hmmm texas law allows steps to marry, the only time they cant is if they are adopted....did one of the parents adopt the other child? cause unless they did I dont see why they arent married

I can't believe no one has pointed out the other obvious interpretation of the original question ("How many first cousins have you laid?")... surely if you laid one person, and that person's first cousin (possibly at a later date), then you have laid first cousins?

If this poll had said "How many twins have you laid?", we wouldn't expect that to mean having sex with your own twin brother or sister...

Anyway, as you were. :)

so out of curiosity, in the case posed by deltona, what happens if the parents get a divorce, and then everyone immediately gets married all at the same time?

All of my cousins are a good 10+ years older than me, so there was never any possibility for me. I do think it could be kind of hot to have this forbidden relationship, and to keep it a secret between the 2 of you.

The woman who lives next door to me married her first cousin and they were together for 40+ years. She's now in her 80's and a widow. They had 2 children from adoption because they were afraid to make their own due to the possibility of genetic defects.

Shani, your post made me curious, so I called my friend and asked her. I guess I was in error when I mentioned that Texas was not allowing it. I was incorrect. It is their church that refuses to allow them to marry, and as she is pretty religious, she refuses to marry any other way, and Mike has accepted that, so they just live together.

I absolutely hate all my first cousins so that isnt ever gonna happen. Though on of them is a huge slut though.

Sooooo...what's her number?

Luckily all of my cousins are a little young for me, because now that they're getting a little older, it looks like they'll turn out very quite nicely.

Mercifully I never had to sink so low as to start screwing my cousins...and if you saw them you'd know why I'm glad it never had to come to that.

I've only got one male cousin of age, and although he's kind of cute he's deep inside the closet. And besides, he's from the west coast. Ick. :P One of my aunts is married to her first cousin though, so their kids (adopted!) are both my cousins and my second cousins.

For the original question, I consider any kind of sexual relations with close blood relatives gross - that's just personal opinion and I wouldn't presume to judge what other people find appealing or unappealing.

That's independent of the science, though. I certainly do think it's irresponsible of people to procreate with close relatives when they (a) are aware of the risks to the resultant child, (b) live in a community in which there is no justifiable social advantage to procreating with a relative, and (c) there is opportunity to be with a nonrelative.

Several people have mentioned the genetics, but nobody has explained it in detail, and a few people just made vague universal but completely unsupported statements, maybe because they were convenient for their argument? Anyway, for those who are interested, genetics is a very important consideration. I know this thread is about personal opinion regarding consanguineous relations, but I feel obliged to clear up the misinformation.

The most important issue is with "recessive" hereditary diseases - in which a person must have 2 bad copies of a gene in order to be affected (remember how everybody has 2 copies of every gene?). This is what willravel was referring to when he kept saying "homozygous." In case you just got intimidated by the word and didn't bother to look it up, homozygous means you have 2 identical copies of a gene, but of course willravel was referring to identical bad copies of a gene. There are TONS of bad diseases that are autosomal recessive like cystic fibrosis, PKU, hereditary hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, Tay Sachs disease, Gauchier's disease.

This is the risk: One of your grandparents either has such a disease, or is a carrier. If they are just a carrier, there is a 1 in 16 chance that both you and your first cousin will be carriers (have a bad copy of the gene). If your grandparent has the disease, there is a 1 in 4 chance that both you and your cousin will be carriers. Those are really scary odds. But that's the absolute minimum. That refers to only 1 bad gene, related to 1 disease in the child. The odds of a bad mix get a little bit higher when you consider homologous recombination during gametogenesis (formation of sperm and ova), and much much higher when taking into account that there are ~25,000 genes, meaning there are more than 25,000 places to get a bad combination in the child.

Think this is all numbers and strange words? Here are some real-world examples:

The Bedouin of the Middle East and North Africa consist of many nomadic groups. Some of the groups in Israel have an incredibly high rate of deafness. Worldwide, early-onset deafness is estimated at about 1/2000 to 1/3000 births, and only about half of these are inherited. In Israeli Bedouin communities the prevalence is about 1/40, and has been confirmed to be due to a single mutation that is propagated by the extremely high rate of first- and second-cousin marriage. Even though deaf-deaf marriages are discouraged, the frequency of the mutant allele (copy of the gene) continues to increase from the inbreeding.

In many isolated Amish and Mennonite communities in North America, cystic fibrosis is dramatically over-represented compared to average North American caucasian numbers. The prevalence in North America is about 1 in 2500-3000 live births, with many different mutations potentially contributing to the disease. In the isolated communities, numbers as high as 1/500 have been found, with an otherwise rare mutation accounting for all cases in the community. There is no doubt that inbreeding within the small communities maintains the mutant allele at a high frequency.


On a final note, most people understand that genetic uniformity (a lack of variation) in a population makes it very vulnerable to epidemic disease. This caused the potato blight in Ireland, and led to the mass exodus of Irish that helped shape a lot of the large North American cities like Boston and Montreal. This is also a common argument against genetically modified crops (although its validity as a legitimate concern is still very contentious). The point is, people generally understand that genetic uniformity is bad, so it should be easy to understand that inbreeding, which contributes to genetic uniformity, can have very dangerous consequences.

Nope, I've never laid a first cousin.

Poloboy: I'm sure you are quite correct about the possible genetic consequences of sleeping with your cousins. However, please read it again and see how it comes across to those readers who are affected by the genetic 'defects' you appear so desperate to warn others about.

I see your good intentions here, but your perspective and mine appear to be different.

I have a striking number of extremely attractive girl cousins, but no I have never considered any of them potential sex partners

Yeah, come to think of it, all the girls i've laid ARE COUSINS of somebody. So that makes 32. That option is not on the poll :p

Manorfire,

You're absolutely right. Firstly, most of the mutations that cause these diseases are very old in the human species and having the disease is by no means an indication that the person is the product of incestual union. A couple with extremely distant common ancestry can still produce a child who is homozygous for the mutation, it's just that the chances are staggeringly higher in couples that are closely related. So this is one very simple reason for such people not to be shunned.

Addressing your main point is more complex. I completely emulate your appreciation for the inherent worth of every individual, regardless of their genetics and biochemistry. The reason I think of the issue as complex is because I can't ignore the horrifying symptoms of some of these diseases and also ignore the link to the underlying genetic mutation. For this reason I've come to attach the worth of the person to what I call their soul, rather than their flesh and bones and genes. A lot of people feel uncomfortable talking about the distinction, and that's why I think it's a delicate subject, and it's also off the topic of the thread so I won't go into it any further. However, I often forget that the explanation of genetics like this can come off as particularly insensitive without an explanation of the difference between defective genes and defective people. Thanks for raising that point.

I Have two boy cousins on my mothers side, one who is about 5 years younger than me. The other who was born the day before my sister who is 7 years older than me.And On my fathers side I have 5 boy cousins, 3 about 10 years older than me, One whos about 6 years younger, one whos married and has a daughter, one who was adopted, One whos just recently married, And one who i'm almost possative is a crack head.

So Nope, never laid any of them, don't plan on it

Thankfully none...that is zero....nada....zip

I could not even imagine that.