Jump to content
Angel Eyes

Incest Deficiencies, or lack thereof

Recommended Posts

This conversation got very technical. 

The answer to the op is simply to say there were several notable miscarried or deformed children that did not survive. I'm not sure there is any one definition of incest in the books after reading all of these ideas; it seems each region and culture views it differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bitterblooms said:

This conversation got very technical. 

The answer to the op is simply to say there were several notable miscarried or deformed children that did not survive.

There seem to be some mildly deformed Targaryens who did live - Jaehaerys, the son of Aegon II had additional toes and fingers, Jaehaera and Vaella apparently had mental issues (and Gael possibly as well), and Jaehaerys II apparently had a deformed left arm and a clawed hand.

Whether that's due to incest or other issues we don't really know, however.

5 hours ago, Bitterblooms said:

I'm not sure there is any one definition of incest in the books after reading all of these ideas; it seems each region and culture views it differently. 

For the Faith incest is parents-siblings having sex and siblings having sex, that's it. Avuncular, cousin, and other marriages among kin are not incest.

How the Northmen see it we don't know - but we actually don't seem them making much fuzz about incest, anyway - it is the Faith who talks about abomination and stuff not the Northmen. The fact that there are two avuncular marriages in the Stark family tree as well as two cousin marriages (one of them Rickard Stark and his cousin Lyarra Stark) makes it very unlikely this kind of thing was an issue.

But we'll have to wait and see. If the ridiculous Hightower marriage scenario from the MUSH is canon - as @The Wandering Wolf once said, I think - then this kind of thing (a Hightower lord marrying his own stepmother, a Samantha Tarly, after fathering a bunch of bastards on her who were later legitimized) then this may count as another form of incest. Or not. Really hard to say.

In many of our cultures marriages between stepchildren and stepparents are seen as incest, just as sex between adoptive siblings or even, at times when a woman or man marries the widow or widower of diseased sibling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 2:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

Since there are no rumors that Visenya ever entertained any lovers the idea here is that she may have used magic to make Aegon's semen work - or she just went through some spell and created a male clone of herself magically (which assumes that magics like that exist in Westeros - could be, or not).

Maegor's mother was Maege?

Edited by Dead headofMaelysKinslayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 11:50 AM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, there are lots of possibilities, but the question I'd ask is why on earth we should consider those possibilities to be very likely. I mean, we do have strong evidence that a magical trait runs in the Targaryen family, but there are no so such hints at this point in relation to skinchanger/greenseer thing.

Skin changing and green sight certainly seem like a type of magic to me, and if one magic (dragon binding) can be passed genetically, why should we not think that to be worth considering in another form of magic in this world? I could certainly be wrong about that, but I just like to explore the possible reasons or causes. 

Perhaps it has nothing to do with genetics. Perhaps the reason all six children of Winterfell are wargs has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the fact that they have direworlves. Perhaps this is the same situation with the Targaryen's? Gene's don't really matter, but having dragons or not is the deciding factor.

On 5/10/2018 at 11:50 AM, Lord Varys said:

No, no, it was about the roots of horse-breeding back in ancient times.

I did come across another thoroughbred stallion by the name of Eclipse that is noted to be in the male line of 95% of modern thoroughbreds, which is a pretty stunning number. As to ancient horses, I would imagine that time would help thin out those genes, but perhaps not. Genetics are an interesting study, and talking about animals doesn't seem to get people so fired up as when talking about genetics in humans.

On 5/10/2018 at 11:50 AM, Lord Varys said:

Or it is just as the Children tell Bran: A certain percentage of people are blessed/cursed with the gift of greenseeing. And there is no further explanation to the entire thing.

It could be this I suppose. But that still doesn't explain all six Stark children having a warg/skinchanger ability. Even if we consider wargs and skinchanger's separate and don't count the 6/6 Stark's who are wargs, we have Bran and Arya who have shown us the ability to see through the eyes of animals that are not their direwolves, Bran with birds and Hodor, and Arya with cat's, (at least 2/6) which defies what we were told by Bloodraven "Only one man in a thousand is born a skinchanger", unless for these two Stark's there are two thousand others who are born without the gene, or six thousand if you consider all the Stark children skinchangers. There is something special about these children.

That doesn't even take into consideration that Varamyr thinks that Jon is a very powerful skinchanger, which would give us 3/6 of the Starks. It defies the odds we are given.

On 5/10/2018 at 11:50 AM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I speculated about the Tullys having Lothston blood, too, but my take is that this might be there way to have some Targaryen blood (because the Lothston that married into House Tully may have descended from one of the Lothstons fathered by Aegon IV), possibly explaining how Beric could resurrect Catelyn.

The idea behind that is that only people with 'the blood of the dragon' can be brought back by the R'hllorian 'kiss of fire' thing which, as I speculated, may have been a spell originally created by Valyrian sorcerers.

But what about Beric himself? We have no indication that he carries any "blood of the dragon", and he certainly was brought back by the "kiss of fire".

I do think that line of speculation, with the Lothston's probably being descended from the blood line of Aegon IV, has a strong chance of being true. It gives us a connection for the Tully's via Whent via Lothston via Targayen as having special blood.

But I wonder if it is something different entirely, and it has something to do with red hair, which Catelyn and Beric both share, as well as Thoros of Myr (before he went grey). We are told by Ygritte that being "kissed by fire"  is lucky! Why do the wildlings feel that red hair is lucky? Perhaps because it has a link to a different kind of life or after life? Pure speculation on my part.

I also speculate that the Stark's might carry some Targaryen blood, which might be why Ned and Cat's kids are special, but that is certainly a discussion for a different thread.

Sorry about the delay in posting but I don't check in on this board very often, or even post here much at all any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 2:14 PM, Sigella said:

I find your argument quite oppressive: you'd bulldoze right over peoples wants and wishes just because YOU find high down's-prevalence in society great? 

I find your argument quite oppressive: you'd bulldoze right over peoples wants and wishes just because YOU find high down's-prevalence in society great?  thoughts and ideas as if yours is the only opinion or expression that matters.

You are free to have your ideas, and I am free to have mine.

I find some peoples thoughts on this board interesting and thought provoking whether we agree or not, as long as the discussion is mature and polite. In case you were wondering, childish name calling is neither.  Adios!

Edited by St Daga
x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I find your argument quite oppressive: you'd bulldoze right over peoples wants and wishes just because YOU find high down's-prevalence in society great?  thoughts and ideas as if yours is the only opinion or expression that matters.

You are free to have your ideas, and I am free to have mine.

I find some peoples thoughts on this board interesting and thought provoking whether we agree or not, as long as the discussion is mature and polite. In case you were wondering, childish name calling is neither.  Adios!

You called me a nazi. I'd say dip wad is way softer insult. Double-standards much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Skin changing and green sight certainly seem like a type of magic to me, and if one magic (dragon binding) can be passed genetically, why should we not think that to be worth considering in another form of magic in this world? I could certainly be wrong about that, but I just like to explore the possible reasons or causes. 

I'm not saying the possibility isn't there, I'm merely pointing out that the evidence that there is magical 'blood of the dragon' in the Targaryen lineage - and that the traditional Valyrian incest seems to go back to the idea that the magical blood has to be kept pure to ensure the magical blood continues to work its magic the way it should - is much stronger than the idea that other magical talents are inherited the same way.

There are people out there who claim with almost certainty that there are 'magical First Men' bloodlines out there - and I merely point out that we don't have sufficient evidence to make such proclamations.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Perhaps it has nothing to do with genetics. Perhaps the reason all six children of Winterfell are wargs has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the fact that they have direworlves. Perhaps this is the same situation with the Targaryen's? Gene's don't really matter, but having dragons or not is the deciding factor.

The Stark skinchangers (and the one greenseer they have brought forth in Bran) certainly seems to be a very rare coincidence - and there might be an explanation for this. Or not. I mean, it could be as vague as 'these are the troubled times prophecies spoke about; times in which heroes and legends come forth to fight the good fight and save humanity'.

After all, while we all might agree that Daenerys' magical talent was inherited through blood the hatching of the dragon eggs was a singular magical event - a miracle pretty much nobody else could have pulled off.

The Stark children might be in a similar category, with the difference that the skinchanger/greenseer talent is not necessarily a talent that is inherited.

If George wanted to paint it that way we would have gotten a lot of hints that there had been Stark and/or Tully skinchangers and greenseers - both in the distant past as well as in more recent days.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

It could be this I suppose. But that still doesn't explain all six Stark children having a warg/skinchanger ability. Even if we consider wargs and skinchanger's separate and don't count the 6/6 Stark's who are wargs, we have Bran and Arya who have shown us the ability to see through the eyes of animals that are not their direwolves, Bran with birds and Hodor, and Arya with cat's, (at least 2/6) which defies what we were told by Bloodraven "Only one man in a thousand is born a skinchanger", unless for these two Stark's there are two thousand others who are born without the gene, or six thousand if you consider all the Stark children skinchangers. There is something special about these children.

There is no difference between wargs and skinchangers as such - wargs are just the skinchangers who have wolves. It is a special group within the larger group of skinchangers.

It would be a very lucky coincidence that all Starks became accidentally skinchangers (and one a greenseer) but this isn't a statistical impossibility.

I'd not be surprised if it turned out that Bloodraven somehow helped the Stark children to become skinchangers. We don't know yet what exactly greenseers can do. He clearly seems to have been the one sending the wolves to the Starks, and he even arranged things in a manner that sent a warning to Ned.

And it is pretty clear that he played a crucial role in awakening Bran's powers.

If greenseers and skinchangers could be bred one should assume that Bloodraven and the Children would have told that to Bran.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

But what about Beric himself? We have no indication that he carries any "blood of the dragon", and he certainly was brought back by the "kiss of fire".

Oh, I should have described the whole thing in more detail. The starting point of the idea is the very weird fact that Thoros only brings back Beric again and again when many other of their comrades and friends are dying around them left and right (and the sort dehumanizing effect of the resurrections only became clear when Beric had been brought back multiple times). Why aren't there more zombies in the Brotherhood without Banners? Perhaps Thoros tried to bring back others and it failed.

Now, in the Targaryen family tree there is the curious case of Baelor Breakspear - the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Prince of Dragonstone - marrying one Jena Dondarrion. We learn that Egg's marriage to a Blackwood - a very ancient house of First Men royalty - caused a very big scandal while Lord Bloodraven served as Hand of the King. How likely is it that Daeron II would have married his eldest son and heir to a woman from a house that was founded by some messenger?

I don't think that's very likely. When the Targaryens couldn't marry siblings they turned to aunts and cousins. George changed the Targaryen family tree so that Daeron II didn't have any daughters (thus King Aerys I's wife, Queen Aelinor, was changed from his sister-wife to his cousin-wife of House Penrose). Baelor Breakspear and his brothers have neither sisters to marry nor first cousins (at least until their aunt Daenerys and Maron Martell produced any children - which took only place after their own weddings - or at least betrothals), or second cousins (thanks to the fact that the Dragonknight didn't have any children). Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena didn't marry them, either, so the next of kin would be the descendants of Viserys II's two half-sisters - Baela Targaryen (married to Alyn Velaryon and having an unspecified number of children) and Rhaena Targaryen who was married to Garmund Hightower and hid six daughters by him.

The idea is that one of those six Targaryen-Hightower daughters married into House Dondarrion. Or perhaps even a Velaryon daughter of Alyn and Baela's - if they had any.

Aelinor and Ronnel Penrose are likely similarly descended from such a daughter - I expect Ronnel to be the son of such a union, and Aelinor to be a child from his first marriage, the one before he married Elaena Targaryen.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I do think that line of speculation, with the Lothston's probably being descended from the blood line of Aegon IV, has a strong chance of being true. It gives us a connection for the Tully's via Whent via Lothston via Targayen as having special blood.

Whether the Whents have any Lothston blood isn't clear. Could be. But I don't find it very unlikely at all that a Tully lord or heir married a Lothston daughter during the time they held Harrenhal. After all, Hoster married Minisa Whent, Quenton Qoherys married one of Edmyn Tully's daughters, etc. The Tullys would have always been well-advised to keep close ties with whatever house held Harrenhal.

For Cat to have Targaryen blood it would have to be the right Lothston to marry into House Tully, of course, but the idea would be that Lord Lucas Lothston's eldest son and heir would have been one of the children fathered by Aegon IV (unlike Jeyne Lothston, who was born much later). f Lucas's son and heir had a daughter in turn such a daughter could have married into House Tully.

But there would be other sources for such blood, too. Plumms and Penroses, for example. Elaena and Ronnel had three daughters - Laena, Jocelyn, and Joy.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I also speculate that the Stark's might carry some Targaryen blood, which might be why Ned and Cat's kids are special, but that is certainly a discussion for a different thread.

Well, if Cat has Targaryen blood then her children would, too.

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Sorry about the delay in posting but I don't check in on this board very often, or even post here much at all any more.

No problem. Take your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not saying the possibility isn't there, I'm merely pointing out that the evidence that there is magical 'blood of the dragon' in the Targaryen lineage - and that the traditional Valyrian incest seems to go back to the idea that the magical blood has to be kept pure to ensure the magical blood continues to work its magic the way it should - is much stronger than the idea that other magical talents are inherited the same way.

The evidence for this being that the Targaryen's claim that it is so? I am not trying to dispute there must be some type of magic involved in bonding or riding with a dragon, but I am not sure that it is much different that bonding with a direwolf or an eagle or a snow bear. It just stands to reason to me, if these are similar types of gene magic, then if the Targaryen's inbreed to keep the "blood of the dragon" strong, which might just be another way of saying "hey, we can bond with and control dragon's", then it might be possible that the same can go for skinchangers or wargs that we have seen in the story. I do think the mother is important, as we are told that Varamyr never managed to father a child with his gift. I think this gift needs to come from both sides of the union, and Varamyr never mated with the right woman.

Perhaps there is a huge difference between dragon bonding and warging, but to me it seems like the major difference is the type of beast involved.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are people out there who claim with almost certainty that there are 'magical First Men' bloodlines out there - and I merely point out that we don't have sufficient evidence to make such proclamations.

I can't speak for those people and their claims, but I would imagine that all bloodlines, be they First Men, Valyrian, or even Andal or Rhoynish as well as CotF and giants have some type of magic in their bloodlines. And much of that is speculation, I suppose. Evidence is a tricky thing in this story, with a whole host of unreliable narrator's and what I would guess is purposeful misleading of the reader by the author as well as large amounts of incomplete information. The whole story is tricky.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Stark skinchangers (and the one greenseer they have brought forth in Bran) certainly seems to be a very rare coincidence - and there might be an explanation for this. Or not. I mean, it could be as vague as 'these are the troubled times prophecies spoke about; times in which heroes and legends come forth to fight the good fight and save humanity'.

After all, while we all might agree that Daenerys' magical talent was inherited through blood the hatching of the dragon eggs was a singular magical event - a miracle pretty much nobody else could have pulled off.

The Stark children might be in a similar category, with the difference that the skinchanger/greenseer talent is not necessarily a talent that is inherited.

It might not be an inherited trait, but for now, I personally have no reason to doubt that it is inherited. Time and more books could very well prove me wrong.

As to the odds, I know at present we are given the impression of only Bran being a greenseer, but I think there are clues that Jon and Rickon are as well. We are told that about the red and green eyes of the CotF.

Quote

Those you call the children of the forest have eyes as golden as the sun, but once in a great while one is born amongst them with eyes as red as blood, or green as the moss on a tree in the heart of the forest. By these signs do the gods mark those they have chosen to receive the gift. The chosen ones are not robust, and their quick years upon the earth are few, for every song must have its balance. But once inside the wood they linger long indeed. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees. Greenseers." ADWD-Bran III

The direwolves are important to the Stark's, and we are possibly given clues about the Stark children through their direwolves. It is Jon who has a red eyed direwolf and Rickon who has a green eyed direwolf. Is this some type of misdirection that we are not supposed to pay attention to, or are we to see that possible Jon and Rickon are greenseer's, too? I actually speculate they all have this ability, but there is little proof. Rickon and Robb are difficult as we don't spend as much time with them or see through their own POV, but Sansa and Arya possibly give us clues. Sansa has a dream in the godswood of the Red Keep where she see's Bran smiling, and I don't think it is a coincidence that happened under the heart tree, a great oak. Arya seems to have some type of communication with Ned at the heart tree at Harrenhal. I think these could be examples of greensight in both Arya and Sansa.

Anyway, I am notorious for derailing threads, and I am going to try not to do that here, but I will say, what happens to those odd's if six of the Stark children have the green sight ability? Perhaps it is all a give from Bloodraven but I still feel like there has to be some genetic component involved. Like Bloodraven had to steer the parent's together to get the right genetic code to create these children.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If George wanted to paint it that way we would have gotten a lot of hints that there had been Stark and/or Tully skinchangers and greenseers - both in the distant past as well as in more recent days.

I think there are things he wants to leave for later reveals. But I think Lysa hears voices and uses singers and sweetsleep to drown them out, and I think that Sweetrobin has inherited this as well with hearing voices and use (not his choice but still use) of sweetsleep. Time will tell. For now it's speculation and I very well could end up mistaken about it all.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, in the Targaryen family tree there is the curious case of Baelor Breakspear - the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and Prince of Dragonstone - marrying one Jena Dondarrion. We learn that Egg's marriage to a Blackwood - a very ancient house of First Men royalty - caused a very big scandal while Lord Bloodraven served as Hand of the King. How likely is it that Daeron II would have married his eldest son and heir to a woman from a house that was founded by some messenger?

I don't think that's very likely. When the Targaryens couldn't marry siblings they turned to aunts and cousins. George changed the Targaryen family tree so that Daeron II didn't have any daughters (thus King Aerys I's wife, Queen Aelinor, was changed from his sister-wife to his cousin-wife of House Penrose). Baelor Breakspear and his brothers have neither sisters to marry nor first cousins (at least until their aunt Daenerys and Maron Martell produced any children - which took only place after their own weddings - or at least betrothals), or second cousins (thanks to the fact that the Dragonknight didn't have any children). Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena didn't marry them, either, so the next of kin would be the descendants of Viserys II's two half-sisters - Baela Targaryen (married to Alyn Velaryon and having an unspecified number of children) and Rhaena Targaryen who was married to Garmund Hightower and hid six daughters by him.

The idea is that one of those six Targaryen-Hightower daughters married into House Dondarrion. Or perhaps even a Velaryon daughter of Alyn and Baela's - if they had any.

This is certainly possible. I always say that almost anything is possible in this story, so this too is possible. It's an interesting connection and one that I was unaware of. I am not much aware of Baelor Breakspear or his story, so I don't have much to contribute. I have not read any of the companion novellas (although I suppose I will some day). I stubbornly feel the puzzle can be solved by reading the main novels. I will admit that I have looked into the world book but still feel like the great puzzle is solvable within the ASOIAF main novels. Good theory on Dondarrion blood, for certain!

I still think there is something to the phrase "kissed by fire" that might relate back to red heads. Time will tell, I hope!

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if Cat has Targaryen blood then her children would, too.

Well yes, but I am thinking before Cat and Ned's marriage. After just talking about how I try not to use the world book to solve this puzzle, I am going to go straight to the world book Stark lineage. :blush: We are given some of the Stark marriages and children since the conquest, but not all of them. By my estimation, we are missing 75-100 ish years of lineage. I think sometime after the conquest, but before the Dance of the Dragon's, there was a Stark/Targaryen marriage. I know many people will not support this idea, but I think it happened. We don't know what Aegon and Torrhen agreed to on the Trident that day but I feel it has to be more than "bow to me and I won't murder you all". There has to be some benefit to not fighting besides just living and being conquered. The vale and the north bent the knee and did not war, and I think that earned them a marriage to a Targaryen, probably a female. We know it eventually happened with House Arryn, but we have not been given this information for House Stark.

Of course Aegon I had no daughters, and it's debatable if he even had any sons by his own seed. But both Rhaenys and Visenya shared Aegon's blood so I don't know that it matters much. Aenys I had a daughter Rhaena who married his son Aegon, another sibling incest marriage for the Targaryen's. She bore him twin daughters before his death and her forced marriage to Maegor. These twins are where my Stark speculation lies. We don't know much about them, except that Rhaella was a ward of House Hightower during this, and I think House Hightower would have been stupid to give her up, so I think she remained with House Hightower after Maegor's death (and it might be the reason that Lynesse looks like Daenerys), but Aerea, who had escaped the Red Keep on dragonback with her mother has no more mentions. So far...

Aerea Targaryen. Aerea is an interesting sounding name, and my guess is it doesn't sound much different than Arya. I think that Aerea was given to a son of House Stark and her genes remain a part of the Stark's that we currently see in our story. I know that the name Arya seems to come from Arya Flint, but perhaps that Arya was named after an Aerea?

Again, I am not trying to derail this thread but that is where I speculate that Targaryen blood became part of House Stark.

The World Book also gives us an abbreviated House Lannister lineage, and I find that very suspicious, too!

*I mentioned I haven't posted over here in a long while but I see this place has really upped the emoji game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sigella said:

You called me a nazi. I'd say dip wad is way softer insult. Double-standards much?

Look @sigella, I have better things to do that argue with you and I am certain you have better things to do that argue with me.

I never called you a nazi, and I have pointed this out several times in the thread. I did say that your idea's about parents not breeding children if there is a chance at a genetic disease process that can be passed on border's on eugenic's, which is something that was part of nazi propaganda. 

If you interpreted me to have called you a nazi, I protest that, but will apologize for the misunderstanding. That was never my intent.

As to the rest ... I gave you a definition of eugenic's, which you chose not to respond to, but did have time to call me a dim wit. 

You also said that eugenic's was inbreeding, which it is not, and I gave information on how inbreeding was never a part of eugenics. I pointed this out and you did not respond to that either.

I have no problem with people choosing to take a risk and have children, even knowing there is a chance that a child might not be perfect. No child is perfect. And honestly, all pregnancy carries risk, in utero development and in labor and birth injury, whether you have a possible genetic disease or not. And the majority of those risks have nothing to do with inbreeding or incest, which is what the OP is about.

I have a personal perspective that differs from yours which I did try to explain. I appreciate that you had kind words about my brother, but you seem to think that people like him are better off not being born or to have a chance at life. I disagree, whether parents know the risks or not. It's obvious we disagree on several matters, and that is fine. Let's just be done with this.  I am done with this.

Edited by St Daga
x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, St Daga said:

The evidence for this being that the Targaryen's claim that it is so?

TWoIaF (in a quote from FaB) made it clear that the belief that the incest is necessary to ensure the production of continuous dragonlords. In that sense, it is confirmed to be more than just the deluded beliefs of the andalized Targaryen kings.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

I am not trying to dispute there must be some type of magic involved in bonding or riding with a dragon, but I am not sure that it is much different that bonding with a direwolf or an eagle or a snow bear.

Oh, it seems to be pretty clear that dragonriders are different from skinchangers. For one, skinchangers can bond with all animals, control them mentally, share their souls with them, are able to life a second life in them, and are capable of bonding with more than one animal - dragonriders can only ride one dragon at a time, cannot control the dragons mentally, cannot share their souls with them, do not live a second life in them, etc.

That is a very strong difference.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

It just stands to reason to me, if these are similar types of gene magic, then if the Targaryen's inbreed to keep the "blood of the dragon" strong, which might just be another way of saying "hey, we can bond with and control dragon's", then it might be possible that the same can go for skinchangers or wargs that we have seen in the story. I do think the mother is important, as we are told that Varamyr never managed to father a child with his gift. I think this gift needs to come from both sides of the union, and Varamyr never mated with the right woman.

Varamyr's siblings weren't skinchangers, either, though. Nor is there any indication that his parents ever had any skinchangers in their family, or else they wouldn't have handed the boy to some stranger, 'one of his kind'.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

I can't speak for those people and their claims, but I would imagine that all bloodlines, be they First Men, Valyrian, or even Andal or Rhoynish as well as CotF and giants have some type of magic in their bloodlines. And much of that is speculation, I suppose. Evidence is a tricky thing in this story, with a whole host of unreliable narrator's and what I would guess is purposeful misleading of the reader by the author as well as large amounts of incomplete information. The whole story is tricky.

Essentially the people we are talking about are First Men to stronger or lesser degree. The nobles would the most Andalish people (even the Starks, considering they intermarried with Royces, Blackwoods, Manderlys, and Tullys - all whom would have many Andal ancestors).

There is no dichotomy or meaningful difference there. Even Daenerys is a descendant of the ancient First Men via her Blackwood, Dayne, and Arryn ancestors (Aemma Arryn's father Rodrik Arryn would also have Royce and other First Men ancestors through his ancestor Hubert Arryn, who was married to a Royce).

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that there are many different magical bloodlines. The Valyrians did something to themselves to make them dragonlords - but there is no indication that skinchanging and greenseeing is based on the manipulation of one's blood.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

As to the odds, I know at present we are given the impression of only Bran being a greenseer, but I think there are clues that Jon and Rickon are as well. We are told that about the red and green eyes of the CotF.

The direwolves are important to the Stark's, and we are possibly given clues about the Stark children through their direwolves. It is Jon who has a red eyed direwolf and Rickon who has a green eyed direwolf. Is this some type of misdirection that we are not supposed to pay attention to, or are we to see that possible Jon and Rickon are greenseer's, too? I actually speculate they all have this ability, but there is little proof. Rickon and Robb are difficult as we don't spend as much time with them or see through their own POV, but Sansa and Arya possibly give us clues. Sansa has a dream in the godswood of the Red Keep where she see's Bran smiling, and I don't think it is a coincidence that happened under the heart tree, a great oak. Arya seems to have some type of communication with Ned at the heart tree at Harrenhal. I think these could be examples of greensight in both Arya and Sansa.

That would be odd considering that being a greenseer seems to be build up as Bran's special ability. Bran contacting/reaching out to his siblings/kin might explain much of that, actually.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

Anyway, I am notorious for derailing threads, and I am going to try not to do that here, but I will say, what happens to those odd's if six of the Stark children have the green sight ability? Perhaps it is all a give from Bloodraven but I still feel like there has to be some genetic component involved. Like Bloodraven had to steer the parent's together to get the right genetic code to create these children.

Considering Bloodraven failed to send Ned messages/warnings he could actually understand I doubt he could do stuff like that. Not to mention Cat was supposed to marry Brandon, not Ned.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

I think there are things he wants to leave for later reveals. But I think Lysa hears voices and uses singers and sweetsleep to drown them out, and I think that Sweetrobin has inherited this as well with hearing voices and use (not his choice but still use) of sweetsleep. Time will tell. For now it's speculation and I very well could end up mistaken about it all.

Yeah, there are striking parallels between Lysa and the more unstable Targaryens, just as there are many parallels between Catelyn and Rhaenyra. Could be that there is something more to that. We'll have to wait and see.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

This is certainly possible. I always say that almost anything is possible in this story, so this too is possible. It's an interesting connection and one that I was unaware of. I am not much aware of Baelor Breakspear or his story, so I don't have much to contribute. I have not read any of the companion novellas (although I suppose I will some day). I stubbornly feel the puzzle can be solved by reading the main novels. I will admit that I have looked into the world book but still feel like the great puzzle is solvable within the ASOIAF main novels. Good theory on Dondarrion blood, for certain!

Dunk & Egg aren't 'companion novellas', they are stories of their own, set in the same world, which also happen to contain important information on the books. If you want to know who the three-eyed crow actually was before he turned into a tree man you have to read Dunk & Egg. With the whole Bloodraven connection it didn't really become optional to read those stories.

8 hours ago, St Daga said:

Of course Aegon I had no daughters, and it's debatable if he even had any sons by his own seed. But both Rhaenys and Visenya shared Aegon's blood so I don't know that it matters much. Aenys I had a daughter Rhaena who married his son Aegon, another sibling incest marriage for the Targaryen's. She bore him twin daughters before his death and her forced marriage to Maegor. These twins are where my Stark speculation lies. We don't know much about them, except that Rhaella was a ward of House Hightower during this, and I think House Hightower would have been stupid to give her up, so I think she remained with House Hightower after Maegor's death (and it might be the reason that Lynesse looks like Daenerys), but Aerea, who had escaped the Red Keep on dragonback with her mother has no more mentions. So far...

I'm pretty sure we'll learn more about Aerea and Rhaella in FaB, but George has really gone out of his way to *not* establish a Targaryen-Stark link in the stuff we already know about the history. There was this Pact of Ice and Fire but no Targaryen ever married into House Stark - despite the fact that Baela or Rhaena could have done that (and later on also one of Aegon III's three daughters). Thus I'd be very surprised if it turned out that something like that happened.

Princess Rhaella wasn't given to the Hightowers but was made a novice in a motherhouse in Oldtown, indicating that she might have become a septa later in life. If that happened (which we don't know yet) it is very unlikely she is going to have any legitimate children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 6:56 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

First, no matter what proof anyone brings to show that GRRM is against incest, both in and out of his writing, there is a certain set of readers that will ignore this evidence, and even bring in nonsense ideas like real world Egyptians, and real world dog and horse breeding just to try and make incest seem not so bad because the fact that GRRM never endorses it as a positive does not please them and their wishes for the story plot  

This all too common idea among readers of the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom that have this idea that an author like George RR Martin is pro-incest and is, perhaps, even promoting it. If anything, GRRM writes far more favorably about polygamy and open relationships more than incest. This includes marriages with a variety of men and women... and who goes with whom. George has his own rules for his own story; scientific reality be damned!

 

What? There are people who think GRRM is pro-incest? Do they somehow miss or willfully ignore how every example of Incestuous relationships is either portrayed as very, very psychologically messed up (or outright rape in cases like Craster and his daughter-wives) or having bad consequences (or both)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

What? There are people who think GRRM is pro-incest? Do they somehow miss or willfully ignore how every example of Incestuous relationships is either portrayed as very, very psychologically messed up (or outright rape in cases like Craster and his daughter-wives) or having bad consequences (or both)?

We don't discuss George's personal views here, nor do I care about them. We have reason to believe he isn't a monarchist or considers medieval feudalism a great way to govern a society yet he still created a world where this kind of thing holds sway.

What is pretty clear in the incest thing is that George as the author doesn't have the narrator (or many of the other characters) run around and condemn incest couples for their feelings. Gilly is rarely called out on being an abomination born of incest who also committed the sin/crime of incest herself. And many of the Targaryen incest couples - Aegon and Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I and Alysanne - are worship as great royal couples whose love entered into legends and songs.

The author could tell a story where his moral or political views were reflected, but then we would either read a much different story - or a story where some people were always condemning others for exploiting the common people, presuming to rule because they had a crown, arranging marriages of their (minor) sons and daughters against their will, forcing them to marry people they abhorred, etc.

But this isn't a story about condemning people.

Not even Ned condemns Jaime and Cersei for their incest. He tries to save their miserable lives and the abominations born from that union. The fanatic preaching against incest - the Faith Militant, the sparrows, etc. - are in no way presented as having the moral high ground or being in the right about it.

In fact, the whole incest taboo in Westeros actually seems to be based as much about superstition and nonsense as most incest taboos in ancient cultures in our world are. They are not presented as rational rules based on empiric studies - say, for instance, that you shouldn't lay with your sister if you really care about having healthy children and grandchildren - but rather as proclamations based on divine authority or revelation.

And it is never a good thing to just accept things because 'the guys who claim to know the truth say it'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't discuss George's personal views here, nor do I care about them. We have reason to believe he isn't a monarchist or considers medieval feudalism a great way to govern a society yet he still created a world where this kind of thing holds sway.

What is pretty clear in the incest thing is that George as the author doesn't have the narrator (or many of the other characters) run around and condemn incest couples for their feelings. Gilly is rarely called out on being an abomination born of incest who also committed the sin/crime of incest herself. And many of the Targaryen incest couples - Aegon and Rhaenys, Jaehaerys I and Alysanne - are worship as great royal couples whose love entered into legends and songs.

The author could tell a story where his moral or political views were reflected, but then we would either read a much different story - or a story where some people were always condemning others for exploiting the common people, presuming to rule because they had a crown, arranging marriages of their (minor) sons and daughters against their will, forcing them to marry people they abhorred, etc.

But this isn't a story about condemning people.

Not even Ned condemns Jaime and Cersei for their incest. He tries to save their miserable lives and the abominations born from that union. The fanatic preaching against incest - the Faith Militant, the sparrows, etc. - are in no way presented as having the moral high ground or being in the right about it.

In fact, the whole incest taboo in Westeros actually seems to be based as much about superstition and nonsense as most incest taboos in ancient cultures in our world are. They are not presented as rational rules based on empiric studies - say, for instance, that you shouldn't lay with your sister if you really care about having healthy children and grandchildren - but rather as proclamations based on divine authority or revelation.

And it is never a good thing to just accept things because 'the guys who claim to know the truth say it'. 

First of all I wasn't the one who brought up the issue, that was the person whom I quoted, so I'm not sure why you are lecturing me about it.

And something doesn't have to be constantly condemned, nor do the victims have to be blamed to be portrayed in a negative light. Gilly doesn't have to be called an abomination and Ned doesn't have to call for the heads of Cersei's children. Ned has a lot of compassion and he still is haunted by the dead Targaryen children, so of course his first impulse would be to ensure the safety of Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella. And he still isn't "Oh yay! Incest! Good for you!" he just understands that condemning them now won't help anybody or undo the mess they have created. I can't remember him condemning them for high treason either, he just wants those kids to get somewhere safe.

But I'm sure you noticed that within the narrative both the relationship Craster has to his daughter, nor the relationship Cersei and Jaime is portrayed as anything but horrible and wrong for the weaker party involved. Craster rapes his daughters and takes away their children, while Cersei and Jaime feed each others' worst impulses. 
Same with Gilly, Stannis (who's opinions don't count anyway) aside, nobody condemns her because she's the victim, but the perpetrator, Craster, is consistently portrayed in a negative light and seen as creepy and undesirable by pretty much everyone.
So yes, incest does get condemned.

And the thing about incest taboos in our world being "about superstition and nonsense" is completely wrong. You are doing our ancestors a great disservice by acting like they were too stupid to recognize that "laying with your sister" leads to a higher possibilities of unhealthy children. They were not morons only because they didn't have genetic studies yet.
The incest taboos come originally from a sensible and rational angle, it was just later married with a religious taboo because back then that was the easiest way to get people to do (or refrain form doing) something. Most of those religious taboos originally came from a reason that made sense for the time and the culture(s) involved, they didn't just sit around in a circle and thought of things to ban or condemn for the heck of it.
Really, that's like saying ancient peoples could have never built Stonehenge/the Pyramids because they didn't have precision tools and machinery yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

But I'm sure you noticed that within the narrative both the relationship Craster has to his daughter, nor the relationship Cersei and Jaime is portrayed as anything but horrible and wrong for the weaker party involved. Craster rapes his daughters and takes away their children, while Cersei and Jaime feed each others' worst impulses. 

Tell me, is there an inherent difference between Craster marrying his daughters/granddaughters and the fathers of the Seven Kingdoms marrying their daughters to men they do not like? I don't think so. There is actually no indication that Gilly felt raped by her father-husband, no? She grew up expecting to marry the man just as the average Westerosi woman grew up expecting to marry whoever man her father chose for her - and like the average Targaryen prince or princess would have grown up expecting to marry the sibling who was closest in age to him or her.

It is pretty clear that Craster was an abusive father but this is not (just) based on the incest but also on the fact how he treats his wives, that he sacrifices his son to the Others, that he is generally mean-spirited, etc.

The reason I brought up Gilly is that the common view on incest in Westeros is that incest is sin punishable by death and the children of incest as abominations in the sight of gods and men, deserving to be put down, too. This is not a rational view but a cruel view demanding that innocents be punished for things they are not responsible for.

As to Jaime-Cersei: Actually, their relationship sucks because they cannot be together by the rules of the society they live in. Do you think Jaime would have tried to murder Bran if they had been husband and wife? Do you think Cersei would have killed Robert if she had been married to Jaime and not to the drunkard she despised for good reasons? Do you think Joff would have been as fucked-up as he was if he had had loving parents who actually cared for him? Do you think Tommen would have been as lonely a boy as he is if Jaime had been there for him as his father?

A lot of Jaime/Cersei issues would have been resolved/never come up if they had been allowed to marry each other like the Targaryens did.

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

And the thing about incest taboos in our world being "about superstition and nonsense" is completely wrong. You are doing our ancestors a great disservice by acting like they were too stupid to recognize that "laying with your sister" leads to a higher possibilities of unhealthy children. They were not morons only because they didn't have genetic studies yet.

Can you actually prove that the reasons as to why incest taboos developed is connected to empirical studies that this led to increased heath risk in the generations down the incest line? I don't think that can be done. What we do know about the contemporary reasoning as to why the inbred Hapsburgs of the Spanish line, say, were afflicted by madness, sickness, and fertility problems had nothing to do with inbreeding and everything with curses and divine punishment, etc.

The reason why marriages among kin were forbidden in the middle ages is because of Biblical proclamations which don't give a rationale behind the ban - which was then used by the Church to cash in because they had the right to give you dispensation, allowing you to marry even the closest of kin.

If anybody had suspected back then that it would be detrimental to the bloodline of a dynasty to continually marry first cousins and nieces then people would likely not have done that.

Vice versa, there are incest taboos that don't make any sense - like those referring to step relations, adopted relations, or the widows and widowers of your siblings and other close kin. Yet those are usually also included in the incest taboos, and it is as big a deal if you break those as it is when you actually make out with your blood relations.

And finally - there are the cultures where incestuous unions were the norm rather than the exception - Egypt, say, and other places. From what we know those cultures weren't exactly hell-bent on ruining their offspring, so they likely didn't make a connection between incest and the life quality of their offspring.

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

The incest taboos come originally from a sensible and rational angle, it was just later married with a religious taboo because back then that was the easiest way to get people to do (or refrain form doing) something. Most of those religious taboos originally came from a reason that made sense for the time and the culture(s) involved, they didn't just sit around in a circle and thought of things to ban or condemn for the heck of it.
Really, that's like saying ancient peoples could have never built Stonehenge/the Pyramids because they didn't have precision tools and machinery yet.

People speculate that some religious taboos once may have made sense, but if you actually look at a lot of those proclamations it is pretty clear that they did not make sense. Just think of how often women were unclean and made men touching/hanging out with them unclean, etc. And even the stuff about food, etc. doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm aware that this is a process and all, but even so, both in Westeros and in the real world incest taboos simply exist and are not rationally justified or explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 6:30 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

This is not true. 

There are plenty of folktales and origin stories where incest was practiced as a way of survival. People resort to cannibalism when they don't have anything to eat, and they may have babies with close relatives when other relatives are not around. If we go up the Mendelian charts, the people at the topmost levels would naturally be closely related. We can only afford to find mates who are not closely related only after the population vastly expands. 

In some societies, marrying brother to sister under certain circumstances (like royalty) was considered fine. And marrying cousins from either only mother's side or father's side was okay too. One thing that was never okay was marrying parent to child. This type of relation was always forbidden. Even the Greek were disgusted by it. And it doesn't occur in ASOIAF wither. Targs and old Valyrians marry siblings, and rarely maybe uncles/aunts and nieces or nephews, but never parents and children. 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:30 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

Again, NEVER IN ANY OF GRRM’s work that has included incest real or implied, has incest ever won. It has always brought on the downfall of a dynasty or clan. Even in Bitterblooms and The Skin Trade. 

I don't think GRRM is moralizing about incest in his stories. He just presents it as something that happens. I listed to Skin Trade and Bitterblooms audio books  a while back. In Bitterblooms, the clans practice incest because they are so isolated. Occasionally, there's the Gathering so people from different clans can have sex. The protag, as I remember, has nine children. Some of this children are from her own clan, presumably with people she is related to. There are two or three fathered by a non-clan member. Out of all nine, only some survive. And no one is brought down in that short story because of incest. The story starts with the protag burying an  older male relative who was also her lover. But that's just the start of her growing up and learning her true self, like Dany does after she escapes Viserys's control. 

In The Skin Trade, inbreeding within a very small group of species lead to the birth of a werewolf who cannot change. But that's not necessarily  bad this per se. In the end, it was the older direwolf who turns out to be the bad guy. He doesn't like the way his son is, even though from another perspective, there's nothing really wrong with the son. I suppose he's a traditionalist, or rather represents old ideas. He thinks his son is malformed, even though the kid seems to have formed a connection with the mysterious WW-type predator that kills direwolves. All the other werewolves in the book are not pureblooded direwolves. But only the direwolf thinks that there's something wrong with them because they are half-breeds and such. The sidekick is a mixed-blood mutt, who escapes the serial killer, and his small size probably helped. So it's more of new things winning out over old conventions rather than incest being either good or bad. 

In ASOIAF, GRRM never presents the practice as utterly immoral. What's wrong or immoral is policing consensual sexual behavior. In this sense, the moral position both the Targs and the Septons have is wrong. The septons ban incest, and Targs are insistent on it when there are suitable siblings. So we have situations like Aegon V "Egg" forbidding his children to intermarry, even though one of his sons is in love with one of his daughters. On the other hand, Dany's mother and father are forced to marry to continue the family line. And the Faith jails people for incest and homosexuality, which is something that GRRM does not present in a positive light. (In real life, people are jailed under English law and under some state laws for incest. Both parties are thrown in jail. If the relationships are consensual, what's really the point?) 

GRRM is also careful not to present children born of incest has "faulty" in some way. There are good Targs and bad Targs, just like the descendants in other formerly royal families of the realm. Cersei's children are normal, except for Joffery, who is as narcissistic and cruel as she is. Cersei and Jamie aren't products of incest, and look how they are. So I very highly doubt moralizing against incest is what GRRM is aiming for here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

In an environment where entire clans/great families were sleeping huddled together in one small tent, cave, or whatever shelter our distant ancestors had, sexual attraction among very close relatives was bound to happen much more often - and to be much more visible than it is in our day and age.

If you put siblings who are very close to each other in the same bed throughout their entire adolescence in a society/scenario where there is no incest taboo then chances would be pretty high that some sexual things would be going on there. Perhaps they would not want to marry, but they care likely to do some sexual stuff which may or may not result in pregnancy depending what exactly they are going to do to prevent that.

Hahaha. Actually, the incestuous relations don't really happen with siblings who are close to each other. I mean in many parts of Asia, it's not uncommon for the kids to sleep in the same room on a giant mat for whatever, until they are off to college. But that doesn't necessarily lead to them banging each other. Experimentation I think is common among cousins, who don't live together. But in rural areas, where there are no other teens to hang out, some siblings may start experimenting. It should be noted that in socially conservative societies, girls and boys are separated in teen years. For example, if you are a girl, you may get to play with your brother and sleep with him but only until you get your first period. Then the girl is separated from male siblings and even the father. That causes estrangement, which can lead to siblings viewing each other as sexual partners. Doesn't this happen in movies The Witch (only a little bit), the Kite Runner, and Cement Garden (all the kids are isolated from the regular society)? 

But the incest case I've heard of is when long lost siblings find each other. I've heard of one story when a couple discovered that they were actually half siblings. And there are also these stories of family members who are separated as children and reunited as adults who end up in sexual relationships.

On 5/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

I mean, the Targaryens do not suffer from any hereditary disease we know of, nor is it common among inbred populations to dream of dragons - or to have prophetic dreams.

And many of their deformities (like scaled tails, rudimentary wings instead of arms, etc.) seem to be more reminiscent of the whole dragon blood thing - which could come to the fore more often and to a more devastating effect thanks to the continuous incest - than actual deformities caused by normal human beings who practice incest.

Early on, in GoT, people think the Targs have a tendency to go mad. But now we know it's the dragon dreams, or rather prophetic dreams. Some Targs get it, and some can deal with it, like Dany, and others I suppose are overwhelmed, like Dany's father. But other than that, Targs aren't born with deformities. 

There are a select few miscarriages/ cursed babies with lizard features, but no one grows into adulthood with lizard tales for example. 

On 5/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

I cited a similar example above, about hereditary diseases spreading in a Mormon sect in the US where many people are intermarrying among close cousins because many are the children of just one guy who has dozens of wives. That kind of thing can actually be much more damaging to an isolated community than incest among a few individuals (specially if their fertility drops heavily after a couple of generations) if the man having so many descendants actually spreads problematic traits that way.

Interesting point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 8:00 PM, Lord Varys said:

Neanderthals were humans. They were not necessarily a separate species but possibly only a sub-species. That is not clear. In fact, it is not even clear whether we can still produce offspring with chimps or not. They are very close cousins, after all.

"Modern Humans Once Mated with Other Species:Genetic studies reveal that some modern humans carry DNA from extinct hominid species, evidence of ancient interbreeding"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-humans-once-mated-with-other-species-125536319

Maybe not with chimps because we have long been separated from ape cousins that still live in the jungles. If we could, either the chimps or us would have gotten absorbed into one community, like with the missing hominids of the past. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 3:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Early on, in GoT, people think the Targs have a tendency to go mad.

Mental problems of Targs don‘t come from incest. For example Aerion Brightflame was born to Dayne mother, and his father was half Martell.

On 5/19/2018 at 3:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

But other than that, Targs aren't born with deformities. 

If inbreeding in family is consistent, then harmful recessive genes will surface in first generations, part of offspring in each generation will die or be infertile, but eventually most of genes will become homozygous, harmful recessive genes will be eliminated (in the case family survives).

So healthy members of inbred families will have fewer harmful recessive genes than non-inbred families. I think Valyrian dragonriding families after many generations of incest were like that – inbred, but quite healthy.

 

If members of two inbred families intermarry, their children will have more variable genes, but still very few harmful recessive genes. Maybe that explain why children of Velaryon and Targaryen descent were quite healthy.

 

But when member of inbred family marry someone from non-inbred family, new recessive genes will flow in to family gene pool. If incestuous marriages follow, these recessive genes will show up.

 

For example, I think polydactyly of Jahaerys (Son of Aegon II) and development problems of his sister originated not in Targ stock, but in Hightowers.

 

If low viability of Naerys and Aegon IV children was due to incest, then harmful recessive genes probably came from Rogare family.

 

And if low viability of Aerys II and Rhaella’s children was caused by incest, then problematic genes  most likely came from Blackwoods (could be also Daynes and Martells).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Hahaha. Actually, the incestuous relations don't really happen with siblings who are close to each other. I mean in many parts of Asia, it's not uncommon for the kids to sleep in the same room on a giant mat for whatever, until they are off to college. But that doesn't necessarily lead to them banging each other.

Oh, I didn't say it would in any scenario. I said when there was no ingrained incest taboo. If it was abominable even for our stone age ancestors to lie with sisters or parents it is not likely that this happened all that often - because the people would police each other and prevent it from happening.

But in a scenario where this isn't seen as a problematic issue one assumes that it might happen. After all, even in our day and age there are statistics about 10-20% of people having incestuous erotic/sexual interactions.

In a setting where there is no (strong) taboo on this kind of thing the percentage should be higher.

On 5/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Experimentation I think is common among cousins, who don't live together. But in rural areas, where there are no other teens to hang out, some siblings may start experimenting. It should be noted that in socially conservative societies, girls and boys are separated in teen years. For example, if you are a girl, you may get to play with your brother and sleep with him but only until you get your first period. Then the girl is separated from male siblings and even the father. That causes estrangement, which can lead to siblings viewing each other as sexual partners. Doesn't this happen in movies The Witch (only a little bit), the Kite Runner, and Cement Garden (all the kids are isolated from the regular society)?

I have no idea what causes the thing in individuals. But one assumes that the way George describes it in ASoIaF with Jaime and Cersei isn't all that uncommon for incestuous sibling couples. They are very close, try it out, and get hooked.

On 5/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

But the incest case I've heard of is when long lost siblings find each other. I've heard of one story when a couple discovered that they were actually half siblings. And there are also these stories of family members who are separated as children and reunited as adults who end up in sexual relationships.

Yeah, that scenario is mostly the reason why I argue that criminalizing incest is actually very wrong because it actually affects the well-being and relationships of people who do not want to fuck their siblings and just find out that their partner happens to be a brother or sister. That happens more often than one thinks because siblings and other close kin actually to feel attracted to each other when they meet each other and are not conditioned to not see each other as sex partners.

On 5/19/2018 at 2:22 PM, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Early on, in GoT, people think the Targs have a tendency to go mad. But now we know it's the dragon dreams, or rather prophetic dreams. Some Targs get it, and some can deal with it, like Dany, and others I suppose are overwhelmed, like Dany's father. But other than that, Targs aren't born with deformities. 

Some have deformities - Jaehaerys, the son of Aegon II, Jaehaerys II, Shiera Seastar (and Tyrion) have mismatched eyes, Bloodraven is an albino, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×