All Comments on 'Dreams Ch. 01'

Wait until you find your soul mate. It is not bondage but liberation.

I daresay, Romantic1, you've impressed me. I'm usually the first to speak out against the validity of erotic novelism in literary culture, but this wasn't too bad. It had an underlying theme (desires, and how society views/constricts them), and it began as it ended the same (with a wet spot). Not only that, you seemed to work in a mini persuasive essay about religion (while the reasoning sounded somewhat biased, you did well in following a logical step-by-step analysis). While I still abhor the fact that ertotic writting is too flowery and has a billion synonyms and euphemisms for gentalia, your work in this piece is one I'd be comfortable mentioning to literary peers. I'll be reading the rest of these chapters, and, because you've caught my interest, I'll probably take a look at some of your other work. Kudos.

Socially, in my (limited) knowledge of people who either admitted or were proven to have committed incest. In every one of those cases it was an older male relative/mother's-boyfriend/male neighbor who instigated the rape of girl or boy.

Seduction is such a soft word that has been hollywooded to imply a consensual love. But in Classical terms, seduction was legally and socially considered rape.

Is it possible that there actually exists people capable of consensual sex within their family groups, achieving mutual affection? If I have met any, they have not introduced themselves to me.

As for religious prohibition. I would be a lot more sanguine about relationship advice from religious ministry if they did not invariably prove themselves to be hypocritical abusers of the people they were suppose to be protecting and guiding. Out of over six hundred commandments and dozens of excluded biblical text, we wind up with the most simplistic drivel as they make good political slogans.

Scientifically, in general there is little reason for concern about genetic abnormalities. A lot of our laws against such came out of 19th Century bigotry and racism as pseudo-scientific Eugenics. Now that we can 'read' people's DNA coding, we are developing the ability to begin predicting, with increasing accuracy, whether or not it is safe or advisable for two people to reproduce. But we still have a long way to go before we can achieve better than 80% accuracy.

Some people say "We have successfully bred animals to be bigger and faster and stronger, so why can't we do that for humans?" Many of these cases were bred to be 'better' food animals. Homo Anthropophagus indeed! Capacity for intelligence is a much higher level of genetic coding then physical characteristics. The smartest animal we commonly breed is a mule, you realize there is a trade off........?

If we were truly non-selfish enough to be concerned about the future of our descendents (and I am calling you a liar when you make that claim) you would reject all carbon-fuel based machinery and products. You would not smoke tobacco or marijuana, as well as never consume recreational drugs and alcohol.

There would be strict limits for the amount of medicinal drugs people are permitted to use, no matter how serious the illness or level of pain. A lot more of us would die younger.

Strictly enforce inoculations 100% of the population, as well as rigorous enforcement of public and private sanitation regulations and anti-pollution laws.

Researchers are dancing around the subject but there is the possibility that at least some people are allergic to other people. There is the theoretical possibility that sexual promiscuity is one or more of the causations for male and female inability to breed or to breed healthy children. This hypothesis starts to explain some of the infertility statistics broken down by social groups.