General Discussions

Reavers, what's their deal?

POSTED BY: athertonwing
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 06:24
VIEWED: 17272
PAGE 7 of 7

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Quote:
has been shown to be something that is universal among ancient people

Not true. Siblings were almost universally prohibited from marrying, with a few notable exceptions, the most notable being Egyptian royalty. This was probably unnecessary, given that siblings pretty much never want to marry each other, anyway. Certain cultures prohibited other relatives from marrying, even out to "traceable" relatives, but many of the rules about who someone could and could not marry had nothing to do with blood relation.

Actually it's quite true, and it was demonstrated in 1949 by G.P. Murdock.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Are you trying to say that there are no cultural universals? First, this isn't universal, and 2nd, there are plenty of other reasons to set down rules about who's allowed to marry whom.

You just asserted in the last paragraph that it wasn't true to begin with? Are you changing your story now?

And exactly how do you know that siblings never wanted to marry? This isn't really something you can know. But since throughout most of history marriages were arranged, it makes little difference anyway. It is true that cousins were sometimes married because the family wanted to maintain the homogeneity of the blood relationships in the family, but then why didn't cultures more frequently marry siblings if that's the case? If cousins maintain a close blood kin in the family, wouldn't marrying siblings maintain a closer blood kin, or at least as close? But almost universally, marriage laws prohibit the marrying of siblings. There is only one reasonable explanation for this and that is that they understood the dangers involved in incestuous relationships.

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:54 PM

Quote:
Actually it's quite true, and it was demonstrated in 1949 by G.P. Murdock.

Huh? What exactly is true? That close relatives are universally prohibited from marrying? I've given counter-examples to that premise, so it can't really be true.

Quote:
You just asserted in the last paragraph that it wasn't true to begin with? Are you changing your story now?

No. You said it (and I'm still not quite sure what "it" is) was universal, then said that because it was universal, it had to be more than just cultural. I said (a) it's not universal, and (b) even if it was, that doesn't mean that it's not cultural.

Quote:
And exactly how do you know that siblings never wanted to marry?

There have been many studies on sibling incest taboos. There have been cultures that have tried to get people who were raised together to marry. People raised together see each other as siblings, and don't find each other sexually attractive. The marriages never really work. Also, avoidance of sibling incest is common throughout the animal kingdom, or at least mammalia. I'd argue that an animal without language shouldn't have much trouble identifying at least a subset of their siblings (e.g., animals born in the same litter may recognize each other as siblings, but if a female sends out one litter on their own before having the next one, animals born a year apart to the same mother wouldn't recognize each other as siblings) but would have no way of identifying cousins. The sibling incest taboo is pretty well ingrained in our psyches. Parent-offspring incest is similar, although more common, even among humans.

Quote:
It is true that cousins were sometimes married because the family wanted to maintain the homogeneity of the blood relationships in the family

That was the reason given by European royalty, but I've never heard of it anywhere else. In most cultures, there's little or no mention of "blood"--it's all about alliances.

Quote:
But almost universally, marriage laws prohibit the marrying of siblings. There is only one reasonable explanation for this and that is that they understood the dangers involved in incestuous relationships.

Nope. I see 2 other explanations: (1) universal revulsion at the thought of siblings marrying, genetically programmed into our brains, with no actual understanding that siblings are far less likely to produce healthy children with each other, and (2) no benefit to a family's alliances.

ELFRENETICO

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jared:
Quote:

so maybe book had a good reason to insist on them being human beings and again knowing far more than he should?

Or he just belives in the humanity of all peoples and frowns upon superstious talk, like preachers tend to do. Check out the "Book" thread for some cool ideas on his past.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JARED

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elfrenetico:
Or he just belives in the humanity of all peoples and frowns upon superstious talk, like preachers tend to do. Check out the "Book" thread for some cool ideas on his past.

well, my favorite version would be: both ,-) knowledge can be such a nice little help for faith.

CORWYN

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:50 PM

My first thought when I saw them was that they were suffering from 'laughing sickness', a problem similar to BME (mad cow disease). It is one of the problems of cannibalism.

I don't think cannibalism is as hard to explain as some people here. If you were hungry enough and you had dead comrades, could you really spend thirty days or so, dying and not eat them?

So, they start hungry, become crazy, and the rest follows. As much as people want there to be an external 'reason' why people do horrible things, for the most part it is not required.

I think people are also giving too much credence to Mal's pop psychology. A person who endured a reaver attack is likely to become a little crazy. The exact symptoms are not that important.

DRAGONFLYDIRECTOR

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by corwyn:
My first thought when I saw them was that they were suffering from 'laughing sickness', a problem similar to BME (mad cow disease). It is one of the problems of cannibalism.
B]

Just a note of interest: Kuru, aka the laughing death or laughing sickness is spread only by eating the brain of one infected.

Strange, but true!

It has been limited to tribesmen in New Guinea and is very unusual to come across.

"Observe Analyze & Respond"
Motto of the A.P.E.s
Alliance Protean Engineers

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Huh? What exactly is true? That close relatives are universally prohibited from marrying? I've given counter-examples to that premise, so it can't really be true.

You haven't given counter examples of anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
There have been many studies on sibling incest taboos. There have been cultures that have tried to get people who were raised together to marry. People raised together see each other as siblings, and don't find each other sexually attractive. The marriages never really work. Also, avoidance of sibling incest is common throughout the animal kingdom, or at least mammalia. I'd argue that an animal without language shouldn't have much trouble identifying at least a subset of their siblings (e.g., animals born in the same litter may recognize each other as siblings, but if a female sends out one litter on their own before having the next one, animals born a year apart to the same mother wouldn't recognize each other as siblings) but would have no way of identifying cousins. The sibling incest taboo is pretty well ingrained in our psyches. Parent-offspring incest is similar, although more common, even among humans.

I think you need to go back the re-read those studies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Nope. I see 2 other explanations: (1) universal revulsion at the thought of siblings marrying, genetically programmed into our brains, with no actual understanding that siblings are far less likely to produce healthy children with each other, and (2) no benefit to a family's alliances.

First, neither of these “explanations” demonstrate anything contrary to my point. The fact remains, and despite your claims you have yet to demonstrate any counterexamples whatsoever that marriage laws almost universally prohibit the marrying of siblings.

Second, there is no “genetically programmed” “universal revulsion” to sexual sibling relationships. You’ve misinterpreted the studies or something, but that’s not what the Westermark effect is. In fact, there is something called GSA, Genetic Sexual Attraction, which is a sexual attraction that occurs when sibling separated at a young age are reunited as adults.[1] It is a documented effect, which suggests that if any genetic programming exists at all it is not at all revulsion. On the other hand, the Westermark effect is not limited to Siblings, and says the children who grow up in close contact together are not likely to experience a sexual attraction as adults.

Third, to your second point of there being no benefit to family alliances, you’ve already been kind enough to demonstrate that is wrong, because siblings were married in ancient Egypt for purposes of family alliances and political gain.

Incest taboo is not something I invented yesterday. It is a widely accepted anthropological theory that has been around for a lot longer then I have. If you have anymore confusion on this issue, I suggest you consult Murdock’s book or Edward Westernmark’s writings. Both helped to pioneer the theory of incest taboo and they will explain to you that marriage laws do in fact prohibit certain exogamic or endogamic unions.

Finally, it’s fairly obvious to me that this discussion is probably not going to go anywhere, and I think it’s detracting form the current "Reaver" discussion, so this will be my last post on this subject.

[1] http://www.postadoptioncentre.org.uk/Publications/gsa.htm

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:21 AM

Quote:
Finally, it’s fairly obvious to me that this discussion is probably not going to go anywhere, and I think it’s detracting form the current "Reaver" discussion, so this will be my last post on this subject.

Agreed. All I have to say is that I think that at least one of us (not sure which), if not both of us, has been arguing our points rather poorly and/or reading the other one's poorly. You seem to think you're contradicting some things that I don't think I said. (e.g., I was never arguing that marriage laws universally prohibit marriage of siblings. I was arguing that the prevalence of such marriage laws didn't depend on any explicit understanding of the genetic downsides to inbreeding. And I certainly have given at least one counter-example to the idea that close relatives are always prohibited from marrying: Egyptian royalty.) Whatever. It's late, and I don't care anymore.

Back to your regularly scheduled Reavers.

SHINY

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Siblings were almost universally prohibited from marrying

"That's just not something brothers and sisters do...well, on some planets, but only pretty bad ones..."

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!