Talk:Incest

Half sibling incest?

What about half sibling incest which can also link to child abuse? Why is there no mention of this? Is it cause it is "rare"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marylandcookie133 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would thing it was largely implied by the wording in this article.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Incest and Marriage

The article has more focus on incest as taboo. It should also focus on legal validity of incest marriages and the legal consequences for the children born out of such marriages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.77.130 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because we moved that to a separate article: Laws regarding incest

Legitimus (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Between consenting adults

The BCA section, more specifically the "lead" 3-level heading, seemed rather suspect - popular sources, lots of unnecessary footnoting, and "case studies" (more accurately, news stories). I've done a pretty extensive trim and rewrote some sections, what do others think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So far so good. I never really liked the pop news examples (they have that "freak show" quality to them) Though I think we need some more subject-specific material in the BCA part. For example, perhaps mention of the so-called Genetic sexual attraction and some mention about how consensual adult incestuous relationships are frequently between parties that meet for the first time as adults. I will see if I can find some journal articles to assist.Legitimus (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on linking to the GSA page at all - it's all news stories. There's two scholarly links, neither as inline citations. I'd favour gutting the page and building from those two with judicious use of the news and pop culture links (right now JRR Tolkien is mentioned in the lead. The lead!) I'm very reluctant to include more in the BCA section without better sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unearthed a few refs that may be useful:

• Bjorklund, David F.; Ellis, Bruce T. (2004). Origins of the Social Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and Child Development. New York: The Guilford Press. p. 304. ISBN 1-59385-103-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - This is a textbook on the broader subject matter. Look for "Postadoption Incest."
• Greenberg M, Littlewood R (1995). "Post-adoption incest and phenotypic matching: experience, personal meanings and biosocial implications". Br J Med Psychol. 68 ( Pt 1): 29–44. PMID 7779767. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good additions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging archives

I've merged the archives from 6 into 2, and added material from this talk page. They were about 60k apiece, and standard is usually 250-260K. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation sentence.

The disambiguation sentence now says: "This article is about illegal sexual contact between family members. For biological aspects, see inbreeding. For all other uses, see Incest (disambiguation)."

I really think the word "illegal" should be removed, since incest is not universally illegal, nor is it actually defined as illegal, there's nothing in the word implying illegality. Dex Stewart (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

After some thinking I decided that I'm probably right, so I decided to go and edit the sentence myself, but then saw this note in the source text:

"Incest is a term relative to a culture. If the relationship between two people is not illegal or unacceptable in that culture, then it is not incest. Do not alter the lead of this article to say it's "sometimes" illegal or taboo, because this is implied already by the wording of the first paragraph."

I disagree with this, because I still believe that the dennotation "incest" does not imply illegality. I then thought that wikipedia is based on sources, so I decided to try and find some. I googled the word dictionary, took the first three results and typed in "incest". Here's what I got: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incest http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define_b.asp?key=39842&dict=CALD http://www.yourdictionary.com/incest In all three dictionaries the primary definition of the word does not imply illegality. It may say that marriage between the two is illegal, or it may say in another definition that intercourse itself is illegal, but the primary definitions support my arguments. I will not change it for now, but I really think it should be changed. Dex Stewart (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it says illegal or social taboo, not just illegal. Second, define "closely related." You cannot without invoking either law or social custom. The American Heritage Dictionary provides the best definition which is: "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." While the word "marriage" is used, the definition basically says if you can't marry, then it is incest when the relations occur, in or out of marriage.Legitimus (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. There is no need to repeat that it is usually taboo/illegal in the disambiguation sentence. --George (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the repetition is not needed, but then again, the whole disambuation hatnote is not needed. Inbreeding is addressed in the article with a summary-style section listed in the table of content - and that section has a main article top-link. Besides, no-one who is looking for the topic of inbreeding will put incest into the search box, they're not ambiguously similar. And, the page at Incest (disambiguation) is not needed because it has only one other link in it - to the book by Anais Nin. The hatnote here can point to the page for that book. The separate dab page should be deleted. I'll post a PROD tag on it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

wat

"Although it is seen by some as a victimless crime" .____. well DOI, I mean who on earth is the victim in consensual adult incest? and no, don't say the children as that's not part of incest itself it is incestual reproduction not intercourse itself... 92.20.231.173 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the topic of the article. This source cited in the article, BTW, discusses a case of a brother and sister who have had four children together.

Side-effect: I've taken a hurried look at portions of the article and added and moved some cites according to where I was and was not able to verify support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I know. I was just saying that because the article featured something I thought was a bit silly to put.92.10.81.64 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is incest such a taboo/bad thing?

I couldn't find in this article why incest is bad except when it's rape or results in inbreeding. Is incest bad when two consenting adults use contraceptives? Is incest considered to be so bad because of the taboo and inbreeding (and possibly the abasement/trauma it would give the family) or are there any other reasons? Would a gay incestuous relationship be bad, since it does not result in an offspring? I think this article needs a "problems with incest" section to clear this up --BiT (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says it is bad? There are potential consequences that can be regarded factually as bad. Further it's all just opinions and cultures where it is generally regarded as bad. I think the article deals well enough with this and no particular view is pushed onto the reader as fact. Biofase ^flame| stalk  04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism - need some fact-checking and sources

There was a recent complete rewrite of the section on Hinduism's view on incest. I know very little about Hinduism in general, but the new version seems suspicious. For one, it seems to refer to culture in India in a practicing fashion rather than actual religious teachings. Please if you are knowledgeable of Hinduism, can you look this over and/or find sources? Legitimus (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the practicing fashion would be the major factor deserving attention. That said no reason to entirely exclude the religious teachings but I don't think it can really say much more than it's not allowed and between whom it's not allowed without just repeating stuff. Biofase ^flame| stalk  16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some mention of Indian culture is fine, just that it should be distinct from Hinduism in the way it is stated. Sikhism and Islam are also widespread in India too. But really what struck as odd was the new edit's assertion that certain consanguineous pairings were somehow "desirable." It could really use some sources too. Legitimus (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Incest in Popular Culture page

Am i dumb, or there is no link to Incest in Popular Culture page from this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.180.36 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words detected

although it is seen by some as a victimless crime.[11][12]

These are so-called Weasel words

Images??

Remember kids, as Wikipedia is not censored.. how about some images to help demonstrate this article? ^*satire Saveourcity (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] Ha ha. Now go away kid, ya bother me.Legitimus (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? Well, I have a serious point to make. How come we can have people arguing for explicit pictures of ejaculation or dead babies and we get nothing on incest. I can only guess is that it's a question of legality but I bet you all would if you could.Saveourcity (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is also a practical matter: How do you depict incest visually? We don't wear our genetic relations on our sleeves. You take an picture of any two people just standing there and put a caption under it saying they're in an incestuous relationship? That's not illustrative of anything useful. And it's also potentially libelous, unless one has a photo of a documented case, like that couple in Germany that go so much attention.Legitimus (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's say there was a well known incest case came to trial and pictorial proof of the act (let's say, a graphic depiction of father-daughter oral intercourse - don't worry, she's well above legal age) was used as evidence. Then the image somehow came into the public domain. Would that be OK? Saveourcity (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia is not censored, all pictures must have merit; They must somehow be important to the subject and illustrate something that is otherwise difficult to convey with words. For example, most articles about various laws have no picture. They don't need them to make their point. Indeed sometimes pictures can taint the article and give bias to a specific example depicted in the picture, when the article's subject is quite broad.Legitimus (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And it get us into the 'What is incest?' "The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction."--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

cousins marriage

“Many jurisdictions in the United States and the Netherlands follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in some countries in the east, eastern Europe and some other places, the marriage between first cousins is allowed. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins particularly popular.” That make it sound like it is illegal in most of the word, were as it is not. How about we put it as:

“Many jurisdictions in the United States and the Netherlands follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in Australia, Canada, Mexico and most countries of Europe, Asia and Africa marriage between first cousins is allowed. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins particularly popular.”--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Though I would advise not using the term "popular." I know the source uses it but it seems to be out of context, as "popular" seems to imply in this Wikipedia article that the majority of couples from those regions are cousins. Taking into account the rampant microcephaly in certain regions of Pakistan where first-cousin marriage really is the majority, I think it is dubious to state this is the case in all of these regions. I would say "common".Legitimus (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, think you for the hlep Legitimus. By the way, dis anyone know what the Law say in any countries of South Americs? I have been looking but I cannot find anything on Wike or eles were.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google turned this up. It's not previewable online, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not got any of those book, o well. Thank you for the hlep anyway. If anyone has can you tell us? And dis anyone know were we can find a source that says that cousins marriage are prohibit in the Netherlands?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I did some googling. "[...] Deputy Minister for Justice Nebahat Albayrak announced last week to ban marriages between cousins. It is one of the measures aimed at reducing the number of so-called import brides (and grooms). [...] Detailed information on the ban and its enforcement is expected in a few weeks, but it is already clear that the ban will apply to everyone, not just ethnic minorities among whom most marriages between cousins take place. The ban will not be imposed with retroactive effect.", Can cousin marriages be banned?, politiken.dk, September 23, 2009.

Thank you for the hlep. I had a look too. But it says that he wants to ban it, not that they have or well do so.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we put all of 'Between adult cousins' as:

"Marriages and sexual relationships between cousins are viewed differently in many cultures, in both law and religion. In most countries, marriage between cousins is legal, though some religious and cultural restrictions exist in these same nations. Some jurisdictions, notably many in the United States follow a more restrictive doctrine and legally prohibit such marriages as incestuous. Whereas in Australia, Canada, Mexico and most countries of Europe, Asia and Africa marriage between first cousins is legal. Consanguineous unions remain preferential in North Africa, the Middle East and large parts of Asia, with marriage between first cousins being particularly common. Communities such as the Dhond of Pakistan clearly prefer marriages between cousins as they ensure purity of the descent line, provide intimate knowledge of the spouses, and ensure that patrimony will not pass into the hands of "outsiders". No nation today prohibits second cousin marriage."?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we are all OK with it, so I shall go and do it.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted diseases

It might be of some value if the article could try to present sources on how often sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted through incest. In particular, I was considering the likelihood that deadly illnesses such as AIDS could be transmitted to children in the case where both parents commonly exchange needles and engage in same-sex relations. ADM (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"I was considering the likelihood that deadly illnesses such as AIDS could be transmitted to children in the case where both parents commonly exchange needles and engage in same-sex relations" The only way for the childer to get AIDS is if one or both parents have AIDS and have sex with their childer and/or exchange needles with the childer. The exchanging of needles with their childer is not incest--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a tautology to me. Sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted via sexual relations; incest involves sexual relations; sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted via incestuous sexual relations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Einstein and Darwin

A recent entry has been added about the marriages of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. There is a possibily this is inappropriate for this article. These relationships are consanguineous and cousin couples, but do they count as incest? As I frequently have to hammer into the ignorant, consanguineous does not automatically equal incest. It is only incest of it is illegal or otherwise forbidden by religious or social custom. I do not know enough about the details of these marriages to comment. If no compelling reply is received in a few days, I will remove it in the interest of erring on the side of caution.Legitimus (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source does not use the word "incest", that makes the info a synthesis or original research; also, it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, it's a support website for cousin couples. As an aside, that site itself states [2] that it does not include incest in its definition of what they call "consanguineous" cousin relationships. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it belongs in this article, but this source supports the assertion re Einstein and Elsa Löwenthal, this source supports it re Darwin and Emma Wedgewood. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those sources. So we have no doubt about the reliability of the report that those are cousin marriages, but still, there is no indication that those relationships were described by anyone as incest. To the contrary, in both situations, the cousin marriages were accepted as traditional in their respective social groups. Even in the cousin marriage article, listing those two marriages would be undue weight - there are so many historical examples that there is a separate page for List of coupled cousins - and these two examples are already listed there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Though this article is on my watchlist, I don't follow it closely. My comment above was in reaction to the previous comment and without much context re overall article content or editorial consensus about the article. I've now seen the inline comment at the head of the article, "<!-- NOTE: Incest is a term relative to a culture. If the relationship between two people is not illegal or unacceptable in that culture, then it is not incest. Do not alter the lead of this article to say it's "sometimes" illegal or taboo, because this is implied already by the wording of the first paragraph. -->" I think that this would be better if not hidden from casual readers—something like, "For purposes of this article, incest is defined to be [...] for inbreeding, see the article on that topic." Re Einstein and cousin marriage in the context of U.S. customs, I've come across this. I've also come across this, which is a bit interesting in light of Darwin's cousin marriage re non-mention of cousin marriage in the British context. I'll take a look at the cousin marriage article and possiobly mention those sources there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that perhaps a disamb line (I think that's the term) similar to one you suggested might be called for. I was the one who inserted that note due to numerous "drive-by" edits where the editor clearly did not read the lead very carefully. In fact I felt it should be pretty obvious from the way the lead is written, but sometimes people just read the first line (using WP like a dictionary) and fail to realize the distinction. I suggest this as a disamb line:

"This article is about the culturally relative social/legal/religious infraction of sexual relations with close kin. For the biological act of reproducing with close kin, see inbreeding. For the descriptive term for blood-related kin, see consanguinity."

Legitimus (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

----English-----

Why is it, that in USA the highest incest incidents are among ethnic English population followed by Hispanic population. As English, we were able to keep this a secret here more so than Hispanics. I wonder if this is an open issue in United Kingdom and if there is genetic connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.177.95 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not seem to be able to find were in the article it say "that that in USA the highest incest incidents are among ethnic English population followed by Hispanic population", or the like. Can you tell me were it is? Thanks--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No ban on father-daughter sexual activity in the Bible?

The article say: "One of the glaringly obvious features is that there is not a prohibition against father-daughter sexual activity; this was noticed even in classical times, and the Talmud claims it is missing from the Torah because it was too obvious to need mentioning." There IS a ban in the Bible, Leviticus 18:17 say: "The nakedness of a women and her daughter you must not lay bare." This cover both a man Blood daughter and Step-daughter.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt among royalty only?

At the stared it say: "Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages. However, in some societies, such as that of Ancient Egypt, brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son relations were practiced among royalty." That makes it look like it was only among royalty but down in History under Etymology it say: “It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages were widespread at least during the Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history.” So I think we shod add "and was later adopted by commoners." to the end. --Lord Don-Jam (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Most evidence to my knowledge points at it being throughout the general population. It is even interesting to note that, according this article I found [3] it actually still goes on to this day to a great extent.

Also, just as a minor point, it should probably worded to say "consanguineous marriages were widespread."

Legitimus (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was think more about the closely consanguineous marriages(brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son) as for most of the world consanguineous marriages is not incest even in modern times.

Good minor point, but most think of "consanguineous marriages" as being cousins, so how about making that bit “It is generally accepted that brother–sister marriages were widespread at least during the Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history."?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me.Legitimus (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I shall put it as 'sibling marriages' not "brother–sister marriages"--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypothesis of biological basis

This section was removed March 28 2008, by Jack-A-Roe, He said he was moving this section to the inbreeding article, but it looks like it was just erased and not moved. I think it is useful scientific information for the incest and the inbreeding article, which both seem a bit lacking compared to the past information they have contained.. so I am posting it here, if anyone is interested to edit/add it back into the article. cheers, Jamie

04:47, 28 March 2008 Jack-A-Roe (talk | contribs) (41,497 bytes) (→Hypothesis of biological basis: inbreeding is not incest; this information does not mention incest - moving the text to to the inbreeding article) (undo)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I did move it to the inbreeding article, because that info is not about incest, it's about inbreeding. But because I was not actively editing that topic, instead of merging it into the article, I posted it on the article talk page for use by editors of that article. Whatever happened with it after that was the decision of the people working on that page. Here's the diff with the content of the text on the talk page of Inbreeding: [4].

After two years, it's still off-topic, and does not belong in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, inbreeding and incest are not the same thing. If they overlab, that's as may be but inbreeding is still best treated in the article on inbreeding. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm smells more like censorship to me, you buried this information. I think this inbreeding information definitely can have a place in the incest article as it directly deals with the theoretical background of common issues around incest, for example one of the primary consequences of incest, inbreeding, and gives useful information on the genetic consequences of inbreeding, ie. increased homozygosity. To bury this information away on another articles talk page is retarded, you sure your mom and dad didn't grow up together? ;) Anyway don't bury this information any more dammit. I get annoyed when an article's interesting technical information is dumbed down. I'm not going to re-add this information to the article, but please leave it on this talk page so someone with more wikipedia editing skills can choose to add it in the future as it is valid info to include. cheers, Jamie