Talk:Research: Double-Taboo CSA

Potential additions

Human inbreeding avoidance: Culture in nature, in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 6, Issue 1, March 1983 (34 pages) <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00014850>

Recent commentators have noted that the existence of an incest taboo is puzzling when there is little evidence to suggest that many people desire erotic encounters with their own immediate family, although they might find the idea of incest, pornography featuring or simulating incest, or step-relatives through marriage not related by “blood” to be desirable. It’s important to recognize a gap between fantasy and action.

Recent overview discussions include:

A. H. Bittles et al., (2002) Does inbreeding lead to decreased human fertility?, Annals of Human Biology, 29:2, 111-130 <https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460110075657>

Abstract excerpt: “In most Western countries there is a widespread belief, fostered in part by historical prejudice and religious proscription, that inbreeding in human populations causes a reduction in fertility. […] To critically assess the overall status of fertility in consanguineous unions, data on 30 populations resident in six countries were collated from a systematic review of the literature. […] The results were, however, subject to a number of potential limitations, in particular lack of control for important socio-demographic variables. To overcome this problem, data on first cousin marriages were abstracted from the National Family and Health Survey conducted in India during 1992-1993. Multivariate analysis showed that fertility in first cousin unions was positively influenced by a number of variables, including illiteracy, earlier age at marriage and lower contraceptive uptake, but the most important of these parameters were duration of marriage and reproductive compensation. In net terms, consanguinity was not found to be associated either with a significant positive or negative effect on fertility.”

Gregory C. Leavitt, (1990) Sociobiological Explanations of Incest Avoidance: A Critical Review of Evidential Claims, American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 971-993 (23 pages) <https://www.jstor.org/stable/680655>

Researchers worth looking into: James Ramey, Joan Nelson, Seymour Parker, Larry Constantine, Wardell Pomeroy