Talk:Incest/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

off-topic text moved to talk page of Inbreeding article
Lacter post
Some researchers hypothesize that humans have a kin recognition ability that functions in part to enable incest avoidance between close relatives, thereby protecting the gene pool of the family or tribe from excessive damage by inbreeding; and, that this kin recognition system may form a biological basis for social and psychological prohibitions against incest. [15] Presumably because of the genetic harm done, animals inbreed only in extremely unusual circumstances: major population bottlenecks and forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics. Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity (the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair). This occurs because close relatives are much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals. This is especially important for recessive alleles that happen to be deleterious, which are harmless and inactive in a heterozygous pairing but, when homozygous, can cause serious developmental defects. Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call inbreeding depression, a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a nearly 100% chance of having hemophilia. Leavitt has argued that inbreeding in small populations can have long-term positive effects: "small inbreeding populations, while initially increasing their chances for harmful homozygotic recessive pairings on a locus, will quickly eliminate such genes from their breeding pools, thus reducing their genetic loads" (Leavitt, 1990, p. 974). However, other specialists have argued that these positive long-term effects of inbreeding are almost always unrealized because the short-term fitness depression is enough for selection to discourage it. In order for such a "purification" to work, the offspring of close mate pairings must be either homozygous-dominant (completely free of bad genes) or -recessive (will die before reproducing). If there are heterozygous offspring, they will be able to transmit the defective genes without themselves feeling any effects. This model does not account for multiple deleterious recessives (most people have more than one) and multi-locus gene linkages. The introduction of mutations negates the weeding out of bad genes, and evidence exists that homozygous individuals are often more at risk to pathogenic predation. Because of these complications, it is extremely difficult to overcome the initial spike in fitness penalties incurred by inbreeding (Moore, 1992; Uhlmann, 1992). Recent research shows that couples consisting of third cousins actually have the highest level of reproductive success: "The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who mated with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children."[16] It is hypothesized that third-cousin couples may represent a "point of balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding and outbreeding." The genetic risks of inbreeding are often overstated. "[F]irst cousins are third-degree relatives, uncle/niece are second-degree, and sibling/sibling or parent/child are first-degree. 'Uncle/niece risk is somewhat higher than first-cousin risk, which is between 1.7% to 2.8% above the background risk,' said [Robin] Bennett [manager of the Genetic Medicine Clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center]. 'Risk in first-degree relations is 7% to 31% - based on limited studies,' she said. Following Bennett's reasoning, the genetic risk of morbidity (the relative incidence of disease) in uncle/niece relationships is somewhere between 2.8% and 7% above the risk of unrelated couples."[17] This risk is lower than the risk associated with becoming a mother when at or over the age of 47, something that can be legally done everywhere.[18]

—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)

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. Please leave it on this talk page so more people can read it and decide if it is valid info to include in the main article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then we have to point out that increased homozygosity could be beneficial as well as detrimental to a population, depending on other factors. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism

I just wanted to thank whoever has written the section on Buddhism. I perhaps should go through history and find that person and give praise on the user's talk page, but i'm a bit lazy right now. It's a very clear and concise description and is written exactly as it should be. Beta M (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism

Fact Check needed!!

The USA Today article cited for the information on Catholic authorization of first cousins being allowed to marry is in absolute error. Catholic practice is governed by the Code of Canon Law (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) and impediments are discussed in the title on marriage, canons on diriment impediments (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM) and impediments in general (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3X.HTM). Translated from legalese to English, Catholics related in any manner of ancestor-descendant relationship, be it biological, adoptive, step, or otherwise, may never marry. Catholics related in the collateral lines closer than fourth cousins are not free to marry each other without dispensation. Dispensations may be granted in individual circumstances at the discretion of the local bishop for second and third cousins to marry. Such dispensations are never granted by any authority for first cousins, nor is such a sin absolved except if one of the spouses is on their deathbed and requires final absolution! This applies to the natural line, the adoptive line, and the lines of affinity in varying degrees. Where the USA Today author got information to the contrary is debatable. The Code was promulgated in 1983 and is still binding. Genehisthome (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Pyromania1968 has issues with the neutrality of the article and the definition of incest, based on recent edits. Hopefully we can start a discussion of the issue of the article's POV/neutrality status here... Valrith (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to offer a place here for discussion, but I don't think the disputed tag is needed on the article yet. The new account Pyromania1968 (talk · contribs) went directly to edit-warring as its first series of edits and no other editors are supporting those changes. We can re-add the tag if it turns out that the edit-warring was just inexperience and a good faith discussion of content gets going.

As far as the neutrality and content of the article lead, it has been discussed many times to dial in the accuracy based on sources. The recent version has been in place for some time now and is the result of that careful consideration by multiple editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not a new user and I agree with the changes. The article itself points to many instances where incest is not only not illegal but is encouraged like in the royal families of Egypt or tribal peoples in Bali or among the Inuit. Discussion of how incest is taboo in certain jurisdictions should come after the lede paragraph and does not merit becoming the overarching tone of the whole article. Incest's taboo and its legality should be left neutral.Pyromania1968 (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

However you fail to grasp on specific issue here: The very word "incest" implies that said act is morally wrong and/or illegal. It is a moralistic term in general. The objective, non-value term is "consanguineous" or "inbreeding" when actual reproduction is the outcome. So technically the royal families of Egypt did not engaged in "incest," because to them it was not taboo. They simply inbred through consanguineous unions.Legitimus (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree (although ancient Egypt may be an authentic exception). @Pyromania, I know of know evidence that the people (why call them "tribal?) of Bali (you can call them "Balinese") or Inuit practiced incest any more than we do, from what I know they concider and considered it a crime.

@ Legitimous, caonsanguineous marriage would be incest, and as far as I know, the Balineses and Inuit prohibit consanguineous marriage or liasons too. "Inbreeding" is definitely not value-neutral, not where I come from. But it is scientific, and unlike incest or consanguineous is a matter of degree and not kind. By "scientific" I mean it is a different register, it is an answer to a whole different question. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted 2 edits to the lead section which seemed to alter its meaning, because my best understanding of this discussion concerning whether to alter the text which, quote: "has been in place for some time now and is the result of that careful consideration by multiple editors" was that it did not seem to have been resolved that such changes were ok. Feel free to revert my revert if consensus is that I am wrong, and these changes were ok in the light of this discussion  -  Begoon (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your action was appropriate and your understanding of the situation is correct. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with neutrality dispute, although the overall article may seem balanced to some, each section needs balance. maybe more correlation to Consanguinity. Maybe a sociological subsection to each category. Honestly i think it's time for a new word altogether and less about science, if we were talking about poetry, no one would mind references to emotion, not using it here indicates fear and creates more misunderstanding. How many times can the word abuse be used when we are talking about family without the word love.(Designanddraft (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi Designanddraft, welcome back after the nearly three years since your first 11 edits on Wikipedia. I can't say I understand at all what you see as a neutrality dispute. The article is based on reliable sources. What have you found in reliable sources that is not in the article and needs to be added to create what you describe as "balance"? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words detected

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

These are so-called Weasel words

incest taboo

There was a section on scientific reasons for incest avoidance. Unfortunately, this section provided a highly incomplete and biased view. It is true that there is an incest taboo in virtually every society. Wikipedia already has a pretty good article on that topic, and that article has a fully sourced discussion of the full range of different theories as to why. There is no point in repeating it here; the link is sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points. I concur with the removal of that section for the reasons you noted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

prevalence paragraph from the lead needs attention

The following paragraph from the lead needs attention. It contains too many footnotes for an overview in the lead, and many of them are incompletely formatted with no links and no page numbers, therefore difficult to check. I'm not saying that the text is wrong, just that there are questions about the content and sources that need to be resolved. I started to work on it and updated some of the text, found the Finkelhor source and added the ISBN and page #, but I didn't have time to go through them all. The sources should be pruned to only what is needed, and the text needs to be verified that it is correctly presenting what's in the sources. Some of it may be excessively detailed and better moved into one of the article sections. I'm posting this here to so interested editors can review and update this part of the lead. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Father-daughter incest was for many years the most commonly reported and studied form of incest. More recently, studies have suggested that sibling incest, particularly older brothers abusing younger siblings, is the most common form of incest Some studies suggest that adolescent perpetrators of sibling incest abuse younger victims, their abuse occurs over a lengthier period, and they use violence more frequently and severely than adult perpetrators; and that sibling incest has a higher rate of penetrative acts than father or stepfather incest, with father and older brother incest resulting in greater reported distress than step-father incest.

Not enough coverage of marriage of close relatives in ancient Egypt

The following quote is from the history section: "It is generally accepted that sibling marriages were widespread at least during the Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history."

However, no mention is made of the many pharaohs who married their sisters and/or daughters during the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, such as Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun.

76.123.177.103 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)AmateurAncientHistorian

Technically it's not incest because it was not forbidden, but rather traditional. That said, I think some mention is warranted due to it being notable different from nearly every other culture. Do you recommend a source? Legitimus (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not happy with the wording of the next line: "Some of these incestuous relationships were in the royal family, especially the Ptolemies; ..." To me that line and what comes after makes it sound like it was something that was mostly done by those in power but it was in fact done by almost everyone one whom were not Jewish(there were many in Egypt at the time). Lord Don-Jam (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would work on this myself, but I am not well versed in Egyptian history, so I don't know where to look for sources.Legitimus (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that this kind of marriage was generally prohibitted but allowed for royalty. The explanation was that a God should marry only another God. I also beleive that the standard anthropological explanation is that highly stratafied societies often encourage some form of endogamy as a way of preserving wealth within the group - the sociological definition of a caste is an occupationally specific endogamous group. I agree that the problem is citations and I fear I cannot help. I am pretty sure that Levi-Strauss made this argument about endogamy either in The Savage Mind or Totemism. As for data about actual Egyptian practices I do not know. Perhaps an RfC at the Ancient Egyptian History page will yield good sources? That said I bet any good current anthropology textbook is likely to say something about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt was c.1550-c.1292 BCE but Graeco-Roman period of Egyptian history which was a Later. References 56-59 show that sibling marriage was widespread during Graeco-Roman period.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading them. They are speaking of Greaco-Roman Egypt. Moreover, the Shaw article makes it clear that incestuous marriages were the exception, not the rule, and explained by particular social circumstances. Maybe we should read the sources we use, hmm? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out that we have sources for Greaco-Roman Egypt but not for any other time(which is about 4000 years or so), so we cannot add much to the article yet. Shaw sad that their were what he calls the “precise historical and social context” which let to not just the persons but Greaco-Roman Egypt culture and law to be not just OK with it but to prefer it. Just as there was “precise historical and social context” which let to US culture to go from being very happy with Cousin Marriage to thinking of it as incestuous. Also it been sometime sine I've be able to look at all the sources in full, dis anyone have any of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Don-Jam (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your last clause. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpret Shaw as saying that while brother-sister incest was in general considered dirty and wrong, it was a pragmatic strategy on the part of a relatively small and isolated colony of Greek-Macedonians in Egypt, whose distance from Greece allowed for a weakening of the taboo, and whoe racist attitudes towards native Egyptians and need to consolidate their grab of land from native Egyptians encouraged brother-sister incest.

I encourage people to revise or elaborate on my explanation and put it into the article - we ought to be clear about the particular circumstances and functions of brother-sister incest in Greek-ruled Egypt.

Quotes from Shaw 1992:

First of all, one can speak of types of sexual acts (with no assumptions about other cultural connexions such as marriage) between persons in defined relation- ships to each other (e.g., father-daughter), which are forbidden by the moral and social norms prevalent in the society concerned. Linked to this more fundamental form, but in some clear analytical senses to be separated from it, is a form in which marriage bonds (and therefore sexual relations) take place within nomi- nally prohibited degrees of kinship and social boundaries normally set by the societies concerned. This investigation is primarily concerned with the second, somewhat narrower and weaker sense of 'incest' .... My analysis will take another look at a rather well-docu- mented case of incestuous behaviour of the former of these two types (that is to say, incestuous behaviour between siblings) in a situation that was apparently regarded as both normal and acceptable by the persons directly involved, even though it would have been considered unacceptable and abnormal in terms of the values embraced by the wider society of which they were part. (268)

The documents available from the census returns would seem to indicate that between one-sixth and one-fifth of all marriages were in this cate- gory. 'In the usable census returns, brother-sister marriages account for between 15-21 percent of all ongoing marriages (N = 113) (274)

One of the first types of explanation offered for the Egyptian phenomenon was that of social tradition or habit: the inhabitants of Roman Egypt were copying the known practices of their ancestors of the pharaonic period (brother-sister marriage was supposedly a 'well-known' practice indulged in by the Pharaohs). But there is no substantial historical evidence to demonstrate that brother-sister marriage was either known or commonly practised by 'ordinary' Egyptians in the pharaonic period - that is, before the advent of Graeco-Roman rule. Detailed studies of what quantitative data survive (Thierfelder 1960: 7 Sqq.; Pestman 1961: 2-5) certainly substantiate this negative conclusion. Though qual- itative evidence (e.g., of a few intra-dynastic marriages in pharaonic circles) might give the impression that the practice was of some frequency, Cerny's analysis of around five hundred marriages amongst the 'ordinary' people of pharaonic Egypt produced only six possible cases (all of them only half- brother/half-sister marriages) or, at best, about one per cent. of the whole. And there is, as he explicitly states, 'no certain evidence for a marriage between a full brother and sister' (Cerny 1954: 29)....The crucial point for our pur- poses is that clear and irrefutable evidence for the widespread practice of brother-sister marriage amongst 'ordinary persons' in Egypt is post-pharaonic. (274)

Most of the explanations currently canvassed are based on various combina- tions of naked economic self-interest. First, there is the claim that brother-sister marriages were motivated by the desire to save on the expenses of dowry bequests. Hopkins refutes this on both logical and empirical grounds (1980: 322 sqq.). It has recently been revived in a modified form by Goody, who points out that Hopkins's logical objection to dowry as a factor (i.e., that dowry exchanges would tend to cancel out in the long term) does not take adequate account of the complex motives of social mobility in marriage, or of the complex nature of the assets to be exchanged (Goody 1990: 333-4). These subtleties are indeed important in analyzing any regime of property and marriage, but they do not suffice to explain the specific phenomenon of brother-sister marriage. The known facts of dowry are no different in cases of brother-sister marriage from other cases. Moreover, these same contingent factors affecting dowry exchanges were found quite widely in most other societies of the ancient Mediterranean, but nowhere else did they compel incestuous marriage (276)

Then again, there is the allied claim that brother-sister marriages were moti- vated by the economic desire to maintain family property, especially to avoid partition of the basic wealth of the time, namely land. It is indeed possible to point to known cases where peasants were willing to contemplate brother-sister marriage for precisely this sort of reason (e.g., in the well-known case reported from late medieval Montaillou by Le Roy Ladurie, 1978: 36, 52, 179 sqq.). Once again, however, Hopkins's objections must hold. Since these marriages were in fact modelled on 'normal' marriages, arranging them between siblings hardly secured much advantage. They were subject to termination by death and divorce, to reformation by remarriage, and to all the other normal responses of parents towards children's property (e.g., disherison).8 Goody (1990: 334) has attempted to reinstate the motive of keeping family property intact as a possible partial explanation by emphasizing contingent elements not fully taken into account by Hopkins. Once again, however, the riposte is not fully convincing. The contingent or attendant circumstances such as extreme pressures on scarce land resources, the need to conserve limited wealth within the family, special considerations (the 'heirloom' factor, the unusual market or familial value of a particular piece of land) certainly did exist. But they were never sufficient to provoke so extreme a response as brother-sister marriage anywhere else in the Mediterranean (certainly in any known Graeco-Roman society). fiopkins's final suggestion (1980: 350 sqq.), based on his analysis of household composition, and the nature of the cycle of domestic development, is that brother-sister marriage was a way of controlling property exchanges and other claims attendant upon the in-marrying daughter-in-law. But this is basically still a variant of the economic argument alluded to above. As such, it is open to precisely the same (and, to me, decisive) objections. (276-277)

But I would like to proffer an alternative explanation - one which I think is concordant both with the available evidence and with the general historical developments in which Egyptian society was involved in the post-pharaonic period. The explanation is also specific to the very persons whose brother-sister marriages the census figures reveal. To pre-empt my argument, the explanation offered is rather simple. It was all a matter of race, or better, 'racism'. Expressed in somewhat more elaborate terms, I shall argue that these close-kin marriages were one response to the effects of what I would call the racial perceptions of the persons involved in them. If true, we would at least have an explanation that would require us neither to go back to the 'distant mists' of an Egyptian past nor to rely solely upon social and economic factors that should have been operating almost everywhere else in the Mediterranean world of the time. The factors I am going to claim as responsible for brother-sister marriages were ones specific not only to Egypt, but also to the precise social group involved in these marriages in the post-pharaonic period. Moreover, if such a secular explanation can be made to work for this case, it should shed a little more light on the general history of incest, and perhaps also on the problem of the supposed universality of certain aspects of human behaviour (or, as it is sometimes more grandly put, 'human nature'). (277)

There- fore, both the geographical location of almost all the surviving data, and the nomenclature of the persons concerned, indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that they were not representative of 'Egyptians as a whole'. Rather they were direct descendants either of Greek settlers or of those Egyptians who were desperately trying to 'pass' as such persons and who are generally known as having had 'metropolitan' status because they identified themselves (by actual residence, or otherwise) with the urban-dwelling or urban-centred Greek settler inhabitants of Egypt. They lived in the 'mother cities' (metropoleis), or dependent settlements, that were the main loci of Hellenistic Greek settlement in the land of Egypt following on the conquest of the region by the Graeco-Macedonian armies of Alexander the Great in the late 330s B.C. In order to understand the peculiar situation of these settlers, and their probable social organization (espe- cially as regards something as fundamental as marriage and family formation), it is necessary first to review their vested interests in coming to Egypt, and their ethnic relations with the indigenous Egyptian inhabitants of the land they were occupying and whose resources they were administering (279)

The Greek settlers' attitudes towards the indigenous Egyptians, whose land, property and wealth were the object of one of the greatest 'take-overs' in all of antiquity, amply justify Edouard Will's characterization of the situation as one of classic colonialism (Will 1985). The new networks of power instituted by the Graeco-Macedonian conquerors were marked by the deliberate exclusion of the native Egyptians from almost every level of formal state power, and from almost every ancillary area of life where the settler government controlled access to resources. Detailed studies of the different positions of governmental and formal economic power in Ptolemaic Egypt, including state high-priesthoods, officers of the Greek law-courts, gymnasiarchs, the heads of local municipal organizations and even athletes competing in formal games, yield the same uniformly negative picture: over the entire Ptolemaic period there is hardly a known example of an Egyptian being allowed into any of these positions (Clarysse 1985; Peremans 1962; 1970a; 1970b; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1976). (281)

The superior power wielded by the Greek rulers, combined with their demand that all formal and official acts be conducted in their language alone, enforced the clearest of separations between 'us' and 'them'. Given the fun- damentally agrarian nature of the ancient economy, all this was in the service of the most important part of the great takeover: the seizure of all of the most fertile and most productive tracts of land in Egypt. All the known holders of the most extensive properties and the richest lands were now colonial Greeks. Native Egyptians were restricted to service as tied-peasants labouring on crown or temple lands, or as holders of small and marginal pieces of land (Peremans 1974 provides the statistics). In order to exclude this labouring Egyptian 'mass' from infiltration into the Greek networks of power, a number of extremely harsh segregation measures were put into place by the conquering administration. Amongst these measures, for example, was a rule forbidding indigenous Egypti- ans even to change their Egyptian names to Greek ones without formal permission of the government. (281)

It is therefore this position of Greek settlers in Egypt in the Hellenistic period after the conquest of the region by Alexander the Great and the imposition of settler rule under the Graeco-Macedonian dynasty of the Ptolemies (and during the period of Roman rule following the conquest and absorption of Egypt by Octavian/Augustus from Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies, in 31 B.C.) that is the critical factor that must be taken into consideration. The evidence on their situation is almost unequivocal in revealing a society in which relations between the incoming conquerors and exploiters of the land, and the indigenous locals, were pervasively and ubiquitously determined by racist conceptions. The impor- tance for the ruling elite of legitimating and protecting its massive seizure of wealth (unparalleled in the world of antiquity at the time it occurred) cannot be underestimated. That problem specifically faced the ruling family or oikos of Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's strongmen, who seized the land as his share of the massive pillaging expedition of the whole Near East staged by Mac- edonian armies in an unprecedentedly narrow span of time - 'unprecedented', that is, given the scale of the loot. As an important part of the maintenance of its hegemony over these acquisitions, within a generation the family of the Ptolemies took the Greek tendency to endogamy to its logical limits. In the mid-270s B.C. Ptolemy II married his full sister Arsinoe, who was then dubbed 'Philadelphos' or the 'Brother-Lover' (Kornemann 1923: 23-4n4). Over the next two centuries or so, the very close in-marrying practices of the Ptolemaic family produced a remarkable series of publicly advertised and cele- brated 'Brother-Lovers' and 'Sister-Lovers'. (282-283)

norms). When Greek settlers went to Egypt, the evidence we have indicates that the old barriers between the city-states to which they had once belonged simply lapsed; they were no longer regarded to be of any particular significance. Persons of Greek background intermarried with no apparent prohi- bitions. In this sense, the 'New World' of Egypt freed the colonists from their old city-state inhibitions - it was more important for them, in their new colonial milieu, to be from a common Greek ethnos, than it was to maintain the old, petty city-state distinctions amongst themselves (Meleze-Modrzejewski 1980: 54-5). The basic reason for that breakdown of old distinctions was the new situation in which Greek settlers found themselves: an exiguously small governing elite, with privileged access to land and other economic resources. Set against them was a population of millions of indigenous Egyptians. It is precisely in such circum- stances of isolation, even in recent states and societies where the possibility of 'getting out' has been much greater than under the cloying constrictions of the pre-modern economy and society of Graeco-Roman Egypt, that distinct immi- grant ethnic groups have demonstrated extraordinary tendencies to endogamy, so much so as to be described as 'virtually caste-like' in their behaviour (see, for example, Pagnini & Morgan 1990, on the situation in New York at the turn of the century). (288)

Conclusion The case of the Egyptian colonial Greek settler class is a very specific and special one. Given the extreme social pressures dictated by their circumstances, we must see their decisions as to whom to marry as involving, on occasion, the question of just how close a kinsperson they would be willing to contemplate for the liaison. In a certain proportion of all cases (about one-sixth or so, according to our surviving data) we know that they were willing to collapse their traditional inhibitions against marriage between siblings. But we must show due caution. This is a very special case, with very specific historical roots and causes. The persons involved felt, on the one hand, compelled by ideological and material pressures; and, on the other, 'permitted' by certain precedents set in the ranks of their own local ruling class. It is therefore illegitimate (I would contend) to use this historical case, torn from its specific context (and with attention directed only to 'internal' causes) to support more general arguments about 'close-kin' marriage preferences in the 'Orient' as opposed to the 'West'.17 To recast Goody's words, I might define the 'incest taboo' not so much as some absolute, near-biological syndrome, but rather as what he has called an 'overriding tendency' (albeit a very strong one). (292)

The intense pressures of an economic nature (the massive rewards to be gained and maintained, amongst them very limited amounts of extraordinarily productive land), combined with and a colonial situation of a distinct ethnic ruling elhte which continually defined itself in a very racist manner (via the hallmarks of a peculiar culture), were the main impelling forces. Indeed, these circumstances produced racial antipathies of the most violent and extreme sort ever attested for the world of Mediterranean antiquity. The peculiarly intense and claustrophobic social relationships generated in the isolated 'hot house' environment of the Nile Valley were conducive to a narrower range of pragmatic choices which led a minority (albeit a substantial one) of all Greek settlers in Egypt to override the inhibitions against normally 'incestuous' marriages and sexual relations. The op- tion was made possible by the sense of almost 'royal' distinction that the Greek settlers arrogated to themselves, and by their close vertical linkages with their own dynastic rulers in Egypt (Meleze-Modrzejewski 1983: 253). Those rulers, from a very early date, set a precedent by imitating the possibilities opened by their 'pharaonic predecessors', who on occasion had indeed practised brother-sis- ter marriage. The option could then be mimicked by the Greek settlers in Egypt who, however rich or poor, weak or powerful they might have been, perceived themselves to be an integral part of the whole privileged Greek ruling 'class' in Egypt (and therefore in very close mental and moral proximity to the 'top' people at the upper end of that same social order). (292-293)

I think these support my summary but I encourage people to correct me or to expand on what I wrote, before incorporating it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the References any more but dis not one of them show that the marriages at the time were almost always a 'older' men and a much younger women? That it was only one-sixth to one-fifth of all marriages because not every one had a sister of the age needed and that almost every time he had a sister of the age needed they were marred?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the quotes I provided cover the entire analysis of the Greco-Roman Egypt case. Brother-sister incest is only one kind of incest, Father-daughter is another kind, and I think you are right that there are theories of oder man/younger woman based on this, but it is not a part of Shaw's analysis of the Egyptian case. According to Shaw, the sample cannot be taken as representative because the documents are clearly only a fraction of the census; we do not have a representative sample and unless there is some amazing discovery, no one can fully generalize from the data available. But he thinks that the reason it is around 16% is because there is a strong taboo against brother-sister incest. As for why it occurs at all, well, didn't you read all the quotes I laboriously copied out? If you want to read more why can't you go to the library? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on about the other 3 References and the library system I use now and it's neighbours do not have them. When I am here I think we'd all like to think you for your help Slrubenstein, which we shod have dome sooner. Now we just have to work out how to put that into the article.

It seem to me that almost every society has had some kind of 'incest taboo' but it the working out what was and was not seen as taboo at any gave time and jurisdiction what we need to do. I'm not sure were we need to go with this article. Maybe we shod add in line or two to the bit on the incest taboo and sand people off to that article as it seem to be were most of this shod be, after all it was not taboo and therefore not incest but just Inbreeding.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First, this is the article on incest, not the article on the incest taboo. This article has a link to incest taboo, so it already sends people there. Secondly, you say "the working out what was and was not seen as taboo at any gave time and jurisdiction what we need to do." But not only do we not need to do it, we cannot do it. There are thousands of different societies on the planet, we cannot possibly describe the specifics of each one's incest taboo. By the way, if you use interlibrary loan you can get any book. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What I wish to say is that there is a question if Egyptian history shod be in there at all as it was not illegal or socially taboo. But as Legitimus sad “some mention is warranted due to it being notable different from nearly every other culture.” So we need to work out how to do that the best way. I have asked about an interlibrary loan but nothing so far.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean, "it was not illegal or socially taboo?" Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

At the time in Egypt it was not illegal and it was not socially taboo, therefore it was not incest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Don-Jam (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Who says that at the time in Egypt it was not socially taboo? Of course it was socially taboo. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

one-sixth to one-fifth of all marriages seem to say that it was not socially taboo.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I asked "Who says that at the time in Egypt it was not socially taboo?" I gave you my source. Give me your source. My source definitely identifies it as incest. you claim it is not - provide a reliable source. Statistics don't "say" anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I seem to have mist were it sad that it was seen at the time as taboo in Egypt, can you point it out to me? Thinks.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"The peculiarly intense and claustrophobic social relationships generated in the isolated 'hot house' environment of the Nile Valley were conducive to a narrower range of pragmatic choices which led a minority (albeit a substantial one) of all Greek settlers in Egypt to override the inhibitions against normally 'incestuous' marriages and sexual relations." What doe you think is being overridden? The incest taboo! This sentence makes it clear that it was abnormal and something that was strongly inhibitted. Apparently the inhibitian against incest was so strong, that on a "hout house" environment could lead people to violate the taboo. You do agree that a rule remains a rule even when broken? If gangsters regularly kill, this does not mean killing is normal or right. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Think you for pointing that out Slrubenstein.

Yes it was “a minority (albeit a substantial one)” but he dis not have anything to show that that it was seen as abnormal by those living in Egypt at the time. He is of the POV that there is a universal natural or genetic taboo on sibling marriages that need to be override.

I'm sorry but it just dis not add up to me that it was taboo. How can 16% or more of your society be doing something and yet it is still seen as a very big taboo? It's like First Cousin marriage in the US, I've seen it sad that it about 1 in 1000 marriages at most, 30 states have some kind of prohibition and it is overwhelmingly seen as incestuous by most Americans. But if from today 16% of all Americans marriages were between First Cousin it not be long before it not seen as a taboo anymore. The US after all went from not seeing it as incestuous to seeing as in about 50 years. Graeco-Roman Egypt was 600 years or so and it seems to have been going on for most of that time.

I'm going to do some looking at see if can find anything that shows that it was taboo.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He clearly identifies it as incest. You need to find a reliable source saying it was not incest. This is all that matters for this article, was it incest or not? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

“Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is either illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place or socially taboo.” It was not illegal and nowhere dis he show that it was it seen at the time by Egyptian society as socially taboo. Not what Rome thinks, not what those in midland Greece think, not from our POV today, what did Egypt think of it? No were dis he show that it was seen as taboo by them.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not want to put in "What Egypt" thought it was (as if "Egypt" could think) - you want to include what Lord Don-Jam thinks. No matter. WP policy is clear: we include all significant views from reliable sources. Shaw's view is significant and from a reliable source, so it goes in. You think there are other significant views on what these Greeks (it was the Greeks who were committing incest, not the Egyptians) thought? Go find a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is we shod look at all the facts first before adding anything. Did it came about because of the racist attitudes towards native Egyptians as Shaw says? In Brother–sister marriage, Sabine R. Huebner, Columbia University points out that “Brother–sister marriages are, however, recorded for Greeks and Egyptians alike.”

Slrubenstein has it right. Deciding where the line between truth and falsity lies is not in our charter. Check WP [WP:V]]: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Check the WP:DUE part of WP policy WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Then again there now seem to be some question has to wither it it was biological inbreeding or adoption.(Hübner 2007, with Remijsen and Clarysse 2008).--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Inbreeding

The line "In many cases incest is also inbreeding." makes an assumption that the majority of incestuous unions result in pregnancy, which is unsubstantiated and probably untrue given the evidence in the rest of the article. In any case, it depends on the definition of incest in any given place and so cannot be used as a generic statement of fact.

I have replaced it with the more general statement "Inbreeding (reproduction between two related individuals) may also involve incest.".

Psammead (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Incest

The definitions part second paragraph says "Prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10–15% of the general population as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[7] Among women, research has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.[6]"

Could someone please tell me what this is about? The first paragraph first defines incest as "sexual intercourse between close relatives[1][2] that is illegal" and the next paragraph tells: (1) 10-15% have at least one incest experience (2) less than 2% involve intercourse (3) up to 20% of women have at least one incest experience.

So these claims are telling prevalence of up to 20% but anyhow less than 2%. If I was offered interest on $10'000 as "up to 20%" but "less than 2%", I would be very confused.

It makes be even more confused to notice, that the second chapter starts with definition of "child sexual abuse"; are these numbers for "incest" or "child sexual abuse"? Are there any numbers about the difference of those classes?

Are we talking about US regulations? If, please quote what is illegal in States. 95% of people are not under US legistlation, and 95% US citizens would not know what is illegal , either. Please explain. Someone. The referred books were published in US, but what about the research material, that was US, too?

Since I (and most of the readers, I suppose) have no access to the referred publications, this should be re-written by someone who knows what this means. If no-one has anything to clear this up, I'd cut the second paragraph pretty much shorter by wiping off the numbers until they have a meaning, too.

This Incest-part was opened by Seikku Kaita (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orders of Magnitude

I've tagged the "orders of magnitude" wording in the lead as not being in or implied by the source material. It's possible that the sourced article has been changed as it's a fairly old article. This is not an area of expertise, and I didn't find the specific report in a quick Google, so all I've done is tag it for now. – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Consensual" sibling incest

I feel this recently added section may need some consideration. First, it currently has no sources. Second, I am concerned that it might give a misleading impression of the matter to lay readers. While certain sexual activities fall within a normative range (show and tell, playing doctor), certain ones are innately considered abuse no matter how willing both parties may seem. Simply put, there are some things children do not do with out having it inappropriately introduced to them by an external source, and compliance and/or positive appraisal does not negate harmful psychological or neurological effects of the encounter. One source in the article already points out that adults who went through this are frequently have distorted or delusional opinions about it.Legitimus (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"innately considered abuse" also calls for sources. There are societies in which it is common for mothers to stroke their baby sons' penises to erection. In these societies this is not considered abuse, not even innately. I realize you are talking about siblings, but I think your real point has to do with what kind of play among children parents consider abusive even if both children are "consenting." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which modern day cultural is it considered appropriate for two 6 year olds to be engaging in penetrative sexual intercourse and to do so without any sort of influence from adults or pornography? Because I would really like to study that culture. Also if I remember correctly, that the example you just gave was discredited; some kind of rumor spread around to denigrate a specific culture.

Shaw et al's Child on child sexual abuse - psychological perspectives provides pretty explicit guidelines on what is considered truly normative behavior. He states "Appropriate exploratory sexual behavior is carried out with children of the same age, size, and with mutual consent." It is hard to put siblings at the same age and size (plus the extremely common social status of birth order) unless they are twins. Furthermore, according to Shaw both participates must have all of the following (quote):

(1) understanding what is proposed;

(2) knowledge of societal standards for what is proposed;

(3) awareness of potential consequences and alternatives;

(4) assumption that agreement or disagreement will be respected equally;

(5) voluntary decision; and

(6) mental competence

I find it very hard to believe you have all that when very young children are involved. And like I said, [Carlson (2006)] shows that many sibling incest victims have delusional beliefs about the event.Legitimus (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So I guess you did not read what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok now I am confused, and if I have made offense, embarrassed. Your second and third sentences very much sounded like you were defending the passage under a "cultural relativism" argument. In truth I was hoping the editor who added this passage] would respond. Since that passage still is unsourced, if there is no timely response I feel we should remove it.Legitimus (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was simply stating facts - but I was refering to an activity between mother and son, not between siblings. I think your response was equally specific and I think we are all better off when we are dealing with specifics. And i agree that more citations are a good idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Often?"

I have a question about the content under "incest between adult and child": Why does it state that this is "often" child sexual abuse? I cannot imagine a context in which an adult having sexual intercourse with a child would not qualify under any definition of child sexual abuse. Sojourner529 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Sojourner529

You make a valid point. I cannot think of a situation where it's not.Legitimus (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I noted article no longer uses the word often and an editor has changed it to be more definitive. Pbmaise (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamic religious views, "The main differences ..."

There is a table in the Islam section introduced by "The main differences (apart from relationships between a man and his daughter) are:". Could someone please clarify what views Islam is being compared to here? Looking at the article, I guessed that the other views being compared are those of one or more of the alternative religious views described in article subsections at the same indent level as the Islam section — that would be Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and/or Buddhist.

Looking back at earlier versions of the article, I see this, from which it appears that the comparison was earlier presented as between Islam and the rules of pre-Islamic Arabic culture and to the rules in the Torah. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Inca Incest

A section needs to be added about all 12 of the Inca being the result of brother sister messages. Good genes as well as bad ones are concentrated in this case.Trojancowboy (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just interjecting that this is mentioned briefly in the Incest taboo article. Also see [5], [6], etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

IP reverts

Can you explain yourself? Pass a Method talk 09:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cousin marriage

I am confused, under the cousin marriage section it stated that marriage between cousins is not stigmatised in western countries but it is, see the cousin marriage article. Also, the cite stating that cousin marriage is not stigmatised makes no mention of that whatsoever. I'll clean it up. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism doesn't enforce its philosophy on people

that's the whole point of Buddhism. Lord Buddha once said identify me as a guider I will show you the way to go. it's your choice to select what I have shown you or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Health effects

This articles lacks the genetic health defects that come from incestuous relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.187.51 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edit re Jainism

I've reverted this edit, which inserted the sentence, "However, it is still followed in Jainism and marriage with anyone of the same last name or clan is prohibited." into the middle of a paragraph.

The paragraph is pretty confused, intermixing seemingly only loosely related information about the U.S., India, and South Korea, and this insertion confused it further. Also, the assertion made by the inserted sentence is unsupported and appears to be not universally true (see Jain, Anita (2009). Marrying Anita. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 153. ISBN 978-0-7475-9615-8. Now even the most traditional Jain families freely intermarry their offspring with other Banias, many of whom bear the same last name Agarwal or Gupta.).

Perhaps the affected paragraph ought to be rewritten. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Genetic defects not an issue with incest babies

In the passage describing the German sister and brother separated by his adoption, there is talk of their children and the fact that the children are disabled. The passage then continues that the sister is herself disabled, so "... there is still debate over if their disabilities are from incest or their genetics." Forgive my assumption (as a layman instead of a geneticist) but isn't EVERY child a product of genetics? The statement as written implies that children born of incestuous parents are not a product of genetics, which is clearly not true. MrZoolook (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like poor phrasing. If you want to get technical, despite how many lay people (including judges) seem to think, incest itself doesn't cause the offspring to "mutate" spontaneously like something out of a sci fi movie. It simply increases the offspring's odds of expressing recessive and/or deleterious genes that were already in their parent's genetics, whether the parents have outward expressions of those genes or not. The text asserting that the mother was already mentally retarded and could have passed this on regardless of the incest is also misleading, as the children have other medical problems like heart valve defects.

This of course led me to discover that the sentence itself you mention is not actually mentioned in the source. It appears to be possibly POV-motivated speculation by an editor, thus would violate WP:OR or WP:SYN. I am removing it.Legitimus (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

I have an issue with the part on Rick Santorum. To quote the article:

He stated: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

So Santorum is basically saying that homosexuality and incest are, "legally and morally", the same thing with respect to the government. From this logic, what makes heterosexual relationships that most people consider "normal" any different? This is saying that any sexual relationship is okay as long as it's consensual. Therefore, what makes heterosexuality any different from homosexuality and incest?

This view is not included in the article. There are no sources that say this view, but, it does obviously follow from the (extremely basic) logic. Does anyone think we should include it here even though it isn't sourced? Just because there's no source doesn't make it untrue and doesn't make it not important. In fact, I think it is doing a disservice to readers because they are being told that homosexuality and incest are in a different league than heterosexuality. Charles35 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is garbage

This article defines incest in a variety of ways. It then goes on to discuss the biology, specifically the genetics, resulting from it. You can not have it both ways. You can not claim that, for instance, step-father/daughter sex is incest and claim that there is a genetic problem with it. Nor is the claim that similar immune systems are less robust even coherent (the correct argument is that there is some evidence that heterozygous immune system related genes may confer broader (or is it more effective?) immune system responses, but this is on-going cutting edge research.) The statement is made that off-spring producing incest is inbreeding. Not only is this circular reasoning, but is species dependent (which is also not discussed). We should, imho, separate the cultural definitions from the medical studies. We should admit that not only can homozygous alleles harm the prodigy, but they can be beneficial as well. Is the aversion or disinterest that most feel for their siblings, children, and parents learned or is there biology going on? We do not know. We do know that children pass through an Oedipus/Electra phase (or is my psychology out of date?), yet it is not mentioned here. We do know that there can be significant issues of power (physical, emotional, financial, and social) asymmetry in incest between a child and an adult. WHY isn't it mentioned here? Overall a lousy article. Citing a study of 20 patients/subjects is an egregious example of a poor argument. As are the various citations of (non peer reviewed) books in making scientific claims. I am going to go look for a AMA citation, (it was mentioned in an episode of Private Practice, lol). We need to separate the science from the extreme cultural relativity of much of this topic somehow. We also need better facts and a clearer explanation of inbreeding.173.189.72.136 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence and statistics

Misleading title, this does not talk about prevalence of incest in the context of the definition given by this article (sexual intercourse between family members and close relatives). It talks mostly about father-daughter child abuse, and touches that prevalence only, but its sexual intercourse between FAMILY members, not just intercourse between father and daughter. Someone who understand the subject, correct the confusion, or correct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements

The idea that incest is one of the most common taboos both today and historically is highly inaccurate. For example, in Rome up to a quarter of all registered marriages were brother-sister marriages, source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881142 In fact children throughout history were considered legitimate sex partners and would often be used by their family and offered to house guests: Ibid., pp. 79-86; Larry S. Milner, Hardness of Heart/Hardness of Life, p. 402

Even today mother-son incest is common in Japan and is used as a reward for good grades: Kenneth Alan Adams, “The Sexual Abuse of Children in Contemporary Japanese Families.” The Journal of Psychohistory 34(2007): 178-195; Lloyd deMause, “The Universality of Incest,” p. 154-157.

Mothers masturbating their infants was common in almost all societies as a form of play: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/NEW_GUINEA.HTM

Throughout history in the majority of societies it was the families role (and their close friends and relatives) to fulfill each others sexual needs. To not do so was considered neglect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.194.247 (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Addressed in order of points:

• Romans are one culture in millenia of human existence, and indeed are a culture know for their very poor moral boundaries (e.g. watching people kill each other or fed to beasts for amusement). The assertion is that it is the most common taboo, not 100% of all human cultures.
• What does children being sex partners have to do with anything? That is a separate topic altogether. Furthermore, I have investigated the reference you provided and it does not support this claim.
• Again, one culture, and dubious at best. Furthermore, DeMause's work has been panned as inaccurate (including by notable child abuse specialist Alice Miller) who called his work "A string of nonsensical claims"; he has no evidence to support any of his assertions and appears to merely be speculating at best, propagating political propaganda at worst.
• The source indicates this is done in a small, specific number of primitive tribal cultures, not "almost all societies."Legitimus (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Incest is only "incest" if two people related have intercourse?

So if I, or anybody, has outercourse with a family member that is by definition not incest due to there not being any sexual intercourse?

So it's okay if my sister gives cunnilingus to my mother because it's not "intercourse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.96 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't the best way to ask for change or improvement in an article. Assuming your not just trolling.

Anyhow, the first paragraph of this article is based on the definition from several popular dictionaries. These dictionaries are no doubt using a model of incest that is a tad dated and operating under the quaint assumption that either there are no other sex acts besides intercourse, that intercourse is inclusive of all sex acts, or that the only concern with incest is inbreeding. I should say I do not agree with using this phrasing in the lead and much prefer the definition used by Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

“ Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. ”

Such a definition is obviously far more aligned with the meaning in which people use this word today, as your somewhat crass example illustrates the problem with restricting it to just intercourse.Legitimus (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also been thinking that using the term sexual intercourse for the first and second sentences is not best, considering that most sources still define sexual intercourse as penile-vaginal sex (especially due to the aspect that concerns reproduction) or as penile-vaginal sex, anal sex and oral sex. While significantly more people don't consider oral sex to be sexual intercourse or "real sex" than they do the other two sex acts, oral sex is defined as sexual intercourse commonly enough, especially when it is penetrative. Non-penetrative sex (outercourse) still generally is not considered sexual intercourse.

Anyway, because these days, despite dictionary definitions, incest is generally defined as any sexual act between blood relatives, or even relatives in general (though I doubt that flirting with each other or, for example, reading or watching sexual imagery together, counts), I updated the lead to substitute "sexual activity" in place of "sexual intercourse." I would have used "sexual relations," like the first two sources I added do, but I feel that wording isn't as clear as "sexual activity" and that it gives off an "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." vibe. I would have used the wording that Legitimus proposed above, but it's better not to go with a word-for-word copy if that is the exact Stedman's Medical Dictionary definition (though I've seen other dictionaries word it that exact way as well), and the marriage aspect is covered in the second sentence (along with other aspects). Legal definitions, like some other definitions, of incest vary, but I think that most of them (which may not be a significant majority) define incest by penile-vaginal sex, anal sex and oral sex (the most common definitions of sexual intercourse).

This 1996 source (starting on page 12) states that most incest laws are based on sexual intercourse.

This 2003 source (starting on page 209) talks about many child sexual abuse professionals having broadened the definition of incest beyond sexual intercourse.

This 2005 source (starting on page 75) states similarly (with regard to the 2003 source), noting that "the traditional definition of incest was sexual intercourse (or marriage) within forbidden degrees of kinship."

This 2009 source (starting on page 1) also talks about incest definitions and states that defining incest by sexual intercourse, like Merriam-Webster does, is limited. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Table not colourblind friendly

Can someone change the coloured bars in the 'Jewish' section of 'Religious Views'? They are really hard to differentiate. 119.235.79.193 (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Category selection

Why we have category:Child sexual abuse added to the article? It is correct that incest also include child sexual abuse, including other forms of sexual abuses that haven't been listed. Noteswork (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are stating with your second sentence. But I reverted you here (followup note here) because child sexual abuse is a significant aspect of incest; this is why it is significantly addressed in the Incest article. I stated in my followup note to you that "it's usually a relative that has sexually abused the child. Either that, or another type of trusted person." What I noted in that statement are facts. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't saw the dummy edit, just read it. Noteswork (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Biblical References

IN Genesis, after fleeiing Sodom and his wife turning to salt, Lot's daughters over consecutive nights get him drunk with wine in order to become pregnant by him, both bearing him sons. Someone should put that in who knows the reference.ShabbyTiger (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism on incest

Section "Religious views: Buddhist" states in the opening sentence that "Buddhist societies take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular", then it elaborates that in Buddhism there are no specific rules on the subject and everything is "decided locally", according to famously vague Noble Eightfold Path and Five Percepts. To my impression it means that Buddhism doesn't take a stand on the specific subject at all. And the whole section contradicts itself or, at best, just isn't informative. So I don't know why it is even mentioned. I didn't put the "Section contradicts itself" template there because I'm kinda new here and I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate. Nazwa.ekranowa (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I watch this article but never looked that closely or edited the section in question. I believe you are right, it does come across as contradictory. The opening sentence even appears to be mostly cut-and-paste from the source, which is not only prohibited but puts the text out of context. It technically starts as "Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions" which is not the same thing, and the source seems not very authoritative considering it's a Unitarian Sermon delivered by non-Buddhists. I will begin researching better sources and modify this section accordingly. If you have any sources that seem reliable, please post them. I'm sure they will be helpful.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this source seem accurate? http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=484 Legitimus (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, I've only noticed some inconsistencies in the article. However, just out of curiosity, I read your link and followed the bibliographical citations and I've found out that when Buddha hears the story of a nun and his son, his answer is not quite about mother-son relationship only but rather general, quite hilarious warning, which states that supposedly all "forms of a woman" are "tantalizing, sensuous, intoxicating, captivating, infatuating, and as much of an obstacle to achieving the unsurpassed security from bondage". And this warning is followed by equally hilarious (from modern Western point of view, obviously) poetry. Anyway, read it for yourself. https://books.google.pl/books?id=Bf4Sn056puUC&pg=PA682&lpg=PA682&f=false

The other citation which I found in your link also concerned only women. Of course it's authoritative and sheds some light on the matter, but as far as I understood the rules, we are not supposed to do actual research. And I really can't point to any trustworthy comprehensive source, sorry. Maybe you should consider deleting the whole section altogether? Nazwa.ekranowa (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Main Argument

The main argument against incest in this article is that incestuous sex is inbreeding and congenital birth defects and therefore is soceitally taboo. However, a logical fallacy exists within that argument, that (all) sex is done for procreation purposes, which is simply not true... indeed, the reality is otherwise.

Without citing references, I would assert the majority of sex is engaged in by humans is not for procreation purposes, but for sexual enjoyment and pleasure. Many very sexually active couples do not want children and practice safe sex. Should non-incestuous sexual relationships be denigrated as well, simply because there is some off chance that one might past some potential and yet unsubstantiated statistical potential random genetic defect to an offspring of such a union, when neither is trying to produce offspring and taking precautions and active measures against it?

If an incestuous couple were to not wish to have children, as so many such couples do not (as so non-incestuous couples), and practice safe sex measures against it... the main argument against incestuous sex crumbles completely to pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article has some weasel words that need adjusting.

Please weigh in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CircularReason (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

After the biblical diagram, there's this line that remains without proper citation or explanation "Apart from the questionable case of the daughter [clarification needed]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.75.148.65 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to know that what leads the Biological Parents to commit to incest. Saket4353 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Incestualist and Incestophile

My recent revert was cut off due to some kind of technical problem so the edit summary is probably odd. What I was trying to say is that the sources for Incestualist and Incestophile appear to not be very strong. They do not provide any proof these are common, accepted terms. Furthermore,, Wible deliberately uses it in a sarcastic way in making an argument for acceptance of homosexuality.Legitimus (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Are those terms correctly formed? I guess we could include incestophobia as well. That would be someone that is opposed to incest. --41.146.63.190 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't really say if they're are correctly formed as I lack the needed knowledge of English linguistics, though I have noticed that the internet has created a variety of terribly mangled terms as well as corruption of existing words true meanings. However, most important is that these all appear to be made-up terms used by a handful of authors in a joking sort of way. I could not find any good scientific or reliable "serious" usage of any of them, including the one you suggested.Legitimus (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217044158/http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=167373 to http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=167373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904084118/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/0720_05.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/0720_05.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904084448/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/0628.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/0628.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080903182854/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/ to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/20080720/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228061401/http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=19930101-000023&page=1 to http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=19930101-000023&page=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137476159.0009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921025414/http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/Elpinice.html to http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/Elpinice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103062452/http://www.sanathanadharma.com/samskaras/marriage/mar3.htm to http://www.sanathanadharma.com/samskaras/marriage/mar3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Professor Steve Jones material and WP:Undue weight

As seen here and here, I twice reverted content that Swingoswingo added. With that second revert, you can see that Swingoswingo changed the material so that it's not focused on the professor. For that second edit, I only reverted the "it is said to endanger the health of future generation" part. I reverted both times due to the fact that commentary from a lone professor in a section that is specifically about religious views is WP:Undue weight. Not only was the original content not speaking of any religious view, it was simply stating that it is common in the Muslim world for men to marry their nieces and cousins and that it endangers the health of future generations. Health with regard to incest is already covered in the article, with better/more appropriate sources. It's also covered in the lead. Readers know that incest can lead to genetic problems. We don't need the inclusion of professor Steve Jones stating that it endangers the health of future generations. Furthermore, that health commentary is vague.

The Emir of Wikipedia account re-added Professor Steve Jones's name; I'm sure he did this per WP:Intext.

I object to all versions. Thoughts? This is something that may need to be taken to the WP:Neutral noticeboard. I state this noticeboard because WP:Undue weight is an aspect of WP:Neutral and there is no WP:Undue weight noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I added the name as I believed that is was not a unanimously held opinion as it claims that Muslims marry nieces but above it says this is forbidden. Intext attribution should be used in this case. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In-text attribution is not what I object to; above, I was indicating that I understand why you added the name. But the in-text attribution in this case certainly signals WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to go to any noticeboard. We are enough here to solve it. Swingoswingo (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If and when we get additional sources for the same claim, intext wont be necessary anymore :) Swingoswingo (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What more I can think of is moving most of the Steve Jones words into the quote= parameter of the cite template. Swingoswingo (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

We do need to go to a noticeboard since the content is disputed and the matter is not resolved in any way here. It's not like I will be agreeing with the addition. So I will now be taking the matter to the aforementioned noticeboard; hopefully, some editors will weigh in on the matter there or here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Acroterion: You reverted content being discussed here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an unexplained removal by abn IP of sourced material in an article prone to vandalism. If a consensus is established here for a sourced change, feel free to make the change. I have no opinion in the matter, I am not following this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This is Acroterion's revert. If no one weighs in at the noticeboard on the content, I'll simply start a WP:RfC on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Albeit cousin marriage is common in the Middle East as much more sources discuss in the article and in other pages, the claim that people marry their nieces is unfounded. There is no such claim except for his one guy. You can try to look in more sources like scientific journals or books. You won't find such claim. One hyperbolic claim by one guy who seems to have made it out of political inclination should not be seen as reliable. The source and the claim should be removed altogether. You can start a WP:RfC It's very easy to come to the conclusion that uncle to niece relationships are not just illegal but they are also not common in the middle east. CaliphoShah (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101063712/http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/Trusiani_presentation.sflb.ashx to http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/Trusiani_presentation.sflb.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Between adults and children

My changes to this section were recently reverted by User:Legitimus. There were no comments made on either my talk page or the article talk page, so all I have to go on re what the issue with the change was the inline comment re the update. The basic change to the article I am proposing is to note that when incest occurs between an adolescent son and a mother, it is sometimes the son is the abuser. This may be a disturbing conclusion, as are all conclusions in this topic. But it is supported in the literature, which is why I posted it. The primary reference (Courtois) does in fact have an online preview available, contrary to what is stated in the inline comment. That reference is available for preview at [7] . Look at pages 71-72 for this particular topic. The secondary reference (Ward) is referred to by Courtois but may not have an online preview available. Is it necessary that all references be available for free online? There are certainly reliable sources that don't make all their content available for free. But in this case material supporting the statement I made IS available in an online preview. Also it isn't clear what the "variables" are that are unclear although based on another article that User:Legitimus reverted, this may refer to the age of the son. I will try to find out the exact age of the sons referred to in this study, and also wait for a response to this message. But absent a reason not to reinstate this edit, I will reinstate it in a few days after allowing time for a discussion. I will focus primarily on this article, not the other article that was reverted, as I see this article as the primary focus of the change. Dash77 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I made a judgement call on the revert. There is no need to act so offended by it. Remember, reverting is not a final decision. The combination of the claim being rather extraordinary and the text not explaining the issue completely suggested this might need some discussion first before including it.

Regarding the sources, no it is not necessary for them to all be online, but this sensitive topic and the unusual claim necessitated there has to be some kind of way of verifying it. When I clicked through wikipedia's link to google books, it came up empty for both books. Your link solved only partially that problem.

On the topic itself, there were things not made clear in the edit that are important. First is whether violence (or the threat of, explicit or implied) or impairment were involved. If the conscious mother went along with what happened without there being any threat or power imbalance against her, it sounds awfully suspect. Second is the age of the male. Obviously if the son is pre-pubescent, it casts serious doubt as to him being the "abuser" if the encounter is non-violent. After all, pedophiles since the time they were first studied have made false or even delusional claims of the child being the seducer. Courtois states that the source "Arroyo, Eth, and Pynoos 1984" claim a case of an 8 year old, but also use the term "sexual assault," implying there was some kind of aggression. Page 72 of Courtois will not load for me so I can't make further commentary. But these matters need to be made clear in the text.Legitimus (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical of the claim involving the 8 year old. Since it looks like you were able to access page 71, I'm referring to the "adolescents" mentioned in the previous sentence. In other words I'm referring here to boys young enough to still legally be minors, but old enough to clearly be physically capable of initiating an attack. Not 8 year olds. But I would like to nail down the exact age we are talking about here. I need to review the full original references which I haven't had a chance to do yet.Dash77 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got page 72 to load and have a better picture now of the topic. The reference to Ward seems to finally spell it out: They're talking about *rape* by sons. To explain, there is a subtle implication in the term "incest" that implies the encounter is non-violent or even consensual (i.e. between adults), but still "wrong." When violence enters the equation, it's rape/abuse, and the fact that it also happens to be incestuous is simply an aggravating factor. This is probably why terms like "son-initiated incest" sound so strange. A footnote on Page 236 referencing Ward supports this, claiming calling it incest "minimizes the reality of the violation." Legitimus (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on the quote above from page 236, she seems to be arguing that what is generally described as father-daughter incest would be more accurately called rape. After all, the title of her book is "Father Daughter Rape". As such, she seems to be mainly focused on the father-daughter situation, but seems to touch on other forms of intrafamilial sexual violence as well, including the mother-son situation. I want to be sure I'm representing her views correctly before quoting her again.Dash77 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I support Legitimus's revert of you here and at the Child sexual abuse article. Good to see you discussing this instead of simply reverting. Also good to see Legitimus working the matter out via looking over sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn I appreciate that and am currently working to research both references thoroughly before reinstating content. At the same time there is clearly content in both references relevant to this article so I expect to reinstate some content-not necessarily exactly matching my original edit-once I've completed my review of the references. User:Legitimus appears to have acted partly on the basis of the difficulty of accessing my references for free online and that doesn't seem entirely consistent with Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. But will wait until I thoroughly review both references before I make further edits.Dash77 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you propose the text here first before making the changes to this article or the Child sexual abuse article. Also, per WP:Lead, keep in mind that the lead is meant for summarizing the article. It is not meant for significant detail not first covered lower in the article.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to either article since they are both on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I am bending over backwards to act in good faith here. But there is no precedent either on this talk page or Wikipedia in general to back up your request that I first seek approval of my edits on this talk page. That is a highly unusual request. I will do everything I can to act in good faith here but will not be seeking preapproval of my edits on this talk page unless you can point me to a clear Wikipedia policy obligating me to do so. I also don't understand your comment re the lead. I didn't edit the lead in either article. Willing to act in good faith but you are asking more than is reasonable.Dash77 (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a highly unusual request. Do read WP:Consensus and WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Your edit was contested. It has now been contested by two editors. The information you are wanting to add is contentious. Legitimus has already identified problems with what you added. Any further text on this matter should have consensus on this talk page first. Or do you want to get it wrong again and end up being reverted again on the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia links you mention say that one should attempt to address all editors' concerns. But neither you nor Legitimus have explained what your concerns are. You don't like what I said but haven't explained why. At most Legitimus said he/she couldn't access the references I provided for free online. I already explained per Wikipedia verifiability that isn't a valid reason for rejecting my edits. By no means am I admitting to getting it wrong. Quite the contrary: I am 99% percent sure I got it right. But I am currently doing the legwork to be sure that I am 100% percent sure before reinstating any edits. You say you are contesting my edits. What exactly is your problem with my edits? If you won't say how can we hope to achieve consensus?Dash77 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitmus did explain. His "20:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)" post is one example. And I agree with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus reverted first and didn't explain until much, much later. Not the right order to do things in. Nevertheless it is definitely my intention in good faith to incorporate Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42 into any new edits I make to this article. I certainly have an obligation to do that and I believe I already responded in a positive way to Legitimus comments of 11/27 20:42. I would ask you, with respect, to assume until proven otherwise I will address Legitimus' concerns in good faith when I edit this article again. I have been a Wikipedian for 12 years and have some familiarity with how things are done around here. When I edit this article again, do you personally have any concerns you want me to address beyond Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42?Dash77 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Legitimus' comments of 11/27 20:42 referenced "rape by the son". But so did my original edit to this article. It is an extremely uncomfortable topic. But I'm not clear where you think I "got it wrong"?Dash77 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To lay out my concerns in detail, the first sentence of the edit was: "While incest between adults and children is generally seen as child abuse, there are cases where mother-son incest is initiated by an adolescent son who is the abuser."

That way that is stated is what I see as problematic. As I said above, the word choice fixates on the matter of it being incest between an adult and a child, missing or failing to emphasize the fact that this is a actually referring to the violent rape of an adult by an nearly-adult. It comes down to the point you're trying to make. Parent-child incest usually involves non-violent psychological manipulation and an unequal power dynamic of parent and child. In this way, these two types of incident are completely different, with the only similarity being consanguinity. As an alternative, how about the following:

"While incest between adults and children generally involves the adult as the perpetrator of abuse, there are rare instances of sons sexually assaulting their mothers. These sons are typically mid to late adolescent and unlike parent-initiated incest, the incidents involve some kind of physical force. Although the mothers may be accused of being seductive with their sons and inviting the sexual contact, despite strong contrary evidence. Such accusations can parallel other forms of rape, where due to victim blaming a woman is accused of somehow being at fault for the rape. In some cases mother-son incest is best classified as acquaintance rape of the mother by the adolescent son."

Legitimus (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond, and thank you for proposing a constructive change to my proposed edit. As I mentioned a couple of times, with concerns having been raised I wanted to take the time to fully review the originals of both references I cited. Now that I've done so, I think I'm mostly fine with the change you propose, although I would make one small modification. I would say "mid adolescent to young adult" rather than "mid to late adolescent" as both Ward and Courtois, in referring to the relatively rare known cases, clearly note some cases involving young adult rather than adolescent sons. I will give it a few more days to see if others respond and then make the changes you suggest with my "young adult" modification.Dash77 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, though will also wait for other commentary.Legitimus (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Page updated as discussed above since there didn't seem to be any further input.Dash77 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Zoroastrian section

Openlydialectic, regarding this, why did you remove "Zoroastrianism," and why are proposing that this small section be made into its own Wikipedia article and suggesting that it be named "Xwedodah"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Regarding Zoroastrianism, I didn't remove it, I moved it into the second sentence. As to why I did that, that's because Zoroastrianism and Ancient Persia in this context are not synonymous. That is, Zoroastrianism developed after the ancient period of Persian history had already begun. So why did I put Ancient Persia there instead of Zoroastrianism? Because that's what's claimed in this book I used as a reference for that very sentence [1] (page 21, second paragraph)

As for a standalone article, there's clearly enough material to write one (just type Xwedodah into Google Scholar), and we have standalone article for concepts of incest in other religions (e.g. Mahram) Openlydialectic (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, I understand going for accuracy. But Zoroastrianism aside (and with subsequent edits included), you changed material that was sourced. If there are conflicting opinions on the topic, it should be presented with WP:Due weight. Per Due weight, if one view is a tiny minority, it need not be mentioned at all. There is a lot I don't know about religious topics, though, which is why I might bring WP:RELIGION into this. As for splitting the section, I questioned you asking for a split because the section is small and the article should be created first. It is not ideal to split that small section off into its own article and have the material excluded from this article or have have a single sentence while the stub article details the rest. See WP:No page, WP:No split, WP:Spinout and WP:Summary style as a whole. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I think you deeply misunderstood the situation. The original sentence, which referred to Zoroastrianism instead of Ancient Persia, was referenced by that exact source. I didn't change the source.

As for whether the section should be splat, what I meant by adding that template is that perhaps someone more invested into the topic can make a standalone article about that peculiar tradition and make it bigger than the current section of this article because all the necessary research is there, just someone needs to invest the time to write a Wiki article about that. I am not sure that the current rules indicate that the split template should only be used to indicate that a section of an article is too big and therefore should be splat from it, or, at least in my experience tells me that that template is mostly used to indicate the same thing I used it to. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, this edit shows that the "Sex and Punishment Four Thousand Years of Judging Desire, Eric Berkowitz. pp. 21–22, 2012." source was already there. Whoever added it apparently added it to support the Zoroastrianism part. You changed the wording, and added a template/URL version of the source. Then you made other edits to the section. That is what I mean.

As for splitting the section, the template suggests that the section that is there now needs to split out into its own article. In my experience, that is how the template is usually used. Like I stated above, the section does not need to be split out at this point. Not in its current state. I feel that the tag should be removed. It will just sit there for years perhaps. I've seen such tags just sit there for a long time before eventually being removed. And if someone takes up the suggestion, they might just create a stub, taking the whole small section with them. But I understand you wanting to encourage someone to create a substantial article on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I "changed the wording" of the sentence because it incorrectly represented what's written in the book that sentence was sourced by: the book's sentence talked about Ancient Persia, but the sentence on Wikipedia, which I changed, replaced it with Zoroastrianism. As for the template, I'll replace it with Expand Section one instead. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Westermarck effect

Should there not be some mention of (or section on) the Westermarck effect here, rather than it merely being listed among the related articles? Alathean (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Alathean, yes, that would be very good. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Inuit and Bali

@Crossroads: this content has been in the lead for almost a decade. I decided to put it in the body as well because that's how it's supposed to work. Perhaps that was not the right section. Would it be more suitable in the History section? The lead uses present tense, but the body content is talking about it as a historical thing. I do not know which is more accurate. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead just says, "Some societies, such as the Balinese and some Inuit tribes, have different views about what constitutes illegal or immoral incest." I didn't notice it was referring to that in particular. Thay phrase between the commas could certainly be deleted as undue weight on random cultures. Do the sources definitely discuss this custom in the context of incest? I think they would but worth making sure. I certainly don't think this bit belongs in a section that is about child sexual abuse; as I said, it seems WP:UNDUE about these two random cultures and could be seen as countering or trivializing the material above it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talking about the "different views" of the Balinese and Inuits in the lead and not explaining what those views are in the body was what caught my attention, so I copied the relevant passages from Incest taboo. If it has been due in the lead for a decade, it should be due somewhere in the body. The source on Inuits does not mention incest, the one on Bali does. At any rate, for a proper due analysis the totality of sources should be consulted. A Google Books search for "Bali/Inuit" and "incest" returns many results, which go beyond the mother and son thing covered here. I think we have two options: cover this in the History section or remove the cultures form the lead. What do you think? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the two cultures from the lead. No need to single out these two out of the thousands that exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for discussing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Biblical references" section

Couple of things there. First, Cain was exiled, so couldn't have had relations with his mother Eve, which was already forbidden anyway since she was Adam's wife. Second, Genesis clearly states that Adam and Eve had other unnamed sons and daughters, so that's not conjecture as the section makes it seem. Wikipedia editors need to get their act together. 67.4.83.66 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Incest

Incest is only incest if it involves sexual relations. I.e. Kissing doesn’t necessarily count as incest but sexual intercourse does. Savagejulian101 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mother-Son

New to Wikipedia editing but concerned about the following in the 5th paragraph of the between adults and children section: "Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants.[83]"

For such a sensitive subject, a casual reading of this seems to suggest that mother-son incest isn't psychologically damaging to the victims like other forms of adult-child incest or indeed doesn't have a victim. Especially given where that sentence is placed, just after the sentence about impact. The body of scientific evidence in this area seems to be against this implication. Indeed Margolin article starts by saying "The idea that mother-son incest is the most damaging form of incestuous behaviour has been commonplace in psychiatric and sociological literature for the last thirty years." and indeed the majority of recent studies since Margolin's seem to fall in line with this as well. Margolin's study does not even clinically asses survivors as other do but merely draws on "case material". It seems to be an article that goes against the grain almost for the sake of it and is at odds with the literature. It should not be the only reference.

I suggest either citing an article contradicting the Margolin article to counterbalance eg: or

Or, as I personally think is more appropriate we can remove the citation and sentence completely and just talk less controversially about rarity and under-reporting citing possibly:, letting the "impact" section stand to refer to mother-son incest as well. However, the underreporting bit would better fit at the top of the first paragraph, after the section on Father-son incest, so the 5th paragraph we could just leave as one sentence.

Happy to edit the main page myself but didn't want to just wade in on what must be a heavily monitered article.

OeColonus (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

References

"Consanguinamory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Consanguinamory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Consanguinamory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The consanguinity chart is wrong

Person X's siblings, the parents of X, and the direct offspring of X all share on average 50% DNA with X, and thus they all have the same degree of consanguinity with X. The "Table of Consanguinity" displayed to illustrate the article has erred on this point, and thus many of the numbers in the chart are wrong. Compare with the CC-chart here, which is correct: [8].

This seems like a fundamental error, and I think that the chart should not be used without this issue being fixed. ––St.nerol (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

New article proposal: Incest debate

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online debate or advocacy forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should consensual incest be legal? And what are the pros and cons of various types of incest? On the English language internet the “debate” is growing with majority of “posts” favoring incest. Most of these posts are simply porn videos purporting to show incest sex. There are no words arguing for incest sex, just moving pictures showing “relatives” having incest fun with sex. There are also discussions on Quora In Russia, where incest is legal, there is a lot of incest porn along with many posts that are anti-incest including a proposal to criminalize it. In New Jersey they were not successful in recriminalizing it. What do you think? Can you contribute to it? David S. Lawyer 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't Debatepedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Marriage of an Uncle and a Niece

I read in the Reader's Digest guide to Canadian Law of a case where a court upheld a Marriage between an Uncle and a niece because one of them (probably the niece) was an adoptee.Tnarrud3 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

% of world that permits incest (dispute)

Looking over Legality of incest one sees that it’s legal in many large countries such as China, India, and Russia and in few cases it’s legal between teens as young as 12. What % of the world’s population lives in countries where incest (between close relatives such as siblings or parent-offspring) is legal? Someone on the internet calculated 50%. (Next 3 sentences added later) To check on this look at just India and China each with a population of 1.45 billion. That’s 2.9 billion people; not too far from half the world’s population (4 billion of the 8 billion total for the World). To find the figure just add up the populations of countries that allow incest per Wikipedia. This is certainly not almost zero which I marked as disputed. David S. Lawyer 19:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that saying "almost universally forbidden" might be a somewhat extreme way to put it, but before marking the claim as disputed I think it'd be better to provide references backing up your stance, and "someone on the internet" most definitely doesn't count as a reliable source. I also don't think academic consensus leans towards more lenient views on incest and, besides, the whole paragraph can be seen as ambiguous, as it mentions several contexts in which incest between close relatives might be seen in completely different ways. In the meantime, I'll revert the edit as another reference saw itself unintentionally modified. --NicoSkater97 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

List of 38 countries that allow adult incest. From a petition to permit incest in New South Wales (Australia). May use this list to find % of world pop. where incest is legal. Australia. Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Estonia, France,(1810) Georgia, India, Israel, Italy ( if no scandal is caused) Ivory Coast, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kirghiz Republic, North Korea, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands ,New Jersey (US) Pakistan, Portugal, Rhode Island ((US), Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Tajikistan, Thailand,Turkey,Turkmenistan Ukraine,Uzbekistan David S. Lawyer 08:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's condoned or occurs openly in more than vanishingly small numbers. There's more to social control than laws. In most/all of these places, if you start dating your sister openly, various bad things will usually happen. Like if your dad kicks you out of the family, or makes you join the army, or shoots you, these are punishments such that "not allowed" applies. Ditto if people spit at you or you get excommunicated or fired etc. We could say "Not allowed under pain of punishment and/or various other bad consequences", but that's just extra verbiage, cos if there're no bad consequences, it's allowed. Tag removed. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)