My Theory On Incest.

Ask any anthropologist on early homonoids if incest was highly practiced in our origins and beginnings and you will clearly get the answer yes.

I believe it was practiced during times of extreme scarcity and enviromental isolation.

Early humans lived in very small groups in ancient times sometimes in pairs of five to ten people.

Imagine if you will that amongst a extreme isolative enviroment far away from any other groups or populations of human beings there is a group of seven individuals consisting of four males and three females.

Two are the parents of the other five leaving three brothers and two sisters.

Both the brothers and sisters are far away from any population of other human beings when it comes to sexual selection.

What you get is the inevitable end result of incest as the sexual instinct comes to dominate individuals in using whatever is available to them.


That example right there is the most common analogy of incest happening however there are cultural forms of incest too as practiced in ancient Egyptian royalty as a way of making powerful aristocratic families be perceived as being the more purer and superior as a race sort of like a highly prized thorough bred in contrast to the defamed less popular lower castes.

While it is very much true that incest over time leads to a variety of ailments and diseases when it is practiced surprisingly if it is practiced just once the degenerate outcome is very low if none at all.

Incest only becomes degenerative if practiced more than once as every incest copulation leads that much more closer to a variety of genetical and biological defects.


So in a sense incest has a evolutionary task assuming if it is practiced just one time in a whole family generation in that through times of scarcity and isolation amongst human population it acts as the device of passing on genetical material during times of existential duress.

Assuming in our analogy that the brothers and sisters practiced incest just once during their existential isolation if their offspring went on to mate with non-relatives in order to counter act with the incest of one generation problems would be minimal if none at all. Only if the transaction of incest happened repeatedly through more than one generation would genetical and biological deformities become a issue.

We must also come to understand the ancient primal mind in that in our beginnings the cultural construct of family did not exist. Instead of men and women mating for life they were actually more polygamous.

Men usually mated with several women moving from woman to another without regard of the cultural construct of marriage that we have today.

As for the cultural construct of family there were no assigned roles in our very ancient past. There was no constructs of brother, sister, cousin, father and mother.

At the very least offspring might of known whom they came from and whom raised them but beyond that there was nothing of intrinsic value that linked them. In our ancient past this would of also played another role in incest.

The Fool wrote:

I believe it was practiced during times of extreme scarcity and enviromental isolation.

If it were only practiced during these times, then why does it still frequently-occur???

The Fool wrote:

Incest only becomes degenerative if practiced more than once as every incest copulation leads that much more closer to a variety of genetical and biological defects.

So in a sense incest has a evolutionary task assuming if it is practiced just one time in a whole family generation in that through times of scarcity and isolation amongst human population it acts as the device of passing on genetical material during times of existential duress.

Assuming in our analogy that the brothers and sisters practiced incest just once during their existential isolation if their offspring went on to mate with non-relatives in order to counter act with the incest of one generation problems would be minimal if none at all. Only if the transaction of incest happened repeatedly through more than one generation would genetical and biological deformities become a issue.

You are generally-incorrect here, because you fail to take-in-account that early human animals were forced to engage in incest for very large & sustained periods of times, perhaps going on for a dozen, or over a hundred generations. Sexual selection may have been close to non-existent between different environments. Therefore, you have no reason to conclude that the practice itself is "degenerative". Because...

What is "degenerative" about it? Can you say that "retardation" is also "mutation"? -- what is the difference?

Could not Spartan babies killed through infanticide (after being deemed 'weak') been the result of an incestuous "retardation"?

If that is the case, then socially-incestuous cultures can also procreate continuously as long as they "rid themselves" of the "decrepit" ones.

The Fool wrote:

We must also come to understand the ancient primal mind in that in our beginnings the cultural construct of family did not exist.

This is incorrect when you link the early human tribe with the 'family' unit. The tribe was a family!

The Fool wrote:

Instead of men and women mating for life they were actually more polygamous.

...a polygamous family.

The Fool wrote:

Men usually mated with several women moving from woman to another without regard of the cultural construct of marriage that we have today.

That is because the Greek Civilization invented 'marriage' as we know it today, for very specific reasons...

The Fool wrote:

As for the cultural construct of family there were no assigned roles in our very ancient past. There was no constructs of brother, sister, cousin, father and mother.

How do you know? The tribe that prays together...

The Fool wrote:

At the very least offspring might of known whom they came from and whom raised them but beyond that there was nothing of intrinsic value that linked them.

Do you have a reason for believing this?

The Fool wrote:

In our ancient past this would of also played another role in incest.

Yes, but those roles are not necessarily-related.

You can 'love' your sister and also fuck her too. There is an apparent problem with the latter.


...do you know what it is?

What about incest with condoms?

Is incest okay if pregnancy is controlled?

How far removed from one's own family before sex between a male and a female is okay? I fooled around with my cousin. Alberst Einstein had sex with his first cousin and married her. I never went that far.

What about sex with oneself (masturbation)? Isn't that the ultimate incest?

Would you even leave your home if you could curve your back forward enough and perform fellatio on yourself?

Behind all talk about sex is replication. The desire to bring something new to the world. That can't be done (safely) by incest and can't be done (zero chance) by masturbation.

My theory on incest is that first cousins is okay and that sisters/brothers is okay as long as there is no pregnancy.

Anything involving ANYONE, wheather consential or not, under the age of 18 is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Well-stated SpeedOfSilence!

In today's world, (latex) condoms are *NEW* mind-you. The degree of sexual hedonism expressed today is also *NEW*.

Is it okay to fuck your own family members with sexual protection even though there is always a risk of impregnation?

Is it okay to drink a beer if you come from a family of alcoholics?


These questions are not easy to answer. If it were up to me, then I would say to remove the first temptation completely.

That is the only way to be absolutely-certain. The Dark Ages of Roman Catholicism already-did most of this work for us...

SpeedOfSilence wrote:

What about incest with condoms?

Is incest okay if pregnancy is controlled?

How far removed from one's own family before sex between a male and a female is okay? I fooled around with my cousin. Alberst Einstein had sex with his first cousin and married her. I never went that far.

What about sex with oneself (masturbation)? Isn't that the ultimate incest?

Would you even leave your home if you could curve your back forward enough and perform fellatio on yourself?

Behind all talk about sex is replication. The desire to bring something new to the world. That can't be done (safely) by incest and can't be done (zero chance) by masturbation.

My theory on incest is that first cousins is okay and that sisters/brothers is okay as long as there is no pregnancy.

Anything involving ANYONE, wheather consential or not, under the age of 18 is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.

I thought this was spectacular up to the last line. I followed completely and faithfully your words with all their logic. I was a bit thrown off though by your programmed words on age of consent. I found it strange that you became most absolutist and emphatic when it came to this age of consent; the most arbitrary thing you reported. Complete cultural cartwheeling in the first five-sixths of this post, and then an unquestioning and patriotic review that appeals to the Law of the Land.