If you define 'incest' as "sex between relatives" then sure, first-cousin is incest, but then so what? The more common definition of incest is illegal or immoral, prohibited, sex between relatives. (Or, "relatives", often not even genetically related just connected by marriage, e.g. in-laws being prohibited.) And that is completely culturally arbitrary, beyond the most immediate family. First-cousin marriage is legal in most of the world (with even avunculate marriage legal in some developed countries) and positively desirable in many societies.
Read Jane Austen or the Bronte sisters, or Wilkie Collins, and most of the books feature first-cousin marriage as not even noteworthy or even slightly racy.
they aren't exactly estranged or anything social-wise. its not a "lesser" form of incest
If you're rational about the problems of incest, rather than "eww, squick!", it is lesser. The genetic risk to children is a lot lesser than with sibling incest, and gays can't have kids with each other anyway. And the emotional risks and entanglements and potential abuses of being involved with a sibling or offspring are likewise far lower for cousins, who here are more like childhood friends with an extra connection, as someone already said.
Like, try making an argument against this relationship that's rooted in harm or consent-violation, rather than "I think it's gross!"
last edited at Sep 24, 2026 12:38AM