Professor charged with incest

[Cainkane1]

Which is the problem. You're on the outside, looking in at other people's relationship, and trying to guess how they feel about things, based on your own life and your own feelings. That doesn't always work.

Well and for all I know the daughter started this incest situation on her own. How did they get caught? Did she complain to the police? Did the professor brag about it? Did the daughter brag about it and someone called the police on them? Heck if I know.

I still believe at least an element of authority and intimidation was used by the father but do I know that for a fact? No I do not but until I know better I'll still say a level of intimidation and abuse was going on.

Any number of things might have been going on. Was she living at home and did her father support her financially and would this support have been removed if she had spurned his advances? Did he threaten her physically? Your right though for all I know she liked it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well and for all I know the daughter started this incest situation on her own. How did they get caught? Did she complain to the police? Did the professor brag about it? Did the daughter brag about it and someone called the police on them? Heck if I know.

I still believe at least an element of authority and intimidation was used by the father but do I know that for a fact? No I do not but until I know better I'll still say a level of intimidation and abuse was going on.

Any number of things might have been going on. Was she living at home and did her father support her financially and would this support have been removed if she had spurned his advances? Did he threaten her physically? Your right though for all I know whse liked it.

See? You're constructing stories to explain what the characters might be feeling and why. But that's not real. You're not those people, and you can't know. Only they do, so unless they start talking it's all guesswork. Fiction. Not that it's not completely understandable to do that, of course. It's how everyone deals with the doings of our fellow creatures--we imagine stories to explain their actions and imagine their feelings. It's okay as long as we don't assume our stories are always correct, and don't go around doing things based on what we think may have happened based on the story we invented.

 

[MatildaGage]

I was pointing out that we can't just say of anyone who does something we ourselves wouldn't do that they must have been brainwashed because nobody would choose that themselves because we wouldn't.

I don't like shrimp, but I don't suspect all who do eat it were brainwashed into liking them. I simply accept that, without evidence to the contrary (ie, electrodes implanted in their brains, manuals of Big Shrimp brainwashing techniques, etc), there simply are some people who have different tastes than I and who are apparently willing to actually consume nasty little ocean bugs with wavy legs.

Similarly, my mother cannot imagine being an atheist herself, therefore she believes both her children are not really atheists, we're only pretending to annoy her. She is unable to imagine the other point of view and therefore cannot credit that it's legitimately arrived at.

Ah. I didn't get your point earlier.

I agree. Although it disgusts me beyond belief, I don't think it should be illegal for consenting adults to have sex if they're not hurting anyone. The potential birth defects is just not enough of an argument IMO to make it illegal, since we don't prohibit other unions with similar or greater risks.

 

[Ziggurat]

See? You're constructing stories to explain what the characters might be feeling and why. But that's not real. You're not those people, and you can't know. Only they do, so unless they start talking it's all guesswork. Fiction. Not that it's not completely understandable to do that, of course. It's how everyone deals with the doings of our fellow creatures--we imagine stories to explain their actions and imagine their feelings. It's okay as long as we don't assume our stories are always correct, and don't go around doing things based on what we think may have happened based on the story we invented.

You're right that we don't know what went on is any particular given situation. But that's also pretty irrelevant. When deciding whether or not to make incest illegal, we need not ever consider that question. What we should consider is what the likely conditions, causes, and behaviors are. While exceptions may exist, I don't think it's at ALL unreasonable to conclude that a very high fraction of incestuous relationships will be abusive. And frankly, that's enough.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're right that we don't know what went on is any particular given situation. But that's also pretty irrelevant. When deciding whether or not to make incest illegal, we need not ever consider that question. What we should consider is what the likely conditions, causes, and behaviors are. While exceptions may exist, I don't think it's at ALL unreasonable to conclude that a very high fraction of incestuous relationships will be abusive. And frankly, that's enough.

Since abuse is already illegal in itself, I don't see the need to outlaw other things that might accompany abuse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since abuse is already illegal in itself, I don't see the need to outlaw other things that might accompany abuse.

And alcohol intoxication might accompany car crashes. Crashing your car is already illegal itself, so I see no reason to outlaw drunk driving.

The relevant issue is not that incest might accompany abuse, the relevant fact is that abuse usually accompanies incest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And alcohol intoxication might accompany car crashes. Crashing your car is already illegal itself, so I see no reason to outlaw drunk driving.

But that's not what you're suggesting, you're wanting to outlaw alcohol because it might lead to drunk driving.

And "crashing your car" isn't illegal--they call them "accidents" because they aren't crimes.

The relevant issue is not that incest might accompany abuse, the relevant fact is that abuse usually accompanies incest.

And how do you know that? Got the statistics, have you? Done a study? I think it was pointed out earlier that if all your information comes from people complaining about something, then of course all your evidence is against it. Just like how the FCC thought Nipplegate was the most shocking thing ever because they got complaints about it, not calls from millions more saying they didn't mind a bit.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that's not what you're suggesting, you're wanting to outlaw alcohol because it might lead to drunk driving.

Unless you want to argue that incest is something that most adults engage in responsibly, then no, that's clearly NOT the parallel I'm making.

And "crashing your car" isn't illegal--they call them "accidents" because they aren't crimes.

Wow, you found out that analogies aren't exact parallels. Congratulations.

That just makes outlawing drunk driving even worse, under your logic.

And how do you know that? Got the statistics, have you? Done a study?

The only cases I have direct knowledge of all involved abuse. From what I know of human nature, that's what fits. So I've drawn my conclusions, based on the evidence I have available. If you have contradictory evidence, feel free to present it. If you simply want me to withhold making a judgment because I don't have enough evidence to satisfy you, well, I have no reason to do that.

 

[wasapi]

Well, you wouldn't hear someone speak positive of sexual acts at a Crisis Center for sexual assault victims, now would you?

Well Tubba, you're so right. (And sarcasm understood.) Perhaps I should learn to finish a train of thought.

There were woman who experienced incest and for a long period of time felt that their father must be right, it was a natural way to show love for one another. But then either there was an intervention after they did what daddy said not to do, and told someone. Or, they met someone they liked and couldn't figure out why there was something that seemed wrong. They only knew that their father wouldn't like it, and the first thoughts of "something is really wrong here" started.

Some women still felt guilt that they had told on dad and gotten him in trouble, because they did love him.

From now on I will try to complete a thought when I post.

Julia

 

[Beerina]

This thread is depressing. We need some music to cheer us up!

 

[Meadmaker]

Which is the problem. You're on the outside, looking in at other people's relationship, and trying to guess how they feel about things, based on your own life and your own feelings. That doesn't always work.

And this is what's so important.

Normal people don't want to have sex with their kids.

However, these aren't normal people. So, the question is whether these people, who do want to have sex with their kids, and whose kids want to have sex with them, should be punished for being abnormal. I have a really hard time justifying anything except the libertarian position in this case.

To do so, I would have to hear some reason why the very act of consensual incestuous relationships are necessarily harmful. I would even slide by on "are almost always harmful" if there was some basis other than, "most people think so." or "All societies have the taboo".


I must confess, I began the thread with a misunderstanding about incest and birth defects. I had apparently underestimated the frequency of problems associated with close relative inbreeding, using rates for cousin marriages, which are lower than for sibling or parent/child rates. Based on that, you might be able to build an argument that I would find convincing. However, even then I would feel uncomfortable. What if one or both is sterile?

 

[casebro]

But does the law cover other forms the same? Mother/son, Mother/daughter, sister/brother, sister/sister?

I kind of doubt that there is equality within that law.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have a really hard time justifying anything except the libertarian position in this case.

And libertarians typically ignore the realities of family relationships. I first noticed this when I read The Fountainhead, where it seemed every character was either an orphan or estranged from their parents. I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but they haven't figure out families yet.

To do so, I would have to hear some reason why the very act of consensual incestuous relationships are necessarily harmful.

Drunk driving isn't necessarily harmful. And yet...

I would even slide by on "are almost always harmful" if there was some basis other than, "most people think so." or "All societies have the taboo".

In other words, like TragicMonkey, you are refraining from forming any opinion on the topic, and demanding that the rest of us do as well.

I must confess, I began the thread with a misunderstanding about incest and birth defects. I had apparently underestimated the frequency of problems associated with close relative inbreeding, using rates for cousin marriages, which are lower than for sibling or parent/child rates. Based on that, you might be able to build an argument that I would find convincing. However, even then I would feel uncomfortable. What if one or both is sterile?

So what? As I pointed out a long time ago, it's rather common for laws to be both too broad and too narrow, in the sense of covering cases that we would ideally ignore and not covering cases we would ideally like to cover. The primary reason for this is simplicity, which is very much a virtue in the law, and often of far greater benefit than could be obtained by trying to refine criteria. If you're uncomfortable with incest prohibition because some participants might be sterile, I should hate to think how you feel when you realize what else the law does all the time.

 

[Rairun]

It's one of those subjects that are hard to have a discussion about, because there's nothing to discuss. Kind of like universal suffrage or gay rights. Two adults want to have sex, and that's no one else's business. End of story.

The fact that the child might have been 'conditioned' to want a relationship with a parent is irrelevant. When it comes down to it, there's no free will as such, so all of our choices are determined by our genes and past experience (unless you believe in some crazy concept like souls). People are groomed -- as some of you call it --to be nice, to be kind, to be interested in science, to fear God, to be a skeptic, to be religious, to be an engineer, nurse or police office. If a child is 'groomed' to want to be a doctor like his mother, would you want to make that illegal too? What about all the other preferences that were no doubt influenced by his parents, often for 'selfish' reasons?

And if the problem isn't any of that, but the possible power imbalance in such a relationship: again, good luck outlawing almost all relationships in the world. For a start, go ahead and outlaw interracial relationships, and also intersexual relationships while you're at it.

It's true that adults don't always make the best decisions, and they often get themselves in messy situations. I'm not saying a incestuous relationship is a bad decision, but for all I know sometimes it is. But issue here is that you don't get to tell adults what's good for them, no matter how stupid you think they are (or how stupid they in fact are). That's just not how it works.

 

[Rairun]

Just one more comment:

Was she living at home and did her father support her financially and would this support have been removed if she had spurned his advances? Did he threaten her physically?

There it is. A good argument to ban marriage as a whole. Well done.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Drunk driving isn't necessarily harmful. And yet...

Drunk driving is statistically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be harmful to society.

But more importantly, it's harmful to people other than those who make the informed decision to drive drunk. Unlike, say, incest.

 

[Ziggurat]

Drunk driving is statistically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be harmful to society.

Really? Where are the studies, and how were they performed? How do you know the harm is just because you've made it illegal, and the people who could drunk drive safely are the ones who won't do it when it's illegal?

I think you presume more "statistical" evidence than actually exists. I agree that drunk driving is harmful, but the evidence for that harm is not as different from the evidence for the harm from incest as you imagine.

But more importantly, it's harmful to people other than those who make the informed decision to drive drunk. Unlike, say, incest.

I disagree with you about that. I think it can AND DOES hurt people who are not making informed decisions.

In the only case of incest I'm personally familiar with, there was indeed a victim. And this person later committed suicide, in no small part because of the lasting damage caused by the incest.

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact that the child might have been 'conditioned' to want a relationship with a parent is irrelevant.

Not to me it isn't.

If a child is 'groomed' to want to be a doctor like his mother, would you want to make that illegal too? What about all the other preferences that were no doubt influenced by his parents, often for 'selfish' reasons?

But outlawing incest doesn't actually outlaw the "grooming", it just outlaws what the grooming is for. And yes, that distinction very much matters. It matters because outlawing incest is easy to do without granting the government significant discretionary power which can be abused. But your examples do that. Even ignoring the fact that having doctors is generally considered a good thing, you can only outlaw "grooming" by giving the government vast discretionary powers which can, and will, be abused. Even if we all agreed on what sort of "grooming" should or shouldn't be outlawed (not gonna happen), it would STILL be a bad idea because of the absolute wreckage that implementation would cause. But outlawing incest doesn't have that problem.

And if the problem isn't any of that, but the possible power imbalance in such a relationship: again, good luck outlawing almost all relationships in the world.

We don't need to. The fact that we might not be able to address other problems in the same manner doesn't mean we shouldn't address this problem. The law has never operated under some uniform, completely consistent and logically rigorous universal criteria. It is, has always been, and will always be a patchwork. If you can't accept that, well, anti-incest laws are really the least of your problems.

 

[Rairun]

Ziggurat,

The issue here is that you assume incest between two consenting adults is bad by definition. So you claim that if we ban incest, grooming (for incest) will become useless. I agree with that conclusion, but what about the ones who are in incestuous relationships that aren't a product of grooming? Again, outlawing incest to prevent grooming is akin to banning doctors so we can protect all those kids are pressured into following that career path; or banning Mormonism because some Mormons don't take it too well when their kids become atheists.

The bottom line is: you only feel comfortable outlawing incest between consenting adults, but not doctors or Mormons, because you are dealing with an invisible minority.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat,

The issue here is that you assume incest between two consenting adults is bad by definition.

No I don't. That's a strawman.

Again, outlawing incest to prevent grooming is akin to banning doctors so we can protect all those kids are pressured into following that career path; or banning Mormonism because some Mormons don't take it too well when their kids become atheists.

It isn't like that at all, for reasons I already explained and which you didn't respond to or address in any way. In fact, the reasons I gave for why those situations are completely different would hold even if you were correct about your strawman representation of my position. Which you aren't.