I am not convinced consensual incest is wrong. But maybe I am swayed and biased by the beauty of its description in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. It’s such stunning powerful writing. And sensual in its rightness, cathartic in its utility:
"Twenty-three years later, Rahel, dark woman in a yellow T-shirt, turns to Estha in the dark.
'Esthapappychachen Kuttapen Peter Mon,' she says.
She whispers.
She moves her mouth.
Their beautiful mother's mouth.
Estha, sitting very straight, waiting to be arrested, takes his fingers to it. To touch the words it makes. To keep the whisper. His fingers follow the shape of it. The touch of teeth. His hand is held and kissed.
Pressed against the coldness of a cheek, wet with shattered rain.
Then she sat up and put her arms around him. Drew him down beside her.
They lay like that for a long time. Awake in the dark. Quietness and Emptiness.
Not old. Not young.
But a viable-dieable age.
They were strangers who had met in a chance encounter.
They had known each other before Life began...
[Nothing that anyone could say] that would separate Sex from Love. Or Needs from Feelings….
Except perhaps it was a little cold. A little wet. But very quiet. The Air.
Only that there were tears. Only that Quietness and Emptiness fitted togeher like stacked spoons. Only that there was a snuffling in the hollows at the base of a lovely throat. Only that a hard honey-colored shoulder had a semi-circle of teethmarks on it. Only that they held each other close, long after it was over. Only that what they shared that night was not happiness, but hideous grief.
Only that once again they broke the Love Jaws. That lay down who should be loved. And how. And how much".
pp 327-328.
There are alot of things that can be described with passion and beauty - and yet remain morally wrong.
It is the skill of a good writter to place aside sch bias and skillfully manouver the readers emotions in such a way that even social taboos and immoralities (even heanous acts) are delicious. ref: murder/slaughter/homoside/ genocide/rape.
If you read dean koontz books - he describes murder scrumptuously, to the extent that one feels that yes- the murderer was right to strip the skin of its innocent victims.
Consensual incest is wrong, but as it may be consensual I do not think that capital punishment is in order. However a perpretrator may brain wash the victim etc.
Doesn't matter how beautifully written it is, it's still disgusting and I'm a bit disturbed that you would not find incest, consensual or not, to be wrong.
i absolutely agree with hiccy's comment. for quite a while in dostoevsky's crime and punishment i had the feeling that the old woman's murder at the hands of raskolnikov was justice in a way, and that he was being persecuted in being pursued by an unfair system of police..
I beg to differ. It was only you who was saying that morality changes with fashion. Fashion - I am afraid to say, depends upon the existance of its victims
Recent research on the mechanisms of human adaptive immunity suggests that there is a strong evolutionary pressure to maintain as diverse an array of antibody genes as possible. This may provide a biological explanation as to why opposite-sex siblings tend not to be attracted to one another and generally prefer to seek other partners. However, this has not yet been definitively ascertained.
It’s an evolutionary pressure to manintain a diverse a pool of antibodies as possible.
Being attracted to some “with same qualities as their parents, looks” is purely a “cultural” impact, not a “biological” one. My post was implying that even biologically incest is not conducive or pragmatic.
Personalities are not controlled or expressed by genes.
[quote]
Originally Posted by pyarilclarki
in sex if feel u wana get laid with ur relative then its ones own choice.and there is nothing wrong in incest if u like it.its purely depends upon individual:D
[/quote]
And are you one of them?
Very much scientifically untrue. You do not pass on antibodies to your offspring unless you are the mother.- even then the antibodies passed on in the breast milk and via the planenta die within a couple of months when the child has built up its own immune system. It would not make sense otherwise. Antibodies provide resistance based upon memory of previously contracted infection. Quite different to the issue at hand. For more info contact resident docs.
You also do not contract “antibodies” via sex. So who ever your male partner is - you have no fear of contracting their white bloodcells and therefore no fear of passing on those “antibodies” to your child. You are BSing. You mayhowever mean - there is an evolutionary need to diversify ones genepool.
antibodies and genes are wildly different. and the inate need to pass them on is also, as a consequence: thus. re: the need for the former is not there.
What is wrong, is wrong. Moral rights and wrongs are independent of our existence.
