Misplaced Pages

Talk:Incest: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:07, 31 May 2002 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 edits to Vicki + to ark← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:10, 16 June 2024 edit undoGreenLipstickLesbian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers12,876 edits →Possible copyright problem: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
Some biologist should add some numerical information about likelihood of birth defects after incest, say between brother and sister. Also some general information about why mixing is good would be useful. --AxelBoldt
{{Not a forum|incest}}
----
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
At the level of brother and sister the probability of birth defects goes up noticeably, but not enormously if the gene pool is fairly healthy. Maybe it almost doubles. Some of the more common birth defects (hare lip etc) are probably not due to genetic causes. For first cousins, the increase is down in the noise. Inbreeding can have advantages (ask any plant or animal breeder), but breeding individuals who are not closely related also has advantages (again ask any plant or animal breeder). The best way to get a healthy population seems to involve a mixture of both.
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Genealogy |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance=High|genetics=yes |genetics-importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 7
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Incest/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Real incest? ==
As to why, that is a very complicated thing that is not quite fully understood yet. It would take a very knowlegeble geneticist writing a very long article to explain even what we now know.


The article lists "Father–daughter and '''stepfather–stepdaughter''' sex is the most commonly reported form of adult–child incest" but stepfather–stepdaughter sex isn't considered real incest and only pseudo-incest in some cultures or under some religious codes. ] ]|] 22:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure how this relates to incest for humans. A lot of people would not want to think about humans in these kind of terms, of deliberately breeding to improve the species. Also incest is not quite the same as inbreeding, since in most juristicions it includes various relationships without close blood relationship, and it also includes sexual relationships that do not produce children.
:Maybe stepfather–stepdaughter sex isn't real incest, but it's very bad mojo. I'm in the USA, and here it would be almost universally condemned and considered incest and labeled incest. You can't control how people use words. I can't speak for other countries. ] (]) 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
----
::This isn't about "bad mojo", whatever that is, but about what constitutes incest so it should stick to the definition. While such relationships were seen as impropriety in biblical Jewish times they are not incest. I also don't know which part of the USA you are from but it seems such kind of relationships regularly pop up there without much chagrin. ] ]|] 20:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
True, but that's just a result of confusion by priests and jurists. It's clear that the incest taboo is there because of genetic reasons.


== Distant cousins ==
In Germany for instance, it is legal for a sister to have oral sex with her brother, but penetration is illegal. That makes eminent sense. But the article should explain why.


I have a 6th degree relative (second cousin). We share 2.6% of DNA. I could legally marry her in several EU countries. So, I don't understand the fuss about distant cousins: that isn't incest according to the laws of several EU countries. Why should we care if European nobles married their distant cousins centuries ago? The point: DNA similarity dilutes very quickly with each passing generation. Example: Romanian law prohibits incest, but marrying your second cousin isn't incest. Genetic similarity of relatives of the 9th degree (and higher) is negligible to all practical purposes. And that's what "distant cousins" means. ] (]) 04:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
''Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "incest taboo" except in modern societies. It certainly didn't arise due to genetic reasons or evolution.''
::Are you referring to the start of the "From the Middle Ages onward" section? I did rewrite that to clarify. I assume that the deal is that if you're occasionally marrying first cousins, but when it's not a first cousin it's probably a second or third cousin or something like that, almost always, for generation after generation, you're going to get problems (e.g. ]).. The passage doesn't say that. It does imply it. I don't think anyone knows for sure how much this contributed to ] etc. ] (]) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
-----
Is it really clear that the taboo is for genetic reasons? The fact that most traditional versions of it are not very precise in preventing genetic trouble, should be a hint that other reasons should be considered. The genetic reasoning may well be a modern rationalisation for an old custom. It is unlikely that the ancients in the cultures where the taboo existed did the detailed and careful statistical analysis needed to show that inbreeding can increase short term genetic risk. They certainly did not have the theory needed to understand why.
----
For the definition of incest found in some tribes, that no sex inside the clan is allowed, there is a much more obvious explanation. It is to improve the unity of the tribe by forcing the clans to remain friendly. For other versions of the taboo it is hard for me to imagine any rational reason based on evidence available to the people who first invented it.
----
- i haven't read anything on this in a while, but my impression is that property had lots to do with it. For example, I seem to remember that in Classical Athens, an uncle could marry a neice if she were the sole heir to her father, in order to keep the property in the family. On the otherhand, I'm pretty sure that Post-Christian Rome had a 7 degree limit, which was also held as the standard for the Franks, although they tended to look at the degrees slightly differently. Of course, this doesn't work if you look at the marriage of Louis the Pious and his son to two Welf sisters, so that Charles the Bald's maternal aunt was also his sister-in-law... Off to hunt in Herlihy and Wemple -- I think that's where I read this stuff...]
----
I restored JHK's recent contribution, and also revised the article. "incest" is a term that has many meanings and uses, and one meaning and use is to describe prohibited marriages. I agree that it is sometimes important to distinguish between prohibited sex and prohibited marriage, and I revised the article to make this clear -- I provided two different definitions of incest, and an specific case that includes an example of a forbidden sexual relationship and a forbidden marriage. I also removed some tendentious polemic. SR


==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture==
"incest" almost universally means "sex" in modern societies. It is VERY important to distinguish between sex and marriage since nobody except sociologists and historians give a damn about marriage anymore. So what's the deal with putting the marriage definition and examples (which nobody cares about) before the sex definition and examples?
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Northridge/Gender_and_Culture_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2023-08-28 | end_date = 2023-12-18 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)</span>
Your "example" is extremely bad, suggesting that people throughout history have forbidden both cases of incest. Which is completely false.


==Commonness of incest in ancient Greece==
The incest taboo is myth. That is reality. Shouldn't encyclopedia entries deal with reality and report myth ''as'' myth? By removing the "polemic" you only confirm the people's preconceptions on the matter!
] and ], sibling incest was not common in ancient Greece and this is a typo. See for example this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/familiarity-breeds-incest-and-the-ptolemaic-dynasty/C60A3A24562133A347E54A8F5977D690
It discusses how sibling incest was viewed as morally abhorrent and was outside Greek tradition. That is why the marriages were controversial. I am fixing the typo again, as I don't think this should really be controversial. Happy to go to WP:DRN if it really is.
] (]) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


:Can you please do the edit together with the proper references to the reliable sources, i.e. not only change a word but to make such a change that it be accompanying by the references, so the other editors could see that those claims are properly backed up? I mentioned it in the talk page of ]
----
:Thank you! ] (]) 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::Okay, sure.
::] (]) 15:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you for understanding! Sorry that I didn't mention it before, but when such changes are made without proper references, people may wrongly consider it vandalism, however, it may be indeed a good-faith edit. ] (]) 15:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I actually noticed that the reference I googled happened to be the one already in the article, cited in that very line. So now it is cited twice.
::::] (]) 15:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::You can give names to references in the "ref" tag and then use this tag multiple times only giving the name, without all other attributes. ] (]) 16:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I understand. I was just trying to fix a one word typo, based on the source that was already in that line of the article. Would you mind fixing it?
::::::] (]) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@] I am not competent to determine whether it was a typo or intentional word, so I let other editors to decide on substance ] (]) 07:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Since this page is semi-protected, and you are not logged in with a user account in wikipedia, it will take time for your edit to be reviewed by editors, they may further decide on whether to accept or revert the change. ] (]) 15:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


== hic thalamum invasit natae vetitosque hymenaeos ==
Here's another way to understand just how wrong and stupid SR's view is.


Terrible mistranslation. “This man invaded (encroached upon) the wedding-bed of his daughter, a forbidden marriage.” ] (]) 11:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Consider "child abuse". Is it child abuse to leave whip a newborn infant into a coma? Yes, yes it is. And anyone who gainsays this is a moron. Yet, at the turn of the century in Germany, such practices occured. Was it considered child abuse by the natives? '''Who cares'''?


== The word incest doesn't specify that it is about sex ==
What child abusers consider child abuse is irrelevant. It is a well-known fact that no parent considers themselves a child abuser, even when they are. So who gives a damn what the child abusers believe?


The word incest literally means "impure". There is no specific mention of sex in that word, unlike for example "inbreeding". I've seen news articles about mothers who married their own sons and fathers who married their own daughters. I don't think e.g. "inwedding" is a recognised word, but it is established that sexuality and loyalty (or "romance") are not always both present (e.g. asexual but not "aromantic"). There seems to be no mention of this, not on ] either. This page only mentions sex. ] (]) 10:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, what the natives consider incest or not is irrelevant. The fact that Trobriand islanders consider some type of incest to be a-ok doesn't mean we should stop calling incest incest. Incest is a specific practice which we believe to be wrong. It isn't "whatever some society believes to be wrong"!
:Do you have sources that describe incest excluding sex? ꧁]꧂ 00:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


Next you're going to redefine "evil" and say that child sacrifice in Carthage wasn't evil because they never saw a thing wrong with it!


== Possible copyright problem ==
If you can't deal with the reality of incest then lay off the damn page!
] This article ] as part of ]. (See ]) Earlier text must not be restored, ''unless'' it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences'' or ''phrases''. Accordingly, the material ''may'' be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously. <!--Signature-->] (]) 07:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC) <!--{{CCI}} end-->

Actually, SR, since you can't even differentiate between incest and inbreeding, which are '''completely different''' concepts, you should just lay off the page entirely. For the record, incest refers to sex while inbreeding refers to the reduced genetic diversity of children resulting from incest! -- ark
----
This article seems to be giving equal or greater weight to the POV that there's nothing wrong with incest. Since over 90% of readers (maybe even 99%) would strongly disagree with this POV, shouldn't we give a little more space to the anti-incest POV?

Not that we should come out and denounce it (that would violate our editorial policy). Just that it should be more balanced.

Who objects to incest, and on what grounds?
What are the genetic consequences (for humans)?
Why is incest a taboo?

], Friday, May 31, 2002

I am DEEPLY disatisfied with the article because the POV that incest exists and is evil (contrary to both the sociologists' view and the "incest taboo" myth) is so reduced. And SR ''won't even let me have that much''. Apparently, he won't tolerate any mention of incest as existing, let alone as an intolerable practice.

Incest is a taboo only in modern societies because it's the product of child sexual abuse and is thus considered immoral. The genetics have nothing to do with it, never have and never will. -- ark
----
Thanks for explaining that, ark. We should mention the '''reason''' for the incest taboo in the article. Something like,
*One of the biggest reasons for the incest taboo in modern societies is that many people consider it a form of child sexual abuse. Generally, people consider it immoral to exploit children sexually.
Sl, can you and ark agree on the above formulation?

And what do you suggest that paragraph replace?

I disagree with the paragraph because 1) people already think the immorality of incest is universal, and 2) this is false. So saying "Generally, people consider sexual exploitation of children immoral" doesn't identify exactly who considers it immoral (nearly all modern people) and who does not (many people in third-world countries and in the past, including such luminaries as Socrates and Seneca).
----
Thanks for engaging me in the discussion, ark. I see where your objection is, and I agree with you to some extent.

We cannot advocate the POV that the incest taboo is universal. Instead, perhaps, we can describe when and where the taboo has existed. I have read in the article one or two examples of non-adherence to the taboo, and the article would be better off with these examples than without them.

How about:

* The taboo against is nearly universal (or, common to most cultures). Yet, some cultures are unaware of the taboo. Such as, etc.

We might even discuss the tension between (A) the American prohibition against incest, and (B) evidence that it is practiced to some extent (how much?).

], Friday, May 31, 2002


When and where the taboo has existed? Only the last (couple?) century and only in the heavily industrialized countries.

There is a much older and wider taboo against ''flaunting'' incest in public but even that was never universal. Plus, there is the added consideration that in many cases, kissing your wife in public was taboo (as it still is in Western Africa) while sucking your son's penis in public wasn't (in neolithic tribes). There is far more evidence of a taboo against public adult heterosexual practices than against there is for one against incest.

So how "universal" is the taboo? Not at all. In fact, it's ''incest'' that was universal until only very recently. I don't mean to imply that the current prohibitions against incest are a fad, they're just a very new development in morality. People are much more moral nowadays than they ever have been in the past.

How widespread is incest nowaday? I do not know. It's understood that the vast majority of sexual abuse is incestuous. So that reduces the question to how widespread sexual abuse is. The estimates range from 10% to 50%, with the better studies giving the higher numbers. 50% does seem pretty high to me but 10% is delusionally low since abuse itself runs at 90%. -- ark

----
''Following moved from Slrubenstein user page:''

you stupid fuck. you don't even understand what "inbreeding" (which does NOT refer to animals specifically but to children born out of incest!) means and you think you have authority over "incest"?
----
Hi, Sl. It seems you have picked up a sparring partner. Why not duke it out on the Talk page, instead of reverting each other's edits?

24, please don't abuse the "anyone can edit" privilege. I'd hate to see an administrator have to lock thi ] page. Discussion usually leads to consensus, and have you read the ] article?

], Friday, May 31, 2002

I know what NPOV means. And I also know what incest, inbreeding and marriage rules are. SR does not. He confuses all three of them together and butchers my contributions.

dictionary.com gives 3 or 4 definitions of incest. NONE of them relate to inbreeding or marriage rules.

Even among sociologists, it is FALSE that they believe incest means marriage rules. They believe it means sex practices, but they also believe that marriage rules constrain sex practices (because sex outside of marriage doesn't exist in their worldview). If you go according to sociologists, when the mother sucks the penis of an infant boy, this is neither sex nor incest! But since this example *clearly* contradicts SR's fairy-tale worldview that incest doesn't exist, and proves the fact that sociologists are deluding themselves, it can't be allowed to exist on the page.

I've let SR have the sociology side even though it's completely false. That's a HUGE amount of compromise. SR can't compromise with me or cooperate in any way because when the facts are listed side by side, he knows he'll lose completely. -- ark

----
Can I get a cite on the "Neolithic tribes"? It just seems unlikely that they all have (or had) the same customs, any more than industrial civilizations all have the same customs. It would thus be worth specifying the cultures we're referring to.

Also, I did a slight rewrite under "Old Testament": I'll let stand the use of that Christian term for the Jewish scriptures, but the "OT" is the Jewish Bible, not just "a central part" of it. (The previous was similar to "The Bible (an important part of Christian scripture)" says...") ]

Sorry, Vicki, I had thought that OT was a subset of the Jewish Bible. I get confused by Mishnah, Talmud, and so on. It would be a Mitzvah if you would staighten me out :-) ], Friday, May 31, 2002
----
Okay, ark, let's distinguish between incest, inbreeding and marriage rules. Let's also distinguish between (A) what various advocates '''want''' and (B) what actually '''happens''' in the world.

I'd say, based on my own concepts, that "incest" means "sex between family members other than husband and wife" (typically, father rapes or seduces daughter; can also be mother/son, or two siblings).

My church does not allow brother and sister to marry. (Once, Rev. Moon unknowingly matched a brother and sister before a ] mass wedding, and they had to go back and tell him of his mistake!) Perhaps we could say what other, larger churches say about bro/sis marriage.

As for "inbreeding", I think the term has larger scope than one's immediate family. Doesn't it also refer to marrying within one's tribe or other relatively small group? The terms ''exogamous'' and ''endogamous'' come to mind.

], Friday, May 31, 2002

Latest revision as of 07:10, 16 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about incest. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about incest at the Reference desk.
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGenealogy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: Genetics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Real incest?

The article lists "Father–daughter and stepfather–stepdaughter sex is the most commonly reported form of adult–child incest" but stepfather–stepdaughter sex isn't considered real incest and only pseudo-incest in some cultures or under some religious codes. Biofase | stalk  22:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe stepfather–stepdaughter sex isn't real incest, but it's very bad mojo. I'm in the USA, and here it would be almost universally condemned and considered incest and labeled incest. You can't control how people use words. I can't speak for other countries. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This isn't about "bad mojo", whatever that is, but about what constitutes incest so it should stick to the definition. While such relationships were seen as impropriety in biblical Jewish times they are not incest. I also don't know which part of the USA you are from but it seems such kind of relationships regularly pop up there without much chagrin. Biofase | stalk  20:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Distant cousins

I have a 6th degree relative (second cousin). We share 2.6% of DNA. I could legally marry her in several EU countries. So, I don't understand the fuss about distant cousins: that isn't incest according to the laws of several EU countries. Why should we care if European nobles married their distant cousins centuries ago? The point: DNA similarity dilutes very quickly with each passing generation. Example: Romanian law prohibits incest, but marrying your second cousin isn't incest. Genetic similarity of relatives of the 9th degree (and higher) is negligible to all practical purposes. And that's what "distant cousins" means. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the start of the "From the Middle Ages onward" section? I did rewrite that to clarify. I assume that the deal is that if you're occasionally marrying first cousins, but when it's not a first cousin it's probably a second or third cousin or something like that, almost always, for generation after generation, you're going to get problems (e.g. Hapsburg Jaw).. The passage doesn't say that. It does imply it. I don't think anyone knows for sure how much this contributed to Hapsburg Jaw etc. Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichelleEstrada55 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alyssagarcia.422 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Commonness of incest in ancient Greece

User:Yue and User:CycloneYoris, sibling incest was not common in ancient Greece and this is a typo. See for example this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/familiarity-breeds-incest-and-the-ptolemaic-dynasty/C60A3A24562133A347E54A8F5977D690 It discusses how sibling incest was viewed as morally abhorrent and was outside Greek tradition. That is why the marriages were controversial. I am fixing the typo again, as I don't think this should really be controversial. Happy to go to WP:DRN if it really is. 69.142.179.131 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please do the edit together with the proper references to the reliable sources, i.e. not only change a word but to make such a change that it be accompanying by the references, so the other editors could see that those claims are properly backed up? I mentioned it in the talk page of User_talk:69.142.179.131
Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, sure.
69.142.179.131 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding! Sorry that I didn't mention it before, but when such changes are made without proper references, people may wrongly consider it vandalism, however, it may be indeed a good-faith edit. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I actually noticed that the reference I googled happened to be the one already in the article, cited in that very line. So now it is cited twice.
69.142.179.131 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You can give names to references in the "ref" tag and then use this tag multiple times only giving the name, without all other attributes. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I was just trying to fix a one word typo, based on the source that was already in that line of the article. Would you mind fixing it?
69.142.179.131 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@69.142.179.131 I am not competent to determine whether it was a typo or intentional word, so I let other editors to decide on substance Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Since this page is semi-protected, and you are not logged in with a user account in wikipedia, it will take time for your edit to be reviewed by editors, they may further decide on whether to accept or revert the change. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

hic thalamum invasit natae vetitosque hymenaeos

Terrible mistranslation. “This man invaded (encroached upon) the wedding-bed of his daughter, a forbidden marriage.” 203.164.227.115 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The word incest doesn't specify that it is about sex

The word incest literally means "impure". There is no specific mention of sex in that word, unlike for example "inbreeding". I've seen news articles about mothers who married their own sons and fathers who married their own daughters. I don't think e.g. "inwedding" is a recognised word, but it is established that sexuality and loyalty (or "romance") are not always both present (e.g. asexual but not "aromantic"). There seems to be no mention of this, not on Child marriage either. This page only mentions sex. Wallby (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources that describe incest excluding sex? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: