DNA tests are uncovering the true prevalence of incest (2024)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
DNA tests are uncovering the true prevalence of incest (2024)
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/03/dna-tests-incest/677791/
108 comments
The UK Biobank definitely has a bias, but it's in the opposite direction to that you are suggesting here. It's primarily healthy people who are enrolled only when they reach the age of 40 and still have no significant health problems. So, if you are in the UK Biobank, you are less likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
Biobank is a voluntary data collection system, I thought. It's not based on whether someone is sick.
(Unless I've misunderstood somewhere)
(Unless I've misunderstood somewhere)
I think the assertion is that most people basically don't feel they have anything special genetically. As such, most people just aren't entering these databases that are opt-in.
Contrast this to people that do have a genetic oddity about them. Just having the traits is often enough to get people to find out more about them.
Contrast this to people that do have a genetic oddity about them. Just having the traits is often enough to get people to find out more about them.
Perhaps, but it is primarily about allowing researchers to find healthy people with particular genes for their research (most commonly: they suspect a gene is involved in a disease, and while they have plenty of people with that disease and gene, they also need to look for people who have that gene and don't have the disease).
Right, that assertion did not intend on bad intentions of this research. Just pointing out that you can get a selection bias on open calls, as well.
A bit like the high number of negative paternity tests. Selection bias is huge.
I think you misunderstood what they were trying to say.
They were trying to get an estimate on the prevalence of incest.
So the number of people who have been documented to have DNA showing that this happened is literally the floor on the amount of times incest occurs.
They were trying to get an estimate on the prevalence of incest.
So the number of people who have been documented to have DNA showing that this happened is literally the floor on the amount of times incest occurs.
Yes, for UK Biobank's samples. I'm saying that the UK Biobank's samples could in theory have a higher than average rate of incest, making that number not a floor for the overall population.
I'm only making a technical point of logic. It's not a comment on UK Biobank in general.
I'm only making a technical point of logic. It's not a comment on UK Biobank in general.
As I mentioned in a parallel comment, the opposite is likely true due to the bias in the selection process for Biobank.
I'm still not making a particular comment about UK Biobank. I'm saying the logic in the article is bad, as it says this number must be a floor. This isn't the case.
Logically true.
If the statistics are done on "Incest survivors DNA bank" and show 100% occurence of incest, it doesn't mean they're applicable to the general population.
That's the argument. That this DNA bank has a (lesser than the contrived example, but still true) bias.
That's the argument. That this DNA bank has a (lesser than the contrived example, but still true) bias.
The article doesn't appear to be paywalled and I'm reading it just fine without JavaScript enabled. Is an archive really necessary?
I got a "sign in or start a free trial" wall that blocked most of the article.
I suspect these sites don't put up that block until articles reach a certain popularity. That encourages early readers to enjoy and share the article, and everyone else gets to think that the person that shared it with them has an account, so maybe they should too.
I suspect these sites don't put up that block until articles reach a certain popularity. That encourages early readers to enjoy and share the article, and everyone else gets to think that the person that shared it with them has an account, so maybe they should too.
The block is built-in from the get-go.
> The block is built-in from the get-go.
That's only because the JavaScript is fast.
If you're using the Brave browser, you can click on the Brave logo when on the required site, and toggle the disable scripts button when on the www.theatlantic.com website, then JavaScript would be disabled for the site, and it'd stop requiring the paywall.
Please don't take these complaints personally; personally, not all of my devices / browsers have JS disable buttons, so, some of us do appreciate others posting the archive.today links, even for sites where paywall can be skipped through the script disable trick in some browsers.
That's only because the JavaScript is fast.
If you're using the Brave browser, you can click on the Brave logo when on the required site, and toggle the disable scripts button when on the www.theatlantic.com website, then JavaScript would be disabled for the site, and it'd stop requiring the paywall.
Please don't take these complaints personally; personally, not all of my devices / browsers have JS disable buttons, so, some of us do appreciate others posting the archive.today links, even for sites where paywall can be skipped through the script disable trick in some browsers.
Not everyone can be bothered to disable JavaScript by default.
It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA, which requires JavaScript. I would think avoiding that kind of fingerprinting/tracking would be a common use case for an archive site, but the Google-wall renders archive.today useless for that purpose.
It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA, which requires JavaScript. I would think avoiding that kind of fingerprinting/tracking would be a common use case for an archive site, but the Google-wall renders archive.today useless for that purpose.
There are those of us here who haven't a clue what it means "to disable JavaScript by default" — much less what JavaScript is.
You have to use a browser extension or a non-mainstream browser, like Brave, in order to be able to control JavaScript per-site.
The benefits can be huge, however. For example, many paywalls would stop working, meaning, you get to see the entire content without it being blocked by the paywall, because many paywalls are implemented through JavaScript, thus, they can't block anything if you don't have JavaScript.
It'd also block all those annoying cookie dialogs, too. You still have to be able to re-enable it per-site, otherwise, you won't be able to use many sites, because some require JavaScript for login/rendering and other stuff.
The benefits can be huge, however. For example, many paywalls would stop working, meaning, you get to see the entire content without it being blocked by the paywall, because many paywalls are implemented through JavaScript, thus, they can't block anything if you don't have JavaScript.
It'd also block all those annoying cookie dialogs, too. You still have to be able to re-enable it per-site, otherwise, you won't be able to use many sites, because some require JavaScript for login/rendering and other stuff.
This makes me super curious - could you share how you came to find this site and decide to sign up? It's called "hacker news" with the implication that content posted here is intellectually stimulating for hackers - or, those who hack together computer programs.
If you do already program, have you never been exposed to JavaScript at all? If not, I think you should use that curiosity to find out what JavaScript is and what effects disabling it may have.
Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall. Not an issue with me per se, but even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point.
If you do already program, have you never been exposed to JavaScript at all? If not, I think you should use that curiosity to find out what JavaScript is and what effects disabling it may have.
Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall. Not an issue with me per se, but even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point.
1. I happened on HN accidentally in 2016 and enjoy posts both in areas completely foreign to me — like things computer-related — and others more familiar.
2. I never considered that because it's called "hacker news" it's intended only for hackers.
3. I have never written a line of code, much less programmed.
4. I have zero curiosity about JavaScript.
5. "Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall." In fact, 99% of those archive links are to primary articles I post which in fact ARE paywalled. Since by being a paying subscriber to a number of publications I am able to provide "Gift Links" as well, as a courtesy to HN readers I go to the time and trouble of posting them as well as archive links.
There is some distaste on your part for this practice — "Not an issue with me per se" implies the opposite.
In your opinion "even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point" — I fail to see any connection between being ignorant of JS to posting archive links — I will going forward cease and desist from posting both "Gift Links" and archive links and instead let you do it, since you clearly have knowledge of JavaScript and believe it important for providing such links.
2. I never considered that because it's called "hacker news" it's intended only for hackers.
3. I have never written a line of code, much less programmed.
4. I have zero curiosity about JavaScript.
5. "Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall." In fact, 99% of those archive links are to primary articles I post which in fact ARE paywalled. Since by being a paying subscriber to a number of publications I am able to provide "Gift Links" as well, as a courtesy to HN readers I go to the time and trouble of posting them as well as archive links.
There is some distaste on your part for this practice — "Not an issue with me per se" implies the opposite.
In your opinion "even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point" — I fail to see any connection between being ignorant of JS to posting archive links — I will going forward cease and desist from posting both "Gift Links" and archive links and instead let you do it, since you clearly have knowledge of JavaScript and believe it important for providing such links.
Allow me to apologize and re-start by saying I’m glad you’re here. You’ve got an interesting background. I hope this place isn’t only for hackers - though they do have good taste in topics.
A lot of misunderstandings but let’s not have that dissuade any goodwill. Please continue and carry on at your leisure.
A lot of misunderstandings but let’s not have that dissuade any goodwill. Please continue and carry on at your leisure.
> It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA
Actually, they do not; but I'm not sure what's the heuristics. I've disabled all the protections in Brave for archive.today/is/ph, and not getting the captchas anymore.
I've only started getting them when moving to Brave in the first place.
It's only fair — if you block them, they block you.
Actually, they do not; but I'm not sure what's the heuristics. I've disabled all the protections in Brave for archive.today/is/ph, and not getting the captchas anymore.
I've only started getting them when moving to Brave in the first place.
It's only fair — if you block them, they block you.
Paywalled here - can only read 2 paragraphs. Possibly paywall is triggered conditionally, for example if you read multiple articles in some time period?
It used to be 5 free a month when they first introduced it years ago. Not sure the current mechanism and policy.
> The article doesn't appear to be paywalled and I'm reading it just fine without JavaScript enabled. Is an archive really necessary?
Not every browser has the option to disable JavaScript for a webpage.
Yes, of course archive is necessary, as it helps everyone read the article easily, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, which points out that complaining about paywalls is not.
Not every browser has the option to disable JavaScript for a webpage.
Yes, of course archive is necessary, as it helps everyone read the article easily, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, which points out that complaining about paywalls is not.
Many paywalls rely on client side JavaScript to work. My guess is that this has something to do with search engine indexing.
As a test, I whitelisted JavaScript in NoScript for theatlantic.com and the paywall appeared. I revoked it and it disappeared again. It appears to be purely client-side, not reliant on cookies or anything.
So my conclusion is that an archive indeed shouldn't be necessary; people can just disable JavaScript. It doesn't cause issues with the page formatting or anything.
So my conclusion is that an archive indeed shouldn't be necessary; people can just disable JavaScript. It doesn't cause issues with the page formatting or anything.
Most browsers do NOT offer per-site JS disable buttons.
It should not be necessary to change the browser to view a website; people can just use archive.today, which works fine in all browsers with JavaScript, and doesn't require a captcha, either, in browsers that don't block stuff. (It only requires captchas in those browsers that do block stuff.)
It should not be necessary to change the browser to view a website; people can just use archive.today, which works fine in all browsers with JavaScript, and doesn't require a captcha, either, in browsers that don't block stuff. (It only requires captchas in those browsers that do block stuff.)
[deleted]
[flagged]
Please edit out swipes from your comments. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> Moore ended up creating a private and invite-only support group on Facebook
Sounds like a thing you would never want to share with Facebook given its approach to privacy.
Sounds like a thing you would never want to share with Facebook given its approach to privacy.
Entire countries have ceded their b2b and b2c communications channels to WhatsApp.
End users don't give any thoughts to privacy, generally speaking. Either they've "nothing to hide", or they have given up due to an overwhelming sense of helplessness and loss of agency on the matter.
It's not even a decision anymore. They just type their phone number (aka permanent tracking unique identifier) into the new app and smash "agree".
End users don't give any thoughts to privacy, generally speaking. Either they've "nothing to hide", or they have given up due to an overwhelming sense of helplessness and loss of agency on the matter.
It's not even a decision anymore. They just type their phone number (aka permanent tracking unique identifier) into the new app and smash "agree".
I don't think the invite-only nature of the group is due to privacy but rather moderation. It seems the point of this group is to assuage shame
> Moore ended up creating a private and invite-only support group on Facebook
I read GP's comment as being more about the 'on Facebook' part, not so much about 'invite-only'.
I read GP's comment as being more about the 'on Facebook' part, not so much about 'invite-only'.
I think we're going to find that a large number of people who were shamed as "town sluts" were actually abuse victims. Every so often I see nasty comments that 'she got pregnant at 15' or 'she had two kids before finishing high school' with follow-ups blaming poor sex ed. I think people are side stepping the implications, especially if the father is otherwise unknown. Even in my day the girl who got pregnant by the volleyball coach shouldered the bulk of the blame.
What a term to use about anyone let alone people you suppose to be abuse victims. This is shameful.
are you unaware of the meaning of quote marks? They are quoting labels that society will place on them, primarily as a consequence of puritanical thinking acting as a cover up for abuse. What's shameful is hiding the horrors of our reality. I thought their comment was particularly poignant and reflects the actual horrors of abuse when it is uncovered in retrospect, compared to how it was perceived at the time.
We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
The quotation marks weren't there originally. It read:
> shamed as town sluts
Though it was still clear what the writer meant. I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.
> shamed as town sluts
Though it was still clear what the writer meant. I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.
I'm not. Willful (or motivated ignorance based) misinterpretation to create a strawman and then tearing that down in ways that cater to the community's biases is dirt common "bad behavior" in any internet comment section where contributions are scored like they are here.
ah, thank you for the extra context. I appreciate knowing that, its certainly an easier mistake to make without the quotes.
> I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.
I am less so, maybe I'm getting old and falling into elderly tropes, but I feel like there's a growing uptick in society with people seeking a platform to moralise, while skimming the content and not understanding it. The short-cuts that were originally just amber/red flags (e.g. like the casualness of throwing out a harsh label like "slut") are starting to become the offense, as opposed to the actual behaviour (the underlying cruelty) that they originally hinted at.
> I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.
I am less so, maybe I'm getting old and falling into elderly tropes, but I feel like there's a growing uptick in society with people seeking a platform to moralise, while skimming the content and not understanding it. The short-cuts that were originally just amber/red flags (e.g. like the casualness of throwing out a harsh label like "slut") are starting to become the offense, as opposed to the actual behaviour (the underlying cruelty) that they originally hinted at.
Too late to edit but I meant to say town "sluts". Ah well, a lesson to re-read carefully before posting
I've edited your GP comment to say what I believe you meant, but if I got it wrong, please let us know.
You should be able to edit it now, or email us ([email protected]) with an edit we can put in. Probably best to find a different word/phrase to use. It's upsetting to people even if you didn't mean it that way.
It made me wince as well, but I doubt that the intent was malicious.
(2024)
Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39765894
Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39765894
[deleted]
I don't want to read the article that will just upset me, can someone give a percentage?
>One in 7,000 people, according to his unpublished analysis
That’s pretty low, I’d say that’s a cultural success.
Yeah I expected 10x the rate, but sadly those are the "successful" pregnancies.
Also it only would be able to capture cases where reproduction is actually possible --in some cases it obviously is not possible.
Another data source would be STD transmission.
Another data source would be STD transmission.
the article gives reasons why its still probably an underestimate.
[deleted]
the article has a quote “That’s way, way more than I think many people would ever imagine,” but I don't have much intuition with 1/7000. The LLM tells me 1/7000 is the 6'7.5" quantile for US adult males. That doesn't sound too far off from what I would have expected of this type of incest, if I had to hazard a height quantile before reading this article. Maybe I would've gone for 6'9". If it was like 6'4", I would be seriously nauseated. I've never had a friend over 6'5" but a number < that. Which would suggest.
Wouldn't that 1/7000 number just be from successful pregnancies?
Is that before or after the invention of the automobile?
Thank you, that's much better than I feared.
A miserably small quantum of solace to people who:
1) grew up and had children
2) don't know much about genetics and the statistics behind it
3) discovered they themselves were born out of incest after they had children
4) blindly assume they will pass on the 25% of duplicate (paternal and maternal strand) recessive genes, i.e. assume their kids also have the 25% of duplicate recessive genes (the percentage mentioned in the article)
That genetic percentage falls off very quickly each generation if these next generations mate with genetically healthy people. So the disease burden decreases very quickly, but is still present for some generations, and doesn't fully disappear, as the rest of us all have some of that happening if you'd trace back the 4 grandparents, the 8 greatgrandparents, the 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.
Also, most victims or people with traumas in general, feel the logical need to understand: how can one (or we as a society) possibly learn from problems if our understanding of these problems is proactively hindered?
To spare you a lot of genetics going in depth into the biological machinery behind genetics, there is a very simplistic way to understand it. Disregarding immune cells, essentially all cells in your body have the same genome, so we speak of an individuals genome when we consider multicellular organism, like humans.
As you are undoubtedly aware human organisms have their hereditary traits stored in DNA molecules, called chromosomes. Ignoring the sex chromosome one usually has one chromosome from ones father and another from ones mother. There is an ingenious strategy nature uses here:
Imagine whenever a child is created, that somehow half the assets of the father and half the assets of the mother are copied and given to the child.
I invite you to literally think of them as devices: thermostats, microwaves, central heating systems. (this is the rough analogy for the homeostasis functions encoded in our genome).
Assuming the parents are unrelated, this means you get 2 typically unrelated types or models of refrigerator (one from your father and one from your mother), and the 2 microwaves, one from mother another from father, and 2 thermostats, etc... all your cells have this machinery in them.
Now consider the 2 different heating systems you inherited work correctly, but for some reason you inherited the defective thermostat from one of your parents, but a working on from the other. When the cold setpoint is reached both functioning heaters turn on thanks to the working thermostat. And like this it goes with a bunch of different toolsets (the "genes").
Everybody has a few defective devices, but there's a backup of the other parent so we don't notice (or not much at least: suppose both thermostats worked, but one of the heaters was defective: it would still turn on at the same temperature and shut off at the same temperature, but it would take a little longer to reach it, having some influence on your procreation chances in life, but not mortal).
Now consider what happens if your father is also your mothers father: consider the grandparents:
Via the father:
PGF: paternal grandfather < makes up half the genome of the father
PGM: paternal grandmother < makes up the other half genome of the father
Via the mother:
MGF: maternal grandfather < the genome of the father, so half PGF, half PGM
MGM: maternal grandmother
So a defective device from the paternal grandfather or paternal grandmother has the opportunity to be passed on to you directly through the father, BUT also has the opportunity to be passed on to you via the mother!
This drastically increases the odds for defective devices to be backed up by ... the same defective type of device!
That is fundamentally what happens...
Now another quantum of solace. Apart from genetics, theres also the concept of memetics. The spread and recombination of ideas. Now this doesn't just come half from the father and half from the mother, as we are exposed to other sources of information as well: educational systems, newspapers, friends, other family, etc. But undeniably parents have a strong sway over the opinions, ideas, etc to which a child is exposed in its most formative years.
It is healthy to have parents who respectfully hold their own differing opinions, so that children learn to make up their own mind. But it is also a fact that differences of opinion may prevent couples from forming...
You are not alone when it comes to being borne of genetic incest, as the article explains, but also, in a weaker but much wider sense, nearly all of us are the result of this intellectual incest, where people grow up hearing identical but flawed viewpoints from both parents for a prolonged period of your life, in its formative years.
Nobody is alone.
1) grew up and had children
2) don't know much about genetics and the statistics behind it
3) discovered they themselves were born out of incest after they had children
4) blindly assume they will pass on the 25% of duplicate (paternal and maternal strand) recessive genes, i.e. assume their kids also have the 25% of duplicate recessive genes (the percentage mentioned in the article)
That genetic percentage falls off very quickly each generation if these next generations mate with genetically healthy people. So the disease burden decreases very quickly, but is still present for some generations, and doesn't fully disappear, as the rest of us all have some of that happening if you'd trace back the 4 grandparents, the 8 greatgrandparents, the 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.
Also, most victims or people with traumas in general, feel the logical need to understand: how can one (or we as a society) possibly learn from problems if our understanding of these problems is proactively hindered?
To spare you a lot of genetics going in depth into the biological machinery behind genetics, there is a very simplistic way to understand it. Disregarding immune cells, essentially all cells in your body have the same genome, so we speak of an individuals genome when we consider multicellular organism, like humans.
As you are undoubtedly aware human organisms have their hereditary traits stored in DNA molecules, called chromosomes. Ignoring the sex chromosome one usually has one chromosome from ones father and another from ones mother. There is an ingenious strategy nature uses here:
Imagine whenever a child is created, that somehow half the assets of the father and half the assets of the mother are copied and given to the child.
I invite you to literally think of them as devices: thermostats, microwaves, central heating systems. (this is the rough analogy for the homeostasis functions encoded in our genome).
Assuming the parents are unrelated, this means you get 2 typically unrelated types or models of refrigerator (one from your father and one from your mother), and the 2 microwaves, one from mother another from father, and 2 thermostats, etc... all your cells have this machinery in them.
Now consider the 2 different heating systems you inherited work correctly, but for some reason you inherited the defective thermostat from one of your parents, but a working on from the other. When the cold setpoint is reached both functioning heaters turn on thanks to the working thermostat. And like this it goes with a bunch of different toolsets (the "genes").
Everybody has a few defective devices, but there's a backup of the other parent so we don't notice (or not much at least: suppose both thermostats worked, but one of the heaters was defective: it would still turn on at the same temperature and shut off at the same temperature, but it would take a little longer to reach it, having some influence on your procreation chances in life, but not mortal).
Now consider what happens if your father is also your mothers father: consider the grandparents:
Via the father:
PGF: paternal grandfather < makes up half the genome of the father
PGM: paternal grandmother < makes up the other half genome of the father
Via the mother:
MGF: maternal grandfather < the genome of the father, so half PGF, half PGM
MGM: maternal grandmother
So a defective device from the paternal grandfather or paternal grandmother has the opportunity to be passed on to you directly through the father, BUT also has the opportunity to be passed on to you via the mother!
This drastically increases the odds for defective devices to be backed up by ... the same defective type of device!
That is fundamentally what happens...
Now another quantum of solace. Apart from genetics, theres also the concept of memetics. The spread and recombination of ideas. Now this doesn't just come half from the father and half from the mother, as we are exposed to other sources of information as well: educational systems, newspapers, friends, other family, etc. But undeniably parents have a strong sway over the opinions, ideas, etc to which a child is exposed in its most formative years.
It is healthy to have parents who respectfully hold their own differing opinions, so that children learn to make up their own mind. But it is also a fact that differences of opinion may prevent couples from forming...
You are not alone when it comes to being borne of genetic incest, as the article explains, but also, in a weaker but much wider sense, nearly all of us are the result of this intellectual incest, where people grow up hearing identical but flawed viewpoints from both parents for a prolonged period of your life, in its formative years.
Nobody is alone.
I found found this post to be very interesting and am grateful that you wrote it.
[deleted]
This is a tragic story, but I think the bigger issue is some places have high levels of cultural acceptance of consanguine relationships.
Could you explain why you think that's a bigger issue than the one raised in the article:
> In the overwhelming majority of cases ... the parents are a father and a daughter or an older brother and a younger sister, meaning a child’s existence was likely evidence of sexual abuse.
> In the overwhelming majority of cases ... the parents are a father and a daughter or an older brother and a younger sister, meaning a child’s existence was likely evidence of sexual abuse.
Cases like that described are very rare compared to 20-50% consanguinity in some communities. The disease burden from this is huge.
Not saying SA isn't an issue, but if the issue is incest, then cultural acceptance of it is the biggest offender.
Not saying SA isn't an issue, but if the issue is incest, then cultural acceptance of it is the biggest offender.
I think incest is usually understood as immediate direct family relations and means SA or something close.
What your talking about with 1st cousins is called inbred. Inbred is the superset of incest. You can get that with no incest.
What your talking about with 1st cousins is called inbred. Inbred is the superset of incest. You can get that with no incest.
Consensual sex between adult brother and sister for example isn't abuse. If it results in a child it is also unacceptably likely to result in birth defects because that's 50% DNA commonality. Consensual sex between parent and (adult obviously) child is more arguable because there's a significant power imbalance which would usually not be present for siblings, but it might not be abuse.
Cousin sex is just not a big deal, and especially beyond the 1st cousins with zero removal, ie the children of your parents' blood siblings. When it comes to stuff like "She's the daughter of my great-auntie's oldest boy" it's negligible. In some societies that wouldn't be tracked, everybody is a cousin and nobody is. Americans are weird about this. Rudy Giuliani for example married his second cousin. I don't even know the names of my second cousins. If I met one in a bar I'd have no idea. But in the US somehow that counts as strange.
Cousin sex is just not a big deal, and especially beyond the 1st cousins with zero removal, ie the children of your parents' blood siblings. When it comes to stuff like "She's the daughter of my great-auntie's oldest boy" it's negligible. In some societies that wouldn't be tracked, everybody is a cousin and nobody is. Americans are weird about this. Rudy Giuliani for example married his second cousin. I don't even know the names of my second cousins. If I met one in a bar I'd have no idea. But in the US somehow that counts as strange.
When cousin having kids together becomes normalized, you get a lot more defects a generation later - when kids of cousins have kids with other kids of cousins in the same family.
It is not a non issue. The communities where marrying cousins is normal do have this issue and have significantly more severe disabilities.
It is not a non issue. The communities where marrying cousins is normal do have this issue and have significantly more severe disabilities.
"Cousin" is a vague claim. A parent is 50% similarity, a simple first cousin is typically 12.5% but may be higher if they're also related on the other side (e.g. Einstein married a woman whose parents were, respectively, a sibling of one parent and a cousin of the other, that's a lot of shared DNA). But second cousins may be only 2-3%.
So there's a huge gap between "Your mum and dad both have twins, and there was a double marriage, so, she's your first cousin twice over" and "She's your great-aunt's child's youngest" and yet you might get told both people are your "cousin" for lack of convenient terminology.
So there's a huge gap between "Your mum and dad both have twins, and there was a double marriage, so, she's your first cousin twice over" and "She's your great-aunt's child's youngest" and yet you might get told both people are your "cousin" for lack of convenient terminology.
I think it's implied it's a lot of first cousin stuff and if you iterate this it starts building up in goofy ways if it is kept self contained enough.
Cousin sex is what gives you the Habsburgs. It's why Jewish folk are more likely to have certain genetic disorders.
It's harmless if it's occasional, but if it's repeated over and over again problems start building up.
It's harmless if it's occasional, but if it's repeated over and over again problems start building up.
I guess?
Label it whatever you want. It's still consanguinity and it causes a tremendous amount of disease and the largest offender by far is cultural acceptance if it.
Label it whatever you want. It's still consanguinity and it causes a tremendous amount of disease and the largest offender by far is cultural acceptance if it.
Incestual children can lead to a pretty significant number of medical issues.
This is extremely common in the royal families of Europe. Many of them are the result of incest.
Not wrong. My Turkish ex's parents were first cousins. Married for 50 years and they had two kids.
No one cared. It wasn't that big deal.
No one cared. It wasn't that big deal.
It's extremely common in South Asian communities (https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/10yx3va/...). The UK has a large South Asian diaspora.
You mean it's extremely common in Muslim countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middl...
I love this site down voting facts if it doesn't conform to preconceived "progressive" notions.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law
I love this site down voting facts if it doesn't conform to preconceived "progressive" notions.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law
Seems so. Or more to the point of how data collected in the UK might reflect this trend (from the article you link): "According to a 2005 BBC report on Pakistani marriage in the United Kingdom, 55% of British Pakistanis marry a first cousin."
There was a recent debate in the UK Parliament about whether cousin marriage should be banned. It did not succeed.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHyjdyWUOA
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHyjdyWUOA
But there was a BBC documentary called "Should I marry my first cousin" for which the main conclusion was basically no.
AFAIK this is far more common in muslims but not in hindus, jains etc. While growing up I had heard/read that as per the Vedas you can not marry someone with whom you have a common ancestor within 7 generations. [My scientifically minded atheist parents agreed with the idea.] Of course, in practice this isn't always followed but in any arranged marriage such proscriptions would presumably be checked.
Southern India has particularly low Muslim populations - and definitely doesn’t follow that guidance.
The vedas have many sections which get widely ignored.
Edit: HN throttling is terrible. Here is a link to a couple studies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641190/], [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-consanguineous...]
AP has the highest rate, around 28%
The vedas have many sections which get widely ignored.
Edit: HN throttling is terrible. Here is a link to a couple studies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641190/], [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-consanguineous...]
AP has the highest rate, around 28%
I has asked friends who would know more about South India. If you have any references about statistics and causes please share. Thanks!
I found one map that may be interest:
https://araingang.medium.com/cousin-marriage-in-south-asia-f...
But note that the article is really talking about first-degree incest/pedophila/sexual abuse which is taboo in pretty much every society.
But note that the article is really talking about first-degree incest/pedophila/sexual abuse which is taboo in pretty much every society.
Cross-cousin and uncle-niece marriage is prevalent among Hindus in most states of South India (except Kerala). 10-25% of all marriages.
In religion, you can find your reasons for anything. e.g. In Mahabharata, Arjuna and Abhimanyu married their cousins.
In religion, you can find your reasons for anything. e.g. In Mahabharata, Arjuna and Abhimanyu married their cousins.
Pakistan doesn't represent all of South Asia.
None of India is looking particularly good, but each state in southern India looks to have 20-25% rates of first-cousin marriages. Pretty high.
I recently discovered that these relationships are legal in France. That's nuts
Same country that banned paternity tests unless authorised by a court.
Same country where a series of scandals of sexual abuse by doctors on patients under narcosis in hospitals resulted in courts deciding that sex under narcosis is not traumatic and hence not rape...
Wow… really? Eww.
Wait what?? Is that real?
dbg31415(1)
If your parents aren't related, nor their parents, the 30th-generation(roughly 600–900 years depending on generation length) ancestor group size is 2^30, which is about 1.07 billion.
Turns out that due to the way genes splice you have ancestors that you have 0 genes from. The mitochondria and Y chromosome are conserved, but even 9 generations back there are good odds that some of your ancestors have been completely spliced out of your DNA, and a few whom you only got a couple genes from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HclD2E_3rhI
"only 72% of these 7th great grandparents will give you some of your genetics"
"over less than 400 years, 97% of your ancestors contribute nothing to your genetics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HclD2E_3rhI
"only 72% of these 7th great grandparents will give you some of your genetics"
"over less than 400 years, 97% of your ancestors contribute nothing to your genetics"
This might not be logical. If your DNA's in UK Biobank you might be more likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.