rules in this regard, so sexual
relationships that are quite acceptable to one people may
be utterly outrageous to another..."

Robertson writes that, "Brother and sister were expected
to marry in the royal families of ancient Egypt, Hawaii,
and Peru, probably to prevent the royal lineage from being
tainted by commoners...and perhaps as a means of keeping
property within the family..."

Robertson questions the existence of the taboo being due
to the prevention of physical and mental degeneration that
comes from inbreeding.

Robertson tell us that, "...inbreeding does not necessarily
produce degeneration: it merely intensifies certain traits,
good or bad, that are already present in the related
partners. Brother-sister marriages in Egypt and among the
Inca resulted in no degeneration over as many as fourteen
generations ... the beautiful and intelligent Cleopatra
was the product of such a union..."

"Agricultural scientists use selective inbreeding, in fact,
to produce healthier stock... any ill effects of
inbreeding usually take place too slowly and too haphazardly
to be noticeable over a few generations..."

So why the taboo? As Robertson explains ,"its vital to
the survival of the family and thus of society itself."
Thus the reasons are social, not biological.

We simply accept the taboo as natural and moral.

The same applies to
"diverse sexuality." Judging others( or not)
comes from our religious
beliefs, cultural upbringing, education, etc.
We're 'selective' in most things we do in life -
including conforming to what we consider as "normal,"
behaviour.

Anais Nin puts it rather well:

"We don't see things as they are,
We see them as we are."

A nine year old girl carrying a baby is a tragedy. A nine year old carrying her father's baby is deeply sad. For anyone to use the situation as a byword in an argument about something totally different (ie homosexuality) in what is meant to be an intelligent forum lacks any credibility or integrity. Surely there are other arguments one could use for or against without resorting to use the obvious pain of this nine year old girl for your own ends. Surely we should show compassion and respect...selective or otherwise in this circumstance. Come on people. Lift your game!

In Britain a few years back there was a study of cousin marriage.
The levels of genetic deformation was found to be 13 times the rate
in the rest of the population.
The study was prompted by the large number of affected children in
the Midlands, ie where South Asian families lived.

There was also a parliamentary committee that recommended that the law
ban cousin marriage. It can be found with Google.

At the Auburn District Hospital in Sydney it was noticed by the NSW
Health Dept that there was a higher than normal number of genetic
defects in new born.
A geneticist was sent to the hospital to find the reason.
She visited the mothers and she found that the majority were married
to their cousins. I saw the report in the SMH but I think it also
got a mention in Hansard, but it must have been 20 years ago now.

Sofisu,

?The stories I read had her at 31 when the incestous relationship commenced.

Bazz,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. As Foxy argued it is a social taboo. If risk of genetic issues precluded partnerships many disabled couples would be discriminated against.

Foxy,

Firstly I'll say up front I am not going to buy and read the book.

Does Robertson contradict himself? It sounds like it but I'm just going on brief exerpts.

He says that ALL societies that we know of past and present have a powerful prohibition on sexual contact between relatives. He then says that it was expected that royal families in 3 different societies would do it. Being expected to is obviously not the same as prohibited from. Does he mean most societies had the prohibition or that all societies prohibit it for at least some people?

Dear mjpb,

Bless your heart. You made me laugh...
And why should you buy the book?
It's actually a sociology text...

Robertson actually goes into some detail and gives
examples of various societies and their sexual
practices not only in Egypt, Hawaii and Peru. He
talks about the Thonga of West Africa, the Azande
of central Africa, the mothers of Burundi, and so
on. He tells us that, "In fact, incest - father
and daughter or step-father and step-daughter is
a fairly common crime, although it is rarely
reported. The American Psychological Association estimates
that 12 to 15 million American women have been involved
in incest, usually through sexual abuse in childhood
or adolescence..."

Robertson does make it quite clear that, and I quote,
"The incest taboo has developed over time...we accept
it as natural and moral."

Hi Foxy,

I should have included a smiley with the original comment. Good! As you know (but others reading this don't) last time I commented on excerpts from a book you got me to buy the darn thing, read it, and critique it.

I'm open to the taboo myself. But I notice that incest couples are increasingly going public and challenging the norm. That must be unprecedented and the outcome uncertain.