In short, are we just born this way, or did something make us consanguinamorous? Interesting question, and no doubt not one that we will find out the answer to any time soon. Add to that the fact that it might be nature in some of us, and nurture in others. Either way the answers are not going to be clear cut and definitive, rather, this essay is here to explore different lines of thinking and possibilities.
I argued in previous articles that consanguinamory is an orientation for some of us, in much the same way that homosexuality is an orientation. That would imply of course that it is inbuilt, it is something that we ‘just are’ because that’s the way we’re born, it’s our NATURE. Yet this is not true of all consanguinamorous people, for many it could be environmental factors that are an issue, like a GSA situation where two people are separated when one or both are kids… and then reunite as adults. Had the separation not occurred, the attraction wouldn’t have happened… it’s NURTURE in cases such as these.
The arguments for NATURE:
- Some people have no natural aversion to incest. The Westermarck effect does not take place for some consanguinamorous persons.
- Some people know from an early age that they are different in this way, and fantasize about it from puberty onwards. This may be in general terms or fantasies about one relative in particular.
- Many people in consanguinamorous relationships say that they have tried and have been unfulfilled by relationships with unrelated persons. Emotionally, they need the family bond to be there was well as the lovers bond in order for it to feel ‘right’ and ‘normal’ to them.
- Many consanguinamorous people successfully find a mate within their family unit, which could suggest that it could run in the family as a genetic trait (not that there is necessarily an ‘incest gene’, only that the gene for incest aversion is not functioning as it would normally).
- Some consanguinamorous people are attracted to more than one family member.
Arguments for NURTURE:
- Some people, especially in GSA consanguinamory ARE naturally incest adverse. They only find themselves with family members they have been separated from, and therefore the Westermarck effect works for them in all other instances.
- People can, even unknowingly and subconsciously, influence each other. Therefore the argument that it might be a genetic trait could be untrue on that basis.
- People who are brought up to be more open minded and liberal might be more open to the idea than others who are raised in more conservative homes.
- Some people are bisanguinamarous (both consanguinamorous and exsanguinamorous at the same time) and have no preference either way, if it was nature, wouldn’t they have a strong preference one way or the other?
All of this is interesting of course, because it shows that even given solid facts, there is more than one way to interpret those facts.
For example, you could have a brother/sister couple in their early 20s, both of them were mutually attracted to each other and experimented together when they were teenagers. Neither has seriously wanted to go out and find somebody else because they’re happy together. They were raised by open-minded parents but they still keep their relationship a secret from them just in case they get a bad reaction because of the sheer strength of the taboo. The sister is also attracted to her uncle, her dad and her other brother… but won’t go there because she won’t cheat on the brother she is already with. The brother has a crush on somebody at work, but he won’t cheat on his sister because he loves her more.
You could say that the Westermarck effect was ineffective for this couple because they are wired up for consanguinamory by their genes. You could also argue that the pubescent exploration had an influence on them and therefore significantly reduced the impact of the incest taboo. You could argue that their open-minded and liberal parents attitudes had molded them to be free-thinkers, and thinking outside the box is required for consanguinamory to occur. You could say that the sister was fully fledged consanguinamorous by nature because she is attracted to several members of her family, but you can’t say the same for the bisanguinamorous brother who feels attracted to an unrelated woman at work. One could argue that they are both properly consanguinamorous because neither has seriously considered having a real relationship with an unrelated person.
See how complicated it gets when you try to apply the nature/nurture debate to just ONE relationship that looked like a simple case of bro/sis romance. To apply the debate to the whole community would generate so many contradictory lines of thinking that the whole project would become a huge tangled mass of confusion.
The only conclusion I can draw from any of this is that both nature and nurture play a part in consanguinamory. It is more nature for some of us, especially those who have been involved in non-GSA consanguinamory, and for those who feel it’s their nature, it is okay to consider it an orientation. Most GSA consanguinamorists would say it is the situation of being separated that causes it for them, not any inbuilt preference, and so it is mostly nurture for that group. It’s all very interesting and thought provoking to say the least.
Consanguinamory 