In this thread I will post pages and excerpts from Keith Hopkins' comprehensive study into the occurrence of widespread adelphogamy among inhabitants of Graeco-Roman Egypt, and summarize the text in each. Among other things, we will look into official documentation, private letters, genetic effects, and possible reasons for the practice.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Oh great, another incest fetish thread
you make it sound as if we have them often
>tfw Greek and have fricked my aunt
>tfw Greek and have fricked my aunt
Tell us more
Aunt by blood; she is my father's youngest sister, only 2 years older than me. We had a secret relationship for nearly 2 years
>>tfw Greek and have fricked my aunt
Aunt through marriage or blood relative?
I'm not even sure which is worse.
Either this or posting pages about bipolar and/or mania in young kids/adolescents.
Brother-sister marriage was very common in the first three centuries AD, with 15%-21% of all documented marriages involving blood-related siblings. Yet even this high number understates the preference for a sibling spouse, as a number of men and women simply wouldn't have had an eligible opposite-sex partner to choose from among their siblings.
>Brother-sister marriage was very common in the first three centuries AD, with 15%-21% of all documented marriages involving blood-related siblings.
Didn't people at the time notice that this was a terrible for the children that were created through sibling marriage?
Surely they'd realise that kids born to sibling parents would be more likely to be dribbling spastics?
See
&
we inbreed lab rats for 60+ generations and the results are healthy. Past a certain point, inbreeding will actually "purify" the bloodline so that negative side effects aren't a problem.
Interesting. Thanks for the information anons. I learned something new today.
The premodern age was an environment where even unrelated couples would have produced unviable kids in ~50% of cases on average. If at the beginning an additional 5% or 10% more died (reminder deleterious mutations don't usually manifest themselves as extra fingers or some other extremely conspicuous aberration) because of inbreeding, that really wouldn't have registered to most people that were already resigned to seeing many of their kids not make it past infancy, let alone into adulthood. After time, those negative consequences would become less frequent as the entire population purged those very same genetic diseases from the collective gene pool, making it even less of a problem in the long run even as inbreeding rates remained consistently high.
The very existence of such a phenomenon at high rates and during an extensive period of time puts into question numerous arguments often provided for the incest taboo, such as Levi-Strauss' assertion that incest threatens civilization by inhibiting the exchange of women, that close-kin incest destroys the family unit, Westermarck Effect, etc.
There are several recorded cases of commoner sibling marriages during the rule of native Egyptian dynasties preceding the Greek and later Roman conquest, but their sparsity suggests that to the extent that they were practiced, they were not frequent, and it's impossible to prove which were full-siblings and which were only half-siblings. Regardless, contemporary writers make it clear that the practice preceded Roman rule to an unknown extent.
An example of a Roman census return, where the 69 year old father and head of the family casually notes to the scribe that his son and daughter were married, with the 21 year old brother married to his 13 year old full-sister.
The surviving census returns show a bias toward the more affluent and educated families, but not too much, ensuring that poorer families are still well, if somewhat under, represented.
Two examples of official registration of children born from sibling couplings, including one from parents who were themselves born from a brother-sister marriage. In a third family, a bride was the product of three consecutive generations of brother-sister marriages.
Economic explanations for sibling marriages are weak because in Egypt they would have only offered very small financial benefits relative to exogamous marriages.
Marriage agreements between siblings took into account the possibility of divorce, and made the necessary provisions should it eventually happen.
The evidence makes clear that the marriages were not symbolic, but were intended to produce children and served that function effectively.
Determining blood relation in personal correspondence is much more difficult simply due to the uncertainty in whether a man refers to his wife as 'sister' due to her being his actual sister or whether it was merely a term of endearment. At least one surviving example however, includes a series of letters between a governor and his sister-wife, who is confirmed to be his full-sibling in their own correspondence. Among those is the shown letter in which the concerned sister expresses extreme distress out of fear for her brother-husband's safety during the israeli revolt.
Beyond that certain case, there are other examples of affectionate letters from probable-but-not-certain brother-husbands and their sister-wives.
feels weird to read love messages from so many years ago. voyeuristic. imagine a bunch of people reading your private stuff way in the future
Author tackles the big question: if first degree inbreeding was so common, why didn't it genetically wreak havoc upon the population?
The answer is that consistently reproducing with siblings, coupled with pre-modern infant mortality, would over time efficiently flush out a lot of the deleterious recessive traits in the population that are responsible for detrimental health effects usually associated with offspring of consanguine unions. That would make the population a lot more able to tolerate inbreeding over the generations. Families would also eventually be forced to outbreed, such as whenever they produced solely children of the same sex, further annulling the negative effects in the population.
so interbreeding is actually a good thing in premodern societies?
It would benefit the population as a whole by forcing otherwise 'silent' harmful mutations to express themselves and ensure they don't proliferate in a population. This would come at the cost of fricking some families up at first (namely those who possess high genetic load), but in doing so it would select for genetically healthier individuals, which would achieve reproductive success through healthy children, while those who possess a lot of mutations would get selected out of the gene pool. After a few generations, you get a population where those mutations are substantially less common than before. So it has its benefits, but it would initially come at a cost for certain unfortunate people who are loaded with traits for recessive genetic diseases.
Egyptology is so fun!
In a sense, the practice is helpful so long as it it continues to be practiced, as the gene pool has already been cleansed from harmful mutations. If at any point it stops then the mutations will become once again more widespread and going through the process to "cleanse" again would be costly in terms of lives lost to genetic diseases.
so basically yes, it's a good thing for the population as a whole in premodern societies. why was it uncommon and even taboo in most parts of the world then, other than in egypt in this particular time frame?
Inbreeding is bad because it increases the chances of a child being born with two copies of a recessive allele (recessive = you need two copies for it to express, dominant = you only need one). Notice that it increases the CHANCE of that happening, not the certainty. It's not that it's beneficial (the recessive alleles stay in the population) but rather that the kids with them die more easily so they don't drag society down. Thus society is more robust to incest, but it's not actually aided by it.
You COULD do tactical inbreeding and infanticide to breed the recessive alleles out but you don't need inbreeding for that (Jews do this regarding Tay-Sachs).
You're assuming that all recessive alleles are bad news.
What if the recessive allele is beneficial?
Blue eyes are recessive; why is that bad?
Exactly, if you and your sister carry a recessive trait for 300 IQ superhumans then inbreeding is superior.
There are many recessive alleles that are beneficial: many of the ones associated with intelligence or immune system strength, for example. The problem is that good recessive alleles are not nearly as beneficial as bad recessive alleles are CATASTROPHICALLY malaficial. Good recessive alleles result in high IQ, helpful personality traits, a slightly better immune system, bad recessive alleles result in microcephaly, agenesis of the heart or lungs, Sickle Cell, etc. Bad alleles are worse than good alleles are good. To put this in risk management terms: chance of occurrence * damage/benefit if it occurs = risk/antirisk, the risk of bad alleles will always be higher than the risk of good alleles as in a brother-sister pairing (where all recessive alleles have a 25% chance of showing up with two copies in a child) the damage from bad recessive alleles will always be greater than the benefit from good recessive alleles.
So, a population has to do a balancing act subject to two conditions:
>minimize bad recessive allele buildup
>maximize good recessive allele buildup
(maximizing good dominant allele buildup and minimizing bad dominant allele buildup can be ignored as something that is "obvious" and built into sexual selection)
The mathematically optimal solution to this is to marry people who aren't your close relatives but are of the same race/ethnicity as you. This maximizes the chance of good alleles while also minimizing the chance of bad alleles. Marrying outside of your race/ethnicity lowers the chance of bad recessive alleles even further but also reduces the chance of good alleles to basically zero.
This is why, as was discussed upthread, in a situation with skyhigh child mortality incest isn't as problematic as the kids saddled with the high mutational load die off quickly. This is how dog breeding works: most of the puppies are just put in a sack and drowned, only a small percentage survive to adulthood.
This is about right. Yes, if you and your sister have good genes, you could make a very smart baby. But that would be moot should you both also happen to carry a gene that results in a malformed heart and both pass a copy of it onto the same offspring.
Any present day country permissive of high rates of inbreeding would require widespread application of assisted reproductive technology to prevent an increase in the rates of children with congenital diseases. Genetic screening of prospective parents, embryo selection, etc... could go a long way already if it was mandated and widely available. Proper genetic engineering too whenever it becomes reliable, effective, and affordable.
Another solution would be to normalize post-natal infanticide of defective children Sparta-style, but killing babies outside of the womb is obviously not going to happen in our civilized society, and that's a good thing.
Thinking more about it, if a person like some of the anons here wanted to advocate for a retvrn to old Egyptian family values while avoiding the imposition of legal restrictions on the production of biological offspring, being 'pro-choice' seems mandatory to make it feasible. Pagan moral attitudes for upholding pagan marital practices. Gotta leave an opt-out for parents should they find out their unborn kids have congenital issues.
>sparta abortions are le bad!
That's how our countries ended up full of Black folk and pakis and other assorted filth though!
If it was a choice between accepted infanticide and countries full of nogs, I'd choose the former because I'm not a Christian who thinks saving some babies is worth permanently destroying our societies, but that dilemma is not what the West faces right now so I see no reason to want open infanticide. Abortion theoretically gives us a lot of the same results while still allowing us to maintain our self-image as so much more 'civilized' than child-murdering barbarians of pagan times, anyway. It's how Iceland successfully rid itself of Downies. In regards to managing genetic fitness in the general population, technology should very soon allow us to get the benefits of high selection pressure, specifically having good genes proliferate and bad ones die out, with none of the costs such as high mortality and atrocious living conditions. This will be good news for groups with small founder populations such as Ashkies or simply people who want to frick their siblings while not having to worry about the heightened risks to any children resulting from it, and also to a lesser degree everyone else because every coupling has some chance of giving you disfigured mutant morons.
I can accept the need for cruelty, but not if the benefits can be achieved through non-cruel methods just as easily. Spartan eugenics had their uses, but we don't really need them anymore.
Author confesses that he isn't able to confidently ascertain the reason behind these marriages, and that many of the theories attempting to formulate one fall short in one way or another.
Because they never happened, it’s fake and gay.
How?
Incestgays have taken over academia, and are falsifying evidence to push their agenda onto the population. Can't trust anything
yes... YES... SOON ENOUGH SIBLING MARRIAGES WILL BE THE NORM!
While having deities that are simultaneously siblings and spouses is historically very common across the world, including in many cultures that prohibited incest, Osiris' and Isis' dual relationship is much more central to their identity than most other divine brother-sister couples. Even if not the cause, it possibly helped legitimize such relationships.
This sibling-lover emphasis can be seen in religious chants such as The Songs of Isis and Nephthys.
There is also an example of a popular folk tale from native Egyptians which portrayed a royal brother and sister successfully overcoming the interest of the family to marry each other. The reader or listener was obviously meant to sympathize with the romantic sibling couple.
> The reader or listener was obviously meant to sympathize with the romantic sibling couple.
Naturally.
Egyptian culture, unlike most pre-industrial cultures, did recognize and celebrate what we know as 'romantic' love. Author ties this to women's control over property, which existed in Ancient Egypt.
To no one's surprise. It's like people think humans were born yesterday.
Author believes that sibling marriages were generally done out of individual desires of the participants, and not due to the collective interest of the family. He notes that on average there doesn't appear to have been a large age gap between brothers and the sisters they married. He states:
>I come to the tentative conclusion that Egyptian brothers and sisters married each other because they themselves wanted to.
The practice ceased to be tolerated by the Roman authorities in 212/3, when Emperor Caracalla conferred universal citizenship upon most male inhabitants of the empire, however it's probable that the practice survived illicitly until Christianization, as possibly hinted by Diocletian's decree against incestuous marriages in 295. But by the time Christianization was in full-swing, sibling marriages mostly and eventually entirely ceased in the province.
Fin.
>Christianity ruining things again
What a paradigm shift those centuries of the Late Antiquity were.
Anyway, what did contemporary Romans and Greeks think of this practice? I know israelites had no nice things to say about incest.
Philo (who lived in Alexandria where he would have seen the practice in person) makes it clear in his writings that he thought it was shameful. Seneca wrote that if you wanted to marry your half-sister, you could go to Athens, and if you wanted to marry your full-sister, you'd go to Alexandria, but he didn't go on a tirade against it. Romans definitely thought it was bad, but favored turning a blind eye rather than calling attention to it until the 3rd century.
Egyptians are disgusting freaks
good thing the muslims made them extinct
The middle east would have been a much better place without abrahamic nonsense
Ironically, inbreeding is the only thing that coptic egyptians and arabs have in common.
they were raising cities and temples when the greeks and romans were still illiterate forrest monkeys
>miscegenation
the egyptians would be the ones miscgenating to marry gayreeks and romans
>they were raising cities and temples when the greeks and romans were still illiterate forrest monkeys
t only goes to show that barbaric peoples can sometimes appear civilized.
even in the earliest dynasties, egyptians were always ruled by foreigners
I don’t give a shit. Better mudhuts than sisterfricking freaks you vile subhuman.
Sisterfricking is better than mudhuts, in fact it is better than many things due to being among the highest ideals a society can strive for.
The purpose seems pretty obvious to me. To prevent miscegenation with the local Egyptian population and stay pure.
It's possible that it was a minor influencing factor, but it couldn't have been a decisive reason as:
1. Egyptian Greeks were high enough in numbers (~250k-300k) that they shouldn't have had trouble finding other Greek spouses outside of their immediate family, especially when they usually lived in segregated settlements where they would have been concentrated.
2. Among families that were shown to practice sibling marriage, there are occasional ones with clearly native Egyptian names, so both ethnic groups practiced it.
Now you wonder why native Egyptians started this whole thing. Did the incentive to marry out (joining families to build clans) just not exist for some reason? I get the impression even this author can't explain why.
The picture that we have from the evidence heavily suggests that sibling-marriage was a rare occurrence during Pharaonic Egypt but it did exist to a degree outside of the royal family. Then during the Ptolemaic dynasty, it suddenly became a lot more common. At which exact point in those 3 centuries, we can again only guess due the Ptolemies not leaving us with thorough surviving documentation like the Romans, but probably not before Ptolemy II's marriage to his sister Arsinoe II in 278/7 BC. By the time Romans fully took over in the late 1st century BC, it was a widely established practice.
My personal pet theory that could easily be (and tbqh likely is) completely wrong, and drawing on Hopkins' own observation that the cause for the original spread of sibling marriage isn't necessarily the same as the force that kept it going through the centuries, is that it was at first encouraged by the Ptolemaic state among the Egyptian Greeks. Unlike Egyptians who saw it normal that Pharaohs married their siblings, the Greek ethnic minority that the Ptolemies relied on as their main powerbase didn't originally view their monarch as a god-king who was permitted such liberties. So in order to reduce that friction, they attempted to normalize it by encouraging similar marriages among the Greeks and succeeded. After that, the practice took on a life of its own, becoming a part of the Egyptian identity, and was simply seen as convenient and desirable by the participants. Thus it outlived the Ptolemies themselves.
Of course, this theory is entirely baseless, but hardly more than any other offered by various scholars. It could be easily be that Greeks didn't need encouragement, and instead simply imitated their rulers willingly after a while. Even if there is some truth in it, it probably ignores a multitude of other factors at play that elude us. The only reason why I find it slightly more satisfying than the others commonly provided is that it at least explains why sibling marriages happened in Egypt and not in most other places that we know of. Any material explanation such as financial benefits and keeping property in the family, for example, has to contend with the issue that those benefits of sibling marriages, to the extent they were real, would have applied elsewhere across the globe. Yet most of the world maintained the taboo, and Egypt didn't. It cannot explain why that is. My theory at least lacks that issue, because it relies on a unique set of factors that would have applied in Ptolemaic Egypt and not elsewhere.
But of course, that doesn't mean at all it is right, either. Without some major new discovery (and it's not impossible that there is; there's a huge trove of Egyptian papyri that is still being analyzed and deciphered to this day), we'll be all left guessing.
we know egyptian spouses addressed each other as 'brother' and 'sister'. I wonder how much did this custom contribute to the myth of egyptian incest by simply being misunderstood?
The author already addressed that here
, and it's irrelevant as scholars have long been aware of that. We know sibling marriage was widespread because of official documents which included explicit genealogies, not because of the way Egyptians addressed each other. How else would you interpret "from his wife who is his sister of the same father and of the same mother" as shown here
?
How furiously were you jerking off while typing this?
Aw man that's hot.
I learned something new and interesting today, thank you anon
IQfy that way
>most informative and educational thread on IQfy in weeks
>all because the topic is tied to anon's sibling incest fetish
man this board is in dire straits now that i thinjk about it
Classical homosexuality, classical pedastry, harems, sex slaves, bride stealing, degeneracy has led many people down the road of the historian.
One hand in the history books, the other down the pants.
It's unfortunate, but those zased milk drinking aryan steppe peoples did love to lay with horses...
bronze age collapse was g*d's punishment on the decadent peoples of the near east
This isn't the case, the Hittite legal code also banned sex with horses and mules it just punished it differently than sex with pigs or sheep.
Yeah but the punishment for it is just "you can't become a priest now."
The punishment was outlawry by being made religiously unclean. This meant that anyone could just go and torture you to death for fun (although I suppose a powerful enough horse fricker could just have his own micro government ala the mafia).
>why the difference though
Because the Hittite law codes are the result of the Hashu (the Hittite Emperor) passing judgement on cases, they aren't centrally dictated laws crafted by a legislature. In case A, the Hashu thought it was appropriate that the sheep fricker get executed, in case B, the Hashu thought it was appropriate that the horse fricker get declared an outlaw. Maybe he was just feeling lazy about the whole thing.
Maybe the Hashu understood the deep desires the Horussy cast upon men...
>incest in other places
Inca? Hawaii? Japan? I guess none of those places had anything like what is described here, but I see the celebration of mythological sibling love (both romantic and familial, sometimes inseparable) as a common factor at play here.
Zoroastrian Iran. Funny thing is, Romans continued b***hing about their subjects practicing incest and marrying their close-kin in opposition to imperial law well into the 6th century, but those later complaints were aimed at the provinces bordering the Persian (Sassanid) Empire with substantial Zoroastrian populations. Those would have practiced parent-child marriages along with brother-sister ones, though, whereas Egyptians solely practiced brother-sister marriages (Pharaohs like Ramses II did marry their daughters occasionally, but that was it)
TLDR version can be found here:
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin
In the Persian context, incest plus early age for marriage seems like an attempt to compensate for both high infant mortality and the high mortality and long term absences of military service age males. They wanted to maximize the chance of a man who went off to war at age 20 or so to already have one or more sons at home when he left. Even if he did not die in service, his opportunities to impregnate his wife would be limited after then and until his 40s he would spend more time away from his home than at home.
See also their concern for having replacement children https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ayoken which also required incestuous relationships.
>Masʿudi mentions the Zoroastrian incest (Moruj I, p. 63) and reports that Ardašir I told his people to marry their close relatives in order to tighten the family ties (Moruj II, p. 163)
>Ardashir I, also known as Ardashir the Unifier (180–242 AD), was the founder of the Persian Sasanian Empire.
State-promoted incest?
I remember reading how Xerxes had extremely disabled children as a result of xwedodah. Everyone who visited pre-Islamic Iran noted xwedodah, and all but the Egyptians were disgusted by it. The Muslim conquerers initially allowed the Zoroastrians to practice xwedodah (because dhimmis are allowed to live by their own religious laws), but they ridiculed it so much that Zoroastrians ended up abandoning xwedodah except in regards to cousins.
Tbh, while extreme xwedodah was likely the norm amongst the elites and clergy, I think xwedodah based on cousin marriage was more the thing amongst the masses.
Then find a girl like you and shut out the fantasy (whether it be by watching other porn or abstinence) or limit it to avoid destroying your brain. Those who engage in incest even if consensual tend to be extremely fricked in the head. France has legalized incest since the Revolution (and the Napoleonic code spread such laws over Europe) and abuse is rampant. Even cats and dogs understand how immoral/stupid incest is.
I actually don't think xwedodah produced that many children. If you look at it in the whole context of Zororastrian faith and what we know of Sasassind civil law, specifically the easy (for males) divorce and the early age allowed for girls to marry- before they should have been capable of having children. The total seems to show that xwedodah was largely practiced in the natal home and that the consanguineous marriage was only continued if a male child was born. It was primarily sex education, since what was really important was getting young couples to have lots of sex very quickly upon marriage, before their young husbands had to assume their military occupations, with their high mortality rates and long absences.
Also there was, in general, a dislike for "wasting" a womans menstrual cycle just like the injunctions against men "wasting" their sperm by jerking off.
And also, women who had practiced xwedodah were not considered "used goods" they were still marriageable, and they church tried to teach that they were, in fact very valuable because they had proved their "dutifulness" by performing with their male relatives it would be assumed that they would perform just as well in their permanent home. Thus the xwedodah relationships in the natal home were full scale 'training' marriages.
Indian Parsis traditionally consider cousin marriage and procreation (though nowadays they have secularized) to be permitted which is a relic from the days of xwedodah.Extreme xwedodah practiced widescale outside the elite seems like genetic holocaust, I assumed cousin marriage was the xwedodah practiced by the majority to give them the benefit of the doubt. But marriage in the old days was usually associated with procreation unless it was something like Shia mutah. And there are quotations from Zoroastrian scripture talking about how pure-blooded children of xwedodah are iirc. Otherwise wouldn't they have used some sort of shitty birth control to prevent the likes of Xerxe's children (like how Romans drove a plant species to extinction in the name of birth control)?
"According to the Pahlavi Rivāyat (ed. Williams, chap. 8a), three primordial xwēdōdahs provide the mythical prototypes for the human ones. That of a father and daughter producing a son is like that of Ohrmazd and Spandarmad producing Gayōmard; that of a son and a mother producing a brother and sister is like that of Gayōmard and Spandarmad producing Mašī and Mašyānī; and that of a brother and sister producing further pairs of brothers and sisters is like that of Mašī and Mašyānī. These three were extolled by Ohrmazd as he explained to Zarathustra the advantages of xwēdōdah, calling it the greatest good deed of all."
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin
Even if the Muslims failed, Christianity would've toppled the shitshow of pre-islamic Iran.
By scrapping the Zoroastrian caste system and demilitarizing Iran compared to the old days, the Arabs ended up allowing Iranian intellectuals to bloom like how WW2 gave birth to modern computers.
Pre-Islamic Iranians did have some achievements (like the first fridges and windmills)
Well it definitely does not look like the Zororastrians achieved what they intended. This was a fertility cult really, but they removed essentially all restrictions on male reproduction. They were free to marry women as soon as the women could bear children, they were free to practice polygyny if they could afford it. They were free to use the women of their own natal families. And yet they did not produce more young men than the cultures that surrounded them.
Indian parsis nowadays also suffer low birth rates and are becoming extinct. Traditional zoroastrianism generally forbids conversion and they dont outmarry. enough
But in Achmedian and Parthian times, Zororastrians did proselytize, targeting other Indo-European cultures that surrounded them like the Armenians, the Greco-Bactrians, steppe tribes like the Saka. Things went bad when Zoroastrianism became the state religion of Persia in the time of Shapur I. After that it lost its vitality since submitting to the religion meant becoming a vassal of the Persian empire. Lots of peoples on the borders of the empire kicked that shit right out because of that.
Ugh, what could have been.
Frick pisslam.
"According to Dēnkard 3.80, the three kinds of “linkage” (ham-paywandīh) achieved in xwēdōdah are “father and daughter,” “son and birth-mother” (burdār), and “brother and sister” (ed. Dresden, p. [53]; ed. Madan, p. 73; tr. de Menasce, pp. 85-86). Similarly, the Pahlavi Rivāyat gives the hierarchy of xwēdōdah as one’s mother, daughter, sister, but the rules are complicated by the fact that one’s sister may also be one’s daughter (ed. Williams, chap. 8d). According to Dēnkard 3.80, the linkage will be the more efficient the closer the relationship between the two is: “of the same species” (ham-srādag), “closely connected” (nazd-paywand), and nabānazdišt, an Avestan term of uncertain meaning, but approximately “closest relatives” (ed. Dresden, p. [53]; ed. Madan, p. 73; tr. de Menasce, p. 86). The best xwēdōdah is that by which a son sires a son-brother with his birth mother, because, having come from her body, he is nearer to his origin; thus offspring from siblings with the same parents is more valuable than when the parents are different (ed. Dresden, p. [55]; ed. Madan, p. 75; tr. de Menasce, p. 87; see also Macuch, 1991, pp. 143-45)."
this is clearly a pretense for child sex abuse. these guys would be molesters rotting in prison for touching their female relatives today
>judging people 2k years ago that they did not have age of consent at 16+
Reading history books must be painful for you
Do cats and dogs really avoid incest? I remember reading that they weren't bothered by it. Also, consider the amount of inbred dog strains around.
Also, not all brother sister incest is abusive. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_and_Marguerite_de_Ravalet
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_and_Marguerite_de_Ravalet
If they had been born 200 years later when Napoleon was alive and abolished laws against incest, they would have lived and been allowed to be with each other. 🙁
>I think xwedodah based on cousin marriage was more the thing amongst the masses.
It's possible that it was more common but it's also unlikely that close-kin marriage (1st and 2nd degree) among commoners was very rare as the paper
indicates. Roman emperors wouldn't put out repeated laws for either cousin marriage (the Catholic Church only started cracking down on it in the medieval period) or for something that occurred very rarely (in which case it would have eluded their attention).
Did you bother reading that guy's post? It's not about finding a girl like you(which is anyways impossible lol, at best you can find someone who shares a large interest with you and that too after much excrutiating trial and error that even zoomers don't have enough time or energy to go through, I believe most people who give such advice is basically sub 90 IQ tards who can't grasp the passage of time and time periods, your advice works for zalphas and alphas, not anyone older). It's about sharing a large part of your life and sharing a large part of your formative years with a single person. No woman whom you met later in life can meet that, at best childhood romance can blossom similarly like this anon here said
Dogs dont care about incest moron. I breed dogs (with my penisweenus ofc)
are they smashed and slammed?
>Even cats and dogs understand how immoral/stupid incest is.
I see you've never owned an intact dog before.
Church promoted incest. The faith encouraged pronouncing it as a blessing and a relief from all but the most serious sins.
>According to the Pahlavi Rivāyat (ed. Williams, chap. 8a), three primordial xwēdōdahs provide the mythical prototypes for the human ones. That of a father and daughter producing a son is like that of Ohrmazd and Spandarmad producing Gayōmard; that of a son and a mother producing a brother and sister is like that of Gayōmard and Spandarmad producing Mašī and Mašyānī; and that of a brother and sister producing further pairs of brothers and sisters is like that of Mašī and Mašyānī. These three were extolled by Ohrmazd as he explained to Zarathustra the advantages of xwēdōdah, calling it the greatest good deed of all.
>‘Forsake the xvētōdas’, says Ahriman, the embodiment of evil, to the demon of wrath, ‘because I do not know a remedy for it; since whoever approaches (his) wife 4 times (in a xvētōdas marriage) shall not be separated from the alliance of Ōhrmazd and Amahraspand’s’ [the Holy Immortals]
Basically the only thing the devil in Zoroastrian cosmology is unable to fight against is sex with your own sister, daughter, or mother, so he begs people to stop doing it.
What kind of drugs was Zoroaster on? Hindu scripture considers incest to be a sin and Zoroastrianism has a lot in common with that faith.
honestly i feel like you could find equally weird stuff if you really go digging in deep religious texts and theological works of most if not all well-established religions. they all have shit that to an outsider look like the product of a deranged man on a bad drug trip. a muslim will laugh at zoroastrians for this but tell you with a straight face about things like muhammad's flying donkey and how they have 72 big titted houris waiting to frick them all day long in jannah
Ignore the CKII larpers. Prezoroastrian Iranic society practiced strict clan exogamy, meaning that you could only marry outside of your clan (which was dozens if not hundreds of people in size). There's no real equivalent to this in modern Western society, so the closest would be this: imagine if it was a taboo to marry someone of your own race or someone who was from the same city as you. Politically, when Zoroaster rejected the prezoroastrian religious system, its clergy, its norms, etc, he had to form his own clan (or rather when he apostatized he left his original clan so he had to found his own). When one converts to Zoroastrianism (or is inducted into it upon adulthood) then you join his clan and are thus adopted by Zoroaster (into his clan).
The obvious problem with this is that there's no way for Zoroastrians (who are part of Zoroaster's clan) to marry each other (as they'd have to leave Zoroaster's clan and thus marry a nonzoroastrian). Enter Xwedodah, which existed in nonzoroastrian Persia as a special form of clan endogamous marriage used for ensuring power arrangements inside a clan were maintained. Zoroaster just made this basically universal for Zoroastrians. As the taboo on clan endogamy faded xwedodah was increasingly reserved for the elite as it was a more extravagant social phenomena than a normal marriage (which could be done clan endogamously as the taboo was gone by this point).
Xwedodah is translated as "incest" because that's the closest thing that we have to clan endogamy taboos in the West. It doesn't have any implications of fricking your sister. This is similar to the problems with translating the Latin INCESTVM as "incest" despite it meaning unclean sexual relations of any kind (which include incest but also things like fricking your brother's wife or homosexuality).
>but the greeks/arabs said...
Those same sources say that the Persians were cannibals who fricked dogs, making up nasty shit about your enemies is geopolitics 101.
>but the primordial man and woman...
Were Zoroastrians so they had to engage in xwedodah because they were the only two people in the planet and thus there were no clan outsiders to mate with ON TOP OF xwedodah being the elaborate and highly formalized form of marriage.
This is, of course, what is going on in
and
: they aren't shacking brothers and sisters up, they're trying to make the clans replenish their numbers internally instead of having to do elaborate marital horsetrading just to make one more fricking warrior. A similar process happened in India, it's why the Buddha's dad kept him from fricking his wife for years.
why does MHD which is widely accepted to be a product of a jurist who lived in the sasanian empire and worked in its legal system explicitly deal with inheritance of offspring from bro/sis and dad/daughter marriages? i could buy that some pulled ceremonial shit to get religious good boy points without actually sexually doing anything with their family member, but i dont see any reason to believe that was the rule. especially when this thread proves you can get a population to actually frick their immediate relatives at high rates if you do whatever the frick ptolemies did.
>making up nasty shit about your enemies is geopolitics 101.
when one enemy accuses you of something is one thing, but all of them say the same thing there is probably something there. romans accused carthaginians of sacrificing infants. that was roman propaganda, but it was also true.
I once had a persian start calling me names after bringing up xwedodah in a history convo. Did not intend to provoke him or anything. They are very defensive about this.
Persians are a people genetically afflicted with intense butthurt, no matter their religion.
They peaked too early, and never achieved the same level of success again. That haunts them.
Just like Greeks and Italians then
>Japan
I am still confused on ancient Japanese attitudes on sibling incest. Imperial family included half-sibling marriages, but no full-siblings that I know of. A paper I read a year ago classified ancient Japan as either allowing full-sibling incest or just half-sibling incest. The guy who wrote the paper was unsure himself from what I remember. With the lack of full-sibling marriages in the Imperial dynasty, I guess it's the latter, but maybe someone else knows more.
Those were probably macedonians not egyptians
Also, it means non pharaohs practiced it too
There were native Egyptians who practiced it too.
So what's the best way to approach a historical investigation about a particular fetish?
I wonder if adelphogamy would've spread out of Egypt if Mark Antony had won.
2 years back there was an article about widespread cousin marriage in Pakistan and it pointed out that women often preferred marrying their cousins over the idea of marrying a stranger, as it meant they would stay a lot closer to the family they always knew instead of being thrown into a possible wolves' den. Could be something like that could have played a part in this too. But Pakis are also a really unique breed in some really bad ways so perhaps it's unwise to extrapolate from them.
I read that study. It was published by dawn(which is kind of a left leaning news paper in Pakistan) who wanted to disprove the popular claim in that arranged marriage was happier than so called "love marriages"(Pakistan has a similar marriage culture like India where most marriages are decided by or at least consulted with parents and called "arranged marriages" and dating before marriage is rare and called "love marriage").
Their conclusion was that the so called "happy arranged marriages" were mostly cousin marriages which were basically "love marriages in disguise" as both the partners where familiar with the other for a long time while "arranged marriages" between strangers were even more miserable than so called 'love marriages'.
I think there was even a video I saw on YouTube where a guy claimed feminism failed in the Islamic world initially because most women knew their husbands since childhood and both cherished each other and feminism only got more and more popular in Islamic world when women started to marry people they met later in life.
The lesson is, if you couldn't marry your imouto, then at least marry your osananajimis. And happy id mubarak my fellow incestpakis.
That whole region went south when Zoroastrianism lost. We could have had an empire of sisterfrickers spanning from the Hindukush to the Eastern Mediterranean, UGH. Instead it's all Allah and Jihad now.
As in many Muslim countries, intergenerational households are commonplace in Pakistan. The new bride is typically the lowest status person in the household until she has a son. If she is from outside the family, she will normally get ordered around by her in-laws and may even be subject to violence if she disobeys or does things unsatisfactorily in more severe families. She may even be subjected to sexual violence by other family members during this low status period.
These are deeply patriarchal societies, so it is difficult for women to escape these situations or to be believed by others when they try to speak out. Furthermore, a divorced woman has very low social status, and will get treated horribly by her own family (who will see her as a burden) and struggle to get any suitors outside of widowed men or men looking for second/third/fourth wives (essentially concubinage), so many women will end up putting up with things and hope for a son.
Cousin marriage is attractive in these societies because your chances of getting brutalised are far lower if there's a family tie between the parents of the groom and the parents of the bride. They typically won't see the bride as low status, they'll instead be more likely to treat her like a daughter. From what I've seen, this is typically far more of a factor in cousin marriage than financial/inheritance considerations (which is typically what drove it in pre-modern Europe).
>woman in Pakistan
If reincarnation were real, you would have to had done something really, REALLY wrong in your previous life to deserve this fate
Adelphogamy is a bit of a mouthful. How about delphism?
I need someone to make a big screencap of all this. I'm going to work and don't have the time for it. If nothing is done, I'll see to it when I get back, hope it's still up.
Stay pure my brethren.
Here:
https://files.catbox.moe/5m591d.png
Due to IQfy's file resolution limitations (no more than 10000 pixels in either height or width), can only directly upload it in two parts
Just came back. Bless your heart anon.
Blessed thread
Greeks were opposed to incest until settling in Egypt at which point they started eagerly practicing it. If it happened once, it can happen again.
Anon... I'm sorry to break it to you, but ptolemaic egypt does not exist anymore...
Roman Empire fell, yet it had people aping it over a thousand years later because each believed they were its ideological successor. It is only dead if you stop believing in it.
Why do so many people on IQfy want to frick their sisters
The main appeal of the fantasy is that they could get an affectionate relationship without going through the hoops and loops of courting and dating some stranger woman for the most "normal" aligned ones who probably don't have a sister or don't see their sisters that way. Then there's some genuine people wishing they could frick their real sisters like me.
Describe your sister, anon. Why do you pine after her?
gross. i have a sister and would never. absolutely revolting thought
It's not about intercourse, it's about the platonic love. For the hopeless romantic, marrying your sister defies comparison.
it's very unkind to your sister to let everyone online know that she is "revolting". she doesn't deserve mockery for something that is completely out of her control.
Nonsense. All I see is purely academic interest ITT.
Blood-related or no deal.
As someone who has this fantasy from time to time and has done some introspection regarding this, it’s not necessarily about it being with your sister, at least not for me. I just really like the idea of someone you have shared a large part of your life with, so you understand eachother and have a lot of memories together. Someone you’re comfortable with and have a special intimate bond without any expectations on either side of sex or the disgusting materialistic hypertransactional expectations that people typically express when dating. The idea of experimenting and exploring sexuality with someone you already have an emotional connection with yet the relationship doesn’t revolve around sex and it isn’t even regularly expected is very appealing to me. The strange innocence of two people very close with eachother and that feel safe with eachother deciding together to explore and express this side of themselves in a relatively casual way with eachother is just something I find very alluring.
I personally attribute these fantasies to emotional neglect during childhood. I just want a companion who loves me and understands me more than anything, with no pretense of sex or the straightjacket that is the roles and expectations of “boyfriend/girlfriend”. We are equals, mirror image, and occasionally we just so happen to play around with eachother sometimes.
Incestuous and pseudo-incestuous scenarios are massively popular sexual fantasies, as evinced by their prevalence within algorithm-driven porn productions.
they never had one
I've heard of the legalization of incest in France, mentioned in this thread already, before but there is so little discussion about the contemporary practice in that country it's easy to forget it's even allowed.
Anyone has more info on that? It's even practised or just a meme law from a bygone age?
I'm not French but last I recall seeing the public discussion of France's incest laws in media was when one of their politicians raped his step-son.
In any case, French law does permit incest between adults but the stigma remains so anyone consenting will keep to themselves to risk avoiding social suicide. That leaves only rape and molestation victims to come out and give their story.
From a different paper. One scholar (Brent Shaw) attempted to blame the sibling marriages on Greek racism.
...But his theory encountered the problem that records show that, yes, native Egyptians practiced it too.
Greek settlers in Egypt weren't the only Greek diaspora in antiquity who adopted full-sibling marriage. In Dura Europos on the Euphrates, there is evidence of full-sibling marriages as well. Although these are attributed to Persian influence, as Ptolemaic rule never extended that far into Asia.
Sibling marriages were noted by the Roman writers of the day, like Seneca who commented that you can go "all the way" in regards to which sister you can marry if you go to Alexandria.
How come European peoples like the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Iberians, Italics, etc. weren't as endogamous?
Neolithic Ireland did feature, at the very least, elite first degree incest (although whether parent-child or brother-sister is unclear).
Adding to that, it's safe to say inbreeding within the nuclear family was more-or-less taboo in all known European history. But it's not impossible that at some point, in some corner of Europe during some specific time-frame, exceptions to that rule existed. Archeologist lucked out with Egypt because the combination of the very dry soil and climate allowed for the preservation of a huge trove of written evidence that was not possible in most other places after 2000 years. Alexandria itself was tragically one of the exceptions to that rule within Egypt, having been built on coastal area adjacent to a marshland. Keith Hopkins points out in the attached picture that none of the evidence presented in this thread comes from the largest city itself, as sadly none survived to the present day. It's all from various other Egyptian towns and villages.
Without those favorable conditions that allowed for preservation of such thorough evidence, there's a chance that the phenomenon of widespread sibling marriage would have simply escaped attention of historians. It's not impossible that more exceptions to the incest taboo have existed but simply are lost to time.
As for known history, Europeans have been arguably more hostile to incest (not just close-kin but to a degree extended too) as a result of the church, who sought to break extended kinship ties and loyalties in order to expand its own influence. Before that, it doesn't seem they were opposed to it any more than many cultures elsewhere in the world.
According to one Armenian source, when the Sassanids invaded Armenia in the 5th century, they encouraged both the local nobility and the peasantry to take their sisters and daughters as wives.
So basically all the sociological arguments against sibling incest are bullshit or at the very least immensely overblown? Damn, theorycels can't stop losing.
>So basically all the sociological arguments against
>are bullshit or at the very least immensely overblown
Unironically what else is new?
It's just that you can't help but notice a lot of the usual arguments against incest that are constantly brought up in other threads dealing with the subject, both on IQfy and other boards, are noticeably missing in this thread.
(Me)
>Incest must mean abuse in most cases
>Muh power dynamics
>You're destroying the family
>Society would collapse
...etc. Not many proponents of those arguments around, while usually there's always one of them dropping by to repeat the same lines you see posted over and over again.
this reminds me of the interviews regarding incest Jonathon Haidt did and how everyone involved had a purple-flecked nutty at the thought but couldn't defend it if they were denied the refuge of religion. Kek.
Without religion, people often have to psychologically contort themselves into ridiculous positions to rationalize the taboo. The result is things like right-wingers on /misc/ adopting a radical feminist framework where an 18 year old brother has some unacceptable level of coercive power over his 16 year old sister that somehow can't be found in countless widely accepted relationships. Or progressives that would consider you a literal Hitler if you suggest sterilizing people with an IQ of 70 and below suddenly having huge concerns about the life quality of potential children.
Religious arguments are at least extremely straightforward. God(s) and scripture says it's bad -> therefore it's bad. It can be sort of respected even if it's also ultimately dumb.
Of all arguments against it I see on other boards 99% of the time its
>Muh bad babies
Ask them if that means they're okay with incest that carries no risk of passing on any potential genetic diseases, such as incest between a sterilized couple, and they'll quickly switch to other reasons to claim it's also bad.
stop talking to yourself samegay
All me. You also missed 134 of my other posts in this thread (142 now).
IQfy could use more on topic fetish threads and less godjaks and mind numbing religious homosexualry. There should plenty of fascinating anthropological dives to be had into matters like bride kidnapping, middle eastern pederasty, or any one of hundreds of other topics that touch upon both sex and history. You don't even need to get hard over it to find it interesting.
Will it ever be decriminalized?
Sibling incest is decriminalized in a lot of countries that aren't in the Middle East. Marriage is a different thing, as no country permits full-sibling marriage. Half-sibs can get married in Sweden though.
Decriminalizing it is one thing, removing the taboo is another. Just cause it's legal doesn't mean people won't ostracize you.
this. around a half of the world lives in a country where you wont go to jail for banging your sister but no one dares being public with it. the only times you hear about consensual incest are when someone comes out to a journo with the guarantee their names wont get published
What do ruskies think of the purest for of love?
doubt they care but thats mostly because it's out of sight and out of mind. with putin's turn into orthodox trad LARP, one high profile scandal is probably all it would take to make it illegal
I don't understand places that punish only opposite-sex incest with prison. Why not just require one of them to be sterilized?
It's an incredibly hypocritical point to begin with since none of said countries are controlling the reproductive rights of people with known genetic disabilities so forbidding incest based on possible genetic flaws is moronic.
Despite the pretense to fairness, reason, and working towards the common good untethered from religious superstition, the law simply exists to uphold its makers' prejudices, and its nonsensical quirks reflect that underlying irrationality.
(Me)
Whatever you think about Muslims, they are very coherent: sex with 1st and 2nd degree relatives is illegal, including “milk” relatives. With the exception of Turkey where it being legal is a legacy of Ataturk's hardline secularism, you'll get punished. Only thing they disagree on is whether you merely get thrown into prison or get your head cut off. Why? Allah said so. Their *underlying* worldview might be based on irrational bullshit, but the opposition to incest itself is very rational in their case. If doing it sends a person to hell for all eternity, then the obvious move is to discourage it as much as possible.
Contrast it to Europe. Every country that bans it has some different definition of what constitutes incest despite a shared Christian legacy and cultural attitudes. Germany bans veganal penetration, but theoretically permits heterosexual incest as long as it doesn't involve that. Ireland simply omits same-sex incest pairings under its definition. Some countries like Poland include step-relatives in their ban, others only forbid blood-relatives. Estonia permits full-sibling incest, but forbids incest between direct ancestors and descendants (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild). None of it aligns with any of the usually provided reasons to explain why incest is bad. If abuse is the reason, then you need to prohibit both step-incest and blood-related incest BUT avoid punishing relatives who were separated at birth and had only met in adulthood. If inbreeding is a problem, then it is fundamentally unjust to punish individuals incapable of making children, while you need to also prohibit other high-risk individuals from breeding. That's because it's ultimately based on feels and not empiricism and reasoning.
>Their *underlying* worldview might be based on irrational bullshit, but the opposition to incest itself is very rational in their case.
Agreed with this, what makes me mad is this
>If doing it sends a person to hell for all eternity, then the obvious move is to discourage it as much as possible.
Why do they so fricking much care if my life decisions sent me to hell? Let me fricking burn in hell you intrusive c**t.
That's how religions work. Those that tell their followers to not concern themselves about the behavior of their fellow man are highly unlikely to spread or effectively defend themselves. Those that do spread are the ones that tell their followers to go out and convert others, punish those who disobey, and so on. Meddling into others' affairs and ensuring broad adherence to a certain set of behaviors is what civilization selects for in their religions, so those are the ones we get in the end.
Lots of sick countries on that map but Germany and Ireland especially.