Yes, rather disturbing. But that doesn’t have to be the only reading.
So, if “evolutionary psychology” were an actual science and their main underlying assumption were true – that complex behavioral patterns (including mate attraction preferences) can be attributed to heritable genotypic features – there could be genetic testing for mate compatibility, such as “prefers redheads” gene in one partner and “is redhead” gene in other.
I think Bill nailed the interpretation in his title, no other explanation fits as well.
P.S. The only detail left not to understand is the superfluous plural “S” (either “result says” or “results say” would be OK, but not “results says”).
I’d assume it’s more of: 23 and Me exists in the Internet age. Having people people use new-fangled internet age sources for conventional rituals is supposedly hilarious (I think think they released a memo to that effect; I may have gotten the memo but I only scanned it and promptly misplaced it).
More serious genetic testing could spot whether they both had recessive genes for fatal conditions that would say : Do not breed with this person.
I suspect that will be common in another 10 years or so.
Oh, thank you, Kilby. I’ve been trying hard not to correct other people’s English, especially since mine isn’t as perfect as I think it is, but it helps a lot when someone else points it out. You scratched my itch.
She doesn’t realize that there’s a difference between a genetic match and a personality match.
My take didn’t involve incest; I simply assumed that the DNA analysis showed them to be highly compatible, playing to their genetic strengths, weaknesses canceled out, and no bad recessive genes. Why the delay? Apparently that was the full extent of their due diligence on each other.
Of course, a wedding wouldn’t really be delayed because the parties failed to do anything to ensure their compatibility. But then, it wouldn’t be delayed because of their close genetic relationship either, as this isn’t something that would even come up in the course of the ceremony.
Ah yes, eugenics rears its head again.
The problem with Bill’s interpretation — and I do think it is the intended interpretation, so the fault lies not with Bill but the cartoonist — is that a “perfect match” would imply they are identical twins; they don’t seem to be, with one apparently large gaping difference being one of them has a Y chromosome where the other doesn’t. (OK, maybe one or the other identifies differently from their underlying chromosomes, but if that were where this joke wanted to go, it isn’t really supplying enough clues for that…)
Andréa: it is still illegal in all states to marry a sibling (they vary about marrying cousins) — is this eugenics? And if so, it is not rearing its head, it was always there.
Good point . . . and something for ethicists to argue about, whilst scientists and technologists march on, ever faster.
Science and technologists are enabling siblings to marry?
They’re in the middle of the wedding ceremony. What “delay” is she talking about?
I’m a bit dubious about those ancestry-discovery products: my brother tested himself and his profile was completely different from what we know of our family history; and his Irish/Italian wife had more Jewish ancestry than we do.
A “perfect match” does not imply identicalness when it comes to genetic analysis, any more than it does when it comes to romantic prospects.
I agree with Ken K and Usual John. I disagree with those suggesting close kinship.
Close kinship can lead to children with otherwise-rare genetic defects. Their compatibility is based on traits that should attract each other and which will (eugenically) make for healthy children.
Some priests will not officiate at a marriage unless they know the people involved and feel that the marriage is apt. In this case, the bride and groom only recently met and “know” that they’re compatible only because of the genetic test. This priest is not happy about continuing the service.
Yes, I had to make a lot of assumptions, and it wouldn’t play out like this in real life. But this is a one-panel comic and many things have to be condensed, often to the point of not matching reality.
I have heard that people speaking up at the “speak now or forever hold your piece” part happens way more often in the movies than it does in real life.
@ MiB – Not just the “speaking up” part: I highly doubt that the line itself is offered that often any more, certainly not at services where the couple has any say in the structure of the ceremony. I know that we left it out of our service.
I’ve been to a number of weddings over the years, and that question has never been part of the ceremony at any of them.
@CIDUBill: I’m a bit dubious about those ancestry-discovery products: my brother tested himself and his profile was completely different from what we know of our family history; and his Irish/Italian wife had more Jewish ancestry than we do.
Bill, are you familiar with old saying that you can be pretty certain who your mother is, but no man knows who his father is? I say that as someone who doesn’t seem to be closely related to my ostensible “blood” relatives.
It’s been three hours! I can’t hold my pees even ten minutes longer, let alone forever!
Popular culture suggests “Is there anybody here…?” is for declarations like “Don’t marry him, Elaine, I fell in love with you while I was screwing your mother!” In fact, it was intended to give people a chance to say “He can’t get married because he already has a wife at home” or “They can’t get married because they’re a perfect genetic match on 23 and Me.”
By the way, I got to 23 and Me ads in my Facebook feed today: somehow I don’t think this was a coincidence.
The whole joke here is that many people think computers are never wrong. The popular website said we’re a perfect match, so why argue? Let’s get married, already!
When I was a kid I saw a cartoon on TV where a brainy teen made a computer to match his classmates with their perfect dates. His classmates didn’t always like their matches, to which he replied, “Computers are never wrong.”
That was the 1980s for you. But even today, people still trust computers a little too much. Which may explain why there are so many robocall scams nowadays. (A computer says I’m in trouble with the IRS, so how can that not be true?)
Lark – to a large extent marrying of siblings or close cousins (and I when I was young I planned to marry one of my first cousins when I grew up – my second love next to dad ) is that there is too big a chance of it not being voluntary – especially in the days when women were considered the property of their father or other male relative.
Thought of this after I posted – think of the Victorian age novels where the heroine’s guardian, an older man, has plans to marry her.
There was a joke from the 1950’s, back when computers were never wrong. The engineers were showing the new computer to some Very Important Person. Ask it any question, they said. Type it on the keyboard.
The VIP typed, “Where is my father?”
The computer typed back, “Your father is playing golf on the 7th green of Belvista Country Club.”
The VIP typed, “I happen to know my father is deathly ill in a nursing home.”
The computer typed back, “That is your mother’s husband. Your father is playing golf at Belvista Country Club.”
A cartoonist paying homage to the folks that have deep roots in Kentucky.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Yes, rather disturbing. But that doesn’t have to be the only reading.
So, if “evolutionary psychology” were an actual science and their main underlying assumption were true – that complex behavioral patterns (including mate attraction preferences) can be attributed to heritable genotypic features – there could be genetic testing for mate compatibility, such as “prefers redheads” gene in one partner and “is redhead” gene in other.
I think Bill nailed the interpretation in his title, no other explanation fits as well.
P.S. The only detail left not to understand is the superfluous plural “S” (either “result says” or “results say” would be OK, but not “results says”).
I’d assume it’s more of: 23 and Me exists in the Internet age. Having people people use new-fangled internet age sources for conventional rituals is supposedly hilarious (I think think they released a memo to that effect; I may have gotten the memo but I only scanned it and promptly misplaced it).
More serious genetic testing could spot whether they both had recessive genes for fatal conditions that would say : Do not breed with this person.
I suspect that will be common in another 10 years or so.
Oh, thank you, Kilby. I’ve been trying hard not to correct other people’s English, especially since mine isn’t as perfect as I think it is, but it helps a lot when someone else points it out. You scratched my itch.
She doesn’t realize that there’s a difference between a genetic match and a personality match.
My take didn’t involve incest; I simply assumed that the DNA analysis showed them to be highly compatible, playing to their genetic strengths, weaknesses canceled out, and no bad recessive genes. Why the delay? Apparently that was the full extent of their due diligence on each other.
Of course, a wedding wouldn’t really be delayed because the parties failed to do anything to ensure their compatibility. But then, it wouldn’t be delayed because of their close genetic relationship either, as this isn’t something that would even come up in the course of the ceremony.
Ah yes, eugenics rears its head again.
The problem with Bill’s interpretation — and I do think it is the intended interpretation, so the fault lies not with Bill but the cartoonist — is that a “perfect match” would imply they are identical twins; they don’t seem to be, with one apparently large gaping difference being one of them has a Y chromosome where the other doesn’t. (OK, maybe one or the other identifies differently from their underlying chromosomes, but if that were where this joke wanted to go, it isn’t really supplying enough clues for that…)
Andréa: it is still illegal in all states to marry a sibling (they vary about marrying cousins) — is this eugenics? And if so, it is not rearing its head, it was always there.
Good point . . . and something for ethicists to argue about, whilst scientists and technologists march on, ever faster.
Science and technologists are enabling siblings to marry?
They’re in the middle of the wedding ceremony. What “delay” is she talking about?
I’m a bit dubious about those ancestry-discovery products: my brother tested himself and his profile was completely different from what we know of our family history; and his Irish/Italian wife had more Jewish ancestry than we do.
A “perfect match” does not imply identicalness when it comes to genetic analysis, any more than it does when it comes to romantic prospects.
I agree with Ken K and Usual John. I disagree with those suggesting close kinship.
Close kinship can lead to children with otherwise-rare genetic defects. Their compatibility is based on traits that should attract each other and which will (eugenically) make for healthy children.
Some priests will not officiate at a marriage unless they know the people involved and feel that the marriage is apt. In this case, the bride and groom only recently met and “know” that they’re compatible only because of the genetic test. This priest is not happy about continuing the service.
Yes, I had to make a lot of assumptions, and it wouldn’t play out like this in real life. But this is a one-panel comic and many things have to be condensed, often to the point of not matching reality.
I have heard that people speaking up at the “speak now or forever hold your piece” part happens way more often in the movies than it does in real life.
@ MiB – Not just the “speaking up” part: I highly doubt that the line itself is offered that often any more, certainly not at services where the couple has any say in the structure of the ceremony. I know that we left it out of our service.
I’ve been to a number of weddings over the years, and that question has never been part of the ceremony at any of them.
@CIDUBill:
I’m a bit dubious about those ancestry-discovery products: my brother tested himself and his profile was completely different from what we know of our family history; and his Irish/Italian wife had more Jewish ancestry than we do.
Bill, are you familiar with old saying that you can be pretty certain who your mother is, but no man knows who his father is? I say that as someone who doesn’t seem to be closely related to my ostensible “blood” relatives.
The “match” thing is Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA). There is some moderately strong evidence that people with very different HLA genes are attracted to each other and produce healthier children. See, e. g.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/02/03/dna-based-dating-using-attraction-genes-attracts-questions-12516
It’s been three hours! I can’t hold my pees even ten minutes longer, let alone forever!
Popular culture suggests “Is there anybody here…?” is for declarations like “Don’t marry him, Elaine, I fell in love with you while I was screwing your mother!” In fact, it was intended to give people a chance to say “He can’t get married because he already has a wife at home” or “They can’t get married because they’re a perfect genetic match on 23 and Me.”
By the way, I got to 23 and Me ads in my Facebook feed today: somehow I don’t think this was a coincidence.
The whole joke here is that many people think computers are never wrong. The popular website said we’re a perfect match, so why argue? Let’s get married, already!
When I was a kid I saw a cartoon on TV where a brainy teen made a computer to match his classmates with their perfect dates. His classmates didn’t always like their matches, to which he replied, “Computers are never wrong.”
That was the 1980s for you. But even today, people still trust computers a little too much. Which may explain why there are so many robocall scams nowadays. (A computer says I’m in trouble with the IRS, so how can that not be true?)
Lark – to a large extent marrying of siblings or close cousins (and I when I was young I planned to marry one of my first cousins when I grew up – my second love next to dad ) is that there is too big a chance of it not being voluntary – especially in the days when women were considered the property of their father or other male relative.
Thought of this after I posted – think of the Victorian age novels where the heroine’s guardian, an older man, has plans to marry her.
There was a joke from the 1950’s, back when computers were never wrong. The engineers were showing the new computer to some Very Important Person. Ask it any question, they said. Type it on the keyboard.
The VIP typed, “Where is my father?”
The computer typed back, “Your father is playing golf on the 7th green of Belvista Country Club.”
The VIP typed, “I happen to know my father is deathly ill in a nursing home.”
The computer typed back, “That is your mother’s husband. Your father is playing golf at Belvista Country Club.”
A cartoonist paying homage to the folks that have deep roots in Kentucky.