An Example of the Benefit of Nonmonogamy in Nature

I am polyamorous, but not one of those polyamorists who say everyone else should be polyamorous, too. When I say I support the rights of consenting adults, that includes the freedom to be monogamous or celibate. And, as I always say, just because something is found in another species, it doesn't automatically apply to humans. With those things out of the way, I wanted to note Carl Zimmer's report at nytimes.com that flies forced into monogamy apparently lose learning ability.

Forcing male flies into monogamy has a startling effect: After a few dozen generations, the flies become worse at learning.

This discovery, published on Wednesday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, isn’t a biological excuse for men who have strayed from their significant other. Instead, it’s a tantalizing clue about why intelligence evolved.

The new study was carried out by Brian Hollis and Tadeusz J. Kawecki, biologists at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. They investigated a fly species called Drosophila melanogaster that normally has a very un-monogamous way of life.

I do think it causes all sorts of problems to try to force a polyamorous person into monogamy. Human history has shown that over and over again. Also, many polyamorous people will tell you that living out polyamory has made them better people and taught them much.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,human origins,lack of equality harms,monogamy,open,polyamory,polygamy,science

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

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

Differing Ideas About the Origins of Monogamy

At irishtimes.com, William Reville wrote about conflicting theories about the origins of monogamy.

Two big studies were published exploring the origins of monogamy in mammals, which these researchers define as males and females living in breeding pairs (this does not necessarily mean each animal is always faithful).

So even when an animal is listed as monogamous, it might not actually be. Living together, having sex, and raising children are not all the same things.

Birds are quite socially monogamous – 92 per cent stay with a mate for at least a mating season – but monogamy is relatively rare in mammals. This is because both male and female birds can carry out parenting duties such as incubating eggs and feeding chicks, whereas male mammals cannot help gestate or breastfeed.

Overall, 9 per cent of mammalian species are monogamous, whereas about 25 per cent of primate species live in pairs. Monogamous animals include swans, wolves, bald eagles, vultures, Arctic foxes, coyotes, grey seals, meerkats, red foxes, snow leopards, rhinoceroses, beavers, gibbons and mole rats.

Hmmm. Calling someone a "fox" might bring a different image to me now.

The Cambridge study concluded that monogamy evolved independently 61 times in mammals and, in almost all cases, when females lived separated far from each other. The researchers concluded that, under these circumstances, males would have difficulty mating with multiple females, and they would fare better by sticking with a single female and guarding her against advances from other males. Such “one-woman” males would produce more offspring than males who attempted to spread themselves about and, consequently, genes predisposing for monogamy would accumulate in the species.

Humans tend to live in close proximity to each other.

On the contrary, the UCL group concluded that the stimulus for the evolution of monogamy in primates was the high risk of infanticide by males. It is noted today that infanticide rates are very low in monogamous primates, and higher in non-monogamous primates. Males in non-monogamous species may benefit by killing babies sired by rival males.

 Usually in humans, killing a woman's children means you're not going to be having sex with her.

They have no interest in investing resources in fostering rivals’ offspring; also, losing a baby forces the mother to enter her fertile period sooner. Monogamy evolved, the UCL researchers propose, as a counter strategy among males who stayed close to their mates and offspring to defend them.

The Cambridge and UCL researchers are talking to each other but there is much to resolve. The Cambridge group found no evidence that infanticide drove the evolution of monogamy in primates, and the UCL group claims monogamy arose in primates before females moved into separate discrete territories.

The two groups disagree over the implications of their research for human evolution. The UCL team says human monogamy evolved to minimise the threat of infanticide. The Cambridge team says its own results have little bearing on humans because humans evolved from ancestors that lived in social groups, so their theory on monogamy and females living far apart doesn’t apply.

Right.

Indeed the Cambridge group wonders whether humans ever evolved monogamy at all, because in many traditional societies one man may take several wives. According to George P Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969), among 1,231 societies around the world, 186 are monogamous, 453 are occasionally polygamist, 588 are frequently polygamist and four practise polyandry (married to more than one husband).

What about places where it is common and accepted for at least one spouse in a "monogamous" marriage to have a long-term lover on the side?

However, the actual practice of polygamy in a tolerant society may be low. In many monogamous societies the divorce rate approaches 50 per cent, and re-marriage is common. In reality, these “monogamous societies” practise serial monogamy, a form of plural mating.

Well, yes, that is the whole "serial monogamy" or "serial polygamy" thing.

How many humans go through their entire life with only one sex partner?
How many humans go through their entire life only having/raising children with one other person?
How many humans go through their entire life only ever living the same one partner?
How many humans go through their entire life only marrying on person?

Considering all of this, it makes it less plausible to say monogamy is or should be the norm for humans. I'm not someone who says nobody should be monogamous. Although I am polyamorous, I do not think polygamory is for everyone. I fully support someone's right to be monogamous, and if they're happy being monogamous I am happy for them. In turn, I welcome monogamous allies for the rights of the polyamorous, especially in light of the scientific facts.

Read more »

Posted in: children,human origins,monogamy,polyamory,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny,pregnancy,science

Differing Ideas About the Origins of Monogamy

At irishtimes.com, William Reville wrote about conflicting theories about the origins of monogamy.

Two big studies were published exploring the origins of monogamy in mammals, which these researchers define as males and females living in breeding pairs (this does not necessarily mean each animal is always faithful).

So even when an animal is listed as monogamous, it might not actually be. Living together, having sex, and raising children are not all the same things.

Birds are quite socially monogamous – 92 per cent stay with a mate for at least a mating season – but monogamy is relatively rare in mammals. This is because both male and female birds can carry out parenting duties such as incubating eggs and feeding chicks, whereas male mammals cannot help gestate or breastfeed.

Overall, 9 per cent of mammalian species are monogamous, whereas about 25 per cent of primate species live in pairs. Monogamous animals include swans, wolves, bald eagles, vultures, Arctic foxes, coyotes, grey seals, meerkats, red foxes, snow leopards, rhinoceroses, beavers, gibbons and mole rats.

Hmmm. Calling someone a "fox" might bring a different image to me now.

The Cambridge study concluded that monogamy evolved independently 61 times in mammals and, in almost all cases, when females lived separated far from each other. The researchers concluded that, under these circumstances, males would have difficulty mating with multiple females, and they would fare better by sticking with a single female and guarding her against advances from other males. Such “one-woman” males would produce more offspring than males who attempted to spread themselves about and, consequently, genes predisposing for monogamy would accumulate in the species.

Humans tend to live in close proximity to each other.

On the contrary, the UCL group concluded that the stimulus for the evolution of monogamy in primates was the high risk of infanticide by males. It is noted today that infanticide rates are very low in monogamous primates, and higher in non-monogamous primates. Males in non-monogamous species may benefit by killing babies sired by rival males.

 Usually in humans, killing a woman's children means you're not going to be having sex with her.

They have no interest in investing resources in fostering rivals’ offspring; also, losing a baby forces the mother to enter her fertile period sooner. Monogamy evolved, the UCL researchers propose, as a counter strategy among males who stayed close to their mates and offspring to defend them.

The Cambridge and UCL researchers are talking to each other but there is much to resolve. The Cambridge group found no evidence that infanticide drove the evolution of monogamy in primates, and the UCL group claims monogamy arose in primates before females moved into separate discrete territories.

The two groups disagree over the implications of their research for human evolution. The UCL team says human monogamy evolved to minimise the threat of infanticide. The Cambridge team says its own results have little bearing on humans because humans evolved from ancestors that lived in social groups, so their theory on monogamy and females living far apart doesn’t apply.

Right.

Indeed the Cambridge group wonders whether humans ever evolved monogamy at all, because in many traditional societies one man may take several wives. According to George P Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969), among 1,231 societies around the world, 186 are monogamous, 453 are occasionally polygamist, 588 are frequently polygamist and four practise polyandry (married to more than one husband).

What about places where it is common and accepted for at least one spouse in a "monogamous" marriage to have a long-term lover on the side?

However, the actual practice of polygamy in a tolerant society may be low. In many monogamous societies the divorce rate approaches 50 per cent, and re-marriage is common. In reality, these “monogamous societies” practise serial monogamy, a form of plural mating.

Well, yes, that is the whole "serial monogamy" or "serial polygamy" thing.

How many humans go through their entire life with only one sex partner?
How many humans go through their entire life only having/raising children with one other person?
How many humans go through their entire life only ever living the same one partner?
How many humans go through their entire life only marrying on person?

Considering all of this, it makes it less plausible to say monogamy is or should be the norm for humans. I'm not someone who says nobody should be monogamous. Although I am polyamorous, I do not think polygamory is for everyone. I fully support someone's right to be monogamous, and if they're happy being monogamous I am happy for them. In turn, I welcome monogamous allies for the rights of the polyamorous, especially in light of the scientific facts.

Read more »

Posted in: children,human origins,monogamy,polyamory,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny,pregnancy,science

Smell, Body Odor, and Attraction

Shana Lebowitz wrote "The Biology of Body Odor," which has some relevance to the topics of this blog.

The biology behind body odor is pretty tricky, but it’s partially based on three types of glands that contribute to odors. Sweat glands exist all over the body and kick into gear when we exercise, become overheated, or feel anxious. Sebaceous glands are also found throughout the body and only start producing their oily liquid during puberty. Apocrine glands, located mostly in the armpit and pubic regions, and also start acting up around adolescence and can cause some serious stink. Steroids in apocrine secretions, especially the ones that come from the armpit, are some of the biggest culprits behind adult B.O. But — here’s a real shocker — sweat and other secretions don’t actually smell. Sweat, sebaceous, and apocrine glands secrete volatile organic chemicals, and odors arise when these “VOCs” interact with bacteria on the skin, in hair follicles, and in the mouth.

While it might be possible to avoid bad B.O. by steering clear of certain foods, how we smell is largely based on genetic factors.

Got that? There may be a pop quiz.

Body odor also has a lot to do with romantic attraction — beyond the fact that it’s a good idea to deodorize before a date. Sweat, skin oils, and other secretions release pheromones, molecules that help animals communicate. In humans, pheromones can convey important information about who’s a potential match — no OkCupid profile required.

Hey, no kidding. I love the smell of a woman, myself.

Women find high-testosterone odors more attractive when they’re most fertile, while men find fertile women smell sexiest.

These are broad generalizations, of course.

Back in the caveman days, our nostrils may have also helped us avoid incest. It’s still not clear whether family members can recognize each other’s smells, and people might only develop the ability once they hit adulthood. Some research suggests humans are especially skilled at sniffing out same-sex siblings.

It is possible that way back when, groups that did not experience the Westermarck Effect were more likely to be wiped out by disease. Life has changed much since then, but there are still people who do not experience a strong Westermarck Effect, at least not strongly enough to override attraction. We also tend to see that genetic relatives who aren't raised together may be strongly attracted to each other, and they often cite each other's scent as one reason why.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,GSA,human origins,science

Sam Woolfe is Another Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Sam Woolfe at thebackbencher.co.uk had a piece that asked, "Should Polygamy Be Legalized?"  He does a rather good job countering some of the typical misinformation about polygamy and polyamory used by those who want to deny people this freedom to marry and relationship rights.

Polygamy, or a marriage involving more than two partners, is illegal in most countries. Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the UK, and if one is performed then the already married person is guilty of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person, whilst already being married to someone else.

I can understand having laws against defrauding someone by hiding an existing marriage or "secretly" entering into a new one while still married to someone who would not agree, but there should be no laws barring the polygamous freedom to marry when all involved agree.

 Where polygamy is legal, those who have entered into a polygamous marriage are still discriminated against – their marriage is not recognised for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.

Ridiculous.

There are different forms of polygamy.

Wow! Finally, an article that does not take a "Muslim or Mormon-polygyny is the only form of polygamy" assumption.

For those who think that polygamy is illegal because it is unnatural, immoral or harmful should recognise that it is a common practice worldwide, and is even more common than monogamy. For example, the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook includes an analysis of 1,231 different societies. Out of all these societies, 186 were monogamous, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had frequent polygyny, and 4 practised polyandry.

Group marriage is not so uncommon either. Christopher Ryan in his recent book, Sex At Dawn goes through the evidence which suggests that our ancestors preferred a multiple-mate system. Our ancestors were promiscuous, not in the sense of sleeping with strangers, but in the sense that an individual would have multiple mates at any given time. 

With all of that in mind, try not to snicker the next time someone pushing hetero-monogamy as the only acceptable relationship model for all refers to "traditional marriage."

The claim that polygamy should be illegal because it is immoral and harmful also loses validity when we look at this practice among indigenous cultures. As a case in point, the Mosuo people who live in China have polyamorous relationships without any sign of harm to them, their children or to the community at large. In fact, anthropologists have argued that this system serves to strengthen family bonds, friendships and the vitality of the community.

Sometimes I suspect that one of the reasons some people are so set on denying other people the right to marry is because they're afraid their own marriages will look dull or miserable by comparison. Want to cut down on problem marriages? Prosecute abusers and leave others alone to have the relationships they want.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bigamy,freedom to marry,human origins,lack of equality harms,law,polyamory,polygamy,UK

Sam Woolfe is Another Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Sam Woolfe at thebackbencher.co.uk had a piece that asked, "Should Polygamy Be Legalized?"  He does a rather good job countering some of the typical misinformation about polygamy and polyamory used by those who want to deny people this freedom to marry and relationship rights.

Polygamy, or a marriage involving more than two partners, is illegal in most countries. Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the UK, and if one is performed then the already married person is guilty of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person, whilst already being married to someone else.

I can understand having laws against defrauding someone by hiding an existing marriage or "secretly" entering into a new one while still married to someone who would not agree, but there should be no laws barring the polygamous freedom to marry when all involved agree.

 Where polygamy is legal, those who have entered into a polygamous marriage are still discriminated against – their marriage is not recognised for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.

Ridiculous.

There are different forms of polygamy.

Wow! Finally, an article that does not take a "Muslim or Mormon-polygyny is the only form of polygamy" assumption.

For those who think that polygamy is illegal because it is unnatural, immoral or harmful should recognise that it is a common practice worldwide, and is even more common than monogamy. For example, the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook includes an analysis of 1,231 different societies. Out of all these societies, 186 were monogamous, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had frequent polygyny, and 4 practised polyandry.

Group marriage is not so uncommon either. Christopher Ryan in his recent book, Sex At Dawn goes through the evidence which suggests that our ancestors preferred a multiple-mate system. Our ancestors were promiscuous, not in the sense of sleeping with strangers, but in the sense that an individual would have multiple mates at any given time. 

With all of that in mind, try not to snicker the next time someone pushing hetero-monogamy as the only acceptable relationship model for all refers to "traditional marriage."

The claim that polygamy should be illegal because it is immoral and harmful also loses validity when we look at this practice among indigenous cultures. As a case in point, the Mosuo people who live in China have polyamorous relationships without any sign of harm to them, their children or to the community at large. In fact, anthropologists have argued that this system serves to strengthen family bonds, friendships and the vitality of the community.

Sometimes I suspect that one of the reasons some people are so set on denying other people the right to marry is because they're afraid their own marriages will look dull or miserable by comparison. Want to cut down on problem marriages? Prosecute abusers and leave others alone to have the relationships they want.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bigamy,freedom to marry,human origins,lack of equality harms,law,polyamory,polygamy,UK

We're Closely Related But That May Be Changing

Steve Jones reports at telegraph.co.uk on the reality of the human race, and how closely we're related in some cases, but that the trend is towards an increase in genetic diversity.

Islanders, from the Orkneys to the Adriatic (together with natives of the Americas, which was, until Columbus, the biggest and most isolated island in the world) have lots of such things – evidence of plenty of sex within the family, no doubt because no other option was available.

Across the world, such patterns match those of surnames. A fifth of all Chinese – three hundred million people – share three names, evidence of how connected lineages have become since the titles first appeared millennia ago. In France, the average number of bearers of a particular surname is 17, and in Britain it is 28. In China, the number is 70,000 (which almost reconciles me to being a Jones).

He goes on to discuss genetic diseases. 

A new survey of this kind involved 5,000 random (and supposedly unrelated) Europeans. It revealed hundreds of thousands of previously unknown family links among them, even if one goes back no further than ninth cousins (whose shared ancestor lived at around the time of the French Revolution).

There were, for example, around 30,000 predicted fourth-cousin pairs (a shared great-great-great-grandparent). As a result, taking all family ties into account, the person you sat next to on the bus this morning is, on average, likely to be something like your sixth cousin, which means that the two of you probably share at least one ancestor from the time of the Paris Commune.

You don't have to go too far back in the family tree to find close relatives.

Finns (who have a history separate from that of the rest of the continent) and Ashkenazi Jews are even more likely to have close family ties; while in parts of Pakistan, the average relationship of two random people is that of second cousins, with their common ancestor alive at the time of the fall of France.

Sir Thomas Beecham (had he ever met a Pakistani, or even a Welshman) would no doubt have been outraged. But he can begin to cheer up, for in the Western world incest (or at least inbreeding) is on the way out. The proportion of people who identify themselves as of mixed race in Britain has almost doubled in the past couple of decades, and one household in eight contains members of different ethnic origins. For about half of the nation’s children with an Afro-Caribbean parent, the other parent is white, so that on these islands the pedigrees of two continents will soon merge. The process actually began long ago: seven Yorkshiremen bear the surname Revis (after Rievaulx Abbey in the county). Each carries a Y chromosome that came from West Africa, perhaps in the 18th century. It is now being joined by millions more.

Just think... there used to be people who prohibited interracial dating, marriages, and parenting, but children of interracial parents were actually the least likely to have parents who were committing "incest."

His overall point is that for much of human history, people in various regions have been closely related, but now with increased mobility that is changing. I'll point out, though, that studies still show that most people are attracted to people who look like them and that that the increased mobility is one of the factors that is going to lead to an increase in cases of Genetic Sexual Attraction. In the past, when a performing artists, sailor, soldier, other traveling professional, or a tourist became a party to a conception, there was little chance the parent would see their progeny, and even less of a chance that other children of parent would meet up with that progeny. Same thing when divorcing parents have moved thousands of miles apart and had children with new spouses. That's not so anymore.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,Europe,GSA,human origins,incest,science

We're Closely Related But That May Be Changing

Steve Jones reports at telegraph.co.uk on the reality of the human race, and how closely we're related in some cases, but that the trend is towards an increase in genetic diversity.

Islanders, from the Orkneys to the Adriatic (together with natives of the Americas, which was, until Columbus, the biggest and most isolated island in the world) have lots of such things – evidence of plenty of sex within the family, no doubt because no other option was available.

Across the world, such patterns match those of surnames. A fifth of all Chinese – three hundred million people – share three names, evidence of how connected lineages have become since the titles first appeared millennia ago. In France, the average number of bearers of a particular surname is 17, and in Britain it is 28. In China, the number is 70,000 (which almost reconciles me to being a Jones).

He goes on to discuss genetic diseases. 

A new survey of this kind involved 5,000 random (and supposedly unrelated) Europeans. It revealed hundreds of thousands of previously unknown family links among them, even if one goes back no further than ninth cousins (whose shared ancestor lived at around the time of the French Revolution).

There were, for example, around 30,000 predicted fourth-cousin pairs (a shared great-great-great-grandparent). As a result, taking all family ties into account, the person you sat next to on the bus this morning is, on average, likely to be something like your sixth cousin, which means that the two of you probably share at least one ancestor from the time of the Paris Commune.

You don't have to go too far back in the family tree to find close relatives.

Finns (who have a history separate from that of the rest of the continent) and Ashkenazi Jews are even more likely to have close family ties; while in parts of Pakistan, the average relationship of two random people is that of second cousins, with their common ancestor alive at the time of the fall of France.

Sir Thomas Beecham (had he ever met a Pakistani, or even a Welshman) would no doubt have been outraged. But he can begin to cheer up, for in the Western world incest (or at least inbreeding) is on the way out. The proportion of people who identify themselves as of mixed race in Britain has almost doubled in the past couple of decades, and one household in eight contains members of different ethnic origins. For about half of the nation’s children with an Afro-Caribbean parent, the other parent is white, so that on these islands the pedigrees of two continents will soon merge. The process actually began long ago: seven Yorkshiremen bear the surname Revis (after Rievaulx Abbey in the county). Each carries a Y chromosome that came from West Africa, perhaps in the 18th century. It is now being joined by millions more.

Just think... there used to be people who prohibited interracial dating, marriages, and parenting, but children of interracial parents were actually the least likely to have parents who were committing "incest."

His overall point is that for much of human history, people in various regions have been closely related, but now with increased mobility that is changing. I'll point out, though, that studies still show that most people are attracted to people who look like them and that that the increased mobility is one of the factors that is going to lead to an increase in cases of Genetic Sexual Attraction. In the past, when a performing artists, sailor, soldier, other traveling professional, or a tourist became a party to a conception, there was little chance the parent would see their progeny, and even less of a chance that other children of parent would meet up with that progeny. Same thing when divorcing parents have moved thousands of miles apart and had children with new spouses. That's not so anymore.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,Europe,GSA,human origins,incest,science

Origins of the Incest Taboo

When someone asks why consanguinamory (consensual incest or consanguineous sex) is taboo, someone will usually provide an explanation like this one...

The reason we mate up with persons not of our own blood is to build genetic diversity and, whether we accept it or not, attempt to create more superior humans.

While I think genetic diversity is usually a good thing as long as it doesn't suppress a genetic advantage, if humans were naturally inclined to seek genetic diversity, I think we would not have seen so much segregation based on skin color and ethnicity over the years, or a taboo against interracial marriages. Even in the most progressive communites, people still often segregate themselves on the basis of skin color. Furthermore, studies have shown and experience with Genetic Sexual Attraction has shown that people are often strongly attracted to those genetically similar to them. It is prepubescent ultrafamiliarity in socialization and externally imposed taboos that often squelch such attraction.

I think it is likely that humans in the past were not aware of, or concerned with, genetic diversity because they didn't know about genes. They could see that offspring often resembled their parents, but for all they knew, that was the will of the gods or the fates.

Taboos against consanguineous sex were more likely imposed because parents, especially fathers, used the sexuality of their children to form partnerships and gain power. In patriarchal societies, daughters were traded away via arranged marriage into other families to buy favor, and sons were expected to marry for dowries and alliances and such. It was more difficult for this to happen, especially in cultures that demanded a bride marry with her virginity and have only her husband as a sexual partner, if the siblings were having sex with each other or a parent.

It was probably more about power and control, and marriage bans and laws against consensual sex are still about those things. We see that happening now, and so we have good reason to believe it happened in the past. What do you think?

See this Frequently Asked Question for more.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,human origins,incest,myths,stigma

Origins of the Incest Taboo

When someone asks why consanguinamory (consensual incest or consanguineous sex) is taboo, someone will usually provide an explanation like this one...

The reason we mate up with persons not of our own blood is to build genetic diversity and, whether we accept it or not, attempt to create more superior humans.

While I think genetic diversity is usually a good thing as long as it doesn't suppress a genetic advantage, if humans were naturally inclined to seek genetic diversity, I think we would not have seen so much segregation based on skin color and ethnicity over the years, or a taboo against interracial marriages. Even in the most progressive communites, people still often segregate themselves on the basis of skin color. Furthermore, studies have shown and experience with Genetic Sexual Attraction has shown that people are often strongly attracted to those genetically similar to them. It is prepubescent ultrafamiliarity in socialization and externally imposed taboos that often squelch such attraction.

I think it is likely that humans in the past were not aware of, or concerned with, genetic diversity because they didn't know about genes. They could see that offspring often resembled their parents, but for all they knew, that was the will of the gods or the fates.

Taboos against consanguineous sex were more likely imposed because parents, especially fathers, used the sexuality of their children to form partnerships and gain power. In patriarchal societies, daughters were traded away via arranged marriage into other families to buy favor, and sons were expected to marry for dowries and alliances and such. It was more difficult for this to happen, especially in cultures that demanded a bride marry with her virginity and have only her husband as a sexual partner, if the siblings were having sex with each other or a parent.

It was probably more about power and control, and marriage bans and laws against consensual sex are still about those things. We see that happening now, and so we have good reason to believe it happened in the past. What do you think?

See this Frequently Asked Question for more.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,human origins,incest,myths,stigma