Professor charged with incest

[caniswalensis]

I oppose vigilantes cutting this mans scrotum off and leaving him to bleed to death.

Since he is both her father and her lover, wouldn't he be obligated to do his own?

 

[caniswalensis]

On a more serious note, I could not see where it says when the father/daughter boot-knocking began.

Is it possible he is being charged because it was alleged he was molesting her as a child and it continued into adulthood?

To answer the original question, I do not personally think it should be legal for immediate family members to have sexual relations. That is based on my own personal distaste for it, and the obvious medial issues.

If it were to be legalized, I would not condone vigilante attacks against people engaging in such affairs.

 

[qayak]

I AM an anthropology grad student, and one of the first things we learned is that virutally every human culture has some sort of incest taboo (though as has already been established, what is designated as "incest" varies from one culture to another. I.E. for some cultures cousins are considered incest, in other cultures they aren't). And incest taboos against IMMEDIATE family members are pretty universal, especially when it comes to parent/child relationships. Obviously there are exceptions, but taboos against incest with immediate family, especially between children and parents, are simply one of the most universal social rules in human civilization.

Agreed and the taboo extends to our relatives, the great apes, who seem to have similar "rules" in place.

And in general, people in positions of authority are not allowed to enter into sexual relationships with people they are in positions of authority over because it is too easy to manipulate the person they hold authority over. A doctor can't have sex with their patient. A professor can't have sex with their student.

Yes, but these are new rules from recent years. These are not universal and tend to be completely cultural based.

And likewise, a parent can't have sex with their child, even an adult child, because even as adults parents are in positions of authority over, and has been stated before, there is such as an inherent risk of adults grooming their children for such a relationship while still developing minors.

No doubt this part of the incest issue has a bearing on the new "position of power" laws you brought up earlier but also from some of it probably comes from the basic human feelings on fair play.

So obviously, birth defects for potential offspring are a major concern when it comes to incest laws, but the general rules we have against authority figures being able to date/have sex with people they have authority over also come into play.

Incest laws were in place long before position of authority laws came in. I think you have it backwards. The position of authority laws were influenced by the incest laws, not the other way around.

From a legal perspective, I imagine the argument is that even though a patient and doctor, a child and parent, etc, CAN possibly have a relationship which is truly consentual and not influenced by the authority figure's position of power, the risk of abuse/manipulation is great enough that whoever instilled the rules/laws concerning such relationships have decided it's more important to protect potential victims than to protect the rights of people who genuinely enter into such relationships without any sort of abuse of power. I'm not a legal person, so I don't know for sure, but that's just my guess.

I think you are correct on this point. I am on the fence as to whether I agree with the policy, though. I know people who have worked around the system, and some who have just ignored it, who have great relationships.

 

[qayak]

On a more serious note, I could not see where it says when the father/daughter boot-knocking began.

Is it possible he is being charged because it was alleged he was molesting her as a child and it continued into adulthood?

It said she is 24 and the relationship had been going on for three years and ended one year ago. That puts her at 20-21 when it started.

 

[qayak]

I've seen data from cousin studies. It's very close to what you posted. Of course, exact data is very difficult to come by, but the data I saw was not small sample data. Some cultures have no taboo on cousin marriages, and a significant fraction of marriages are between cousins. I've seen data on prevalence of defects in those cultures, and it's comparable to 40 year old parents.

Yes but the interesting thing is that for 3-4th cousins, there is an increase in the number of children and they have them easier. Apparently, that disance of relationship is optimum. It tends to eliminate issues that cause miscarriage in couples more distantly related while being far enough removed to prevent an increase in birth defects.

As well, several generations of first cousin marriage really increases the issues of birth defects. So, as a one time thing in a family history, no big deal but the second third and fourth in a row becomes an issue pretty quickly, so it isn't something one would want to become the norm. At least, in my opinion.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Agreed and the taboo extends to our relatives, the great apes, who seem to have similar "rules" in place.



Yes, but these are new rules from recent years. These are not universal and tend to be completely cultural based.



No doubt this part of the incest issue has a bearing on the new "position of power" laws you brought up earlier but also from some of it probably comes from the basic human feelings on fair play.



Incest laws were in place long before position of authority laws came in. I think you have it backwards. The position of authority laws were influenced by the incest laws, not the other way around.



I think you are correct on this point. I am on the fence as to whether I agree with the policy, though. I know people who have worked around the system, and some who have just ignored it, who have great relationships.

I agree with everything you said here, except I'm not sure about your point regarding incest laws/authority laws/rules. I'm almost certain that you're right and that incest laws/rules predate rules regarding authority. I didn't mean to suggest incest laws were the result of rules regarding abuse of authority, my point was only that *aside* from incest laws, we also have laws regarding abuse of authority, so even if we didn't have the genetic concerns with incest, the same rules may still be in place regardless.

Regarding authority laws being BASED on existing incest laws...I don't know if that's true. Sounds possible, but I just really have no idea one way or the other.

 

[caniswalensis]

It said she is 24 and the relationship had been going on for three years and ended one year ago. That puts her at 20-21 when it started.

Thanks, My eyes are crossing from looking at the computer screen all day.

I am starting to question my personal opinion on this issue. Aside from the reproductive issues, I am having trouble putting into words why it is objectively wrong for two adults to have an incestuous sexual relationship.

I have some thinking to do.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I know you're talking about consenting adults. But what you allow adults to do will affect what happens to children. You may not intend that, but that doesn't stop it.

People will have to break the same laws now as they will have to break later. There is not anything more or less stopping them before or after.

 

[Ziggurat]

People will have to break the same laws now as they will have to break later. There is not anything more or less stopping them before or after.

Yes, there is. I already explained how. You simply ignored it.

I really don't get why people are defending incest.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am starting to question my personal opinion on this issue. Aside from the reproductive issues, I am having trouble putting into words why it is objectively wrong for two adults to have an incestuous sexual relationship.

Because it screws up family dynamics in a major way.

Look, you can use all the contraception in the world, but sex is still intrinsically linked to reproduction. And human psychology has formed around the biological reality that incest is reproductively harmful - not just in terms of actual defects, but also in terms of disease vulnerability (something those cousin studies don't try to measure). Our brains are built to have blood family relationships separate from sexual relationships. You can remove the reproductive harm, but you can't remove the psychological problems. It's taboo for a good reason. And society should not approve of it, any more than society should approve of "consensual pedophilia". Keeping it outlawed sends a clear message to those who can't figure it out on their own that it's a bad thing.

Now, it's true that sometimes trying to stop being from doing harmful things to themselves can just make a situation worse (for example, alcohol prohibition). But this isn't one of those cases. Seriously, what does anyone think is the downside to prohibiting incest?

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, there is. I already explained how. You simply ignored it.

I really don't get why people are defending incest.

As with many other things, there is a difference between approving of something and asking that it not be considered criminal.

We are probably all familiar with the saying, "I abhor what you are saying, but I would give my life to defend your right to say it." I don't feel nearly so strongly about sexual relations, but I lean in that direction. I abhor the nature of your sexual relations, but I will look the other way and let you do it as long as you stay indoors and don't frighten the horses.

I feel more threatened by the assertion that the government has the authority to criminalize certain kinds of consensual sex between adults than I feel threatened by the idea that somewhere out there there's a creepy guy banging his (adult) daughter (with her consent).

 

[Cain]

Here's a case I recall reading awhile ago. Maybe it took place in Australia.

Guy knocks up girlfriend, abandons baby and mother. Twenty-thirty years later the daughter tracks down her estranged father and they begin a romantic relationship.

So what's the big deal? These appeals to family are too vague. It's also interesting how in the case of incest we're willing to immediately toss out notions of romantic love, which I thought conquered all (especially in American movies).

Steven Pinker quotes Jonathan Haidt's research on siblings having sex (_Blank Slate_). It goes something like, "Greg and Julie are brother and sister vacationing in southern France. They decide to make love. Greg uses a condom even though Julie's on the pill. Even though it was pleasurable for both parties, they decide never to do it again, and to never ever tell anyone. Did they do anything wrong?"

The highly educated are most likely to say "no." Where's the harm? Ancient brains in modern skulls. Because of technology, some forms of incest are OK.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, there is. I already explained how. You simply ignored it.

I really don't get why people are defending incest.

I also explained why your reasoning was terrible. You begin with a false correlation-causation implication, and all you've got now is a plain assertion.

 

[caniswalensis]

Because it screws up family dynamics in a major way.

Look, you can use all the contraception in the world, but sex is still intrinsically linked to reproduction. And human psychology has formed around the biological reality that incest is reproductively harmful - not just in terms of actual defects, but also in terms of disease vulnerability (something those cousin studies don't try to measure). Our brains are built to have blood family relationships separate from sexual relationships. You can remove the reproductive harm, but you can't remove the psychological problems. It's taboo for a good reason. And society should not approve of it, any more than society should approve of "consensual pedophilia". Keeping it outlawed sends a clear message to those who can't figure it out on their own that it's a bad thing.

Now, it's true that sometimes trying to stop being from doing harmful things to themselves can just make a situation worse (for example, alcohol prohibition). But this isn't one of those cases. Seriously, what does anyone think is the downside to prohibiting incest?

I am personally really grossed out by incest and do not see a downside to prohibiting it, but I just have never thought too hard about it. I do try to ake it a practice to examine my own beliefs rather than just say I am right because I am right.


You make a good sounding argument, but unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if what you are saying about human psychology is correct. the part I have bolded above really bothers me, because it just seems very vague to me. What sort of psychological problems are caused by adult incest? Please note that I am not talking about pedophilia here, and have no wish to discuss it.

Anyway, there is no arguing that in this case incest has screwed up this family. However, any run of the mill adulterous affair could have done much the same thing, I think.

What I am wondering though is this: If you have two consenting adults that have no other living relatives, and one or the other is sterile, and they are aware of and willing to cope with any possible psychological problems, who does it harm if they are having an incestual relationship, and how does it harm them?

ETA: When you say "Because it screws up family dynamics in a major way." I am not sure that holds water. It is certainly true, but many perfectly legal activities also screw up family dynamics as well. Why single this one out to be illegal?

 

[caniswalensis]

I abhor the nature of your sexual relations, but I will look the other way and let you do it as long as you stay indoors and don't frighten the horses.

Stop condemning my horse-frightening fetish! I can't get past half-mast unless their terrified whinneys are ringing in my ears!

Who are you to judge me, anyway?

 

[caniswalensis]

Agreed and the taboo extends to our relatives, the great apes, who seem to have similar "rules" in place.

Except for bonobos. A bonobo will nail anything that comes near them in a most casual manner.

"Time for breakfast!" Says mom. "Good morning mom!" says the young bonobo as he glides into the breakfast nook, velvety-smooth.

"Daddy, I am frightened" Says little paula. "No need to be dear, come sit on my lap until you feel better." Dad says as he opens his robe.

"Hi Sis" Says bongo. "Shut up and do me" Replies sis.

I could do this all night, but you get the idea.

Bonobos are complete whores with no boundries at all.

 

[Soapy Sam]

So where did we go wrong?
Is original sin involved?

 

[Meadmaker]

Stop condemning my horse-frightening fetish! I can't get past half-mast unless their terrified whinneys are ringing in my ears!

Who are you to judge me, anyway?

 

[qayak]

Except for bonobos. A bonobo will nail anything that comes near them in a most casual manner.

"Time for breakfast!" Says mom. "Good morning mom!" says the young bonobo as he glides into the breakfast nook, velvety-smooth.

"Daddy, I am frightened" Says little paula. "No need to be dear, come sit on my lap until you feel better." Dad says as he opens his robe.

"Hi Sis" Says bongo. "Shut up and do me" Replies sis.

I could do this all night, but you get the idea.

Bonobos are complete whores with no boundries at all.

Ummm, not quite. (Have you ever thought of writing Monkey Porn?)

The one pairing that doesn't happen with Bonobos is mother-son. In fact, mother-son pairings are pretty much non-existent among primates.

This makes sense because the father in most cases is not known but the mother always is. Plus, many primate species have another mechanism preventing inbreeding and that is that one sex or the other migrates. The migrating sex meets unrelated mates and the resident one gets new mates coming into the group.

 

[phantomb]

I AM an anthropology grad student, and one of the first things we learned is that virutally every human culture has some sort of incest taboo (though as has already been established, what is designated as "incest" varies from one culture to another. I.E. for some cultures cousins are considered incest, in other cultures they aren't). And incest taboos against IMMEDIATE family members are pretty universal, especially when it comes to parent/child relationships. Obviously there are exceptions, but taboos against incest with immediate family, especially between children and parents, are simply one of the most universal social rules in human civilization.

Agreed. But that's not the argument that the article was making. The article was saying that the nuclear family structure is natural and necessary and that anything other than that results in messed up and disoriented kids, which as an anthropology grad student you must agree is ridiculous.