New Republic Insults Hundreds of Millions

Alice Robb wrote at "The Strange Scholarship of Incest" at newrepublic.com...

Whether or not Meryl Streep deserves to win Best Actress for her turn as the deranged matriarch in August: Osage County is up for debate, but everyone who’s seen Tracy Letts’s play or the film adaptation should be able to agree on at least one thing: It makes for some uncomfortable viewing. And of all the disturbing elements that make up this saga—alcoholism, suicide, adultery—there’s one plotline that stands out as truly disturbing: the incestuous romance between Ivy and Little Charles, who believe they’re first cousins but—spoiler alert—turn out to be half-siblings.

Why is that disturbing?

Disgust seems like a pretty appropriate response to an affair between cousins, but historically, in societies around the world, marriage between cousins has been accepted and even encouraged.

And yet she calls it disgusting anyway, insulting hundreds of millions of people, including her own ancestors. Then she gets into that big question...

Is the taboo against incest a biological universal, or is it culturally derived? And if it’s a cultural construct, why is it so widespread?

Ultimately, when it comes to whether or not consenting adults should have their rights, the answer to that question isn't relevant.

“I’m not saying that it’s fine, but I think the genetic risks of incest are probably overestimated,” said Diane Paul, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston whose research focuses on the history of evolution and genetics.

It certainly is.

“It’s assumed it would be higher, but there’s a huge bias of ascertainment,” she explains. “If you have a baby [that’s the product of incest] with a problem, people say, ‘Oh, that’s why,’ but if the baby is healthy, no one says, ‘Look at that healthy baby’ [that’s the product of incest].”

DING! We have a winner.

“In terms of genetic distance, a half-sibling relationship is equivalent to an uncle-niece relationship or a double first cousin relationship” [double first cousins share both sets of grandparents], both of which are quite common in different societies,” says Alan Bittles, a researcher at the Centre for Comparative Genomics at Murdoch University in Australia.

Double first cousins can legally marry in some US states.

The article then gets into Westermarck.

It is very simple... if YOU are disgusted by something, don't do it. But it is rude, cruel, and unjust to try to stop consenting adults in love from being together.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,cousins,family reaction,media,prejudice,science,siblings,stigma

Clearing Up Consanguinity

Many people get confused about terms like "second cousins" and "once removed" when referring to close but not-so-close relations. Your parent's sibling's child is your first cousin. That person's child would be your first cousin, once removed. That person's child and your child would be second cousins.

Here's a helpful chart that can help explain it.

Source: http://www.sanantonio.gov/atty/ethics/ConsanguinityChart.htm

Remember, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with, dating, or even marrying a cousin. Consanguineous relationships and marriages are nothing new. There are some countries and a little over half of US states where the bigotry against marriage equality extends to preventing first cousins from marrying, but there are many places where marrying a first cousin is legal and common. I'm only aware of a few US states where sex between first cousins is technically illegal, so check the laws of your state if you are concerned. It should be searchable on your official state website.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,FAQ

Tale as Old as Time

This blog is about relationship rights for all adults, especially the right to marry any and all consenting adults. It is not about criticizing nor promoting any philosophy towards religion, spiritual considerations, superstitions, the paranormal or supernatural, any religious text or writings/traditions/beliefs/practices/systems/organizations considered sacred, inspired, of authoritative by some, nor skepticism when it comes to such things.

There are both allies and opponents of relationship rights and full marriage equality in just about every religion and among those who claim no religion, and I welcome allies no matter what tradition, if any, they prefer or reject.

With that out of the way…

Considering the Bible as literature, which anyone can do whether they are a devout Christian, a Deist, a Hindu, an Atheist, or an Antitheist or take some other path, one can see that the Bible implies, outright portrays, and further addresses consanguineous sex.

Frequently, someone will ask “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Did Adam and Eve’s children have sex with each other?” or some variation. Whether someone considers this speculation about fanciful myths or actual history is irrelevant to analyzing what the text itself says.



One common response says that there were other people aside from Adam and Eve, even claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of people other than Adam and Eve. That may work for someone who can find some other explanation for Genesis 3:20, which calls Eve the mother of all living, and other passages which indicate Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans.

Romans 5 says that sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 says that in Adam all die. These passages imply that the Bible portrays every human as a descendant of Adam.  There’s a mention of Eve in the Apocrypha that agrees with this, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men…"

That the Bible portrays Adam and Eve as the ancestors of all humans is the interpretation publicly affirmed by a diverse group of Bible enthusiasts, who often vehemently disagree with each other on other matters about what the Bible says. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Some of those sources disagree very much on other aspects of Genesis, especially the first few chapters, but agree as to the Bible teaching that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (and please note that Genesis 5:4 says Adam, in addition to the named sons, had other sons and daughters), and so it appears that the Bible portrays the origin of human beings as the result of consanguineous (incestuous) sex. Adam and Eve’s children reproduced with each other, if not also Adam and Eve.


It is also of note that the Bible portrays Noah, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives were the only human beings left (at least in that part of the world) after The Flood. (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 9:1,7,18-19). Whether or not the Bible allows for a “local” Flood and other human beings in other parts of the world, Genesis 6:19 portrays least the people in that part of the world as all descended from Noah’s family. That would mean that the area (or the entire world) was repopulated through pairing up people who were no more distant than first cousins, coming from a pool of no more than eight total ancestors (Noah, his wife, and the parents of each of Noah's three sons.)

In the Biblical narrative, it wasn’t until much later that the first prohibition was placed on incest, in Leviticus, along with many other prohibitions (prohibitions on mixing fabrics, for example) that may have been listed to distinguish Israel from the other nations/tribes surrounding it. The narrative describes tribes who have left Egypt, where incest was common and accepted, and surrounded by other nations/tribes where incest was common and accepted. These were laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel. Also of note is that the concept of rights for women and children was very different than it is now; same goes for protecting the elderly. There was no domestic violence shelter, no secular county or state department with social workers attempting to protect people against child abuse or elderly abuse.  Children were literally the property of their parents to do with almost anything they wanted (note that the Torah says that parents must get permission from an authority to kill a disobedient child; presumably, there was no such requirement before.) As such, prohibitions on incest could have often been about preventing sexual assault or molestation.


However, applying the Biblical prohibitions to consensual sex, very few people who consider the Bible as an authority in their lives actually live by Mosaic law, nor want Mosaic law as national or state/province law. Secular laws should not keep any consenting adults from having sex or getting married.

Incest has always been a theme in literature and storytelling. See: Greek mythology. The fact is, incest has always been a part of life, in all socioeconomic and geographic areas. Even though a majority of people don't get involved, enough people do get involved in consensual incest that you know people who are involved.

Marrying a first cousin is legal and common in much of the world today, and for thousands of years most people married a first, second, or third cousin, once or twice removed or not.

From the perspective of science, DNA reveals inbreeding, and thus incest, in our past. In some cases, it might have helped to spread helpful characteristics.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,cousins,human origins,incest,media,myths,religion,siblings

Cousins Can't Love Each Other Because it Makes Gay Babies

Or so says someone by the name of  Ropafadzo Mapimhidze writing at newsday.co.zw about the cruel treatment (including criminal conviction) recently of a couple of consenting adults in Zimbabwe, prosecuted for loving each other while being first cousins. You know, like hundred of millions of other people throughout history and alive today and legally married.

This story has generated so much debate and I decided to do a bit of research on reasons why incest is taboo, and why incest occurs despite the prohibition. And what the consequences are.

Where this is taboo, it is because of superstition, ignorance, legislative inertia, and control. It happens anyway because consenting adults love each other more than they pay attention to following unjust laws.

Such children can be born with extra toes, three eyes, and they can also grow to become homosexual, they may also have a low IQ and a potential to mentally harm future offspring, says the website. It also notes that such children can become people who are not able to interact with others or express love.

First of all, they were not prosecuted for having children. They were prosecuted for having sex. There is a difference. Also, all the columnist described above happens with unrelated lovers, too. In fact, we do not prevent people with obvious, serious, genetic diseases and birth defects from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying. But there are hundreds of millions of children from first cousins who are healthy, attractive, bright, and very social. Finally, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

The New York Times recently reported that first cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease, but their increased risk is nowhere near as large as most people think, the newspaper quoted research done by some scientists.

But who needs scientists when we can listen to bigotry instead?

At least the piece does mention Genetic Sexual Attraction. Then it goes on to...

“Traditionally, such matters were dealt with by chiefs who then would find the rightful people to raise products of incest. We have to go back to our roots and see how best these matters can be dealt with the Zimbabwean way because these children are innocent victims of incest,” Kandiero said.

You know what makes children the biggest victims? When strangers use the power of unjust laws to force their parents apart and break up their home and brand their parents as criminals.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,children,consanguineous,cousins,GSA,lack of equality harms,myths,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,stigma,Zimbabwe

Updates on Two Criminal Cases

A sentence has been issued in this absurd prosecution of two adults in Zimbabwe for loving each other and (gasp!) being cousins! Here's a report from radiovop.com...

Two members of the Feremenga family from Dzivarasekwa Extension in Harare, whose incestuous relationship resulted in two pregnancies, were yesterday convicted and ordered to perform 630 hours of community service at different institutions in the suburb.

Robson (21) and Ashley Feremenga (19), whose fathers are blood brothers, pleaded guilty to incest charges when they appeared before Harare regional magistrate Adonia Masawi and were slapped with a 36-month prison term each.

But Masawi later suspended 18 months of their sentence on condition of good behaviour and again suspended the remainder on condition each of them performs 630 hours of community service.

Got that? If you break up your family, you can stay out of prison. Of course, the bigots in the neighborhood are going to have a field day being sadistic towards you anyway, and we won't stop that. Because, you know, you shouldn't be allowed to love each other.

The court was nonetheless, left in stitches when the two relatives insisted they wanted to stay together as a couple despite the implications of their unlawful relationship.

The cruelty is appalling. First cousins have been marrying for all of human history. Everyone involved in prosecuting these two should look into their heart, if they one, and clear it of this hatred.

The other update is about a case out of Nevada in which there was a sentencing a while back. I don't think the media ever specified the relationship, but my guess would be uncle-niece. This update comes from elkodaily.com reported by Dylan Woolf Harris.

Hughes isn’t specifically appealing his conviction, but instead the district court’s decision to allow prosecutors to use evidence gathered during a search of Hughes’ home. Leading up to trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress on grounds that a search warrant request wasn’t supported by probable cause, but District Judge Nancy Porter held that the warrant was supported and the prosecutor’s evidence was permissible.

The investigation and eventual search of Hughes’ home began in late 2008 after Kimberly Harphant, an acquaintance of Hughes, met with sheriff’s detective Kevin McKinney. She brought with her an unsigned, handwritten letter she said she took from Hughes’ home one day, as well as a prepared document of cut-and-pasted emails between Hughes and the victim.

Harphant had helped Hughes set up a business email account to which she remembered the password, and had lent him a phone. She was retrieving the phone when she found the letter, according to court documents.

The letter appeared to indicate romantic love between two people, but “in addition to a complete lack of attribution, it contains no references to a past or existing sexual relationship,” the brief states. Similarly, the emails’ authors were unverified and didn’t mention sex.

The appeal brief asserts McKinney made little attempt to corroborate or verify the items Harphant presented to him.

Interesting.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,consanguineous,cousins,incest,lack of equality harms,love,Nevada,prosecution,siblings,Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults

From allafrica.com comes this report of the criminal prosecution of first cousins for the "crime" of loving each other.

Two cousins who were involved in an incestuous relationship which resulted in the birth of a girl and current pregnancy will perform 630 hours of community service. The two's fathers are brothers and traditionally are expected to treat each other as brother and sister. Ashley Feremenga (19) and her cousin Robson Feremenga (21) were living as husband and wife in Dzivaresekwa before neighbours alerted Ashley's father Jonasi.

I wonder what the love lives of those neighbors are like... if they have a love life in the first place. Must not be very fulfilling if they have time to rat people out for loving each other.

I'm sure their child is healthy. Otherwise, you can be sure this report would have noted any problems.

The duo was convicted after their own plea of guilt when they appeared before Harare magistrate Mr Aidonia Masawi who sentenced them to a 36 month-imprisonment term.

What a waste of the court.

Ashley's father Jonasi only came to know about their relationship after being advised by his neighbours.

He filed a police report leading to their arrest.

Rat. The lovers should keep his grandchildren away from him.

Fortunately, very few US states have ridiculous laws criminalizing consensual sex between first cousins. About half of US states will legally marry first cousins, and such marriages are common in many countries today, and have been very common throughout history. Prosecuting consenting adults for loving each other is outrageous.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,children,consanguineous,courts,cousins,family reaction,lack of equality harms,love,prejudice,prosecution,Zimbabwe

What Genealogists Know

With each previous generation you trace back, the maximum possible number of your genetic ancestors doubles. You can have 2 parents, up to 4 grandparents, up to 8 great-grandparents, up to 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.

On average, there are about four generations per century. For people born in the year 2000, their 8 great-great-grandparents were probably born around 1900. Sometime around 1800 their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were born (there may be up to 128 of them). About 29 generations back, or roughly around the time of 1250-1300, the total number of your possible ancestors for that generation equals or exceeds the total population of the planet, which was about 500 million people.

What gives? Well, first of all, if all 500 million of those people were your ancestors, they would also be the ancestors of all of the rest of us, too.

Secondly, you probably don’t have every person alive back then as your ancestor. There wasn’t a lot of interracial or intercultural parenting going on back then. People were more isolated, more people lived in rural countrysides rather than dense urban areas, and people were not nearly as geographically or socially mobile as they are today. It was very common for a person to be born in and to die in the the same village or town, having lived all of her or his life there.

This means that for many, many, many, many generations, there was a lot of what most people would call today “inbreeding.” If your spouse wasn’t your first cousin, your spouse was likely a second or third cousin, or a second cousin-once removed, our even your double-cousin, etc. And as I’ve noted before, even if they weren’t marrying them, people were having children with siblings, aunts or uncles, etc. (Even if not having children together, what do you think went on, given that pubescent teens, like most children, were usually sharing a bedroom?) Not only did these things not destroy humanity, but in Europe, the Renaissance was birthed in these conditions.

Coming back to around 1800, very few people are likely to have 128 great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, just like very few of those people in 1800 had 128 of them in 1600. Because chances are, some of your recent ancestors were cousins, if not closer. If you marry your first cousin, you have no more than six genetic grandparents between you, instead of eight. If your parents are first cousins, you have six great-grandparents instead of eight.

If “inbreeding” was as detrimental as common misconception says, none of us would be here.

Read more »

Posted in: children,consanguineous,cousins,incest,myths,science,stigma

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by Joanna Rafael with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.

You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.

Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.

Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.

She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,lack of equality harms,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,stigma

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by Joanna Rafael with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.

You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.

Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.

Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.

She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,lack of equality harms,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,stigma

Clearing Up Consanguinity

Many people get confused about terms like "second cousins" and "once removed" when referring to close but not-so-close relations. Your parent's sibling's child is your first cousin. That person's child would be your first cousin, once removed. That person's child and your child would be second cousins.

Here's a helpful chart that can help explain it.

Source: http://www.sanantonio.gov/atty/ethics/ConsanguinityChart.htm

Remember, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with, dating, or even marrying a cousin. Consanguineous relationships and marriages are nothing new. There are some countries and a little over half of US states where the bigotry against marriage equality extends to preventing first cousins from marrying, but there are many places where marrying a first cousin is legal and common. I'm only aware of a few US states where sex between first cousins is technically illegal, so check the laws of your state if you are concerned. It should be searchable on your official state website.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,FAQ

Tale as Old as Time

This blog is about relationship rights for all adults, especially the right to marry any and all consenting adults. It is not about criticizing nor promoting any philosophy towards religion, spiritual considerations, superstitions, the paranormal or supernatural, any religious text or writings/traditions/beliefs/practices/systems/organizations considered sacred, inspired, of authoritative by some, nor skepticism when it comes to such things.

There are both allies and opponents of relationship rights and full marriage equality in just about every religion and among those who claim no religion, and I welcome allies no matter what tradition, if any, they prefer or reject.

With that out of the way…

Considering the Bible as literature, which anyone can do whether they are a devout Christian, a Deist, a Hindu, an Atheist, or an Antitheist or take some other path, one can see that the Bible implies, outright portrays, and further addresses consanguineous sex.

Frequently, someone will ask “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Did Adam and Eve’s children have sex with each other?” or some variation. Whether someone considers this speculation about fanciful myths or actual history is irrelevant to analyzing what the text itself says.



One common response says that there were other people aside from Adam and Eve, even claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of people other than Adam and Eve. That may work for someone who can find some other explanation for Genesis 3:20, which calls Eve the mother of all living, and other passages which indicate Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans.

Romans 5 says that sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 says that in Adam all die. These passages imply that the Bible portrays every human as a descendant of Adam.  There’s a mention of Eve in the Apocrypha that agrees with this, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men…"

That the Bible portrays Adam and Eve as the ancestors of all humans is the interpretation publicly affirmed by a diverse group of Bible enthusiasts, who often vehemently disagree with each other on other matters about what the Bible says. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Some of those sources disagree very much on other aspects of Genesis, especially the first few chapters, but agree as to the Bible teaching that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (and please note that Genesis 5:4 says Adam, in addition to the named sons, had other sons and daughters), and so it appears that the Bible portrays the origin of human beings as the result of consanguineous (incestuous) sex. Adam and Eve’s children reproduced with each other, if not also Adam and Eve.


It is also of note that the Bible portrays Noah, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives were the only human beings left (at least in that part of the world) after The Flood. (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 9:1,7,18-19). Whether or not the Bible allows for a “local” Flood and other human beings in other parts of the world, Genesis 6:19 portrays least the people in that part of the world as all descended from Noah’s family. That would mean that the area (or the entire world) was repopulated through pairing up people who were no more distant than first cousins, coming from a pool of no more than eight total ancestors (Noah, his wife, and the parents of each of Noah's three sons.)

In the Biblical narrative, it wasn’t until much later that the first prohibition was placed on incest, in Leviticus, along with many other prohibitions (prohibitions on mixing fabrics, for example) that may have been listed to distinguish Israel from the other nations/tribes surrounding it. The narrative describes tribes who have left Egypt, where incest was common and accepted, and surrounded by other nations/tribes where incest was common and accepted. These were laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel. Also of note is that the concept of rights for women and children was very different than it is now; same goes for protecting the elderly. There was no domestic violence shelter, no secular county or state department with social workers attempting to protect people against child abuse or elderly abuse.  Children were literally the property of their parents to do with almost anything they wanted (note that the Torah says that parents must get permission from an authority to kill a disobedient child; presumably, there was no such requirement before.) As such, prohibitions on incest could have often been about preventing sexual assault or molestation.


However, applying the Biblical prohibitions to consensual sex, very few people who consider the Bible as an authority in their lives actually live by Mosaic law, nor want Mosaic law as national or state/province law. Secular laws should not keep any consenting adults from having sex or getting married.

Incest has always been a theme in literature and storytelling. See: Greek mythology. The fact is, incest has always been a part of life, in all socioeconomic and geographic areas. Even though a majority of people don't get involved, enough people do get involved in consensual incest that you know people who are involved.

Marrying a first cousin is legal and common in much of the world today, and for thousands of years most people married a first, second, or third cousin, once or twice removed or not.

From the perspective of science, DNA reveals inbreeding, and thus incest, in our past. In some cases, it might have helped to spread helpful characteristics.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,cousins,human origins,incest,media,myths,religion,siblings

The Royal We

A discussion is still underway at theroyalforums.com about "Incestuous Royal Marriages." This blog has noted such things before.
Kataryn started off the discussion YEARS ago...

Legally Catherine of Aragon was married incestually because she as widow of one brother married the other after the first hausband's death.

That's not considered incest in most definitions.

But that's just a formality. History has shown that Royal families did not hesitate to form very close bonds between them. While a marriage of cousin and cousin happened quite often, marriages between unles and nieces are rare - but they happened, too.

One example is the marriage of Antoinette Marie of Wuerttemberg to Ernst I. of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Marie's mother Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was the sister of the groom.

Then there are the three uncle-niece marriages of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs:

- Philipp II. married Anna of Austria, the daughter of his sister Marie.

- Archduke Charles II of Austria-Innerösterreich married Maria Anna of Bavaria, daughter of his sister Anna of Austria.

- Philipp IV. married Marianna of Austria, daughter of his sister Maria Anna.

As you can see, the last three uncle-niece-marriages happened in the House of Habsburg between 1550 and 1660 in the direct line leading to Philipp IV. of Spain and his wife Marianna of Austria. Their child is the sad, sick Don Carlos of Schillerian fame...

Not 100 years later, the House of Habsburg ended in the male line. But of course the marriage of Maria Theresia of Austria to Francis Stephan of Lorraine brought new blood into the family..

As I understand it, uncle-niece marriages are allowed in some places in deference to religious traditions.



Princess Agnes added...

In Portugal there are two cases of marriages to uncles, regarding the only female monarchs.

D. Maria I (1734-1816) married her uncle, Pedro de Bragança (1717-1786) who became D. Pedro III, in 1760.

Her greatgranddaughter, D. Maria II (1819-1853) married her uncle D. Miguel (1802-1866) by proxy in 1826. This marriage was annulled in 1834. This annullment had nothing to do with the close relationship between the spouses (there had been a papal dispensation) but because it had been contracted in an attempt to end the liberal civil wars. D. Miguel didn't fulfill his part of the agreement (he was on the absolutist side) and the marriage ended being annulled. D. Maria II later married Auguste of Beauharnais in 1834 by proxy and personnally in January 1835, although he died in March that year.

She finally married Fernando de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1816-1885) in 1836. After the birth of their first son, he became D. Fernando II.

MAfan added more about Spain...

In the Spanish Royal Family it appears that such marriages were a sort of habit:

- in 1779 Infanta Maria Amalia (Carlos IV's daughter) married her paternal uncle Infante Antonio;
- in 1816 King Fernando VII married his niece Infanta Isabel of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1829 again King Fernando VII married his niece Princess Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Maria Isabel);
- in 1816 Infante Carlos married to his niece Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1838 Infante Carlos married to his niece and sister-in-law Infanta Teresa of Portugal (another daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina, and sister of the above mentioned Isabel and Maria Francisca);
- in 1819 Infante Francisco de Paula (brother of Fernando VII) married to his niece Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Isabel, and sister of the above mentioned Maria Cristina; later Francisco de Paula and Luisa's son, Francisco de Asis, married to Fernando and Maria Cristina's daughter, Queen Isabel II).

Several other descendants of these couples married among themselves.

Alison20 was confused...

It has always seemed very strange to me that no-one in the Spanish RF realised a very basic biological fact, which was that marrying close relatives was not a healthy practice. This was somethat that was understood by even the most isolated and 'primitive' human societies - who made it 'taboo' for a woman to marry a man from her own family group. Perhaps they were so blinded by their belief in their superiority that they didn't think this basic fact applied to them! :-)

Most children born to close relatives are healthy. Not all societies have had a taboo preventing consanguineous marriages. The ones who did were likely more concerned about trading their daughters away as bargaining chips. In other words, the prohibitions were for the same reason the royal families would engage in consanguineous marriages: power. Either gaining it or retaining it.

Grandduchess24 contributed some information about the Norwegian royals...

Queen maud of Norway married her maternal cousin, haakon VII since they are both grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark

Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine married her maternal cousin prince Heinrich of Prussia and had 3 sons, is that right?

Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe Coburg and Gotha had married firstly her cousin grand duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse and had a daughter by him but died young, she secondly married her maternal cousin grand duke Cyril Vladimirovich and had two girls and one boy.

King carol II of Romania married his cousin Helen

Marc23 added about the Portugal royals...

And her son Pedro,"product" of uncle and niece was married to his own aunt Maria Francisca who was a sister to his mother and the other niece of his father,who was at the same time his grandfathers younger brother!

pacomartin gave quite a list...

Hanoverian familial relationships with consorts
King George I married his firstcousin
King George II married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Prince of Wales Frederick married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
King George III married his 3rd cousin
King George IV married his firstcousin
King William IV married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Victoria and Edward Augustus were 3rd cousins 1 generation removed
Queen Victoria married her first cousin
King Edward VII married his 3rd cousin
King George V married his 2nd cousin 1 generation removed
King Edward VIII married "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" after he abdicated (no known relationship)
King George VI married his 13th cousin (pretty distant for two English people) They were both descended from Henry VII.
 
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are:
2nd cousins one generation removed through common descent from King Christian IX of Denmark (died 1906) 3rd cousins through common descent from Queen Victoria (died 1901) and Prince Albert

Prince Charles is said to have proposed to his 2nd cousin, but when she turned him down he proposed to Diana (his 7th cousin once removed).

Queen Elizabeth's consanguinity index is almost zero because of the lack of any close relationship between her parents. Prince Charles is 2.03%, or about a third of the child of first cousins. Prince William and Harry have almost 0%.

theresa_225 offered...

Is Joseph, Prince of Beira and Benedita, Princess of Brazil mentioned yet? José was the son of Maria I of Portugal and her uncle, Peter III. Benedita is his aunt, being the daughter of José I of Portugal and Infanta Mariana Victoria of Spain (the parents of Maria I of Portugal).

Noble Consort Ming...

I think the Thai royal family has not been mentioned. Traditionally Thai kings had many wives including their sisters and half sisters. For example, King Rama V's four queen consorts were all his half-sisters(he had many other wives and concubines besides them as well).

Also, Kind Leonidas of Sparta and his wife Gorgo were uncle and niece. Many sources call her his half-niece(if there is such a term) since she was the daughter of his half brother.

Meraude...

The Roman emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, daughter of his brother Germanicus. She was the sister of emperor Caligula and there were rumours that he had an incestrous relationship with his sister Julia Drusilla, if not all of his sisters, but there is no known facts whether it's true or not.

Emperor Tiberius married his stepsister Julia the Elder, and was later adopted by Julia's father emperor Augustus, so the marriage could be seen as incestrous. The same could be said for the marriage between emperor Nero and his first wife, Claudia Octavia, the daugher of his step- and adoptive father, emperor Claudius.

norenxaq noted...

on a related theme, there was a dynasty in central india called the ikshvaku (c.200-300 AD) whose kings married their aunts

Keeping it in the caste?

The royals in Egypt, Hawaii, and elsewhere are also mentioned.

Literally all over the world, it has been common for close relatives to marry. In the US, there is a ridiculous stereotype that assigns such marriages or sexual relationships to rural southerners. But the fact is, wealthy people urban residents, and people of any socioeconomic background experience consanguinamory.

It is ridiculous that any US state has restrictions on the consanguineous freedom to marry, let alone laws criminalizing sex between first cousins. This is just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality nationwide. Adults in love who want to marry shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out of they can marry where they live, or if it would be criminal for them to live together if they want to move to another state.

Read more »

Posted in: aunt-nephew,brother-sister,consanguineous,cousins,Europe,incest,India,siblings,Spain,UK,uncle-niece

The Royal We

A discussion is still underway at theroyalforums.com about "Incestuous Royal Marriages." This blog has noted such things before.
Kataryn started off the discussion YEARS ago...

Legally Catherine of Aragon was married incestually because she as widow of one brother married the other after the first hausband's death.

That's not considered incest in most definitions.

But that's just a formality. History has shown that Royal families did not hesitate to form very close bonds between them. While a marriage of cousin and cousin happened quite often, marriages between unles and nieces are rare - but they happened, too.

One example is the marriage of Antoinette Marie of Wuerttemberg to Ernst I. of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Marie's mother Antoinette of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was the sister of the groom.

Then there are the three uncle-niece marriages of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs:

- Philipp II. married Anna of Austria, the daughter of his sister Marie.

- Archduke Charles II of Austria-Innerösterreich married Maria Anna of Bavaria, daughter of his sister Anna of Austria.

- Philipp IV. married Marianna of Austria, daughter of his sister Maria Anna.

As you can see, the last three uncle-niece-marriages happened in the House of Habsburg between 1550 and 1660 in the direct line leading to Philipp IV. of Spain and his wife Marianna of Austria. Their child is the sad, sick Don Carlos of Schillerian fame...

Not 100 years later, the House of Habsburg ended in the male line. But of course the marriage of Maria Theresia of Austria to Francis Stephan of Lorraine brought new blood into the family..

As I understand it, uncle-niece marriages are allowed in some places in deference to religious traditions.



Princess Agnes added...

In Portugal there are two cases of marriages to uncles, regarding the only female monarchs.

D. Maria I (1734-1816) married her uncle, Pedro de Bragança (1717-1786) who became D. Pedro III, in 1760.

Her greatgranddaughter, D. Maria II (1819-1853) married her uncle D. Miguel (1802-1866) by proxy in 1826. This marriage was annulled in 1834. This annullment had nothing to do with the close relationship between the spouses (there had been a papal dispensation) but because it had been contracted in an attempt to end the liberal civil wars. D. Miguel didn't fulfill his part of the agreement (he was on the absolutist side) and the marriage ended being annulled. D. Maria II later married Auguste of Beauharnais in 1834 by proxy and personnally in January 1835, although he died in March that year.

She finally married Fernando de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1816-1885) in 1836. After the birth of their first son, he became D. Fernando II.

MAfan added more about Spain...

In the Spanish Royal Family it appears that such marriages were a sort of habit:

- in 1779 Infanta Maria Amalia (Carlos IV's daughter) married her paternal uncle Infante Antonio;
- in 1816 King Fernando VII married his niece Infanta Isabel of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1829 again King Fernando VII married his niece Princess Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Maria Isabel);
- in 1816 Infante Carlos married to his niece Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal (daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina);
- in 1838 Infante Carlos married to his niece and sister-in-law Infanta Teresa of Portugal (another daughter of his sister Carlota Joaquina, and sister of the above mentioned Isabel and Maria Francisca);
- in 1819 Infante Francisco de Paula (brother of Fernando VII) married to his niece Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies (daughter of his sister Isabel, and sister of the above mentioned Maria Cristina; later Francisco de Paula and Luisa's son, Francisco de Asis, married to Fernando and Maria Cristina's daughter, Queen Isabel II).

Several other descendants of these couples married among themselves.

Alison20 was confused...

It has always seemed very strange to me that no-one in the Spanish RF realised a very basic biological fact, which was that marrying close relatives was not a healthy practice. This was somethat that was understood by even the most isolated and 'primitive' human societies - who made it 'taboo' for a woman to marry a man from her own family group. Perhaps they were so blinded by their belief in their superiority that they didn't think this basic fact applied to them! :-)

Most children born to close relatives are healthy. Not all societies have had a taboo preventing consanguineous marriages. The ones who did were likely more concerned about trading their daughters away as bargaining chips. In other words, the prohibitions were for the same reason the royal families would engage in consanguineous marriages: power. Either gaining it or retaining it.

Grandduchess24 contributed some information about the Norwegian royals...

Queen maud of Norway married her maternal cousin, haakon VII since they are both grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark

Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine married her maternal cousin prince Heinrich of Prussia and had 3 sons, is that right?

Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe Coburg and Gotha had married firstly her cousin grand duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse and had a daughter by him but died young, she secondly married her maternal cousin grand duke Cyril Vladimirovich and had two girls and one boy.

King carol II of Romania married his cousin Helen

Marc23 added about the Portugal royals...

And her son Pedro,"product" of uncle and niece was married to his own aunt Maria Francisca who was a sister to his mother and the other niece of his father,who was at the same time his grandfathers younger brother!

pacomartin gave quite a list...

Hanoverian familial relationships with consorts
King George I married his firstcousin
King George II married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Prince of Wales Frederick married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
King George III married his 3rd cousin
King George IV married his firstcousin
King William IV married his 3rd cousin 1 generation removed
Victoria and Edward Augustus were 3rd cousins 1 generation removed
Queen Victoria married her first cousin
King Edward VII married his 3rd cousin
King George V married his 2nd cousin 1 generation removed
King Edward VIII married "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" after he abdicated (no known relationship)
King George VI married his 13th cousin (pretty distant for two English people) They were both descended from Henry VII.
 
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are:
2nd cousins one generation removed through common descent from King Christian IX of Denmark (died 1906) 3rd cousins through common descent from Queen Victoria (died 1901) and Prince Albert

Prince Charles is said to have proposed to his 2nd cousin, but when she turned him down he proposed to Diana (his 7th cousin once removed).

Queen Elizabeth's consanguinity index is almost zero because of the lack of any close relationship between her parents. Prince Charles is 2.03%, or about a third of the child of first cousins. Prince William and Harry have almost 0%.

theresa_225 offered...

Is Joseph, Prince of Beira and Benedita, Princess of Brazil mentioned yet? José was the son of Maria I of Portugal and her uncle, Peter III. Benedita is his aunt, being the daughter of José I of Portugal and Infanta Mariana Victoria of Spain (the parents of Maria I of Portugal).

Noble Consort Ming...

I think the Thai royal family has not been mentioned. Traditionally Thai kings had many wives including their sisters and half sisters. For example, King Rama V's four queen consorts were all his half-sisters(he had many other wives and concubines besides them as well).

Also, Kind Leonidas of Sparta and his wife Gorgo were uncle and niece. Many sources call her his half-niece(if there is such a term) since she was the daughter of his half brother.

Meraude...

The Roman emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, daughter of his brother Germanicus. She was the sister of emperor Caligula and there were rumours that he had an incestrous relationship with his sister Julia Drusilla, if not all of his sisters, but there is no known facts whether it's true or not.

Emperor Tiberius married his stepsister Julia the Elder, and was later adopted by Julia's father emperor Augustus, so the marriage could be seen as incestrous. The same could be said for the marriage between emperor Nero and his first wife, Claudia Octavia, the daugher of his step- and adoptive father, emperor Claudius.

norenxaq noted...

on a related theme, there was a dynasty in central india called the ikshvaku (c.200-300 AD) whose kings married their aunts

Keeping it in the caste?

The royals in Egypt, Hawaii, and elsewhere are also mentioned.

Literally all over the world, it has been common for close relatives to marry. In the US, there is a ridiculous stereotype that assigns such marriages or sexual relationships to rural southerners. But the fact is, wealthy people urban residents, and people of any socioeconomic background experience consanguinamory.

It is ridiculous that any US state has restrictions on the consanguineous freedom to marry, let alone laws criminalizing sex between first cousins. This is just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality nationwide. Adults in love who want to marry shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out of they can marry where they live, or if it would be criminal for them to live together if they want to move to another state.

Read more »

Posted in: aunt-nephew,brother-sister,consanguineous,cousins,Europe,incest,India,siblings,Spain,UK,uncle-niece

Dear Prudence is an Ally For Cousins

Thanks to a good Friend of FME, I was alerted to a recent Dear Prudence edition about cousins. We've taken a look at Emily Yoffe's work at slate.com before, but here we are again.

This is from the question...

Over 20 years ago I had an affair with a married woman who became pregnant with my child. She reconciled with her husband and they raised the boy as their own.

By the way, in many places a child born to a married couple is legally the child of both, regardless of how that child was conceived.

I have not had any contact with my biological son, at the husband's request. No one in my family knows I have a secret son. Two weeks ago I found out my niece (my sister's daughter) is engaged, and the groom to be is none other than my biological son! 

That makes them biological first cousins. This is not a problem.

Prudie, I am livid that my son's mother and her husband did not stop this relationship in its early stages.

There's no good reason they should stop it all.

"No, Bobby, you can't date that girl because she's you're biological cousin" is all it would have taken.

But that isn't true. The "can't date" part isn't true. First cousins date and marry all of the time. The"biological cousin" part is true, of course, but does the son even know of his genetic origin? If not, as indicated later in the letter, they may not want to tell him.

I contacted the woman and she swore she didn't know our son was marrying my niece since my niece has a different last name. I asked her what she planned to do to stop the wedding and she said she's doing nothing!

Good for her! We need more people like her.

Prudie, how do I bring this up with my niece and her parents? 

He can't, at least not without causing serious disruption to many lives. He shouldn't anyway. Why attempt to trample on someone else's happiness?

Here's the answer provided...

This is an opportunity to repeat my frequent reassurance to fathers: Dads, a statistically significant percentage of you actually have sired the children you think are yours.

That's true. However, up to 20% aren't. So while at least 80% are, that that is statistically significant, up to 1 in 5 aren't. That's just one of many reasons there is more consanguinamory going on that the average person realizes.

You think you have a simple, easy way for the mother of the groom to stop the romance by saying, "Bobby, your father is not your father, and your fiancée is your cousin!" But if you think this through, explaining all this will entirely upend his family, and now yours, and at this late date in the wedding planning you can understand that the parents want to stick with their original plan to keep quiet about Bobby's biology.

Like I said.

Cousin marriage is common in much of the world and I think the remaining laws against it in this country should be repealed. Yes, there is an elevated risk of passing on genetic disorders, but it absolute terms it is very small. Two young people are in love and planning to make a life together. I think you should let that be.

Thank you, Dear Prudence!!! That other couple raised the boy to adulthood and apparently have provided him with a good home, and disrupting their family harmony now would do much more harm than good.

As for anyone who says the groom to be has to be told of his genetic origin for his own health, that really isn't true given modern technologies. Anyone concerned should take medical tests that will tell them of their potential health risks.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,cheating,children,consanguineous,cousins,family reaction,GSA,media,prejudice,reunion,stigma

Dear Prudence is an Ally For Cousins

Thanks to a good Friend of FME, I was alerted to a recent Dear Prudence edition about cousins. We've taken a look at Emily Yoffe's work at slate.com before, but here we are again.

This is from the question...

Over 20 years ago I had an affair with a married woman who became pregnant with my child. She reconciled with her husband and they raised the boy as their own.

By the way, in many places a child born to a married couple is legally the child of both, regardless of how that child was conceived.

I have not had any contact with my biological son, at the husband's request. No one in my family knows I have a secret son. Two weeks ago I found out my niece (my sister's daughter) is engaged, and the groom to be is none other than my biological son! 

That makes them biological first cousins. This is not a problem.

Prudie, I am livid that my son's mother and her husband did not stop this relationship in its early stages.

There's no good reason they should stop it all.

"No, Bobby, you can't date that girl because she's you're biological cousin" is all it would have taken.

But that isn't true. The "can't date" part isn't true. First cousins date and marry all of the time. The"biological cousin" part is true, of course, but does the son even know of his genetic origin? If not, as indicated later in the letter, they may not want to tell him.

I contacted the woman and she swore she didn't know our son was marrying my niece since my niece has a different last name. I asked her what she planned to do to stop the wedding and she said she's doing nothing!

Good for her! We need more people like her.

Prudie, how do I bring this up with my niece and her parents? 

He can't, at least not without causing serious disruption to many lives. He shouldn't anyway. Why attempt to trample on someone else's happiness?

Here's the answer provided...

This is an opportunity to repeat my frequent reassurance to fathers: Dads, a statistically significant percentage of you actually have sired the children you think are yours.

That's true. However, up to 20% aren't. So while at least 80% are, that that is statistically significant, up to 1 in 5 aren't. That's just one of many reasons there is more consanguinamory going on that the average person realizes.

You think you have a simple, easy way for the mother of the groom to stop the romance by saying, "Bobby, your father is not your father, and your fiancée is your cousin!" But if you think this through, explaining all this will entirely upend his family, and now yours, and at this late date in the wedding planning you can understand that the parents want to stick with their original plan to keep quiet about Bobby's biology.

Like I said.

Cousin marriage is common in much of the world and I think the remaining laws against it in this country should be repealed. Yes, there is an elevated risk of passing on genetic disorders, but it absolute terms it is very small. Two young people are in love and planning to make a life together. I think you should let that be.

Thank you, Dear Prudence!!! That other couple raised the boy to adulthood and apparently have provided him with a good home, and disrupting their family harmony now would do much more harm than good.

As for anyone who says the groom to be has to be told of his genetic origin for his own health, that really isn't true given modern technologies. Anyone concerned should take medical tests that will tell them of their potential health risks.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,cheating,children,consanguineous,cousins,family reaction,GSA,media,prejudice,reunion,stigma

What Genealogists Know

With each previous generation you trace back, the maximum possible number of your genetic ancestors doubles. You can have 2 parents, up to 4 grandparents, up to 8 great-grandparents, up to 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.

On average, there are about four generations per century. For people born in the year 2000, their 8 great-great-grandparents were probably born around 1900. Sometime around 1800 their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were born (there may be up to 128 of them). About 29 generations back, or roughly around the time of 1250-1300, the total number of your possible ancestors for that generation equals or exceeds the total population of the planet, which was about 500 million people.

What gives? Well, first of all, if all 500 million of those people were your ancestors, they would also be the ancestors of all of the rest of us, too.

Secondly, you probably don’t have every person alive back then as your ancestor. There wasn’t a lot of interracial or intercultural parenting going on back then. People were more isolated, more people lived in rural countrysides rather than dense urban areas, and people were not nearly as geographically or socially mobile as they are today. It was very common for a person to be born in and to die in the the same village or town, having lived all of her or his life there.

This means that for many, many, many, many generations, there was a lot of what most people would call today “inbreeding.” If your spouse wasn’t your first cousin, your spouse was likely a second or third cousin, or a second cousin-once removed, our even your double-cousin, etc. And as I’ve noted before, even if they weren’t marrying them, people were having children with siblings, aunts or uncles, etc. (Even if not having children together, what do you think went on, given that pubescent teens, like most children, were usually sharing a bedroom?) Not only did these things not destroy humanity, but in Europe, the Renaissance was birthed in these conditions.

Coming back to around 1800, very few people are likely to have 128 great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, just like very few of those people in 1800 had 128 of them in 1600. Because chances are, some of your recent ancestors were cousins, if not closer. If you marry your first cousin, you have no more than six genetic grandparents between you, instead of eight. If your parents are first cousins, you have six great-grandparents instead of eight.

If “inbreeding” was as detrimental as common misconception says, none of us would be here.

Read more »

Posted in: children,consanguineous,cousins,incest,myths,science,stigma

Cousin Marriages From a Genetic Perspective

A blog about gene expression at Discover Magazine took a look at “the individual & social risks of cousin marriage,” and it even had maps.

In the United States there’s a stereotype of cousin marriage being the practice of backward hillbillies or royalty. For typical middle class folk it’s relatively taboo, with different legal regimes by state. The history of cousin marriage in the West has been one of ups & downs. Marriage between close relatives was not unknown in antiquity. The pagan emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, while the Christian emperor Heraclius married his niece Martina. Marriage between cousins were presumably more common.

How did things change?

With the rise in the West of the Roman Catholic Church marriages between cousins were officially more constrained. Adam Bellow argues in In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History that there’s a material explanation for this: the Roman church used its power over the sacrament of marriage to control the aristocracy.

That’s interesting.

More precisely the coefficient of kinship between two first cousins is 1/8. That means that at any given locus there’s a 1 out of 8 chance that the two individuals will have alleles which are identical by descent, which means that the genetic variant comes down from the same person in the family line.

If the allele is “good,” that is, totally normal/wild type, not associated with any pathology, then we’re in the clear. That’s why most first cousin marriages don’t produce children who are monsters. What a first cousin marriage does is change the odds. How you present these odds matters a great deal in how scary they sound. If I told you than the chance of first cousins having children with a birth defect is 4-7%, vs. 3-4% for a non-consanguineous couple, it might not sound that bad. But if I told you that the odds of having a birth defect is ~50% greater, then it sounds worse.

He got more technical and moved on to discuss Muslims in Britain.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,Islam,religion,science,UK

Thin Walls Reveal Consanguinamory

Supporters of full marriage equality can help the cause by speaking up for relationship rights for all when the opportunities present themselves. One place where such opportunities can happen is in discussion forums. For example, I found this thread in the forum at womens-health.com. LisaW1991 got things kicked off by writing...

I live in an appartment next door to nice guy who's going to college. He has lived there for almost a year. Friendly guy who is single. He doesn't appear to have steady GF, but he does bring home girls occasionally and has sex. The walls are pretty thin, and I can hear them having sex. One girl that has been there several times has been his sister, and everytime she stays the weekend, its clear they have sex several times. I've met her and talked to her down at the pool, and they seem like an affectionate couple when are out in public, but he always introduces her to everyone as his sister.

Its really none of my business so I have not said anything to him about hearing them have sex through the wall, but sometimes I wonder if I should just so he knows. I've not said anything because hearing others have sex does not bother me, and I don't want make him feel he needs to hold back.

Thankfully, she didn't express prejudice about the situation, like we have seen with like situations before. Yes, we have seen people asking about hearing their sibling neighbors make love and wondering what to do.



A subsequent comment asks if they are really blood relation or have some other connection, so the original poster added...

I don't know if they are blood related. She did come with his parents to visit once. They kinda look a like a little, but I don't know if that just me looking for anything that's similar, like they laugh the same way, and they both have green eyes. Sometimes I think they act like brother-sister, then other times it seems like they act like couple. My sister thinks they are blood related, but I think she seeing similarities that I think aren't really there or too common, like she thinks they have the same nose, but I don't agree. Besides, I have seen couples who aren't blood related that look almost like twins.

Yeah, it could be possible they are related by marriage. I really don't know much about their background. We're just neighbors, not very close friends. We've only chatted a few times in passing or when hanging out at the pool. Its kinda strange to feel like I know more about his sex life from what I hear through the walls, than I do about him as a person. And, from comes through the wall, I am surprised he doesn't have a steady GF because he is a nice guy and obviously women have a good time when they spend the night.

And then...

They even have the same last name. He just doesn't know my sister and I can hear them having sex when she spends the weekend.

We had not seen her for a while, but she spent last weekend with him, and well, here was some intense bedroom activity occurring while she was here.

CHANDLERS WISH chimed in with saying they aren't doing anyone harm. Someone else pretty much gave their approval, but only as long as they didn't make babies. (See Discredited Argument #18.)

There original poster added...

I try not to be judgemental about such choices if is a mutual choice\attraction. When I was 14 I had sexual encounter with a cousin who was 16. I was already sexual active, but he had never had sex before. One evening we were alone together and began engaging in foreplay that led to us having sex.

CHANDLERS WISH returned to add..

I think the fact that you mentioned that, about your cousin, means you are curious as to why this occurs, as in how other people think of it and want to interact in conversation with him as you probably can't talk to others about your situation.

I think it happens more than we know...

Kids are curious and attraction is attraction.

If that is what you are feeling? Then I wouldn't be shy to be assertive to discuss in general incest but how is another story ...

LisaW1991 responded...

Yes, what you say is true to some degree because my cousin and I first started had sexual contact when I was 11 and it continued, but we didn't start having sex until I was 14. I was willing to have sex sooner than that, but he was very hesitant and prefered we limit our encounters to oral sex and sleeping the night together. Even though we are cousins, he is always seemed like a brother to my sisters and I, so while technically we were kissing cousins, it was more like of a brother-sister relationship. When we did start having sex, it was pretty intense, and it does remind me of what I hear through the wall when my neighbor has sex with his sister.

One person did talk abut their own crushes within extended family (cousins, family-by-marriage) but then invoked Discredited Argument #1 against siblings.

The good news is that, at least when I last checked, the discussion was generally positive and supportive of the siblings. 10-15% of college-aged people admit in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling, so the siblings this thread discusses are like many, many others their age. The poster's perception that the lovemaking is intense agrees with what people in such relationships say

My advice to the original poster, or anyone in that position, would be that people in consanguinamorous relationships often feel alone against the world and constrained due to the prejudices against them. Having friends who know about them and are still up for spending time with them is usually most welcome. Be a friend. Sit down with him or both of them together, and with a smile tell them they make a lovely couple. If the response is "we're siblings" come back with "that doesn't mean you can't be a couple." It will get the conversation going if you let them know that you're not going to reject them or spread nasty rumors about them or turn them into law enforcement or their parents (who may already know).

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,cousins,siblings

Thin Walls Reveal Consanguinamory

Supporters of full marriage equality can help the cause by speaking up for relationship rights for all when the opportunities present themselves. One place where such opportunities can happen is in discussion forums. For example, I found this thread in the forum at womens-health.com. LisaW1991 got things kicked off by writing...

I live in an appartment next door to nice guy who's going to college. He has lived there for almost a year. Friendly guy who is single. He doesn't appear to have steady GF, but he does bring home girls occasionally and has sex. The walls are pretty thin, and I can hear them having sex. One girl that has been there several times has been his sister, and everytime she stays the weekend, its clear they have sex several times. I've met her and talked to her down at the pool, and they seem like an affectionate couple when are out in public, but he always introduces her to everyone as his sister.

Its really none of my business so I have not said anything to him about hearing them have sex through the wall, but sometimes I wonder if I should just so he knows. I've not said anything because hearing others have sex does not bother me, and I don't want make him feel he needs to hold back.

Thankfully, she didn't express prejudice about the situation, like we have seen with like situations before. Yes, we have seen people asking about hearing their sibling neighbors make love and wondering what to do.



A subsequent comment asks if they are really blood relation or have some other connection, so the original poster added...

I don't know if they are blood related. She did come with his parents to visit once. They kinda look a like a little, but I don't know if that just me looking for anything that's similar, like they laugh the same way, and they both have green eyes. Sometimes I think they act like brother-sister, then other times it seems like they act like couple. My sister thinks they are blood related, but I think she seeing similarities that I think aren't really there or too common, like she thinks they have the same nose, but I don't agree. Besides, I have seen couples who aren't blood related that look almost like twins.

Yeah, it could be possible they are related by marriage. I really don't know much about their background. We're just neighbors, not very close friends. We've only chatted a few times in passing or when hanging out at the pool. Its kinda strange to feel like I know more about his sex life from what I hear through the walls, than I do about him as a person. And, from comes through the wall, I am surprised he doesn't have a steady GF because he is a nice guy and obviously women have a good time when they spend the night.

And then...

They even have the same last name. He just doesn't know my sister and I can hear them having sex when she spends the weekend.

We had not seen her for a while, but she spent last weekend with him, and well, here was some intense bedroom activity occurring while she was here.

CHANDLERS WISH chimed in with saying they aren't doing anyone harm. Someone else pretty much gave their approval, but only as long as they didn't make babies. (See Discredited Argument #18.)

There original poster added...

I try not to be judgemental about such choices if is a mutual choice\attraction. When I was 14 I had sexual encounter with a cousin who was 16. I was already sexual active, but he had never had sex before. One evening we were alone together and began engaging in foreplay that led to us having sex.

CHANDLERS WISH returned to add..

I think the fact that you mentioned that, about your cousin, means you are curious as to why this occurs, as in how other people think of it and want to interact in conversation with him as you probably can't talk to others about your situation.

I think it happens more than we know...

Kids are curious and attraction is attraction.

If that is what you are feeling? Then I wouldn't be shy to be assertive to discuss in general incest but how is another story ...

LisaW1991 responded...

Yes, what you say is true to some degree because my cousin and I first started had sexual contact when I was 11 and it continued, but we didn't start having sex until I was 14. I was willing to have sex sooner than that, but he was very hesitant and prefered we limit our encounters to oral sex and sleeping the night together. Even though we are cousins, he is always seemed like a brother to my sisters and I, so while technically we were kissing cousins, it was more like of a brother-sister relationship. When we did start having sex, it was pretty intense, and it does remind me of what I hear through the wall when my neighbor has sex with his sister.

One person did talk abut their own crushes within extended family (cousins, family-by-marriage) but then invoked Discredited Argument #1 against siblings.

The good news is that, at least when I last checked, the discussion was generally positive and supportive of the siblings. 10-15% of college-aged people admit in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling, so the siblings this thread discusses are like many, many others their age. The poster's perception that the lovemaking is intense agrees with what people in such relationships say

My advice to the original poster, or anyone in that position, would be that people in consanguinamorous relationships often feel alone against the world and constrained due to the prejudices against them. Having friends who know about them and are still up for spending time with them is usually most welcome. Be a friend. Sit down with him or both of them together, and with a smile tell them they make a lovely couple. If the response is "we're siblings" come back with "that doesn't mean you can't be a couple." It will get the conversation going if you let them know that you're not going to reject them or spread nasty rumors about them or turn them into law enforcement or their parents (who may already know).

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,cousins,siblings

An Opportunity For a Brave Father and Son

Here's a quick roundup of how pop culture was looking at incestuous themes this week.

The mother-daughter video performer team I blogged about a while back is back in the news again. They want a father-son team to join them. Here's the article from David Moye that is at huffingtonpost.com...

Jessica Sexxxton, 56, and her daughter, Monica, 22, have been shooting sex scenes together for the last 18 months for their own self-titled website, sometimes sharing the same partner, but not at the same time and never with each other -- a technicality that keeps their films from being legally considered incest.

Now the Tampa, Fla.-based twosome are hoping to take their unorthodox relationship to the next level, with a nationwide search for a real father and son willing to shoot a porn film scene with them.

"It's something we've considered for a while," Jessica Sexxxton told The Huffington Post. "We once dated brothers in real life on and off for a couple of years. They were closer to [Monica's] age, but we haven't done a father and son in real life or on camera."

This was also covered at bhaskar.com and ibtimes.com. Of course some of the people covering this call it disgusting, but they've chosen to focus on it and write about it anyway. Hmm. I wonder how much "research" they are doing on these women and their videos?

As my readers know, I don't think there should be any laws restriction what this mother and daughter do with each other on or off-camera, and same goes for any male performers they may work with. They are consenting adults, after all.

And Liana Maeby was back with her weekly roundup of "incest" in entertainment. Here's the previous update on her list. This time, in addition to this latest news from the Sexxxtons, she covers Arrested Development (cousins) and John Ford's play, 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. She even brings up the silly "casting incest" I wrote about before when it comes to The Fault in Our Stars and Divergent.

Consanguinamory is a very popular theme in erotica, and has always been a theme in literature, theatre, and mythology because it has always been a part of life. I wonder what we'd find in the love lives of people who make a point of badmouthing the love lives of other consenting adults (fictional or real)? That someone who isn't involved thinks that consenting adults are doing something disgusting with each other should have no power to stop those consenting adults from enjoying each other and loving each other.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,cousins,father-son,incest,media,mother-daughter,prejudice