Sign On
Create Account

Last

TypeCreatedCategoryCreatorSortVotesHidesRating
multiple22-Jan-2002sex/relationshipsbandit1cat by votes86949.4%

*offensive*
Advanced_Stats

Have you ever had sex with a family member?

curious

VotesAnswer
53No
11Yes
8cousin
4sibling
1parent
0grandparent
0child
0aunt/uncle


UserComment
darkshadowsseeker
posted 22-Jan-2002 1:29pm  
NO!!! That's incest and that's wrong!
heyzeus1
posted 22-Jan-2002 1:43pm  
No. You?
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
posted 22-Jan-2002 1:45pm  
Eeeew, no.
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
posted 22-Jan-2002 1:45pm  
lol Like the name  * smile *
jettles Survey Central Subscriber Survey Qualifier
posted 22-Jan-2002 2:49pm  
been done before.
CarolL
posted 22-Jan-2002 3:12pm  
Ewwwwwwwww. Never! No way.
dora
posted 22-Jan-2002 3:32pm  
Grandparent?! This is kinky!
confetti
posted 22-Jan-2002 4:17pm  
It's a good thing I haven't eaten anything for 4.6 hours...

Of course I haven't!
I never would, either.
This does bring to mind a time when I was about 10 (I had a crush on my very young uncle). But it wasn't anything huge. He was blond and a marine biologist, what can I say? But now he think he's DJ Lethal (he got a "House of Pain" tattoo, for pete's sake!) and I think he's ridiculous. Isn't it funny how you can idolize someone when you're younger and when you grow up slightly they seem so clownish?
80sKing
posted 22-Jan-2002 4:41pm  
FUDGE NO!
skylark
posted 22-Jan-2002 4:44pm  
Nope.
kaleb777
posted 22-Jan-2002 5:50pm  
Absolutely not.
Maarten
posted 22-Jan-2002 6:50pm  
No, I'm not a hillbilly, you know!
juliw
posted 22-Jan-2002 7:08pm  
no
heyzeus1
posted 22-Jan-2002 8:39pm  
what about you?
Irene007 Survey Central Gold Subscriber Silver Star Survey Creator
posted 22-Jan-2002 11:21pm  
Oh Gawd! NO! CAN'T! YUCK! I'd rather "do" my neighbour's dog!!! I don't think I could even "do" a dog I owned, let alone a family member!
SueBee Survey Central Subscriber
posted 23-Jan-2002 1:14am  
No sex. Ick. Incest does not appeal to me. Although I did kiss a cute cousin when we were both pretty young.
Avocado
posted 23-Jan-2002 2:41am  
No.
icurok
posted 23-Jan-2002 3:39am  
No, no, no. I wouldn't sleep with anyone in my family even if I wasn't related to them.
anonymous
posted 23-Jan-2002 4:46am  
Sort of. When I was 11 my 11 year old cousin got me nude in bed with her and asked that I do as I wish with her. If she had asked a year later when my hormones had kicked in, I might have responded. When I was 21 and married, my younger gay cousin talked us into getting nude and hoped we could suck each others dicks, but I wasn't into it, so we just masturbated. Me and my cousins used to do a lot of weird sex play as kids, like put on nude plays wearing skates and scarves. They were third cousins, if that matters to anyone. Life's one major regret as a young teen was in that mix of third cousins too, though years later I asked and she said that I was the only one ever concerned about it.
I think I'll post this anonymous. I'm sure you know who I am anyhow, though. Just add one more to my count than I ever mention.
Gee, no more skeletons left.
Wicksy Bronze Star Survey Creator
posted 23-Jan-2002 7:37am  
No

How did this get through qual?
grmbrand
posted 23-Jan-2002 7:47am  
No, but I know and used to work with a guy who is involved in a serious relationship with his first cousin. Odd story--they didn't meet until they were both in their twenties, and they've been together ever since. Do I think it is wrong? Well, they seem pretty happy together, so who's to judge?
Dino
posted 23-Jan-2002 8:06am  
no
autumnlight
posted 23-Jan-2002 9:22am  
Ewwww
Oscar
posted 23-Jan-2002 11:05am  
nope
Jemmy
posted 23-Jan-2002 3:03pm  
nope. But my friend went "goler hunting" once. They're all incested and stuff. Pretty gross.
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
posted 23-Jan-2002 3:10pm  
I live a couple of miles from the most Incestuous place in the country - Stocksbridge. Oh and BTW, Cain has family there!  * raspberry *
ASB
(reply to Jemmy) posted 23-Jan-2002 3:50pm  
whats goler hunting?
cuteasabutton
posted 23-Jan-2002 4:07pm  
No! Ew!
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
posted 23-Jan-2002 4:17pm  
bandit1cat
(reply to heyzeus1) posted 23-Jan-2002 7:58pm  
Not any of your business heyzeus1. for some people they weren't given a choice.
anonymous
posted 23-Jan-2002 8:03pm  
I hope the person who checked 'child' is seeing a counsellor.
heyzeus1
posted 23-Jan-2002 8:55pm  
So, its not my business, but you are asking everybody else about theirs?
Jemmy
(reply to ASB) posted 24-Jan-2002 11:27am  
lol Well, I'm not exactly sure, but a while ago, before I was born there was this family in the valley that was a locally infamous for having all these kids that were getically messed up due to incest. I think it may have been in the papers. Anyway, I think it coined the term "golers" which is like a hillbillie or something. My friend's older sister goes to University near there, and their parents took them hiking. So, for fun they tried to find the golers and see if it was true.
bandit1cat
(reply to heyzeus1) posted 24-Jan-2002 12:21pm  
The voting itself is anonymous. I'm not asking anyone to talk about it. There is a difference.
heyzeus1
posted 24-Jan-2002 1:51pm  
oh, ok.
cody
posted 24-Jan-2002 3:21pm  
No, though, I'm having significant difficulty seeing what is wrong with cousins hooking up... I mean, as long as it isn't commonplace and repetetive over multiple generations, the 'genetic defect' theory is really absurd. There are practical concerns (awkwardness if things don't go well, scandal, etc.), sure, but I'm having trouble seeing the moral ones.

I think that when people hear this they immediately bring to mind their first cousins of the opposite sex (numbering between 1 and 5 in most cases), who, statistically, they are unlikely to have any significant attraction to, which makes an honest evaluation of the case in which they did have one improbable. In response to anon #2, I hope they are seeing a document citing a "no" recommendation from a parole board every 2 or 3 years.

I think in cases where people do develop significant attraction to a cousin, they quickly disregard their supposedly vehement moral beliefs on the subject. I mean, WTF is the BFD? I guess it also depends on your relationship with the cousins, I suppose some people ate dinner with them once or twice a week, but, in my experience they are largely these people whose names you have to be reminded of (every time you see them (which isn't more than four times a year)) until you are 8 or 9 years old. I think of my cousins more as 'friends' than family.
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Jan-2002 3:28pm  
It's a cool site  * smile * I don't think the aerial photos of Sheffield go out as far as my village, but my school's on there and the city centre. That page you linked to shows the road (on the left - Snig Hill) where I wait for my bus home.

Oh wait, no it does have photos of my village!!!! It's opening now, this is so exciting!!!  * grin * Aaargh, it's zoomed in on the wrong place! It could take me some time to get the right image up!!!
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Jan-2002 3:48pm  
I can see my house, I can see my house!!!!  * grin *

I wish I could describe where it is! If you follow the line of trees coming from the bottom left of the picture until they meet the houses just before the bend in the main road then my house is one of those. If you look really closely then you'll see that what appears to be one long building is actually seperated into three. My house is one half of the one nearest the bottom (it's a semi-detatched) and that little strip going down to the trees is our back garden  * smile * You can even see our hedge!

The building on the far right, near the bottom, surrounded by grass is my old primary school  * smile *

I'm sorry my description was a bit lacking! And it's a pity there aren't any sheep or cows to liven it up like there usually are!!!
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Biggles) posted 24-Jan-2002 10:07pm  
I think I know which one you mean. *waving* I bought an aerial photo book of cities in England today. I haven't looked through it all yet.
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jan-2002 4:44am  
 * grin * *waves upwards*
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to cody) posted 25-Jan-2002 12:09pm  
All it takes is 2 people with the same recessive gene to make a baby with that trait. Since first cousins have a greater chance of both carrying the same recessive genes, the offspring of first cousins are more likely to have recessive traits.
Kristal_Rose
(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jan-2002 6:12pm  
Theres no tendency for recessive genes to carry any less desirable traits than dominant ones though, is there? rare perhaps, like blue eyes or something. i think i've heard it creates as many geniuses as retards. perhaps backwards areas evolved as a hangout for a poor gene pool in the first place (migration of outcasts), and that helped create a dominance of bad recessive genes.
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 25-Jan-2002 7:30pm  
There are a lot of recessive traits that aren't undesirable. I'm saying that cousins have a chance of sharing the same recessive genes because they are in the same family, and when 2 people from the same family create kids, theres a chance of having a kid with that trait.

If a bunch of outcasts with the same problem (same traits) migrated to one area and had kids, they might pass that trait on. If they all had different problems (some are color blind, some are albino, some are growth stunted etc, they would have no more chance of passing on those traits with each other than with the general population. Now, if their grandkids paired up with each other (cousins) there is where you might see the undesirable traits re-appearing.
Kristal_Rose
(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jan-2002 7:57pm  
You still didn't answer my first question, maybe we should ask biggles or cody; are recessive genes, on the average, negative traits, or just uncommon ones? i would think their are small isolated communities of recessive genes well adapted for their environment with webbed toes for shell fishing or something. By selective breeding over generations we may diminish various undesired traits, but that doesn't mean those traits were necessarily recessive or dominant.
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 25-Jan-2002 9:07pm  
Oh, I see what you mean. By negative, do you mean not suited to modern environments? I can't really remember the exact definitions of recessive and dominant. So now I am confused.  * smile *
Kristal_Rose
(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Jan-2002 11:50pm  
•"Talk like that would lead to the eventual demise of our species".
recessive simply means it won't manifest when joined with the dominant gene that will. you didn't appear confused. Recessive genes for strong muscles, increased olfactory capacities, blue eyes, anything could end up as a dominant or recessive gene. Negative, like blindness. I think the deal with interbreeding is it amplifies emergence of rare qualities, not necessarily bad. Don't quote me on that though.
OK, I just did some research. It seems that recessive genes leave the gene pool as people intermingle. At times a fringe gene may become useful again as the environment changes. Chances are though that the fringe genes are at least undesirable to interminglers, so probably the majority of them are negative things like disabilities, rather than red hair or blue eyes. The expression of recessive genes through interbreeding is therefore most probably of negative consequence, though the prevalence of Nicole Kidmans would increase too.
Vesper
(reply to Biggles) posted 26-Jan-2002 4:07pm  
   Let's do some maths. Of several alleles of the same gene one with the probability of k is recessive and undesirable. You don't notice it in yourself. Therefore there is (1-k)/(1+k) probability that you don't have it and 2k/(1+k) probability that you have one of them (you obviously don't have two of them). Your spouse has the same chances. Therefore there are three possible cases.
   A. (Probability of ((1-k)/(1+k))^2.) Neither of you has that allele. Therefore, your children don't have it either and are free to incest as much as they wish.
   B. (Probability of 4k(1-k)/(1+k)^2.) One of you has that allele. In such case there's 50% probability that your children will inherit it and 50% that they won't. Therefore if they incest, there's 9/16 probability that their children won't have it, 3/8 that they will have it once, and 1/16 that they will have it twice (and therefore will have a hereditary disease, ouch).
   C. (Probability of 4k^2/(1+k)^2.) Both of you have that allele. In that case there's 1/4 probability that your children won't have it, 1/2 that they will have it once, and 1/4 that they will have it twice (ouch). Let's exclude this case, because such child won't have children. If the rest incest, there's 4/9 probability that their children won't have it, 4/9 that they will have it once, and 1/9 that they will have it twice (ouch).
   Here's what we get. The initial generation (you):
(1-k)/(1+k) probability that you don't have that allele
2k/(1+k) probability that you have it once
   You marry someone not related to you genetically.Your children:
((1-k)^2+2k(1-k)+k^2)/(1+k)^2=(1-2k+k^2+2k-2k^2+k^2)/(1+k)^2=1/(1+k)^2 probability that they don't have that allele
(2k(1-k)+2k^2)/(1+k)^2=2k/(1+k)^2 probability that they have it once
k^2/(1+k)^2 probability that they have it twice
   Your healthy children incest. Their children:
((1-k)^2+9/4*k(1-k)+16/9*k^2)/(1+k)^2=(1-2k+k^2+9/4*k-9/4*k^2+16/9*k^2)/(1+k)^2=(1+1/4*k+19/36*k^2)/(1+k)^2 probability that they don't have that allele
(3/2*k(1-k)+16/9*k^2)/(1+k)^2=(3/2*k+5/18*k^2)/(1+k)^2 probability that they have it once
(1/4*k(1-k)+4/9*k^2)/(1+k)^2=(1/4*k+7/36*k^2)/(1+k)^2 probability that they have it twice
   Note that the equation k^2=1/4*k+7/36*k^2 does have a solution, namely k=9/29, and when k<9/29 (which is true for all hereditary diseases), your grand-children will have a higher probability of that allele becoming activated than your incestuous children themselves. When k is very little, the ratio will be 1/(4k) or, in the terms of "how often that disease happens" (k=1/(sqrt(N)-1)) it will be (sqrt(N)-1)/4, where N is the number of people 1 out of which has that disease. In simple words, if 1 out of 1000 people has some hereditary disease, the children of your incestuous children will have about 7.85 times higher probability to have it.
   *pants* Could somebody check my maths?
Vesper
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 26-Jan-2002 4:11pm  
That was meant for you too *points at the previous message in the thread*
Kristal_Rose
(reply to Vesper) posted 26-Jan-2002 7:15pm  
Cool lesson in gene probability. Thanks. I once came up with a new math for finding numbers of possible keyboard combinations and such: it had the basic operator suumnation, much like factorial, such that 3• = 3+2+1 = 6. 3••=3•+2•+1• = 6+3+1 = 10. I noticed answers to my problems were eveloving into patterns like 1• + 3•• + 5••• + 7•••• + 5••• + 3•• + 1•. If I went further with it I suppose I could have developed formula transformation formulae much like one finds at the beginning of their calc book. I never thought of incest as a verb form before.
cody
(reply to LindaH) posted 26-Jan-2002 9:26pm  
True, so too are the offspring of older people to have children with birth defects. Is it significant increase after a single generation? I don't believe so.
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 26-Jan-2002 9:38pm  
For one, you know a lot about peaplant genetics. We aren't pea plants, we are people, and most of our genetic pattern is signifcantly more complexs than a 2x2 matrix.

Beyond that, you've assumed recessive traits are undesirable. There is no reason to believe that. They encourage genetic lines to distinguish themselves further from each other creating wider extremes and allowing a larger variety of possibly beneficial individual traits...

http://www.globalideasbank.org/BOV/BV-386.HTML

Kristal_Rose
(reply to cody) posted 26-Jan-2002 11:23pm  
Interesting, but seeming poorly communicated or founded. I had to do some thinking just to get at his implied hypothesis, which I understand to be that optimization of expression is a tool for selective breeding. The other point on additive mutation seems no less founded than in a general diverse intermingling of a population. His work seems rather peapod too. This isn't my field, but I think the science of expression modelling is quite at it's infancy, and that observing the results of genetic computing surpasses digital simulations, and for that matter, with all the complexities, the proof is still in the pudding. How, statisticically, do incest offspring express. The results of course would be difficult to ascertain. Studies on incest prevalence careen wildly in proportion. As far as recessive traits, yeah, people might not be mating much yet with that fringe blessed with high UV tolerance or vision better suited for computer monitors. Can the Ben Gesserit produce a Muad 'Dib, or will Murlock feast on Ilois?
I don't look forward to the day when HMO's have already put a price on insuring your unborn children, or the government subsidizes those costs based on national genetic deficits.
Vesper
(reply to cody) posted 26-Jan-2002 11:57pm  
   I do know my genetics. By the way, if you took time, you would notice that my example was much more complex than 2x2 grids. If you want to improve it by adding more factors, feel free, I made it just as elaborate as I could without devoting to it too much time.
   As to an assumption that "all recessive alleles are bad", look at the beginning of that post. You will notice that I took one case, saying nothing about the rest. If you want to elaborate on them, again, feel free.
Vesper
(reply to cody) posted 27-Jan-2002 12:03am  
   And for some reason I think that genetics is the same for peas and for people. I don't think that human genome exceeds in complexity the genome of peas. Or of cows. Or of mice. Yes, it's a few times larger, but *just* a few.
Vesper
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Jan-2002 12:07am  
Yeah, I knew there was something wrong with that verb form  * raspberry *
Kristal_Rose
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:15am  
were it a proper verb form then one could imagine this dialogue. "Hey bro, sure you don't mind if I undress here?" "No, I incest."
I was just watching 'Dr. No' tonight. They had this thing going on during the commercials with a group watcing tv and commenting on james bond. By the end of the show they were all cuddled under a blanket cutting to 007 romance scenes. Strange thing is one of the guys mentioning a gal being his sister earlier in the show. Did you ever see Warhol's Frankenstein 3D?
Vesper
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:27am  
Nope. Is that a movie?
Kristal_Rose
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:50am  
Yeah, it was pretty severe. a bit like burton's sleepy-hollow, but the married brother-sister doctors would make love with their zombies while fondling their inner organs. and of course, it was in 3D.
Warhol was quite a director. In one movie, 'Bad', he made a hitman look a decent person for drawing the line at throwing someones autistic child out a skyscraper window for them. His best work though was 'the thirteen most beautiful people in the world' in which he would just let the camera roll facing a person in silence until the tears streamed from their eyes.
Vesper
(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Jan-2002 3:08am  
Who was fondling whose inner organs? I would think that's impossible in either case.
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 9:28am  
 * surprise * What did you aim that at me for?!
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 9:30am  
Maybe it was for joalis? I may be planning to do genetics at university, but I don't follow the maths!
Vesper
(reply to Biggles) posted 27-Jan-2002 1:49pm  
   For you. First I wrote it for Kristal_Rose, then changed the name to yours when was submitting it. There was a reason, but I would feel extremely silly explaining it. Has to do with one of the flaws in my personality, the one where it has always been unreasonably easy for me to get a crush on someone.
   Ok, I do feel extremely silly now. *dies* Just don't mind me, ok?  * smile *
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:39pm  
I'm very confused, but I'll let it pass  * wink * Just don't scare me with horrid maths again! lol
Vesper
(reply to Biggles) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:45pm  
   By the way, about your question about pH of heated water (that survey went inactive, so I have to post my vote on it here). The pH decreases, but the water doesn't become more acidic, because pH is measured relative to -(log[H+]+log[OH-])/2 (the point of neutrality, which is about 7 at the room temperature, but changes as you heat or cool the solution), so if pH is equal to -(log[H+]+log[OH-])/2, the solution is neutral, if it is less, it is acidic, and if it is greater, it is alkaline. And because when you heat the water, [H+] stays the same as [OH-], the solution stays neutral (pH and the point of neutrality shift down equally).
   Right?  * smile *
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 2:53pm  
I actually heard that argument at a later date (after I made my survey)  * frown * Most depressing! It means my teacher was wrong! (Heh heh heh!) I'm going to ask him about it as soon as we return to the subject of rate constants  * wink *
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to cody) posted 27-Jan-2002 5:30pm  
Birth defects due to parents who are older aren't genetic. When those babies have kids, they are no more likely to have birth defects than anyone else. Birth defects due to incest are because recessive genes are being reintroduced. Like Vespers math suggests, their grandkids are more likely to have birth defects than the general population.
cody
(reply to LindaH) posted 27-Jan-2002 6:35pm  
Well, yes, they are genetic. They aren't heritable, but they are genetic. Down syndrome is genetic, but not heritable. Well, actually, it is kind of heritable... a tendency to develop it in offspring is heritable, but, that's as far as it goes.

About the incest part, that is a popular misconception. Realistically, mating between cousins is unlikely to cause problems. Potentially, yes, we can increase the incidence of certain, extraordinarily rare, diseases, which result from simple genetic problems. HOWEVER, this is LESS of a risk increase at the cousin level (single generation), than it is at the over 33 mother level. I don't think most would consider a woman over 33 having a child as immoral because of the increased risk of birth defects. Besides, there are also additive traits.

Did you read the article I posted? Go read it.

Vespers math is smoke and mirrors, and I don't have the time to figure out wtf he is trying to say. Not to say that I have any problem with math, it just wasn't quaint enough for my mind to analyse without getting out some paper.

Recessive genes, recessive genes, ninth grade. This isn't ninth grade biology, this is human genetics, and we don't work like pea plants, and simple recessive/dominant genes are EXTRAORDINARILY rare. In fact, I recall a professor saying that he didn't believe there was ANY phenotype in humans which resulted simply and directly from a 2x2 matrix.
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 6:49pm  
Actually, it isn't the same. It's different for us because the vast majority of the phenotypes are characterised by a handful of genetic allelles being in certain ways. We don't follow simple 1-allelle causes 1 phenotype like simpler organisms do. Don't get me wrong, we DO, at the molecular level, I'm sure you could find a gene that results in a protein which is produced with an additional carbon or without the carbon, but on the macro, the big picture, that probably won't result, in and of itself, to any easily identifiable changes in phenotype. It is more likely that between that gene, and 10 or 20 others, we can determine how straight your hair will be, your level of susceptability to colon cancer, whether you will be deaf genetically or not, etc. But no single gene is likely to have any significant effect on an easily identifiable phenotype.

THERE ARE genetic illnesses. However, most birth defects are resulting more from problems that arose while in the womb (I can't think of the term right now...), than from genetics...

Don't get me wrong, there IS some validity to theorizing that inbreeding will eventual fudge up populations... BUT IT TAKES MORE THAN ONE GENERATION. That is the key.

How? Well, what happens, of course, is as the inbreeding occurs, we start seeing cousins who now have 30% genetic similarity... and by the next generation it is 35% genetic similarity... and if they keep mating eventually the genetic similarity will be extraordinarily high even for second and third cousins... And then, yes, birth defects galore! Or, additive, beneficial, traits, galore ;)

I realize your example is more complex than just recessive/dominant. HOWEVER, you began with the premise that most phenotypes are resulting from simple r/d genes. And they aren't. I can't think of a single one that is... in humans. We are much more complex than that.
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 7:36pm  
Lets keep up with the math here but increase it for multiple allelles.

The increase in the rate of ending up with the disease, I would argue, is a function of x that takes into account 1) The number of allelles involved in the disease. as well as 2) All the things you took into account. I would also note the general trend of the number of allelles being inversely related to the increase.

Given the number of allelles involved in most diseases is greater than 1, I believe that your argument of 7.85 for a simple genetic, 1 allelle, disease, with 1/1000 rate is realistic for the parameters, however, a more realistic set of parameters would be 1/10,000 and multiple allelles.
Vesper
(reply to cody) posted 27-Jan-2002 7:44pm  
   Well, I can name a few inheritable diseases that are controlled by a single gene right away. Alzheimer's disease (I don't remember which gene, sorry). Or this one: HSP, MS and epilepsy.
   That doesn't mean I don't agree that most phenotypes are determined by several genes. Anyway, you can find that in other species too.
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 7:48pm  
Single gene? Is that what you're trying to say?
Vesper
(reply to cody) posted 27-Jan-2002 7:54pm  
Yes. I already edited that post, you just saw it too soon  * raspberry *
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 27-Jan-2002 7:56pm  
"In addition, twin studies from different populations consistently indicate that a monozygotic twin of an MS patient is at higher risk (25-30% concordance) for MS than is a dizygotic twin (2-5%), providing additional evidence for a *complex* genetic etiology to MS."

This is all I am arguing. The simpler the genetic side of the etiology is, the higher that 'increase' factor for mating between siblings is going to be... however, the etiology of the vast majority of diseases is NOT SIMPLE. I will repeat, I cannot think of a single one that is heritable according to the simple R/D mendel rule. Not a single one. I can't even think of a single phenotype that is. Alzheimers... DEFINATELY NO. MS DEFINATELY NO.

Don't get me wrong, a particular factor in your susceptability could be determined by one gene. This could result in scientists discovering a single gene that plays significantly and consistently into occurance rates, but it DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ENTIRE GENETIC MAKE-UP OF THE DISEASE... only a significant portion of it.

What I'm saying, is that because you have presumed simple single allelle R/D inheritance in your calculations, demonstrate to me that this type of inheritance is realistic. Given the environmental factors playing into most diseases, I'd say it is going to be fairly difficult to isolate the genetic causes... and I don't believe in the possibility of a single genetic cause.
Vesper
(reply to jettles) posted 28-Jan-2002 2:06am  
   I put your URL in. Thank you! I physically can't get rid of the lengthy reasoning though, even though I would like to... I wrote there why, just posting this to draw your attention to that, because my reply to you got buried deep behind and it's easy to miss it.  * smile *
Vesper
(reply to cody) posted 28-Jan-2002 2:09am  
   You mean Alzheimer's disease is controlled by more than one gene? I thought otherwise... Could you point me to more information about it?
Kristal_Rose
(reply to cody) posted 28-Jan-2002 6:03am  
Unless I misunderstand, and you are alluding to a deeper system of consequence, than I don't see how comparative expression between mono and di-zygotic twins has any bearing on the presence of complex etiology.
btw, I predict the next aspect of infininte research will be 'synergistic contributors', the concept that multiple components may optionally/alternatively be involved in complex etiolgy products.
LindaH Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to cody) posted 28-Jan-2002 11:52am  
Have you ever heard of the Fugates from Troublesom Creek?

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/fugate.html

cody
(reply to LindaH) posted 28-Jan-2002 1:37pm  
That's interesting, thanks! Demonstrates what I said before... over MULTIPLE GENERATIONS, real problems can occur. Or benefits, I suppose.
cody
(reply to Vesper) posted 28-Jan-2002 1:56pm  
http://snpassocad1.cgr.ki.se/

mentions in passing 'including the known AD risk allele APOE-E4 and 13 other markers previously claimed to modify AD risk'.

So, there are at least 14 markers which have been referenced as affecting risk. This doesn't necessarily mean they are all correct, but I would find it hard to believe that out of the 14 claims fewer than 5 or 6 would turn out to be true.
AD=Alzheimer's disease.

NOTHING is the result of a single gene, because, at the very least, there could be a gene which could inhibit the action of the first gene.

It's all about risk factors. No disease is simple. They have to do with different levels of proteins, different shapes and sizes of cells, different types of proteins, etc. etc. etc. And the way those all come together, with the environment, then we can determine or not determine the disease will pop up. Occasionally I'm sure there is a disease that is 100% the result of a protein producing gene, double recessive, which results directly in fetal abortion or a birth defect, but that is going to be rare, by the simple fact that those genes are not going to survive very long in the population as their carriers largely die out. When it is 100% the result of a single gene, there is too much pressure for that genetic mutation to disappear from the population. However, when something is only, say, 25% the result of a single gene, we see significantly less pressure on that genetic pattern to fail to propogate.

Which answers Kristal question, that, yes, recessive genes do have a greater potential to be damage inducing, because dominant damage inducing genes don't survive the generations as their carriers are at such significant disadvantage, whereas only a small portion of recessive gene carriers would show the phenotype... those that had double recessive, and the occasional oddity... and yes, you can show the phenotype with only one recessive gene, which REALLY complicates matters.

Iseult Silver Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
posted 16-Feb-2002 4:04pm  
No, and I have no intention whatsoever.
Cain
(reply to Biggles) posted 18-Feb-2002 8:39am  
OI!!
Biggles Bronze Star Survey Creator Survey Qualifier
(reply to Cain) posted 18-Feb-2002 9:59am  
 * wink *
Cain
(reply to Biggles) posted 18-Feb-2002 11:55am  
I'll let that one pass. But that was cheeky!!
 * smile *
DG
posted 15-Dec-2005 7:31pm  
dude i love sex with my cousin im only 14 and she is 11 but i love it. i dont love her at all but i love sex with her is all im saying
matkick
posted 23-Mar-2006 1:45pm  
i had sex with my cousin after i had seen her naked n i can tell u this she is hot,i walked in on her (accidently) while she was gettin dressed n she jus came ova 2 me n we fudgeed in her room.
Roughneck101
posted 2-Jun-2006 4:20pm  
My cousin is my age and extremely hot. If given the chance i would bang her
BobbySmith12345
posted 24-Jun-2007 4:22pm  
my sister who is 5 years older than me!
rocky245
posted 19-Nov-2007 10:54pm  
my mom we were both very drunk and never speak of it
hacksaw
posted 26-Mar-2008 11:34pm  
yes, my sister. were both ok with it. it was NOT planned. and WONT happen again. but we did it, it happened, cant change it. and it was really good.
Psychologo
posted 16-Apr-2008 1:22am  
No
LisaLopez
posted 19-Jan-2010 6:16pm  
Iíve had sexually intercourse with two of my male cousins it started with touching & feeling, you show me yours and Iíll show you mine type of stuff when we were children I was 9 o 10 years old and one of them was 4 years older than me and the other was 2 years older than me. By the time I was 12 we were having full all out intercourse, weíd sneak and watch my uncles pornoís and do any & everything we saw them doing it continued on a regular basis until I was 16 years old.

Iíve had sex with the youngest one only twice since but the older one and I have had sex at least 10 or 15 times over the past 14 years Iím now 30 and itís been six months since the last time we had sex with each other and I believe that is my last time doing it with him. I used the excuse that we were kids and didnít know what we were doing but what excuse can I use now!
popcornkid
posted 20-Jun-2011 1:59pm  
Yes this one time about when i was 15 and my sister was 17 and we were home alone while our parents went to las vegas for 1 week, well one night we was playing hide and seek and i hid down in the basement to hide and all of a sudden my sister found me...she asked me if i have a girlfriend and i said no and i was a lil horny the way she was dressed, a robe on nothing under it. So while we was talking i asked her to take it off and lay down while we kissed and got naked. we did it for 2 hours and we did things that we will remember, we still mess around when im home tho....but yeah i think its ok to be incest, incest is the best put your cousin to the test, but yeah my sister was 160 slim and big breast and she is lesbain and we only have sex with eachother whenever we need money or whatecver!!!
popcornkid
(reply to LisaLopez) posted 20-Jun-2011 2:07pm  
thats ok lisa i had sex with a few cousins and they are a year younger and 4 years older than me....one time we was drinking and i was really wasted and she came in there and got naked and asked to have sex with her one last time so i did...never again will i do that but my 1/2 sister and i have sex becuz she is thick and has big boobs and she is tight...i like it becuz she flirts with me, dresses nasty and lays nasty with high shorts on with nothing under em so one day i just asked her if i can feel her up, she didnt care we kissed and i went down on her while she was moaning
BAREABLE
posted 24-Jan-2012 10:43am  
4 of no longer do it but we all enjoyed it we cant talk about it much because were not alone often were as close as ever
Last
Advanced_Stats

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

 
Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/ever-sex-family-member--10500.html

Hits: 6 today (160 in the last 30 days)