Professor charged with incest with his daughter

Sugarfree

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337416/David-Epstein-Ivy-League-professor-charged-incest-relationship-daughter.html

A Columbia University professor accused of a three-year sexual relationship with his daughter was charged with incest yesterday.
Political science professor David Epstein, 46, allegedly bedded his 24-year-old daughter between 2006 and 2009.
Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is said to have also exchanged twisted text messages with the girl during the consensual relationship.
University spokesman Robert Hornsby said that Epstein 'is now on administrative leave and will not be teaching students'.
The well-liked professor, who has taught at Harvard and Stanford, was married to another lecturer at the Ivy League institution, Sharyn O'Halloran, but the pair recently divorced.
'We ask that everyone remember that he is innocent until proven otherwise and that these allegations are nothing more than allegations,' said Epstein's defence lawyer Matthew Galluzzo.

Epstein, who teaches political science at Ivy League institute Columbia University, allegedly exchanged twisted text messages with the girl during the consensual relationship
Epstein faces up to four years behind bars if convicted.
It is yet another scandal for Columbia University after five of its students were arrested last week for running a drug-dealing ring on campus.
The men, who sold LSD-laced sweets and cocaine, claimed that they needed to do it to pay for tuition fees.

bonerm

Incest or ... Wincest?

Black Swan

Institution of Lower Yearning

thebigbiffo

they were really putting the sensual back in consensual there

prinz

bonerm wrote: »

Incest or ... Wincest?

Dirtbag. Epstein, not you.

Minstrel27

Is the daughter not going to be charged? It takes two to tango.

TanG411

Incest is the best, put your daughter to the test.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so she was legal and it was consensual?

hang the ****er

Sugarfree

If its consensua*l why isnt she charged?

Tar.Aldarion

women can't do wrong, they just sit there and look pretty.

seamus

Good to know the so-called "Land of the free" still sees fit to judge people for what two consenting adults do in private.

God knows if they didn't make it illegal we'd all be riding our parents right, left and centre. :rolleyes:

It's gross and disgusting and all that. But then so is scat porn.

bonerm

prinz wrote: »

Dirtbag. Epstein, not you.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, anyone got pix of the sexy daughter victim?

Dravokivich

Reminds me slightly of the plotline to Tabboo IV.

Tar.Aldarion

seamus wrote: »

Good to know the so-called "Land of the free" still sees fit to judge people for what two consenting adults do in private.

God knows if they didn't make it illegal we'd all be riding our parents right, left and centre. :rolleyes:

It's gross and disgusting and all that. But then so is scat porn.

Yep at the age they started at it's not really the governments business, well into her adult life.

Saila

RobitTV rt... oh no wait

28064212

seamus wrote: »

Good to know the so-called "Land of the free" still sees fit to judge people for what two consenting adults do in private.

The issue is whether or not it is consensual. Is it consensual if he conditioned her over her life? Is it consensual if he abused the fact that he was her parent? There is a responsibility on the person in power in a relationship to not use their position, either explicitly or implicitly. It's why universities have rules against students sleeping with their professors, and businesses will often have regulations around intra-business relationships

Wazdakka

I reserve judgement on weather this man should be punished for his actions until I see a picture of his daughter and determine if she is "well fúckable" or not.

Pherekydes

Two things:

Will he be 'cured' after four years inside?

It is the government's business.

Everything is the Government's business, except what bankers do with their customers' money. I wonder how that works?

mikom

Sugarfree wrote: »

University spokesman Robert Hornsby said

lol

orourkeda

kinky

Wazdakka

Pherekydes wrote: »

Will he be 'cured' after four years inside?

allegedly bedded his 24-year-old daughter between 2006 and 2009

Looks like he was only "inside" for three years...

seamus

28064212 wrote: »

Is it consensual if he abused the fact that he was her parent?

That's irrelevant. She's an adult. We can go on and on about conditioning, but at the end of the day, we've been all "conditioned" one way or another from birth through the influences of the people that we grow up with, but once you become an adult, everything you do is your responsibility. You can explain your actions by looking at your upbringing, but they're still your actions, your responsibility.

Even if her father gave her a lecture every night about how she was to grow up to marry him, it's still consensual because she's an adult and she gave consent. To consider it any other way goes down the road of absolving everyone from all blame because that's how they were conditioned.

Assuming that she was "conditioned", perhaps he was "conditioned" equally by his parents, and we should be putting his great-great-great-great-grandfather on trial for starting the whole cycle.

No, fnck that. An adult is an adult. Otherwise you could claim that any relationship where one person is ten years old than the other and they've known eachother since before the younger was legal, is down to "conditioning".

Pherekydes

Wazdakka wrote: »

Looks like he was only "inside" for three years...

Do the Math!

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Four years!

28064212

seamus wrote: »

That's irrelevant. She's an adult. We can go on and on about conditioning, but at the end of the day, we've been all "conditioned" one way or another from birth through the influences of the people that we grow up with, but once you become an adult, everything you do is your responsibility. You can explain your actions by looking at your upbringing, but they're still your actions, your responsibility.

Even if her father gave her a lecture every night about how she was to grow up to marry him, it's still consensual because she's an adult and she gave consent. To consider it any other way goes down the road of absolving everyone from all blame because that's how they were conditioned.

Two words: Josef Fritzl

seamus wrote: »

No, fnck that. An adult is an adult. Otherwise you could claim that any relationship where one person is ten years old than the other and they've known eachother since before the younger was legal, is down to "conditioning".

I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying that there is a case to answer, and that if he's found to have abused his power, he should be punished

prinz

seamus wrote: »

That's irrelevant.

When it comes to the law it's very much relevant fortunately/unfortunately. The laws that are there exist as such to protect the vulnerable. It doesn't always apply but generally speaking it is for the best to assume one party has been in a weaker position and argue against that, than to assume both parties were on an equal footing to begin with, which could see much more serious crimes go unpunished.

Epstein could go to the US Supreme Court with this one and could succeed in having it ruled unconstitutional.

Wazdakka

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do the Math!

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Four years!

Fair enough.. assuming that he was in fact nailing his daughter from Jan 1st 2006 until Dec31st 2009.
However the article states that it was "between 2006 and 2009" which i would take to mean a period that is more likely to be on the favourable side of three years not four..

Now might I seriously suggest that you find a hobby sir.
Having, and taking the time to pick apart somebody's half assed joke in a thread about incest would be one of those things that make me think I'm wasting my life.

jimthemental

Lads I think I might get sick after reading this thread. Delighted though that AH has no holier than thou poster in here yet!

seamus

28064212 wrote: »

Two words: Josef Fritzl

....
How does that even remotely link to this case? He locked her in an underground basement and raped her. The big difference there is consent.

I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying that there is a case to answer, and that if he's found to have abused his power, he should be punished

Impossible to prove tbh. Any psychologists investigating and interviewing the daughter will skew any possibility of a subjective analysis by suggesting to her that she has been conditioned and asking her about her childhood.

Pherekydes

28064212 wrote: »

Two words: Josef Fritzl

I don't think that was a consensual case.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

than to assume both parties were on an equal footing to begin with, which could see much more serious crimes go unpunished.

Thankfully our laws (and probably the U.S. too) assume that both parties are equal (as is possible).

The problem here is that because the concept of incest is vile to most of us, then we believe there must be a "weaker" party in the agreement, spurred on by a "corruptor". Homosexual activity and as I mention above, things like scat porn and the like, I would equally find very distasteful, but I don't at any stage consider that one or more parties are being co-erced into doing it.

I don't really understand why incest, by virtue of being taboo, is automatically believed to be a crime where one party has been forced to do something against their will.

phill106

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't think that was a consensual case.

she said no no no but a 30 foot dungeon says yes yes yes

28064212

seamus wrote: »

....
How does that even remotely link to this case? He locked her in an underground basement and raped her. The big difference there is consent.

He locked his daughter in the basement against her will. However, his grandchildren had never even been outside the basement. His eldest granddaughter was 24 when the case came to light. She wouldn't have even understood the question of consent, and she was an 'adult'

seamus wrote: »

Impossible to prove tbh. Any psychologists investigating and interviewing the daughter will skew any possibility of a subjective analysis by suggesting to her that she has been conditioned and asking her about her childhood.

Quite probably. In which case he'll be acquitted. That's why we have the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.

Töpher

Who's your daddy, bitch?

prinz

seamus wrote: »

I don't really understand why incest, by virtue of being taboo, is automatically believed to be a crime where one party has been forced to do something against their will.

Who said it is? It may well be consensual, but the nature and extent of the capacity to consent etc should be investigated. It could be unjust to prosecute persons for some actions on the basis that they were an adult and 'consented', adults can still be pressured/brow beaten/tricked etc into doing something. The relationship should be investigated thoroughly. Applies not only in this case but in many areas.

Pyridine

David Epstein proudly putting the perv into superviser
and the lech into lecturer!

Cat Melodeon

seamus wrote: »

I don't really understand why incest, by virtue of being taboo, is automatically believed to be a crime where one party has been forced to do something against their will.

If you can't see how a parent-child or adult-minor relationship is an unequal one in terms of power and that laws are needed to stop unpleasant people from expoliting parent-child or adult-minor relationships even where there is consent or where the relationship continues into adulthood, then there really is no point in trying to discuss this with you.

Pompey Magnus

seamus wrote: »

It's gross and disgusting and all that. But then so is scat porn.

The problem with incest isn't that its gross and disgusting, its that it is much more likely to lead to congenital birth defects. Something like over half of children born through incestuous relationships suffer abnormalities, the vast majority of these being severe. Scat porn doesn't affect another human being not consenting in that action, incest can.

jimthemental

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Scat porn doesn't affect another human being not consenting in that action

It does if you're the office cleaner.

Wolfe Tone

Jayzus if true it is bloody sick

thebigbiffo

i've got to agree with seamus on this one.

also, this relationship took place when this girl was between the ages of 20-21 and 24 - why the interest in and the arguments centred on the father's possible wrongdoing? the girl was an adult when the relationship started - is it not possible that SHE was at fault, instigated the relationship or coerced him into it...why not ask if she was at fault?

ahhhh feminism - such level mindedness you brought to this world.

seamus

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

needed to stop unpleasant people from expoliting parent-child relationships

And how do you separate an unpleasant person exploiting a relationship from all the pleasant people who've just ended up in a taboo scenario?

Sorry, I don't buy the "vulnerable" nonsense where a relationship has been going on consensually and without any kind of coercion. Yes, I can see perfectly well how an unscruplulous parent could leverage their position to force themselves on an adult child, but ultimately that requires coercion, the threat of something which results in some kind of reluctant or forced consent from the other party, which ultimately could be determined to be a form of rape or other sexual assault.

We have no evidence that anything of the sort has gone on here, and the bare facts that we know - the length of time this has gone on, indicate that it was entirely consentual. Otherwise he would be charged with some kind of rape, right?

The man has been charged with incest - consentual sexual relations between two adults who are closely related. There is no good reason, other than societal displeasure for this to be illegal. If they want to be gross in private, off they go.

where the relationship continues into adulthood

Different scenario again because it requires the relationship to have begun before adulthood.

Zulu

...if it was good enough for Royality!
(Sick fuckers, the two of them)

28064212

thebigbiffo wrote: »

also, this relationship took place when this girl was between the ages of 20-21 and 24 - why the interest in and the arguments centred on the father's possible wrongdoing? the girl was an adult when the relationship started - is it not possible that SHE was at fault, instigated the relationship or coerced him into it...why not ask if she was at fault?

Because a parent is in a position of power over their child. The same way as there are questions to be answered if a boss is having sex with an employee, and parent-child is a much deeper relationship than that

thebigbiffo wrote: »

ahhhh feminism - such level mindedness you brought to this world.

What relevance does feminism have? If the reverse situation was happening (mother-son), the mother would be receiving the exact same criticisms as the father in this case

Wolfe Tone

Who will end up looking after the handicapped kids?

Mr. Presentable

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The problem with incest isn't that its gross and disgusting, its that it is much more likely to lead to congenital birth defects. Something like over half of children born through incestuous relationships suffer abnormalities, the vast majority of these being severe. Scat porn doesn't affect another human being not consenting in that action, incest can.

Can you support that? I was of the impression the going rate is about 4% chance.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy the "vulnerable" nonsense where a relationship has been going on consensually and without any kind of coercion.

The unequal relationship is recognised across a whole lot of areas, from employment law, to contract law, to criminal law to consensual incest in this case.

seamus wrote: »

And how do you separate an unpleasant person exploiting a relationship from all the pleasant people who've just ended up in a taboo scenario?

You go to court and you argue it out. You don't just assume everyone consented 100% and all is fine and dandy from the outset and not bother going to court at all.

DrumSteve

phill106 wrote: »

she said no no no but a 30 foot dungeon says yes yes yes

Can someone let me out now please.

phill106

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The problem with incest isn't that its gross and disgusting, its that it is much more likely to lead to congenital birth defects. Something like over half of children born through incestuous relationships suffer abnormalities, the vast majority of these being severe. Scat porn doesn't affect another human being not consenting in that action, incest can.

Ah, so that is where i shall breed my mutants from!
So were wolverines parents rednecks then?
Maybe some of these abnormalities will be good!

kjl

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully our laws (and probably the U.S. too) assume that both parties are equal (as is possible).

The problem here is that because the concept of incest is vile to most of us, then we believe there must be a "weaker" party in the agreement, spurred on by a "corruptor". Homosexual activity and as I mention above, things like scat porn and the like, I would equally find very distasteful, but I don't at any stage consider that one or more parties are being co-erced into doing it.

I don't really understand why incest, by virtue of being taboo, is automatically believed to be a crime where one party has been forced to do something against their will.

Jesus Seamus, Feeling guilty about something?

thebigbiffo

28064212 wrote: »

Because a parent is in a position of power over their child. The same way as there are questions to be answered if a boss is having sex with an employee, and parent-child is a much deeper relationship than that
What relevance does feminism have? If the reverse situation was happening (mother-son), the mother would be receiving the exact same criticisms as the father in this case

prinz wrote: »

The unequal relationship is recognised across a whole lot of areas, from employment law, to contract law, to criminal law to consensual incest in this case.

You go to court and you argue it out. You don't just assume everyone consented 100% and all is fine and dandy from the outset and not bother going to court at all.

my boss can shag a consenting adult without it being a crime, where do you work? also, by that rational a billionaire cant shag a person on 25k a year. what about unequal intellects...the list is endless. the simple fact here is she consented as an adult.

ok, maybe blaming feminism was a bit on the harsh side:pac:. however, it must be noted that the immediate victim is seen as the woman, not the man. now i know this comes back to the above argument aswell but i'm still of the opinion it's not investigated equally - it is immediatly assumed the man (father) is the guilty party when there is every chance he is not.

@prinz: but consensual should mean just that - consent was given. who gets to choose what cases go to court on the basis someone was coerced? and i'm not just asking this on the sexual crimes level, you listed many different types to crimes where this could apply. it's patently ridiculous to suggest that a trip to court is in order just because a prosecuter formed the opinion that one party was in someway driven to something he/she finds distasteful - even if both parties are happy with the 'contract' or whatever!

this is about punishing incest - end of - and i find their prosecution of just the father absurd.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

You don't just assume everyone consented 100% and all is fine and dandy from the outset and not bother going to court at all.

Why not? When a boss has a relationship with their employee, we don't haul everyone up in court, lest the employee has been forced to do something against their will.

Sure, if it's a care worker and a patient, we get a little more suspicious - especially where mental illness is involved, but we still don't necessarily assume any wrongdoing is involved.

So why assume that there's a question over consent in this case? Why isn't it a simple matter of asking both parties, "Did you say yes freely without coercion", and then drop it when they both say "Yes"?

Jesus Seamus, Feeling guilty about something?

Thankfully no, but this seems to be one of the last big taboos that we're yet to say, "You know what? It's none of our bloody business what consenting adults get up to in their own homes".