NOT About Incest!!!

I was mostly just appauled that someone would compare something like incest which is illegal and appauling for a reason (birth defects and pedophillic dangers) with homosexuality which is a respectable and seperate sexual orientation. I definitely think that movies about incest have every reason to be made. I didn't mean to imply that this movie was bad or disgusting because of the incestuous nature of it. I like that something so outside of a social norm can be shown in a way that makes people feel empathy for the participants.
Incest is unnatural, in that the majority are not born with an urge to explore sex with someone they are related to (I'd bet a select few are which, is unfortunate for them and must cause alot of emotional struggles) that said, the experimental nature of humans is normal. We are born curious and therefore, in certain cases that can develop into same-sex experimental relationships or "acts" if it only develops into a one time, or occasional physical thing, and even in extreme cases as we see here, we may be inclined to experiment with incest.
The difference is, as you stated, incest can be dangerous, whereas, in most cases same-sex experimentation is not.
I hope that sort of cleared up my feelings and beliefs on the issue and I didn't mean to offend or put-off anyone, I simply meant to heed a warning to anyone who puts homosexuality in the same category as incest, since they are two very different things and to imply that they are the same or very similar is, to me, and I'm sure to others of the glbt community, very offensive.

"Umm, no. Because incest is disgusting and unnatural. Homosexuality is just a different sexual preference enlodged within one from birth mkaing it natural and not disgusting. No one is born with incestuous desires, they are accumulated from dementations and perversions that happen after birth and generally from some sort of abuse (though in the case of this movie, from being isolated from others)."


Homosexuality was once illegal as well. I don't think you can really judge incest without judging homosexuality if you're going to go there. Homosexuality may be natural in some cases but does that mean it's good? Cancer is natural. Asbestos is natural. I mean come on now. I think people probably have curiosities that head into incestuous thoughts more than actions, but seeing as how people as humans are curious creatures (look at all the kinds of porn you can get your hands on), it is natural to at least think about incest for some people. Just like it's natural for some people to be attracted to the same sex. What is appalling (not the correct spelling of that word) is your attitude that one sexual curiosity is disgusting while another is great. Both are natural. Also where do you get off insisting that incest is TAUGHT? What the heck is a "dementation," anyway? You can not say that "no one is born with incestuous desires" because you have not done specific research into that subject to know. We are STILL trying to find the elusive "gay gene." If a person can help who they're attracted to, then homosexuals can choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Now if you want to talk about legalities, incest may be illegal so to act on your desires may be forbidden but that does not mean that a person doesn't have natural curiosity, a natural inclination, or a natural desire for a family member. They're just being prevented from acting on it because society doesn't allow it.

Again, we don't have to have gene problems with offspring from the same family because today we have 50 thousand birth control methods. So saying that having an incestuous affair would definitely cause a mutated birth is wrong.

All of that said, I think incest is emotionally upsetting and is not how our culture is brought up to survive. I don't think it is a healthy choice to act on those feelings whether you're born with them or not. But I certainly won't give a parade to one group of people congratulating them for feeling attracted to the same sex and then condemn another group for their attractions. Who are YOU to judge them?


Don't threaten ME with a dead fish!
reg: 4/4/00 | posts: 1895

Incest is as natural as homosexuality, and both have been practiced since the dawn of man. Rape or any other kind of sexual abuse, on the other hand is wrong because it is taking from someone that which they do not give freely. Neither incest nor homosexuality are synonymous with sexual abuse, though they can go hand and hand. Since royal marriages were often arranged, I won't sight them so much as examples of incest being natural (though it was socially acceptable). However, studies of sexual attraction between siblings or parent/child couples that did not grow up together or were not aware of familial status indicate that proximity is the greater impairment to incest, not instinctive biology.

In animal breeding, purebreds are usually mated with blood relatives, but after generations recessive abnormalities become dominant and that leads to health problems. Darwinists would say that the occasional interjection of fresh blood would lead to the strengthening/positive evolution of the breed. [Note: I stand somewhat corrected...Darwin was a proponent of incest http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/ as he married his first cousin.]

I felt that Jack and Rose's relationship was more dangerous because of the isolation. She had a very needy, aggressive, almost dominating personality. To have sexual relations with her, would have usurped his authority as a parent. If he was truly concerned about her living in the world without him, he should have removed her from the isolation. Instead he challenged her position as his "mistress", without warning. She observes how Jack interacts with Kathleen and desires to emulate her in order to get her position back. While he was not overtly sexual towards Rose, he never really clearly defined what her role should be in his life and where other women would fall, add to it that she had absolutely no other frame of reference.