The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

GSA / Incest: Same thing or worlds apart? Options
dp
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 9:01:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/20/2009
Posts: 75
Neurons: 224
Location: United States
This morning on the radio they were discussing Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) which "is sexual attraction between close relatives, such as brother and sister, who first meet as adults."(tfd/wikipedia) I was surprised by the amount of support this theory was getting from listeners and saying how the "blood between cousins has been cut twice" and thus is fine... I think that by definition it remains incest but wanted to see what you tfd'ers think.
Christine
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 9:27:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842
Who cares.

Word of the day: Slimy
TB
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 9:32:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Christine wrote:
Who cares.

Word of the day: Slimy



Applause
valenarwen
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 9:42:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/30/2009
Posts: 325
Neurons: 1,025
Location: Uruguay
Christine wrote:
Who cares.

Word of the day: Slimy


Applause II
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 10:37:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
Countries,such as India; where endogamy is prevalent ,marriage between first cousins is not a taboo in many sub-sects.
Luftmarque
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 12:00:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Aren't we all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve? Eeewww! Who said slimy?
Maybe the only respectable sexual attraction is to an extraterrestrial? (see Galaxy Quest for a good example of this)
fred
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 12:12:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2009
Posts: 1,475
Neurons: 4,457
Location: United States
Luftmarque wrote:
Aren't we all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve? Eeewww! Who said slimy?
Maybe the only respectable sexual attraction is to an extraterrestrial? (see Galaxy Quest for a good example of this)


I was about to say I hope this doesn't go in the direction of sheep, but Luft, you have it... "Eeewww!"
Angus
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 2:18:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2009
Posts: 294
Neurons: 5,146
An old limerick comes to mind ...
Geeman
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 4:00:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
Personally, I don't think there should be a prohibition on cousins marrying, and the disgust expressed by most folks is really an expression of their own socio-sexual indoctrination, rather than something based on genetics, social necessity or any rational thought on that matter. To warp a metaphor: I don't care how far the apples falls from the tree, so long as they don't come from the same branch....

But let's pose the following comparison just to see if people can use it to come up with something specific on what they think about the matter: B. Obama is, generally, considered a black man. Of course, he is really "half" (whatever that means.) During the more unpleasant periods of history, in some areas of the U.S. being 1/32th African (that is, a g-g-g-grandparent) was enough for one to be classified as black. If we draw the genetic rationale along the same lines as the racial one, that would equate to marrying one's 4th cousin.

Again, my personal opinion is that race and familial genetics are mostly illusory social creations, so I don't find the issue particularly troubling, but if there is a connection between the two that comes from a core motive: a sense of genetic "cleanliness" passed on to offspring. Those who put a lot of importance on race generally see the matter in terms of genetic purity and protection. Those who see a lot of importance in the matter of cousins marrying will almost always site genetic mutation as their most important justification for their opinion.

Most of the studies I've seen have indicated that cousins marrying is actually not all that significant an influence on genetics. Something as simple as the age of parents is much more likely to be an influence on the rate of birth defects. So if genetics is the rationale, then those who hold off until their 30's or 40's to have kids are worse than those who marry their cousins....
TB
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 4:44:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Geeman wrote:


"Personally, I don't think there should be a prohibition on cousins marrying, and the disgust expressed by most folks is really an expression of their own socio-sexual indoctrination, rather than something based on genetics, social necessity or any rational thought on that matter..."


"So if genetics is the rationale, then those who hold off until their 30's or 40's to have kids are worse than those who marry their cousins..."



Yep, Christine was right.

SLIMY


Vayres
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 6:17:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/22/2009
Posts: 39
Neurons: 117
"Who cares." should not get applause.
Luftmarque
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 7:13:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,119
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Legalize same-species marriage! Now!
TB
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 8:13:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Vayres wrote:
"Who cares." should not get applause.



I'm so sorry Liar. Actually I wanted to "moon" the first poster but instead I decided to go positive and applaud Christine. And besides (there's that conjunction at the start of a sentence thing again), we don't have a 'mooning' Smiley. TFD admin are you listening?

TB
Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 8:27:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Isaac Samuel wrote:
Countries,such as India; where endogony is prevalent ,marriage between first cousins is not a taboo in many sub-sects.



That is true Isaac but given a choice, I guess I can't understand why anyone would take a chance on THIS

Even if the off-spring of an endogenous union are 'normal', whatever that is, the child may carry some kind of genetic flaw that could be passed on to the next generation. I'm sure some would say "Just abort the baby if it isn't normal", I couldn't do that.

Geeman
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:43:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
Just out of curiosity, what do folks think about "steps" getting together? That is, what if the familial relationship is a matter of 2nd marriages? Does that evoke the same reaction as cousins?
TB
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:56:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/12/2009
Posts: 1,437
Neurons: 4,277
Location: America
Geeman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what do folks think about "steps" getting together?...


If the persons involved have no blood relationship it's a non issue.

My concern is that some would gamble on a yet unborn child's chances to live a normal life, a life as a physical or mental freak or be aborted.
Geeman
Posted: Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:45:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
TB wrote:
My concern is that some would gamble on a yet unborn child's chances to live a normal life, a life as a physical or mental freak or be aborted.


It's OK for a brother to marry his sister if one (or both, I suppose) is adopted?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.