DNA tests are uncovering the true prevalence of incest (2024)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Accessing the article & paywalls

  • Commenters debate whether archive links are necessary because the article loads without JavaScript; others hit a paywall or “sign in / free trial” wall.
  • Several note that many paywalls are implemented client-side with JavaScript and can be bypassed by disabling it, but not all browsers make per-site JS blocking easy.
  • Some argue archive links are still important for accessibility and consistency, especially since HN discourages paywall complaints.
  • Archive.today’s use of Google CAPTCHA is criticized as undermining privacy-oriented use cases, though experiences with captchas vary.

Emotional impact of the story

  • Multiple readers describe the article as touching and tragic, and some say they actively avoid reading such pieces because they find them too upsetting.

Consanguinity vs incest and cultural practices

  • A substantial subthread distinguishes:
    • Close-incest cases in the article (e.g., parent–child, sibling–sibling, often abusive).
    • Consanguineous marriage (e.g., first cousins), which is culturally accepted and relatively common in some regions and communities.
  • Several point to South Asian and Middle Eastern contexts, with discussion of caste systems, religious norms, and regional data indicating high cousin-marriage rates.
  • Others stress that the article is about first-degree abuse, not cousin marriage, and that these are often conflated.

Legal and societal attitudes

  • Some are surprised that cousin marriage is legal in countries like France; related critiques involve restrictions on paternity tests and controversial court decisions about sexual abuse under anesthesia.
  • Royal families and specific diaspora communities are cited as examples where cousin marriage is normalized.

Prevalence estimates & data bias

  • The article’s estimate of about 1 in 7,000 people with clear genetic signatures of close incest is discussed; some see it as “low” but still disturbing.
  • Commenters debate whether this figure is truly a “floor,” focusing on selection bias in the UK Biobank:
    • It enrolls mostly healthy middle-aged volunteers, which may underestimate genetic disease.
    • Others argue opt-in genetic databases may overrepresent people with unusual genetic issues.
  • Several emphasize the logic: these are only detectable cases that led to live births and participation, so hidden incidence is almost certainly higher.

Stigma, language, and abuse recognition

  • One thread reflects on how girls with early pregnancies were historically labeled with insults rather than recognized as possible abuse victims.
  • There is contention over the use of stigmatizing terms, even in scare quotes; some see them as necessary to describe social labeling, others as needlessly hurtful.
  • Broader point: society often blames victims, especially when the perpetrator is a respected figure (e.g., coach, professional).

Support groups & platform choice

  • The article’s mention of a private Facebook support group triggers concern about using Facebook for such sensitive contexts, given its privacy track record.
  • Others suggest the “invite-only” aspect is more about moderation and emotional safety than technical privacy.

Genetics, inheritance, and ancestry

  • One long comment explains recessive genes with an appliance analogy: everyone carries some “defective devices,” but close incest sharply raises the odds that both copies are defective.
  • Another thread notes that although ancestry doubles each generation mathematically, most distant ancestors contribute no DNA due to recombination, so genetic and genealogical ancestry diverge significantly.