Concerning Incest

[ale six]

On the other hand, incest aren't always frowned upon. In some ages and cultures, it's actually encouraged to keep the bloodline pure. I'm not sure which age and culture Arm lean close to. But all the comments are very helpful, thanks. ^_^

Nobility, especially ones with a more "exclusive" pedigree (Upper Houses like Borsail especially, also Valika and Oash in Allanak, Winrothol and maybe others in Tuluk) probably would buy into the "keep the bloodline pure" thing, and probably wouldn't mind incest if they didn't encourage it. Lower Houses might want to marry family members up the social ladder... House Jal can't claim any better breeding if Jals keep marrying Jals. Also remember that in Tuluk, nobles would NEVER pollute their bloodline by sleeping with commoners.

[jcarter]

Those effects only happen if the incest spans through generations - happened in very small, enclosed villages or the european nobiluity, for example.

The child isn't that much more likely to suffer from serious health problems if the parents are brother and sister and there was no incest in the family line before, much less if they're cousins.

You're even allowed to marry your cousin over here

Yes, there are. It's been a few years since I've taken genetics, but say your family carries the gobbles (completely made up) gene. It's recessive and rare, where only one in a million familes has it. Chances are, your family may have never had anyone afflicted with gobbles, because it's so rare to find someone else with the gene and gobbles needs another recessive to afflict someone. Chances are good that your sibling also had the gobbling gene passed down to them, which means mating with your immediate family raises the risk to having two recessives of gobbles come together and afflicting the child.

Again, it's been a while since I've taken genetics, so my terminology isn't quite up to par and I may be off in one or two things, but that's about the sum of it.

[Nao]

I didn't say they weren't more likely to have some genetic defect, but the likelyness of that happening if there's never been incest in the family before are quite small - I learned that in school, too

You need several generations of breeding within a small gene pool for defects to be much more likely.

[Djarjak]

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00076.htm
http://www.homestead.com/flowstate/incest.html
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section21/chapter286/286b.jsp

[jstorrie]

Earth humans are generally not disposed to be attracted to their immediate relations. It's a survival instinct that has evolved precisely because incest often produces dangerously faulty offspring. As such, the taboo is largely based on a subconscious or instinctual tendency, and I imagine Zalanthas would likely have it too. It may not be illegal, but many will strongly believe it's strange and somewhat disgusting.

Interestingly there's a similar case to make that predisposition to religious or supernatural belief is also a product of the curious construction of the human brain, but that's neither here nor there.

[Dalmeth]

All I say is this : aversion to incest is natural throughout nature.  It would be strange if Zalanthans didn't behave similarly to societies on Earth regarding this subject.

I doubt anyone among the general populace has any idea of the long-term consequences of incest, but it's a natural part of all cultures I know, both human and animal, so they don't need to.

[Cegar]

All I say is this : aversion to incest is natural throughout nature.  It would be strange if Zalanthans didn't behave similarly to societies on Earth regarding this subject.

Not really. In nature, incest is not common, but it occurs. There is at least one group of primates who REGULARLY engage in incest (not humans). My cats used to engage in incest (before the fuckers got fixed). Rats, mice... all animal groups do, basically.

And while yes, genetic defects are more common, the chance is still incredibly small. Even in successive relationships, though increasing, the chance is minute. It's like the chance of getting struck by lightning compared to the chance of spontaneously combusting.

That being said, Zalanthans don't know jack shit about genes. They think that birth defects are caused by magick. Would they really give a shit if someone was screwing their brother?

[Anonymous]

Alot of zalanthians have tribal cultures...even the cities states originated from tribes scattered i believe. That means that there would be a pretty good chance that they have learned like we did (even before science and genes came about) that incest would lead or eventually lead to birth defects and was not good for the society as a whole.

That said most people would turn a blind eye and not give a shit however it might still be being up there in the taboo list in most (not all) people's minds of it being no different then a human and elf being romantic in public.

[Cegar]

Lacking a scientific rationale for mutations, most attribute them to magick, whether this be a commoner blaming their two-headed baby on an angry magicker or Silt Sea dwellers (mutations do seem to be more common along its shore) simply explaining it as "the Sea marks some for its own".

Same would go for birth defects. Again, this is in the cities, where a majority of Zalanthans live. Tribes have their own beliefs, which are outlined in their documentation.

[Cegar]

Lacking a scientific rationale for mutations, most attribute them to magick, whether this be a commoner blaming their two-headed baby on an angry magicker or Silt Sea dwellers (mutations do seem to be more common along its shore) simply explaining it as "the Sea marks some for its own".

Same would go for birth defects. Again, this is in the cities, where a majority of Zalanthans live. Tribes have their own beliefs, which are outlined in their documentation.

[Angela Christine]

Genetics isn't the only explanation for incest taboos.  It is the first one that jumps into our heads because we all took science classes in high school, but most of us did not take anthropology classes.  We naturally assume that Science has the answer for everything.


Two social explanations are Role Conflict and Mutual Assistance Theory.

Role Conflict - If your grandfather is the daddy of your baby then your son is also your uncle.  That can be difficult to manage, especially in cultures with strict role guidelines.

Mutual Assistance -  Marrying exclusively within your own group is like putting all your eggs in one basket.  Inter-marrying with other groups gives you allies and something of a safety net.




http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/Incest.html

A LINE ON LIFE
9/14/83, Revised 6/20/01
Incest Taboo
David A. Gershaw, Ph.D.
Incest — sexual relations with one's parents, children or siblings (brothers or sisters) — is forbidden in all known cultures. However, once you get outside the immediate family to include cousins, nieces and so on, the definition varies from culture to culture. The rare historical exceptions include sibling pairings of Egyptian and Hawaiian royalty to preserve the royal family line. Why is the incest taboo in the immediate family essentially universal?

One of several possible theories involves the combining of recessive genes. For recessive genes to cause a trait, the child must receive two recessive genes, one from each parent. Suppose there is a recessive gene for a negative trait in a family. It is unlikely to pair up with another recessive gene for the same trait, if family members mate with members of the general population. However, if incestual relations occur, the chances of the child having the negative trait jump to about 25%. This may have been a contributing factor to the high incidence of hemophilia — a disorder in which the blood loses its ability to clot — among European royalty, when cousins married each other.

Another theory about the universality of the incest taboo deals with role conflict. (A role is the expected behavior in a social position.) When you simultaneously hold two positions that require contradictory social behaviors, this leads to role conflict. This can be illustrated with the popular country song, "I'm My Own Grandpaw." (If you haven't heard it, I guess it isn't that popular.) The song tells of a widower and his son, who meet a widow and her daughter. They fall in love. However, the widower marries the daughter, while the widow marries the son. The resulting relationship is diagrammed below.



Examine the diagram carefully. Now, since the widower married the daughter of the son and the widow, the widower is now the son-in-law of the son. Remember that the children of you son-in-law (the widower) and your daughter are your grandchildren. However, the son is the child of the widower and the daughter! Therefore, the son is his own "grandpaw."

In this situation, is the son expected to behave toward the widower as his father or his son-in-law? Is the son supposed to treat the widow as his wife or his grandmother? Is the son expected to act toward the daughter as his daughter or his stepmother? All the other members in this situation will suffer similar role conflicts.

Now let's look at role conflict in an incestual relationship. Suppose a father has an incestual relationship with his daughter, which results in a child. Is the child to be treated by the father as his child or his grandchild? (The child of your daughter is your grandchild.) Should the daughter react toward her child as her child or her sibling? Since role conflict is typical of any incestual relationship, this is why it is seen as a reason for the universal incest taboo.

The last theory to be covered is the mutual assistance theory. To illustrate, we will use an example from prehistoric times. Groups traveled across the countryside foraging for food. Suppose a 10-member family crossed into the territory of a 30-member clan. This would probably result in a conflict, with the larger group winning.

However, in case the 30-member clan came into conflict with a larger group, it would be better if they could rely on the assistance of the smaller family. How could they accomplish this? If a member from each group mated, the offspring would be in common for both groups. They are very likely to combine their resources to protect the children.

If one of the spouses died, this might lead to the breakup of the mutual assistance relationship. To avoid this, the levirate and sororate systems were developed. If a husband is killed, his widow becomes the wife of one of the brothers under the levirate system. Similarly, if a wife dies, the widower will become the husband of one of her sisters under the sororate system. In this way, the relationship between the two groups will be maintained. In addition, the more groups that any group can intermarry with, the more that group can insure its physical survival.

But what if one of the sisters — in the sororate system — was in love with her brother and refused to marry the widower? This would threaten the very survival of the group! This might explain why many people feel very threatened by even the hint of a possible incestual act.

Each culture or subculture probably has its own explanation for its incest taboo. However, the theories discussed here seem to apply to some extent to all cultures.

If you have to go with a simple genetic explanation, avoiding dangerous recessive genes isn't your only option.  

Inbreeding doesn't always lead to weaker offspring,  but over the long term it means that all of your descendants will have the same strengths and the same weaknesses.  Encouraging genetic diversity enhances your chances of having some of your descendants survive bad things.

 Like when there was that big potato famine in Ireland, all of the potato plants in the entire country were descended from three potato plants brought over from the Americas.  So when a disease came that one of them was vulnerable too, all of them were equally vulnerable and nearly all the potatoes died.  In more recent times the same thing occasionally befalls crops when entire fields, sometimes entire regions, are all planted with the a variety where every plant is nearly identical genetically.   Usually these were bred or engineered to be superior in some way (resistant to a certain disease or insect, drought tolerant, self-seeding, etc.) but if any disease that can kill one of them will kill all of them.  In more genetically diverse seed stock the disease might only kill 1/2, cause another 1/4 to be stunted and less productive, but leave 1/4 nearly unaffected.  Since the half that died won't be used as seed stock for next year, your crops will be less vulnerable to that disease in the future (but may be more vulnerable to something else).  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution

Loss of biodiversity – The spread of Green Revolution hybrids and the associated techniques have resulted in the cultivation of many fewer varieties of crops. Some crops have seen upwards of a 90% reduction in crop varieties. Dependence on one or a few cultivars of a crop means a greater exposure to famine due to a new crop pest (see Irish Potato Famine), external dependence of the population for other foodstuffs, and an impaired ability to improve crops in the future through breeding

People don't have to think about recessive genes, genetic diversity, role confusion, or mutual assistance to develop incest taboos, and they don't have to believe that those explanations have anything to do with their particular taboo.  If the groups that have an incest taboo are more likely to survive and thrive over many generations than the people who do not, then that behavior will be naturally reinforced.  Incest is never completely wiped out because it isn't immediately fatal, you can have several generations of successful incestuous breeding without seeing any ill effects.  But long-term, multigenerational exclusive inbreeding has a variety of ill effects, and eventually those catch up with you.  So the cultures that survive are likely to think that inbreeding is gross.

[Xygax]

I've moderated some posts that contributed nothing to the thread.  Whether the subject interests you are not, the content of the thread has (until recently) been thought-provoking, at the least.  If you don't like it, move along, don't flame it.

-- X

[bloodfromstone]

I prefer Armageddon culture to keep some of our real world taboos. In fact, the more the better. Not because I'm made uncomfortable by any of it or anything, but if nothing is taboo, then where is the plot and intrigue? If someone falls in love with their sister. and it is taboo, then they have to hide it. They have to worry about what she will say. They have to lie, be the victim of self-hatred, etc. It becomes interesting.

On the other hand, if sleeping with your half-kank, half-elf magicker sister isn't taboo, then all it is is OOCly gross and ICly boring. Nothing comes of it but some emotes about moisture and throbbing. I understand Zalanthas is harsh and gritty and all that, but the more things no one lifts an eyebrow out, the less intrigue and interesting interaction we get.

Take, for example, the having of multiple partners. Some people play this up to an extreme. There is no jealousy or possessiveness or anything of that nature, in the eyes of some of our players. Now, I'm not saying that my style of play or take on the setting is any more legitimate that anyone else's, but I do think that the lack of stigma that I am describing leads to staleness. Multiple partners without consquences, no incest or gender taboos, and all of that leads to zero plotlines. All we get out of it is free mudsex for everyone without any costs. Personally, that's not why I play the game. I'd rather see broken hearts and yelling matches, awkward self-discovery leading to lies or loss of friendships, people sneaking about behind each other's backs and facing the consquences when found out. I think it's a lot more interesting than saying "Hey, wanna fuck, sis?" "Okay!" in front of your other 2 lovers and boss.