One topic of study I am frequently fascinated with is the that of consensual incest (I have found that taboos that are common amoung many different cultures are usually the most interesting). I was focusing more heavily tonight not on biological incest itself. Rather, I choose to study the reaction against relations of step- or adoptive kin.
One example is of an inquiry made in a community on the legality of marriage between two adopted siblings with different surnames. The vast majority of responses determined that it was weird and gross, but might be okay if the two children were adopted at an older age. My research has shown these kind of reactions to be quite common (although not quite as common as an aversion to the practice as a whole).
I find these kind of suggestions further evidence of the idea that incest taboos have evolved not as a society's need to reduce inbreeding, but rather due to a form of reverse sexual imprinting-- known as the
Westermark effect-- suggesting that those raised closely together have a diminished sexual attraction towards one another. Here, have another
link.
I stumbled upon
this article from last year explaining the union of two twins separated at birth. The article goes to state one woman's suggestion that "ensuring adopted siblings stay in touch" means "this 'traumatic' case will remain 'incredibly rare'."
Although the practice of keeping adoptive siblings in touch is by no means motivated solely by the desire to prevent incest-- if, in fact, it is a factor at all-- the quote still led me down that vein of thought.
Should a society take measures as above to prevent the occurrence of incestuous relationships, or should it strive, as a whole, to open its mind to the prospect? It is clear in my mind that the former would be far more simple to implement than the last, but the question of appropriateness is not so quick.
For example, inbreeding can result in an increasing number of birth defects due to
homozygotes. Although this is a valid argument, it creates more questions for me than it solves. Should we prevent a couple with genetic dispositions towards crippling
deformations/
illnesses from having children? Should we morally prevent the intentional
selection of a disabled embryo over a healthy one? Should we morally
end the life of a once healthy child if an incident results in severe and/or permanent disability?
Where should we cross the line and why? It would be interesting to see various opinions of where personal liberties end and the survival of the species begins. Or the roles that religion and an overall sense of "ickiness" plays in various decisions. I should start floating this question around. The results may very well surprise me.
sicilianhitlist screens this post
content
annoyed
Dear Santa...![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
amused