this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
391 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
6338 readers
1060 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not even a little bit. That is only present cultural norms and is entirely arbitrary. Incest is historically common and even considered preferential and a right in the past.
Take it up with three separate professors at my uni and several scholarly sources. Though I warn you, they are either dead or capable of screaming far louder and more eloquently than you. Here’s a Wikipedia article
The aversion often didn't work for royalty, since they weren't raised with their siblings.
/>hypothesis
/>Therefore not proven
That article doesn't support your argument. The effect isn't based on relation but on being raised together before the age of 6.
Well yeah, but that is still "biologically ingrained to avoid incest", since being raised separately and then reintroduced as adults is an edge case. The effect is biological even if what it's directly testing for isn't genetics.