Black People : The Westermark effect and incest

[African_Prince]

Lately I've become very interested in the topic of incest and societal attitudes towards it. Beyond my academic interest in the subject, I have to say that the idea of incest itself has become very erotic for me, not just the "forbiddenness" of it but how intimate and affectionate sex between relatives could be. For the record, I am not even remotely attracted to any of my actual relatives and the idea of having sex with them would be awkward beyond belief (I wonder whether or not this really is due to the Westermark effect, my simply not considering them to be attractive or my not being very close to my family).

The evidence for the Westermark effect (that, during childhood, especially early childhood, we naturally develop an aversion to having sex with people we were raised in close proximity with) seems strong but something about it seems impractical to me (maybe because there are certain features that men and women are almost universally attracted to). Does the Westermark effect mean that we naturally develop an aversion to people we were raised with or just that we are subconsciously hardwired to be sexually uninterested in them? Most people aren't sexually interested in trees but the idea of having sex with one doesn't disgust them. It makes a big difference because an aversion (as a form of anxiety), natural or learned, can be desensitized whereas (I don't think) sexual interest in something or someone that is just not sexually interesting can ever be developed. People tend to use the Westermark effect to rationalize and justify their aversion to incest (the appeal to nature argument) but there's no reason that an aversion to incest can't be desensitized just because it's natural, without this aversion, would most people be attracted to relatives (at least relatives that they consider to be good looking)? There are obviously some people who are attracted to family members that they were raised with and, presumably, they share with us whatever genes are responsible for the Westermark effect.

 

[Josef]

um....yeah...

I have never heard of the Westermark effect...

thanks for,,, sharing....??

 

[CITIZEN]

Hopefully it stays taboo.

Thinking about societal "taboos" and how they develop, one of the important things back in the day was reproduction. After repeated trysts with incest, I'm sure it became obvious that the children were becoming inbred hillbillies.

Homosexuality does not contribute to children/gene pool either, and it is still present in society today. Personally, I don't want any parts of either one.

Sorry about the hillbilly remark. That was racist and I should know better.

 

[Destee]

Lately I've become very interested in the topic of incest and societal attitudes towards it. Beyond my academic interest in the subject, I have to say that the idea of incest itself has become very erotic for me, not just the "forbiddenness" of it but how intimate and affectionate sex between relatives could be. For the record, I am not even remotely attracted to any of my actual relatives and the idea of having sex with them would be awkward beyond belief (I wonder whether or not this really is due to the Westermark effect, my simply not considering them to be attractive or my not being very close to my family).

The evidence for the Westermark effect (that, during childhood, especially early childhood, we naturally develop an aversion to having sex with people we were raised in close proximity with) seems strong but something about it seems impractical to me (maybe because there are certain features that men and women are almost universally attracted to). Does the Westermark effect mean that we naturally develop an aversion to people we were raised with or just that we are subconsciously hardwired to be sexually uninterested in them? Most people aren't sexually interested in trees but the idea of having sex with one doesn't disgust them. It makes a big difference because an aversion (as a form of anxiety), natural or learned, can be desensitized whereas (I don't think) sexual interest in something or someone that is just not sexually interesting can ever be developed. People tend to use the Westermark effect to rationalize and justify their aversion to incest (the appeal to nature argument) but there's no reason that an aversion to incest can't be desensitized just because it's natural, without this aversion, would most people be attracted to relatives (at least relatives that they consider to be good looking)? There are obviously some people who are attracted to family members that they were raised with and, presumably, they share with us whatever genes are responsible for the Westermark effect.

::
::

I had never heard of the Westermarck Effect, so I looked it up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

Westermarck effect

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups—groups based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable, but that it operates during the critical period from birth to the age of six (Shepher, 1983).

When close proximity during this critical period does not occur—for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another—they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding. This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.

Westermarck and Freud

Freud argued that as children, members of the same family naturally lust for one another, making it necessary for societies to create incest taboos,[2] but Westermarck argued the reverse, that the taboos themselves arise naturally as products of innate attitudes.

Steven Pinker wrote on the subject: "The idea that boys want to sleep with their mothers strikes most men as the silliest thing they have ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to Freud, who wrote that as a boy he once had an erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing. But Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have experienced the early intimacy that would have tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud was his mother. The Westermarck theory has out-Freuded Freud" (How the Mind Works).

::
::

Brother African Prince ... you seem a bit obsessed with sex, and it is really no wonder, given all the sexually charged distractions hurled upon us.

In spite of the attempts at keeping you anesthetized by sex, you must challenge yourself to focus on more pressing matters.

I do look forward to seeing them manifest again, in your posts.

In an effort to walk this path with you ... i can only wonder ... how can the thought of incest be erotic, yet you are not sexually attracted to your relatives?

What you have described, finding incest erotic, but your relatives sexually unattractive ... needs much more than the Westermarck Effect to make clear.

Love You!



Destee

ps ... just realized this was an old post of yours, okay, that's a little better ... <jeez>