# Non-forced Incest



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> Perhaps. But it isn't necessarily the disorder that causes a person to succeed, but they likely succeed in spite of a disorder. I'm skeptical about what you are claiming are mental disorders here. A little depression? A touch of bi-polar? I'm talking more about things that truly make it hard for a person to function.


"A little depression" and "a touch of bi-polar" can still make it difficult for a person to function in day to day life. As to why people with, for instance, bipolar disorder or ADD/ADHD might end up as more successful than others or offer great contributions, studies have been done showing that the children of people with bipolar disorder (thus children susceptible to having bipolar disorder later in life) typically tend to rate higher on scales of "creativity" than their non-susceptible peers. The levels were of statistical significance.

In bipolar II, where someone might be in a constant state of hypomania, is often associated with people who are highly driven and highly successful. In bipolar I, the creative process is typically formed in the manic stage and refined in the depressive stage. That said, when someone is hypomanic or in a mixed state that does not involve intrusive mania or intrusive depression, this is when people with BD can become extremely successful -- as businessmen, as politicians, as artists, et cetera. Also, people in the past who nowadays would probably be defined as on the "autism spectrum" (the supposedly "milder" portion) have probably contributed greatly to various fields. 



> No one strives to have a disorder. I doubt people want to have babies with disorders, nor are they bred_ for_ (though I'm sure people will do anything).
> 
> Anyway, that is all beside the point. Does that pertain substantially to this subject of psycho-social effects of non-forced (and forced, if you like) incest?


I'm curious why you brought up the "bred for" comment. What exactly does that have to do with the discussion? The point those of us using genetics as an example of the ill-effects of consanguinity is that it is typically deleterious to breed within the kinship group or within small communities. That said, this is why we now have genetic counselling. 

At any rate, have you looked into the *Westermarck effect *if you're looking into the psycho-social models for incest taboos? I can't recall if someone has brought that up yet.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> "A little depression" and "a touch of bi-polar" can still make it difficult for a person to function in day to day life. As to why people with, for instance, bipolar disorder or ADD/ADHD might end up as more successful than others or offer great contributions, studies have been done showing that the children of people with bipolar disorder (thus children susceptible to having bipolar disorder later in life) typically tend to rate higher on scales of "creativity" than their non-susceptible peers. The levels were of statistical significance.
> 
> In bipolar II, where someone might be in a constant state of hypomania, is often associated with people who are highly driven and highly successful. In bipolar I, the creative process is typically formed in the manic stage and refined in the depressive stage. That said, when someone is hypomanic or in a mixed state that does not involve intrusive mania or intrusive depression, this is when people with BD can become extremely successful -- as businessmen, as politicians, as artists, et cetera. Also, people in the past who nowadays would probably be defined as on the "autism spectrum" (the supposedly "milder" portion) have probably contributed greatly to various fields.
> 
> ...


No. I'll look it up now, though I know I've probably read it before. 

I brought it up because I'm more interested on the other end of things. The empetus and behaviors of those who especially, choose, to engage in incest and perpetuate it within family groups. Birth outcomes aren't my particular interest, because they are simply an outcome of already laid-in behavior, though I know it is a factor historically in why societies (at least since the Old Testament  )have probably always disapproved of it. 

I don't doubt inbred people are possibly smarter and more beautiful. Who knows. Obviously there are likely benefits and drawbacks to it. I'm not about to say it's all bad genetically.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@AphroditeGoneAwry

My inherent point was even if mental disorder incidence was to increase in incestuous communities (though mental illness itself causes concern in what is and isn't deemed insane), they wouldn't by default be disadvantaged in terms of reproductive ability. Whilst other genetic illness such as CF on the other hand creates veritable disadvantage in reproductive terms.

Also I don't think people that aren't born can strive to be alive at all, disorder on no. The problem with defining what is aspirational or what is meaningful in terms of existence is very subjective. Though, yes that's beyond the point.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> No. I'll look it up now, though I know I've probably read it before.
> 
> I brought it up because I'm more interested on the other end of things. The empetus and behaviors of those who especially, choose, to engage in incest and perpetuate it within family groups. Birth outcomes aren't my particular interest, because they are simply an outcome of already laid-in behavior, though I know it is a factor historically in why societies (at least since the Old Testament  )have probably always disapproved of it.
> 
> I don't doubt inbred people are possibly smarter and more beautiful. Who knows. Obviously there are likely benefits and drawbacks to it. I'm not about to say it's all bad genetically.


As a note, I personally have bipolar disorder but the portion of my family that I likely inherited the disorder from are not the portion of my family that really did much kinship marriage. The main point I was making (albeit, not explicitly or well) about the genes that often cause "mental disorders" is that they tend to have upsides when not coupled with disorder itself. So, for instance, you might have someone who has a couple of the genes that contribute to mania or hypomania. In this example, he or she is creative, driven and needs less sleep, making the person more "high functioning" than some of his or her peers who have none of the genes that might contribute to mania or hypomania.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

I know this is a bit late, but I just wanted to make sure we're all working off the same definition of 'incest' here. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, incest is: "sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry". Personally, I would remove the 'forbidden by law' bit because I've used the term to define any sort of sexual relationship between close relatives. One of the relatively common aspects of sex is that it's rarely planned out and children sometimes come from it. That's why I focused on understanding the genetics first and foremost.

After that, it's a slippery slope. It's my own belief that if you're about to pork someone (or, if you're the female, you're ready to be porked), you should be expecting at least one consequence of your actions - a baby. You can take all the precautions you want, but that's still not a 100% guarantee nothing will go wrong. If nothing does, then congrats, you dodged the proverbial bullet. If something does go wrong, however, it's your responsibility whether or not you planned for it. This goes to all couples. Sure, you could abort the kid (and I would support doing so if the child is just going to live a life of hell anyway), but be aware of monetary concerns too - abortions can be relatively expensive operations, although they're surprisingly cheap compared to giving birth.

I would support two individuals - no matter their relationship, race, gender, sex, religion, or socio-economic status - that love each other the way Plato described in his Symposium (it was Socrates and Alcibiades that shared this relationship in the context of the dialogue): "These are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover's intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment." 

Plato's description of this perfect love is very similar to romantic love without the sexual desire, although I understand how such desire tends to drive most relationships in some way. But once the enjoyment of it wears off, is the love still there? If yes, then you've taken an indirect path to Plato's description (and you're really lucky if you succeed, if statistics are any indication); Socrates himself, however, took a more direct route of avoiding sexual intimacy (possibly because he had little sex drive to begin with), but still being there for Alcibiades when he needed him, even though Alcibiades tried to use the usual bag of sensual tricks. Eventually, Alcibiades discovered that the real reason he loved Socrates was because of his ideas, not his 'sexual presence'.

Anyway, if two people - regardless of race, gender, sex, religion, etc. - decide to have sex, then that's their decision. Having children, however, is different. That said, I don't see any 'power struggles' between two close relatives happening, except for the kinds that usually happen to most couples anyway. The main issue would be social acceptance, which - in it's current state - would lead to relationship problems in and of itself.


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> @_kenshin mizuchi_
> 
> I'd agree with you in the first instance, in theory. However, Kautilya's _Arthshastra_ expands on statecraft, and what becomes apparent is that families, like good kingdoms must make alliances, must negotiate, show diplomacy etc in effectively both running the house but also in terms of reproduction and subsistence. If lots of kids emulate their parents incestuously then your society is about to be plagued with community specific genetic disorders (see the history of Tay-Sachs). It's not a sustainable model for effective statecraft.
> 
> Also, why would they emulate only with their siblings? Kids tend to play doctor with neighbour kids as opposed to their siblings?


Here i was quoting "Chanakya Niti" and not his Arthshshtra. As you correctly pointed out it deals with statecraft but Chankya Niti deals with basic morality and his experiences and observations on society, conduct and social norms and values. These are two different texts

Secondly as for emulation, well, that will depend on what socialization teaches them. In society family holds a place which is mostly identified with closer interpersonal relationships. For example, a child goes and hugs his/her mom and expects thing from her that he wont from a neighbor or even an aunt. This is learned through socialization. But there are cases of children getting very close to childhood friends and all. There is no denial of the possibility that you stated but its existence will depend on socialization and thus it will still fit in given framework.


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> Oh, thanks! This is a teasing of what I'm looking for.
> 
> 
> Yeah, this is my basic limited understanding of the social nature of it. That as long as the two worlds stay disconnected, it is okay. But what about when they overlap? I mean, if the sub-culture immerses in the main culture, what happens when they try to interact, especially in a sexualoving way? Are those in the clan able to adapt? You seemed to think they have a hard time, which I can see. And what about those in the larger society? How do they deal with others with such differing, or downright illegal, worldviews? Doesn't it get messy? Is there a social ethical dilemma here? Is this, in part, why societies have attempted to squelch incestuous relating? Because it is antithesis to the main biological reproductive mechanism of society, and could ultimately lead to serious societal breakdown?
> ...



*Doesn't it get messy?*

Most definitely it will. It will create a role dilemma ie how is one supposed to behave wrt certain people. It is after all collision of two social systems. "Mess" is but a natural outcome.


*Is there a social ethical dilemma here?*

Of course. there are two sets of morals and individual finds both of them equally "right" ie they are both equally influential thus creating the "mess" which is finally resolved in favor of one if the influence of other diminishes.



*Is this, in part, why societies have attempted to squelch incestuous relating? Because it is antithesis to the main biological reproductive mechanism of society, and could ultimately lead to serious societal breakdown?*

Hmmmm. Now that's an interesting question. Saying that societies have attempted to squelch such relation because its antithesis is teleological in my opinion. It got squelched that's why it became antithesis.(may be) 
I see the possibility of them competing with each other to become mainstream. Maybe in primitive society both equally prevailed. Here's a thought. The assumption here is going to be that that brain is not biologically hardwired to be predisposed towards one of these systems. Then we know that sexual passion is in itself capable of generating feelings of proximity and intimacy. Now imagine a primitive community in which social norms have not yet developed and are in very primitive stage, in infancy. Now blood relation creates a sense of intimacy because of sheer reason of possibility of large amount of time family members will get to spend together. They are born together, then hunt together, and depend on each other for survival. Hence the proximity and intimacy. Now when passion strikes, it also is facilitated by opportunity and incest comes into existence. As interaction between various groups increase, the possibility of interaction and sexual attraction with other individuals who are not a part of family comes into being. As the number of non-family members is far more than family members, the chances of an individual "falling" for a non-family member increases. Now two systems are fairly well existing in parallel and in a manner similar to natural selection competing with each other. But odds favor the non-incestuous system as more such possibilities exist. When social norms evolve, they will try to accommodate the most prevalent ideas(we can see throughout history that social values have changed to accommodate most prevalent ideas and frowned upon rest even if those rest were once mainstream) and hence non-incestuous relations gain an edge.

But, would incentuous relations lead to societal breakdown? I dont see any reason for such certainity. Firstly, as far as reproduction is concerned, society can always create alternate mechanisms for reproduction which dont involve siblings. For example two families exchanges sons and daughters for reproduction only. And once pregnancy holds, they return to their respective families. Or something like that. Sexual gratification and reproduction must not be considered one and the same. Secondly, no doubt that very strong family bonds may create units with very less social interaction among themselves, but society is always capable of creating other forms of dependency and interaction among such groups which binds society together. For example Émile _Durkheim'_s concept of organic solidarity and division of labor in society.
Lastly, this form of reproduction and kinship determination is not the only possible way. the norm of functional indispensability has been long debunked by likes of Robert Merton.

Will this system lead to societal breakdown can't be said with surety.



*With sex happening in front of them? As in not having any of the 'normal' boundaries that typical families try to instill between parents and children?*

It seems like a valid possibility.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@kenshin mizuchi

I agree, the _Chanakya Niti_ and _Arthshastra_ are different texts, that's why I highlighted it as a different source. The reason I flag it though is because I don't really think you can divorce morality from statecraft completely. Eventually you have to ask if the model is sustainable. And in the _Arthshastra_ he argues for the criminalisation of incest in his utopia. But yeah, tangential.

I'm intrigued by this idea though. Yes, I suppose socialisation would play a role, but in terms of memetics, do you think that the practice of incestuous play would be deemed more desirable than more socialised styles? I think the extra socialisation probably conveys many survival benefits. Though the other model is undoubtedly simpler in some ways, would it be an evolutionarily beneficial one is a notion that honestly intrigues me.


----------



## Keith Pullman (Jun 29, 2012)

I wanted to make it clear by "consensual" I didn't mean an adult preying on someone under the age of consent wherever they are (age of consent varies.) I was talking about sex between people above the age of consent, or sex/exploration between minors close in age where there is no force or coercion.

As far as my own experiences, consanguinamory is still criminalized in many places and subject to discrimination, even though it shouldn't be.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

Keith Pullman said:


> As far as my own experiences, consanguinamory is still criminalized in many places and subject to discrimination, even though it shouldn't be.



? Will you elaborate why it shouldn't be?


Or do you only mean 'shouldn't be' when they are above the age of consent? 

I'd like to get into the nitty gritty of before the age of consent, but I guess everyone is afraid to go there...


----------



## Keith Pullman (Jun 29, 2012)

Most therapists don't consider it a problem when minors close in age mutually experiment (meaning, no coercion or force or anything like that) and such experimentation is not rare between siblings close in age and negative effects are few and far between. It shouldn't be prosecuted.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

Keith Pullman said:


> Most therapists don't consider it a problem when minors close in age mutually experiment (meaning, no coercion or force or anything like that) and such experimentation is not rare between siblings close in age and negative effects are few and far between. It shouldn't be prosecuted.



Lol. You know I'm not talking about just minors. I'm talking about adults with children, as would naturally occur in families. Which is what incest is. 

And I don't buy the whole thing about siblings just spontaneously incesting on each other. It is learned behavior as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

When we were little kids a cousin ( girl) of mine and I would play this game where we would pretend to be groupies of Michael Jackson and go on adventures to find him. Once we got 'backstage' whoever got to be MJ would lay ontop of the other and rub up and down their belly/sides and what not. I didn't think anything of it at the time, and my cousin and I are good friends


----------



## Keith Pullman (Jun 29, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> And I don't buy the whole thing about siblings just spontaneously incesting on each other. It is learned behavior as far as I'm concerned.


It doesn't have to be learned. I know of many siblings, some who are living as spouses, where they started it completely on their own. There was no example in their lives to follow. A lot of it has to do with proximity, trust, convenience, etc. MOST people develop and aversion to someone they were raised with as a sex partner. That is MOST. It isn't all. Studies show that most people are attracted to someone who looks like them. Who looks more like you than a sibling? But for most people, the Westermarck Effect comes into play. For others, for whatever reason, is not as strong as curiosity or attraction, and so they explore, experiment, even become lifelong lovers.


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

Paradox1987 said:


> @_kenshin mizuchi_
> 
> I'm intrigued by this idea though. Yes, I suppose socialisation would play a role, but in terms of memetics, do you think that the practice of incestuous play would be deemed more desirable than more socialised styles? I think the extra socialisation probably conveys many survival benefits. Though the other model is undoubtedly simpler in some ways, would it be an evolutionarily beneficial one is a notion that honestly intrigues me.



*but in terms of memetics, do you think that the practice of incestuous play would be deemed more desirable than more socialised styles?*

Hmmm. Desirability......i have got no clue what to say. On what parameter can we measure this desirability. If the propagation was the only criteria, than i think that the incestuous or "normal" relations stand equal chance. As, as such there is nothing to choose between them. Can you please throw in a couple of thoughts that are going through your mind so that i know a bit more concretely what you are asking her.

*
I think the extra socialisation probably conveys many survival benefits.*

In continuation of what i just said, why do you think so?



*Though the other model is undoubtedly simpler in some ways, would it be an evolutionarily beneficial one is a notion that honestly intrigues me.*

i see both models on same footing with respect to evolutionary benefit. As I said, I don't thing there is anything to separate the two. Both are functional, both have their dysfunctions. I see them as mutually replaceable without much change in broader/larger social structures.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

kenshin mizuchi said:


> *Though the other model is undoubtedly simpler in some ways, would it be an evolutionarily beneficial one is a notion that honestly intrigues me.*
> 
> i see both models on same footing with respect to evolutionary benefit. As I said, I don't thing there is anything to separate the two. Both are functional, both have their dysfunctions. I see them as mutually replaceable without much change in broader/larger social structures.


Isn't just the fact that we are here now, with the major majority harshly eschewing incest modernly, and historically, make it obvious that it is not evolutionarily beneficial? If it were, isn't it the model that would have evolved? Or at least to a larger degree than it has?


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

Keith Pullman said:


> A lot of it has to do with proximity, trust, convenience, etc. MOST people develop and aversion to someone they were raised with as a sex partner. That is MOST. It isn't all.


Now this is a fundamental element of this situation IMHO. As per what I have already said in my posts, it explains why incest should exist, it explains why incest now exists on fringes, but what about this case? Can socialization as driving force explain the existence of this fact that in some cases such relationships develop while in most they don't. How come the people who are under the influence of "normal" social rules develop this "abnormal" state of relationship?(normal and abnormal only in the sense of values attached to them by society in terms of its cultural norms). May be there can be a case basis explanation, like lack of trust in people as general due to previous psychological experiences and a deep attachment to that particular person. But how do we explain the breaking of social norms under ordinary circumstances of "normal/ordinary" families?
Of course they can be dismissed as some "social mutations", "chance deviations" or exception to the general rule, but nonetheless the question what creates these deviations still remains unanswered. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> Isn't just the fact that we are here now, with the major majority harshly eschewing incest modernly, and historically, make it obvious that it is not evolutionarily beneficial? If it were, isn't it the model that would have evolved? Or at least to a larger degree than it has?


No. Not necessarily. Let me expand on what i have already said in my earlier posts. Suppose there were three pieces of magnet and ten pieces of iron. Now you take one magnet and place it close to other two. they will attract each other and may be two or more of them will stick together. Now you put the magnet in a bag of twelve items namely two magnets and ten iron pieces. The probability that any given magnet will be attached to an iron piece is more than it being attached to another magnet.
Suppose in a primitive society where only small groups exist, the only interaction that one has with other human beings is the one with family members. This proximity creates intimacy which may lead to sexual intimacy. Now as population increases and interaction between groups increase, people come in prolonged social contact with non-family members. Again following the same line of logic, this will increase sexual encounters between non-related people. Now as the number of non-related people is more than related people, and an opportunity exists in both the cases, sooner or later the sexual encounters between non-related people will be far more than related people. In other words, the possibility of finding a system in that state is more which belongs to a bigger class. Now with development of society, as and when social norms will start emerging, they will accommodate the more prevalent system more than the less prevalent one. This, mind you, happened just by the sheer magnitude of number of possibilities of two classes and not because one class self-destructed or destroyed society or was inherently flawed or anything like that.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

kenshin mizuchi said:


> No. Not necessarily. Let me expand on what i have already said in my earlier posts. Suppose there were three pieces of magnet and ten pieces of iron. Now you take one magnet and place it close to other two. they will attract each other and may be two or more of them will stick together. Now you put the magnet in a bag of twelve items namely two magnets and ten iron pieces. The probability that any given magnet will be attached to an iron piece is more than it being attached to another magnet.
> Suppose in a primitive society where only small groups exist, the only interaction that one has with other human beings is the one with family members. This proximity creates intimacy which may lead to sexual intimacy. Now as population increases and interaction between groups increase, people come in prolonged social contact with non-family members. Again following the same line of logic, this will increase sexual encounters between non-related people. Now as the number of non-related people is more than related people, and an opportunity exists in both the cases, sooner or later the sexual encounters between non-related people will be far more than related people. In other words, the possibility of finding a system in that state is more which belongs to a bigger class. Now with development of society, as and when social norms will start emerging, they will accommodate the more prevalent system more than the less prevalent one. This, mind you, happened just by the sheer magnitude of number of possibilities of two classes and not because one class self-destructed or destroyed society or was inherently flawed or anything like that.




That is still a huge factor in evolution though, because that is how things evolved. Things *could* have gone another way....inter-family groups could have rapidly multiplied and then bonded with one other family group, which over time would have created a nearly homogeneous larger group, etc. If this had happened, incest would undoubtedly have been, and would be, more accepted than it is today. 

It's not. This didn't happen. Why? Westermarck would say because the stronger magnet was the non-related group. And it appears by looking around today that is the case. Not just a factor of probability as you posit. In fact, given the distance between tribes, if it were about probability, incest should be the norm now, because it's always been, and always will be, more probable that you are around your family more than strangers or others. 

Thanks for the response. Thoughts?


----------



## kenshin mizuchi (Jul 6, 2012)

*@**AphroditeGoneAwry *

*multiplied and then bonded with one other family group,*

This kinda dilutes incest. But still, it's valid enough point so i will give you this one.


*Westermarck would say because the stronger magnet was the non-related group.*

Ok. But, why would that be stronger? Only reason i see is that somehow we are hardwired to be biased towards non-related people when it comes to sexual intimacy. But the assumption was that there is no biological bias and only socialization is the guiding force. So, what gives "stronger magnet" the edge? Why would is be "stronger"?

*
And it appears by looking around today that is the case. Not just a factor of probability as you posit.*

Just like when we discuss second law of thermodynamics, the only reason we can come up for ever increasing entropy is that the states with higher entropy are more than the states with lower entropy and if at any time an observation is made, chances of finding the system in the state of higher entropy is far more. Thus we always see entropy as increasing even though no force or influences pushes system in a state of greater randomness. So just a factor of possibility can explain such scenarios. One with more numbers out-play other.



*In fact, given the distance between tribes, if it were about probability, incest should be the norm now, because it's always been, and always will be, more probable that you are around your family more than strangers or others.*

Now this I will debate. First of all, tribe is a collection of many families. I am talking about a time before tribes came into existence when only small groups of 4-5 existed. When these groups came together to form tribes, then non-incest became prevalent. Secondly, i will challenge the assertion that it's always been, and always will be, more probable that you are around your family more than strangers or others. As I see it, most of the time of a human being is spend away from the family outside home in wider social groups specially at that age. Also, if it were the case that more time is spend with the family, still all we need is that a certain amount of time be spend with non-family members which is above the required threshold needed to develop emotional intimacy or socio-emotional connections. Then the socio-sexual intimacy in itself may serve as a bonding force to increase the frequency of such encounters generating a positive feedback loop. 


As for "thanks for the response", i don't get it, what's to be thankful in it......

Anyways, thoughts?


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

android654 said:


> You should've paid more attention biology. Apes are very against inbreeding and most apes leave their community and find a new one when they become of age to begin breeding. Genetic mixing is one of the reasons why we're so diverse genetically. If we inbred at any point it would've had adverse affects on our development and we probably would not bet as advanced as we are right now.


Yeah well cave men weren't apes. They were large family groups living in a cave. Cousins, mothers, aunts, brothers, uncles, daughters. The lot. You were'nt there so you can't say it wasn't so, because in all logic it was.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

android654 said:


> Still does not suggest that incest is a vital component of our evolution.


Nor the adverse


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

My first make-out and experimentation was with my cousin. I didn't really get that I was experimenting until I was older though. We swore to keep it a secret between us, and during high school we were awkward/confused/disgusted about it, but now we laugh when it's just us and we are reminiscing.


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

I don't know if this has been posted but. . . 

IAMA Man who had a sexual relationship with his mother. (Probably NSFW) : IAmA


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Gypsy said:


> Yeah well cave men weren't apes. They were large family groups living in a cave. Cousins, mothers, aunts, brothers, uncles, daughters. The lot. You were'nt there so you can't say it wasn't so, because in all logic it was.


We're apes. If you don't know that then you're clearly unqualified to discuss anything regarding human behavior hundreds of thousands of years in the past.


----------

