Quote:
Originally posted by Golden Teapot
What would be wrong is close relatives having children together - the children would stand an unfair chance of otherwise recesive genes expressing themsleves as genetic diseases.
In times gone by, frequent sexual connection invariably led to pregnancy. Given that it is now entirely possible to have sex with no chance of pregnacy, there's not much merit in the argument that close relatives should not have sex for recreational purposes.
Naturally, there's a problem if one of the parties involved can't follow the simple instructions that accompany contraceptives. I saw the results of a study recently that concoluded that oral contraceptive are 100% effective so long as the pill-popper follows the instructions - all of the 3% of the trial population who fell pregnant hadn't followed the instructions e.g. some took large doses of vicamin C (only) while sick (anyone else agree this is about as DUMB as you can get)?
Of course, society is not yet ready to accept this level of reality. Such thing take time - reliable contraceptives have only been with us for thirty years.
There was a NZ documentary about this in hte mid-eighties. It was in th style of "audiance versus the presenter". The best reason the audiance could come up with for not having sex with a close relative was "because it's wrong" - hardly a compleing argument.
For me, I don't have any close relatives that fit my image of a woman suitable for recreational sex. Not that I fussy, it's just that I have no sisters and all of my immediate cousins are male...
|
Whoa dude, you never cease to leave me gobsmacked. I don't think that's a bad thing. You're like a flood in the Nile valley.