levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (07/19/86)
In article <892@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU>, sadoyama@pavepaws.berkeley.edu (Eric J Sadoyama) writes: >In article <2588@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> stever@mit-eddie.UUCP (Stephen Robbins) writes: >> There are certain genetic considerations between MOTOS >>incest, but other than that, I don't consider it my place to dictate >>what people can and can't do. >I've heard this reasoning many times, but never any proof or evidence >for it. How is this any different, genetically, from the situation in >herds, or other animal living groups, where the dominant male mates with >*all* the females in the group, be they related or not? It isn't different, really. But mating between two closely "related" organisms (that reproduce sexually, obviously) could impart to the offspring a disproportionate number of characteristics reflected in recessive genes (genes which do not express themselves in the organism's physical charac- teristics when they are paired with other, more "powerful" ["dominant"] genes, but which will express themselves thus when paired with an identical gene). These characteristics include a number of congenital diseases and deformities. Natural selection has already pretty much suppressed harmful genes which are not recessive, but has been less good at getting rid of recessive, harmful genes which can be passed on for generations with impunity to the carriers. So an "incestuous" mating is more likely to cause two identical recessive genes to pair up in the offspring (one of these genes being much more likely to be present in both a brother and sister, having been passed from one parent to both children, or to be present in both a parent and child, having been passed from the parent to that child) and the offspring ends up as the loser. This certainly must hold good in the wild as well as in civilization. The implications on human law are a Pandora's box. Ancient biblical injunc- tion (which, if it was not actually furnished by the deity, presumably knew nothing about genetics per se but may have arisen partly out of astute observation about inheritance of undesired characteristics, as in breeding animals, or from the desire to keep family relationships "simple" and "pure") simply banned sex outright between persons who are lineally related. The modern view (outside of biblical or other religious considerations to the contrary) might be that incestuous SEX would be harmless (outside of psychological considerations) but that an incestuous conception would bring into the world another person whose chances of inherited disease or deformity would be much greater than the result of a conception between two randomly unrelated persons. So what are we gonna do, say that incestuous sex is OK, but any fetus conceived in an incestuous relationship must be aborted? Or allow it to be born but almost certainly suffer from something debilitating sooner than most other persons do? Or require that participants in such sex use contraceptives under pain of punishment? (This I know is a whole 'nother debate... Big Brother and all....) I apologize for the wordiness of this response, but I hope that I am more on track here than off (it's been a decade since I took high school biology). >Eric J Sadoyama 2033 Haste St #107 Berkeley CA 94704 USA (415)548-1711 >or (on break): 942 Hoomoana St Pearl City HI 96782 USA (808)455-4276 >sadoyama@pavepaws.berkeley.edu or {backbone}!ucbvax!pavepaws!sadoyama -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy
donch@tekirl.UUCP (Don Chitwood) (07/21/86)
So far I've read only genetic considerations of incest. How about humanizing the discussion by looking at the psychological impact on the parties involved. Specifically, in the case of father/daughter incest, the effect of mating with her father can be profoundingly devastating to the daughter. I'm not an authority by any means. Let's hear from some of the mental health professionals.
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Josiah S. Carberry) (07/23/86)
> Specifically, in the case of father/daughter incest, the effect of mating with > her father can be profoundingly devastating to the daughter. I'm not an > authority by any means. Let's hear from some of the mental health > professionals. Well, I'm not a professional, but it seems to me any "devastating effect" is due solely to the social stigma we heap on the subject. It's WRONG WRONG you're BAD BAD don't tell ANYONE etc. I can't imagine these effects were felt by "cavepeople" (no flames, I'm not an anthropologist either). Scott
emigh@ecsvax.UUCP (Ted Emigh) (07/23/86)
There is an interesting figure in "Human Genetics", by Dan Hartl (1983, Harper
& Row pg 479). In the United States, the frequency of first-cousin matings is
about 1%, while in Japan it is about 6%. In the US the *PERCENTAGE OF
AFFECTED CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS ARE FIRST COUSINS* (read that again to make
sure you understand it) for Tay-Sachs is about 35%. In Japan, this percentage
is about 65%, even though the gene frequency of Tay-Sachs is 1/2 that in the
US. Other genetic diseases show the same relationship. The message is clear:
While the probability of any single first cousin mating producing an individual
with a genetic disease is quite small, the cost to society is large.
As to the question about how other animals can tolerate high amounts of
inbreeding, it is sort of a chicken and egg question. Organisms with high
inbreeding tolerate it because they have bred out many of the deleterious
genes. The human species could "become" a high inbreeding species if we
are willing to pay the price in human suffering (e.g., the survivors of
Pitcairn Island of Mutiny on the Bounty fame).
--
Ted H. Emigh Genetics and Statistics, North Carolina State U, Raleigh NC
USENET: {akgua decvax duke ihnp4 unc}!mcnc!ecsvax!emigh
ARPA: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!emigh@BERKELEY
BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCCnazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (07/24/86)
In article <100@tekirl.UUCP> donch@tekirl.UUCP (Don Chitwood) writes: > So far I've read only genetic considerations of incest. How about humanizing > the discussion by looking at the psychological impact on the parties involved. > > Specifically, in the case of father/daughter incest, the effect of mating with > her father can be profoundingly devastating to the daughter. I'm not an > authority by any means. Let's hear from some of the mental health > professionals. Everyone here's a mental health professional in one way or another. :-) Will you settle for a minor in Psych and a major in Anthro? My understanding of cases that I have read about are that there are two major problems. The first is simply that of sexual abuse (simply?). This is in the case of a minor daughter and father. You have all the problems of child abuse, heightened by the fact that the father is no longer playing his traditional role; so the daughter no longer knows how she is supposed to behave with him, or he with her. [A side note, this is really just as valid with mother and son relationships too. The only saving grace there is that the son may be older when it happens and thus more capable of coping.] The other problem is one of secrecy. I think that the posting from Jason on coming out of the closet is a good example of this. When everything around you indicates that what you are doing is wrong and bad and twisted, it's hard for you to cope. The whole thing is bottled up inside and you potentially end up with a very confused and screwed up person. If the son or daughter is older and has a better understanding of what they are doing this problem may be lessened. Even so, it is hard to remain sane and together when everything around you says you are bad - even if you are convinced that you aren't. -- Slight topic orientation change The real killer here is the problem of coercion. It's not enough to apply the standards of force or threats that might be used in a normal rape case. What if the child did it only because he/she wanted the parent's love, and felt this was the only way to give it, even if it wasn't "normal" love? In any relationship like that the question of coercion is real sticky. My tendency is to feel that things are extremely unlikely to work out to everyones benefit and happiness unless it was a real together family and things were initiated by the children. But there are just too many ways screw up. Think about the last time you broke up with a sexual. partner. Now try to imagine if that partner had been your parent! And what about jealousy when you go dating? Or jealousy of the other parent? My mind boggles. -kee -- Mail is welcome... ...{yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to make the government regulate everyone else's.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (07/28/86)
> > > Specifically, in the case of father/daughter incest, the effect of mating with > > her father can be profoundingly devastating to the daughter. I'm not an > > authority by any means. Let's hear from some of the mental health > > professionals. > > Well, I'm not a professional, but it seems to me any "devastating effect" > is due solely to the social stigma we heap on the subject. It's WRONG > WRONG you're BAD BAD don't tell ANYONE etc. I can't imagine these effects > were felt by "cavepeople" (no flames, I'm not an anthropologist either). > > Scott Studies have shown that among wolves, there is an ``incest taboo'': animals that are raised as siblings do not become interested in each other sexually. They, at least, have a something in the ``family'' bonding that is incompatible with sexual activity. It would appear that we are capable of stronger family bonds -- both sibling and sexual -- than they are. It seems that there may be something in the way we are built that makes these two incompatible. It also seems likely that there is also an incompatibility between parent/child relationships and sexual relationships. Not that there isn't an element of sex in everything -- oedipal feelings at one stage are normal -- but that the drives have to coalesce into their adult forms without spilling over too much into other places. And they get all tangled and misdirected when deep prohibitions like those that normally prevent sibling and parent/child incest are deliberately violated. Also, we humans *do* connect sex with other feelings. Consider all of the time that we've spent on .singles with talking about how *closeness* is what sex is about, and not just the sex drive. That kind of intimacy requires relationships with different power/approval structures than the parent-child relationship ... The existance of rules does not require that society be messed up ... -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.