steepholm: (Default)
[personal profile] steepholm
I'm curious about attitudes to first-cousin marriage.

First, to get the medical side out of the way, I can see good genetic reasons for not marrying one's first cousin, reasons which may indeed be powerful enough to justify measures banning or restricting the practice. I don't feel qualified to judge that, and for the present purpose I'm not interested in it either. It's clearly less than optimal, like having parents over fifty, but whether it's a sufficiently bad idea to pass laws about it I just don't know.

What I'm interested in here is the visceral ickiness some people clearly feel at the idea of first-cousin marriage - the feeling that it breaks some powerful incest taboo, perhaps just a notch down from marrying one's sibling, child or parent.

I wasn't brought up to feel like that at all, and I'm curious as to why not - or, conversely, why other people do. Since these things are cultural, where are the cultural dividing lines, in terms of geography, generation, or belief systems? My impression is that the taboo feeling is stronger in the States, but I also think that in the UK it's stronger with the younger generation than with my own or older. There are also ethnic groups within the UK where first-cousin marriage is common, notably within the Pakistani community where I believe it runs at over 50%, and of course that has meant that the subject has inevitably become embroiled in rows about race, religion, etc. Has that altered the broader terms of the debate?

In short - as I see it, when I was growing up first-cousin marriage was considered unusual but in no way taboo, at least in my little bit of the world. I think it was even seen as romantic. Now, the feeling that it's taboo is much more widespread.

How does this tally with your experience of your own and other people's opinions? Have things changed?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-14 09:06 pm (UTC)
sovay: (Rotwang)
From: [personal profile] sovay
How does this tally with your experience of your own and other people's opinions? Have things changed?

I don't think cousin marriage registers as either genetically or socially close enough to trip any squick triggers with me, although if one grew up in a family with a large group of cousins around the same age, I can see it impinging on incest taboos the same way as the famous effect with communally raised children on kibbutzim (they related to one another as functional siblings, not potential sexual partners). On the other hand, one of my romantic partners is my third cousin's wife—whom I refer to as my cousin—so I may not be a good test subject.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-14 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
Gosh, now I'm trying to remember the name of that effect (it has a name, I think?).

The first person I ever had a crush on was a first cousin, now I think of it. But since think of it was all I did at the time, there were no ill effects.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-14 09:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nightspore.livejournal.com
Westermarck effect.

I think it happens in my milieu reasonably rarely, so it's not icky. I think the chances of serious birth defects go up to 3% from 1%, which is a lot but not much. I know married first cousins - it seemed slightly kinky but nothing beyond that.

I think in communities where a lot of cousin marriage is going on, the genetic issues become much more profound, since the first cousin offspring of first cousins would now be much more inbred. First cousins are the descendants of three out of four possible sets of grandparents. So they're 75% as genetically diverse as completely allogamous offspring. But first cousins who are both offspring of first cousins now descend from three out of four possible sets of great grandparents. So they're only 3/8ths (37.5%, half of 75%, of course) as genetically diverse as allogamous offspring. My sister and I have eight great grandparents. Offspring of first cousins who are themselves offspring of first cousins are therefore likely to be genetically closer than siblings are.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-14 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
Westermarck effect

Thank you!

Then of course there are situations like those of my mother and her cousin, who share all four grandparents but no parents, their fathers being brothers and their mothers sisters. For them to have married would have been illegal, but only because they are both female - which would, ironically, have rendered the medical objection moot.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 12:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ethelmay.livejournal.com
But they're double cousins -- that's surely a special case. I cannot believe that if they were different genders that they would legally be allowed to marry.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 03:24 am (UTC)
ext_6322: (Giotto faces)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
Whereas I would be astonished to discover the existence of a law prohibiting their marriage! Cousins have never featured in the Church of England's Table of Kindred and Affinity. Perhaps if the church authorities had had a better understanding of genetics they might have done, but it never happened. I suspect the frequency of dynastic marriages between cousins meant that no one ever thought of it as something to ban; informing the royals that they were sinning against God wouldn't be a smart career move.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 09:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ethelmay.livejournal.com
I stand corrected. It seems that even in the US most states that allow first-cousin marriages have no exception for double first cousins (North Carolina is an exception). That makes my blood run a little cold, as double first cousins are at least as closely related as half-siblings. Presumably there's no exception for cases where one or both of the sibling pairs were identical twins, either, which would further up the consanguinity.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
The problem is that most of these laws derive (if indirectly) from Biblical laws rather than medical science, which tends to be retrofitted onto existing prohibitions where it's taken into account at all.

If we were starting from scratch, and trying to frame laws to minimize inherited and congenital health conditions, we'd probably be thinking about restricting (for example) older parents, as well as closely related ones.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 01:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ethelmay.livejournal.com
I don't think restrictions on older parents could possibly fly, either in terms of practicality or social acceptability. It would be too much of an assault on personal freedoms.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 04:19 am (UTC)
ext_6322: (Giotto faces)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
In a way that legislating against cousin-marriage would not be?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 04:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ethelmay.livejournal.com
Sure. For one thing, there's no precedent at all in the matter, whereas with marriages between related people there is. It's not the kind of thing that strikes most people as being anyone else's business, and it's not as if older parents had any specific risks that no one else incurs. Moreover, given that it's perfectly possible for people who are marrying "late" (however you define that) to not want children, or indeed to already be infertile, how on earth would you enforce the matter if they said they didn't want children in order to get married, and then welcomed an accidental or accidental-on-purpose pregnancy? And what about people who marry early and have children late? Short of having a full-on license to procreate (which would take a huge upheaval in societal values), you couldn't do anything about them, and I don't honestly see why you should.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 05:03 am (UTC)
ext_6322: (Giotto faces)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
But as mentioned earlier, there is no precedent in my society for banning first-cousin marriage, nor would it occur to me that it was my "business"; if one were to interfere, cousins could offer the same "not planning to breed" defence that you suggest, and then do so accidentally; and in any case, even if one were to ban such a marriage, there would be nothing to stop them having sex and children outside marriage. One could offer medical advice to all of these categories of people, whatever their marital status; I don't perceive a right to do more, in either case. (I speak as the daughter of an elderly father; in my family, large age-gaps between partners have been very common.)

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 03:49 am (UTC)
ext_6322: (Giotto faces)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
My mother and her brother would also have had such double cousins had the two older children not died in the flu epidemic after the First World War, before my mother and brother were born. I believe that under the Orthodox Church rules my grandparents would not have been allowed to marry, on the grounds that they had siblings married to each other. (Doesn't this come up in War and Peace - Nikolai and Maria could not have married had the marriage between Natasha and Andrei gone ahead?) Presumably the argument is that once husband and wife have become one flesh their sibling pools combine as well. But the Orthodox Church does seem more paranoid about the whole kindred and affinity idea, as they appear to ban everything up to second cousins. I think Catholicism allows second cousins, but you need a special dispensation to marry a first cousin. Again, I imagine that's down to dynastic politics.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 07:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
That's very interesting about the Orthodox Church - an institution of which I'm horribly ignorant. In fact, tell it not in Gath, I've not read War and Peace either. Now I have a reason to put that right!

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 12:40 pm (UTC)
ext_6322: (Book)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
Oh dear, I've given away the ending!

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 08:59 am (UTC)
sheenaghpugh: (Posterity)
From: [personal profile] sheenaghpugh
Other literary examples: in Silas Marner, Nancy refuses her cousin Gilbert Osgood "on the ground solely that he was her cousin", though she might just be being kind; she loves Godfrey. In the Forsyte novels, cousins Val and Holly marry but decide to remain childless.

Re catholicism, I don't think my in-laws, who were Catholic, needed a dispensation, but I could be wrong.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 12:52 pm (UTC)
ext_6322: (Book)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
Whereas I seem to remember Hugh Walpole puts at least one first-cousin marriage (with child) into his Herries Chronicles, and to the best of my recollection (I'm away from home so can't check the text or the useful family tree) I think all the objections relate to the family feud rather than the degree of kinship. Oh, and isn't Lady Catherine in Pride and Prejudice trying to marry her daughter to first-cousin Darcy? Not that Austen presents this as a Good Idea, but Lady Catherine appears to regard it as right and proper.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that I grew up in a culture that doesn't see anything odd about first cousin relationships. I remember when I was a child expressing the idea that I might marry one of mine, and my mother's response was that she thought he'd once said that too, leaving me with the idea that it was normal, rather than "don't be silly". (Neither of us showed any interest in the idea once we grew up!)

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-15 01:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
There's also the Austen example of Mansfield Park, which I alluded to in the post title, where the hero and heroine are first cousins.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 04:16 am (UTC)
ext_6322: (Book)
From: [identity profile] kalypso-v.livejournal.com
Yes, I remembered that was your starting point after I'd logged out, but have only just got back to admit it!

(no subject)

Date: 2012-10-16 06:39 am (UTC)

Profile

steepholm: (Default)
steepholm

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 45
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags