Incest in Ireland.

WhiteWalls

People may or may not have been watching the Late Late show there. Woman on who was the product of a sexual relationship between her brother and sister. I always thought that a child born out of incest would be severely disabled. Has or does it go on much in this country?

WhiteWalls

It must also be said that the woman in question seemed to be a very nice lady who now has a family of her own.

LoonyLovegood

The child would only be disabled if there was an illness that ran in the family. Often a child born out of an incestuous relationship is totally normal.

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

kneemos

WhiteWalls wrote: »

People may or may not have been watching the Late Late show there. Woman on who was the product of a sexual relationship between her brother and sister. I always thought that a child born out of incest would be severely disabled. Has or does it go on much in this country?

Surveys are inconclusive I imagine.

Holsten

Impossible to know how much it happens since reporting would be close to 0 unless it was rape.

Consensual sexual activity between siblings in Ireland? I'm sure it has, does and will continue to happen all over the country.

Hotale.com

I think about 10% of children of incest have some form of illness due to the close relation of parents..

I actually think it's more likely that they'll have an illness/disability if their parents are 1st or 2nd cousins than siblings.

LETHAL LADY

A woman in my home town had a child by her father, conceived when she was a young teen. The story came out years later and was covered up at the time by saying she had slept around. The child is deaf but other than that is perfectly healthy.

dxhound2005

CTYIgirl wrote: »

The child would only be disabled if there was an illness that ran in the family. Often a child born out of an incestuous relationship is totally normal.

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

We're not as inbred as some other communities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102

Of 5,127 babies of Pakistani origin, 37% had married parents who were first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally.

It is estimated that, worldwide, more than a billion people live in communities where marriage between blood relatives is commonplace.

Sir Arthur Daley

CTYIgirl wrote: »

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

Is it true that the chances are higher of having cystic fibrosis if having a child with a second cousin more that a first cousin?

_Redzer_

Female Joffrey!!

We need her gone!

SEPT 23 1989

My name is URL

Jaysus, they put auld shite on the Late Late Show these days. Does your one have a book out or something?

_Redzer_

Hotale.com wrote: »

I think about 10% of children of incest have some form of illness due to the close relation of parents..

I actually think it's more likely that they'll have an illness/disability if their parents are 1st or 2nd cousins than siblings.

That's not true. If you have a mutation in your genes for a disease, your sibling is far more likely to have the same mutation in order for it to be present in the child than your cousin would be, because there is a higher variation in their genes in comparison to yours.

thelad95

I'd imagine a lot of it went on in early to mid 20th century Ireland.

Think about it, ignorant, uneducated kids growing up in tenements with little or other interaction with people outside their home. Things were bound to get weird....

Without stereotyping, a lot of it apparently goes on in the travelling community. There was a guy who was in

WhiteWalls

My name is URL wrote: »

Jaysus, they put auld shite on the Late Late Show these days. Does your one have a book out or something?

Dunno did Tubs say its out or coming out and he mentioned a film as well

thelad95

I'd imagine a lot took place in Ireland in the early to mid 20th century.

Think about it, two hormonal, uneducated, ignorant teens with little or no outside interaction, living in cramped conditions. Things probably did get a bit... weird from time to time.

Apparently a lot of it goes on in the travelling community but that's a very sweeping generalisation.

FiachDubh

My mother's parents are first cousins, so she's inbred I suppose along with my aunts and uncles.
The thing is though all children that came from my maternal grandparents are hale, alive and well (13 children)
My uncles are of a tall strong stature and my aunts are tall and slim, except for one who's dumpy.

When my grandparents got together there was uproar in the family apparently, with a couple of members disowning my grandparents and resulting generations. Pricks.

I used to feel weird about it but then i read Game of Thrones haha, as stupid as it sounds that made me more accepting twords it.
Of course it has nothing much to do with me, its my Mother's business

DEFTLEFTHAND

Remote areas of the Slieve Blooms on the Clonaslee side.

ElleEm

The concept of incest makes me feel a bit sick.

Muise...

CTYIgirl wrote: »

The child would only be disabled if there was an illness that ran in the family. Often a child born out of an incestuous relationship is totally normal.

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

Not so much as to cause serious trouble. The traditional lack of birth control, and genetic and in utero testing has a lot to do with it too.

LETHAL LADY

Jaysus tis far more prevalent than that imo. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of incest cases and a few first cousins married in my area and I don't live up some mountain where we all play banjos.

kneemos

thelad95 wrote: »

I'd imagine a lot took place in Ireland in the early to mid 20th century.

Think about it, two hormonal, uneducated, ignorant teens with little or no outside interaction, living in cramped conditions. Things probably did get a bit... weird from time to time.

Apparently a lot of it goes on in the travelling community but that's a very sweeping generalisation.

Only for the invention of the motor car we'd all have a hunched back and one eye by now.

WhiteWalls

WhiteWalls wrote: »

People may or may not have been watching the Late Late show there. Woman on who was the product of a sexual relationship between her brother and sister.

We have to take it, therefore, that her brother and sister had a sexual relationship.

What did their parents think?

Surely if they are her brother and sister, their parents must also be her parents.

Since she can't have two mammies and two daddies, does this mean that her brother and sister are their own parents?

Does this also mean she's her own aunt?

BrokenArrows

It only becomes an issue when the family has something wrong in their DNA. When a non incestuous child is born the other persons DNA makes up for the flaw but where two people with the same DNA problem have a child then the problem can be compounded causing a disability.
So its not guaranteed there will be a problem but it vastly increases the chance.

BrokenArrows

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We have to take it, therefore, that her brother and sister had a sexual relationship.

What did their parents think?

Surely if they are her brother and sister, their parents must also be her parents.

Since she can't have two mammies and two daddies, does this mean that her brother and sister are their own parents?

Does this also mean she's her own aunt?

I think you're mixing up incest with time travel incest!

Sparks43

Incest a game the whole family can play

sabat

thelad95 wrote: »

Apparently a lot of it goes on in the travelling community but that's a very sweeping generalisation.

Not a generalisation at all-40% of traveller marriages are between first cousins.

BrokenArrows

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think you're mixing up incest with time travel incest!

I think I'm just tired and not reading the OP correctly.

The OP said:

WhiteWalls wrote: »

Woman on who was the product of a sexual relationship between her brother and sister.

To me, these words mean that the woman was the offspring (product of a sexual relationship) between two people - named in the OP's post as her brother and sister.

Am I reading this wrong?

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

We have to take it, therefore, that her brother and sister had a sexual relationship.

What did their parents think?

Surely if they are her brother and sister, their parents must also be her parents.

Since she can't have two mammies and two daddies, does this mean that her brother and sister are their own parents?

Does this also mean she's her own aunt?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think I'm just tired and not reading the OP correctly.

The OP said:



To me, these words mean that the woman was the offspring (product of a sexual relationship) between two people - named in the OP's post as her brother and sister.

Am I reading this wrong?

She'd have to already exist to have a brother and sister.

Too Tough To Die

The country was built on incest.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

She'd have to already exist to have a brother and sister.

I know that. Does the OP?

Jaysus, slow crowd tonight, eh?

WhiteWalls

Should have said 'A' brother and sister instead of the word 'her'. Sincerest apologies. I was genuinely shocked listening to that woman though. I obviously had heard of incest but never actually knew that children were born from it. Maybe my own parents ain't so bad after all

kumate_champ07

thelad95 wrote: »

I'd imagine a lot took place in Ireland in the early to mid 20th century.

Think about it, two hormonal, uneducated, ignorant teens with little or no outside interaction, living in cramped conditions. Things probably did get a bit... weird from time to time.

Apparently a lot of it goes on in the travelling community but that's a very sweeping generalisation.

why do you say that? doesnt matter about education, its not normal to be attracted to a sibling

I dont think its a sweeping generalization, travelers mostly marry their cousins. a higher than average percentage of their babies die from complications too

Tokarev

I blame the catholic church.

See no Evil, Hear no evil.

Victor

Hotale.com wrote: »

I think about 10% of children of incest have some form of illness due to the close relation of parents..

I actually think it's more likely that they'll have an illness/disability if their parents are 1st or 2nd cousins than siblings.

No. The highest risks are always with the closest relatives and lowest with genetic strangers. That said, there is always the remote possibility that the stranger will have the same problem gene.

However, if you have multiple incidents of incest in the same family tree, then the risks get much higher.

ringadingding

ElleEm wrote: »

The concept of incest makes me feel a bit sick.

Sick ? How sick ?
In bed with your 11 year old sister sick ?

Adamantium

Tonight's thread on After Hours is brought to you by ours sponsor The Lannisters, who sent their regards.

Rhyme

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think you're mixing up incest with time travel incest!

Doing the nasty in the pasty.

R P McMurphy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He ended up doing alright for himself as he became the lead singer with radiohead

Turtwig

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics.

The argument against incestuous reproduction is mainly one of eugenics: the statistical risk of genetic illness to the offspring. So consider the following scenario where the risk of a severe debilitating illness is 1 in 4 and another where it is 1 in 10. By the arguments against incestuous reproduction the assumption is made that 1 in 4, or some other arbitrary value, is the cut off threshold for which reproduction is acceptable. Any couple who have sex has a risk of having a child with down's syndrome. Any couple with a CF gene has a risk of a having a child with Cystic Fibrosis. With an incestuous couple that risk is much greater but the key point here is that it's still only a statistical outcome. There is also a chance that offspring will be healthy.

Incest can be broken down into two general categories:
Without reproduction and coercion.
With reproduction or coercion.

If there's no reproduction and coercion involved, what exactly is wrong with incest? How is different from love between any other adult consenting human couple? To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

If there is reproduction involved at what probability does one draw the line for which reproduction isn't acceptable and why don't they apply this to carriers of severe genetic illness. For example, if it can be shown that a non incestuous couple carrying the CF gene have a higher risk than the normal population of creating a child with Cystic Fibrosis why don't we stop them reproducing and cite genetic risks the way we do for incestuous relationships? The science suggests that for CF the risk through incest is way way higher but this is a statistical argument. So where is the cut-off percentage risk wise? Is it 1 in 40,000, 1 in 4, how do we evaluate the criteria by which couples are allowed to reproduce?

Finally, imagine an environment where Cholera* is rife and there is no medicine. Then it's kind of in the humans interests to ensure the CF gene prospers. In this scenario, incest might actually be preferable - statistics wise, natural selection will probably select for it anyway. The point here is that 'natural' and 'unnatural' have no bearing on our current society. We've evolved to be sociological creatures. The arguments for or against incest need to be ones of liberties and individual health. Saying nature dictates this or that kind of ignores modern living.

*Some CF genes give immunity to Cholera. Hence another reason why CF rates are so high in Ireland.

Foxhound38

Was she born in Shelbyville? They love their incest over there, or so the Simpsons tells me :pac:

Victor

Turtwig wrote: »

To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

Is it actually incest of the two people are of different races? That kinda implies they aren't brother and sister.

Foxhound38

Turtwig wrote: »

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics.

The argument against incestuous reproduction is mainly one of eugenics: the statistical risk of genetic illness to the offspring. So consider the following scenario where the risk of a severe debilitating illness is 1 in 4 and another where it is 1 in 10. By the arguments against incestuous reproduction the assumption is made that 1 in 4, or some other arbitrary value, is the cut off threshold for which reproduction is acceptable. Any couple who have sex has a risk of having a child with down's syndrome. Any couple with a CF gene has a risk of a having a child with Cystic Fibrosis. With an incestuous couple that risk is much greater but the key point here is that it's still only a statistical outcome. There is also a chance that offspring will be healthy.

Incest can be broken down into two general categories:
Without reproduction and coercion.
With reproduction or coercion.

If there's no reproduction and coercion involved, what exactly is wrong with incest? How is different from love between any other adult consenting human couple? To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

If there is reproduction involved at what probability does one draw the line for which reproduction isn't acceptable and why don't they apply this to carriers of severe genetic illness. For example, if it can be shown that a non incestuous couple carrying the CF gene have a higher risk than the normal population of creating a child with Cystic Fibrosis why don't we stop them reproducing and cite genetic risks the way we do for incestuous relationships? The science suggests that for CF the risk through incest is way way higher but this is a statistical argument. So where is the cut-off percentage risk wise? Is it 1 in 40,000, 1 in 4, how do we evaluate the criteria by which couples are allowed to reproduce?

Finally, imagine an environment where Cholera* is rife and there is no medicine. Then it's kind of in the humans interests to ensure the CF gene prospers. In this scenario, incest might actually be preferable - statistics wise, natural selection will probably select for it anyway. The point here is that 'natural' and 'unnatural' have no bearing on our current society. We've evolved to be sociological creatures. The arguments for or against incest need to be ones of liberties and individual health. Saying nature dictates this or that kind of ignores modern living.

*Some CF genes give immunity to Cholera. Hence another reason why CF rates are so high in Ireland.

The whole ethical argument when reproduction is taken out of the equasion (ie: a consentual but incestuous homosexual relationship) is the sort of dilemma that makes my brain hurt thinking about it. I don't pretend to have an answer - although there could be something to be said about the power dynamic within a family unit being inherently hierarchical and therefore unequal except between partents (who are unrelated most of the time).

Turtwig

Victor wrote: »

Is it actually incest of the two people are of different races? That kinda implies they aren't brother and sister.

I don't know. Very interesting point. Is it possible for interracial couples to have offspring of different races?

The point if wasn't clear to anyone was to consider if the argument against incest was incestophobic or had its roots in less prejudicial foundations.

LizzieJones

Not in Ireland but Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are 3rd cousins. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins.

Spunge

ElleEm wrote: »

The concept of incest makes me feel a bit sick.

Probably we're evolutionary meant to feel sick by it.

Merkin

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't know. Very interesting point. Is it possible for interracial couples to have offspring of different races?

The point if wasn't clear to anyone was to consider if the argument against incest was incestophobic or had its roots in less prejudicial foundations.

Yes, entirely possible. Children and even twins of interracial couples can be different races. My husband knows of twins to a black father and white mother where the kids surprised everyone at birth by being one black and one white.

Merkin

Spunge wrote: »

Probably we're evolutionary meant to feel sick by it.

Interesting point because I think we're environmentally and sociologically conditioned to find it abhorrent but the concept of GSA or genetic sexual attraction is a very interesting one, albeit slightly puke inducing!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

This goes to explaining why we don't have the urge to hop on close family members we grew up with

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

PeteEd

if you sign off your post, your probably the result of an incestuous relationship

PeteEd

steddyeddy

CTYIgirl wrote: »

The child would only be disabled if there was an illness that ran in the family. Often a child born out of an incestuous relationship is totally normal.

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

Em we don't have high cf rates because we're inbred