Consanguinamory and Reproduction

One of the most common reasons given to object to the right to consanguineous relationships is what I call the "mutant baby" argument. Even some people who support the right to consanguinamory and have even engaged in consanguineous sex themselves join with bigots in being strongly against close relatives having children together because of prejudiced backlash or the increased risk of birth defects.

In regards to the prejudiced backlash, the answer is not to let bigots have their way. It is for bigots to lose their power to bully, prosecute, and break up homes. Don't want children of consanguineous parents to have a hard time? Do not give them a hard time.

In regards to the increased risk of birth defects, scientific understanding is often lacking.

Most sexual encounters do not result in a birth. Many people who have relationships or marry never have genetic children together; some people in consanguinamorous relationships choose not to. So, we must recognize the differences between sex, marriage, parenting, and reproduction, and not ban the first three because of concerns about the last one.

But let's deal with that last one.

Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. There are happy, healthy, bright, attractive people born to close relatives who are productive members of society. We all know some, whether we know it or not, and whether they know it or not. It is that common. (Sometimes, they were conceived by an abuser, but often, not by an abuser but by mutual lovers.) We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is entirely legal in the US and most other places for someone with Huntington's Disease to date, have sex, marry, and have genetic children. How can such rights be denied to people who are genetically healthy, simply because they are close relatives?

It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of genetic problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. (UPDATE: Please see this wonky elaboration written by a Friend of FME.) There are US states and there are countries where consanguinamory is not illegal or at least it isn't prosecuted. Sweden will legally marry half-siblings in some circumstances. A comparison of the rate of genetic problems in these places to places that criminalize and actively prosecute consanguinamory reveals no discernible increase in genetic problems in the places that embrace this relationship right.

If a natural talent or gift runs in the family, the children born to consanguineous parents will be more likely to inherit and manifest that beneficial result as well; a birth benefit. But there are increased odds of problem with births to older parents, too. There's no stigma assigned to that, and it isn't illegal for older people to date, have sex, marry, and have genetic children together.

Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too.

The "birth defects" argument also implies that people with disabilities or some other birth defect are living lives so terrible that they should never have been born at all. Yet, there are many such people who are leading happy, fulfilling, productive lives.

But a current problem, in some (not all) cases, is that in giving birth, consanguineous parents will be outing themselves to someone who is prejudiced, and there will now be evidence of their (in some places) illegal love that can be used against them.

There are consanguinamorous parents happily raising their healthy children together. But some consanguinamorous relationships face very real threats. Again, the answer is to stop the persecution and prosecution. There is no good reason to deny consenting adults their equal protection of having their relationship and reproductive rights.

Consanguinamorous or not, anyone engaging in heterosexual intercourse should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, the various forms of birth control and other options available, and the realities if pregnancy, birth, and raising children.

UPDATE: Jane has a great essay on these topics here.

With all of that in mind, let's look at this thread on a consensual incest discussion board. (The discussion is explicit, so if you have a problem with that, you are warned.)

carebear82 wrote…

I have been sexually active with my brother for 3 years now. We have sex whenever we get the chance which unfortunately is only about once a month as we live a bit of a distance apart but whenever i am home visiting family once a month we always make a point to hook up at least once and we have always been careful to use condoms but i am seriously considering letting him go "bareback" . Sex without condoms is so much better. I know the risk but i am really considering it.

Girls out there in incestland? What do you thinik? Condoms? or no condoms?

Janel responded…

Carebear...as long as you are both disease and drug free...then ditch the condoms. But, if you are fertile, then just remember that you could get pregnant...not sure if you want that or not. If you know when you ovulate, then you just don't have sex during those 36 hours......

carebear82 added…

forsure. we both know the risks but i really want him to cum inside me. i think im going to do it. i tell you the first time i took off my clothes in front of him and he slowly gently slid his cock inside me it was heaven. what an amazing feeling.

horny guy questioned…

Is 36 hours going to be a safe enough timescale to ensure 'safe' sex with your brother? I've heard of many instances where a female has concieved in the middle of her cycle, which for you could be a disaster (unless you want to have a baby with your brother)?

Maybe you could try another form of contraception-spermicidal foam, for instance?

Hope all goes well, but be careful!

Hank5 was nostalgic…

My sister and I were lovers for 3 years whilst sharing an apartment attending the same out of town university. We made love almost daily, but neither of us like condoms and from the start we did it "bareback". The first time we did it, she went to the university health clinic the following morning to get the "morning after" pill. Thereafter she went on the contraceptive pill.

For both of us making love skin-on-skin, and me pouring my semen into her uterus, was the apex of sexual enjoyment.

Just make sure that you practice safe sex so as to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Carebear82 updated the situation with what you could probably guess would happen…

I just wanted to let everyone know that my stupid plan to ditch the condoms has now ended in disaster as i am now pregnant with my brothers baby.on my doctors advice i did not go on the pill because of a few of the risks of the pill involved so we were practicing the "pull out" and he usually cums on my tummy or back depending what position we are in. well one stupid time he didnt pull out in time and now its gonna be pretty hard to explain to the family.

Even if he had pulled out each time, that isn’t contraception. Sperm can leave the penis well before any orgasm.


That particular discussion board, like many others was suffering from much spam and gibberish posting. I recommend instead visiting Kindred Spirits forum, registering/joining for free. But be sure to immediately read all of the rules.