this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
440 points (96.6% liked)

Not The Onion

19512 readers
1284 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Midwives have been told about the benefits of “close relative marriage” in training documents that minimise the risks to couples’ children.

The documents claim “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children” and warn staff that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”, adding claims that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UncleArthur@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Excuse me! Loads of Western European countries allow full incest (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain, etc.) so let's not pick on us Brits for allowing cousins to fuck.

[–] HisArmsOpen@crust.piefed.social 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm partially agreeing with you, but just because other countries say it's OK, it doesn't mean that we should.
Haven't looked at the data, but still, 15% risk is high. From a social a health care perspective, this is horrible for those children too.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

On the other hand, you can have marriage without children and children without marriage.

Unless you start punishing them for having children, it's naive to ban marriage.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

not making illegal and support from the national health service are vastly different things. 15% is a disastrous rate for public health.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But it's not a 15% risk. Unrelated couples have a 3% chance of having a child with a birth defect while cousins have a 5% chance of having a child with a birth defect.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't the problem being that the probability increases with each subsequent generations? That's why having a child with a cousin should be discouraged, to prevent the accumulation of bad recessive genes.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you have one person with recessive genes and one person with dominant genes, then the baby will have the dominant gene. So if the grandparents were cousins both with recessive genes it wouldn't matter, as far as I know.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The thing is, with subsequent incestual generations, the likelihood of the recessive gene manifesting increases a lot. So, the problem is not a single generation of incest, it's the normalisation of incest that might lead to multiple generations doing it.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh I see what you're saying. I did some reading earlier that said that in a lot of places 20% - 40% of all marriages are to first cousins.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, plenty of places where first cousin marriages are still not uncommon.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago

theres also dominant alleles that are the disease state, it also gets complicated when theres partial penetrance since its only half an half.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

The stats I saw show a 2.55% risk across all UK births. So a bit under 3%.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Brits are like US Southerners" is, arguably, a worse insult then calling them incestuous.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For who? The Brits or the southerners? Lol

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Whichever has more teeth

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

It's a fun stereotype, but you may find this map interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States

Fun fact: Most of the places it's legal in are blue. Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina are the only red states it's legal in, out of 17 total states. If we include states where it's conditionally legal (usually based on age/fertility) it's Utah out of 7 states.

[–] Saapas@piefed.zip 6 points 1 week ago

It's more about immigrants

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Define "full incest". Pretty sure siblings are not allowed

[–] UncleArthur@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pretty sure they are. Incestuous relationships between consenting adults (with the age varying by location) are permitted, including in the Netherlands, France, Slovenia, and Spain. Why not check before making such a statement?

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not only wrong, but also childish about it. First, this topic is about marriage. They are not taking about letting them be in a relationship, but marriage.

And marriage between siblings is not allowed in several countries you mentioned, which you would know if you checked instead of being "pretty sure".

Not go be a wrong ass somewhere else.

[–] UncleArthur@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago

Oh do fuck off, there's a good chap.