this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
81 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
872 readers
442 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cousin marriage isn’t even bad, speaking in terms of risk of genetic diseases, unless you do it repeatedly for generations. The risk of an abnormality from a cousin marriage isn’t much higher than a random marriage.
First cousins have a 3-7% risk of genetic disease vs 2-4% for any two random individuals, with full siblings having about a 50% risk for comparison.
It becomes an issue when a small population group does it repeatedly.
Like western royalty for example, or a small Swedish village perhaps.
Pretty weird to join the war on incest on the side of incest.
Better than siding with the Swedes
Nearly doubling the risk is pretty serious tbh. Definitely worth considering and, although first cousin marriages are legal in way more places than people seem to believe, I do actually think that, combined with the high risk of grooming/problematic dynamics, it's serious enough to outlaw the practice over.
I would like to see a source on the 50% claim! Seems higher than I would expect. 3-7% is about what I recall for first cousins but I don't recall the risk for siblings being that high, and those figures (pretty low for cousins, much, much higher for siblings) just don't feel consistent with one another to me (admittedly based largely on vibes and just an itsy bit of genetics knowledge).
That's... I mean yes that is how it works but it's also not.
It doesn't matter if you do it seventy billion times, the issue with cosanguinity is the increased risk of passing on mutated alleles which would have significantly less risk of being passed on in a non consanguinous coupling. The more consanguinous the more risk of sharing a mutation, hence the greater risk. As soon as you have a mutation you have the risk. If you don't have a mutation you could go full Ptolemy without any problem. Theoretically at least. Of course everyone has minor mutations in their germline so consanguinity is always risky. In that sense inbreeding is both much, much, worse and much better than having kids in your late 30s.
But there is genuinely a problem with consanguinity in some immigrant communities. If they don't marry and reproduce outside a specific social structure, and there's only like 20 of them in the country, then by necessity you end up with consanguinity.
You are effectively describing the same thing. Yes the % risks are indicative for a general population, but they represent exactly what you're saying.
In a sense yes, in a sense no. If you boil it down to "Cousin marriages have an X% of resulting in a genetic disorder" then you give a good overview of one of the many reasons consanguinity is problematic, but it is rhetoric that could also be applied to things which we don't otherwise find problematic (Like geriatric pregnancies), while also conceding legislating on grounds of eugenics.
We've long since realised that (Well in Scandinavia not that terrible long) banning people vy force of law from having children due to risk of genetic abnormalities is bad. But also these people aren't doing this to stop genetic disorders, they are doing it purely because they associate cousin marriages with minority groups that they wish to persecute. The genetic risk is a smoke screen.