Professor charged with incest with his daughter

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".

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

@prinz: but consensual should mean just that - consent was given..

Not that simple, you can willingly enter into an employment contract.... thereby 'consenting' to enter into a relationship with your employed. If the employer then tries to screw you with overtime, cutting your wages, extra work etc does that mean that it's ok because you consented to be employed by them?

As for your man v woman argument. It's groundless. The same course of action would be taken if it was a woman and her son. The daughter in this case may have her day in court too.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

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

No I think that's cousins. And the genetics are 4x as similar in a father daughter case

Bottle_of_Smoke

I tihnk they should both be charged and given equal sentences. Something like 2/3 years. Nothing mad.

It is the government's business in that their activity could lead to a deformed kid.

I'm not a holier than thou type, if they were just doing anal/oral i couldn't care less. Though it isn't on to be risking pregnancy.

any idea how they got caught?

thebigbiffo

prinz wrote: »

Not that simple, you can willingly enter into an employment contract.... thereby 'consenting' to enter into a relationship with your employed. If the employer then tries to screw you with overtime, cutting your wages, extra work etc does that mean that it's ok because you consented to be employed by them?

As for your man v woman argument. It's groundless. The same course of action would be taken if it was a woman and her son. The daughter in this case may have her day in court too.

not seeing the connection. what you describe is a breach of contract. the only relevance to this case if if she said 'lets do it' and then he whipped out S&M gear or wanted to stick it in her bum. basically, she could've walked away and it'd be clear cut rape if he forced her, but she didn't, she slept with him and your 'contract', on their own terms, was not broken. she consented to what they did.

i'm not so sure that a woman would be brought so quickly to presecution if at all - but anyway, that's all hypothetical.

28064212

thebigbiffo wrote: »

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

Actually, looking back over the articles, it seems that the charge is simply one of felony incest. I assumed that there was some sort of coercion and/or abuse charge. On that basis I would agree with you, they should both be charged.

Although I'd actually be on seamus' side, they shouldn't be charged at all unless there's an issue of consent. Incest shouldn't be against the law where there's no consent issue.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

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"?

...because it involves an unequal relationship that needs be invesitgated more thoroughly than just a yes/no question.

There are also cases which the state prosecutes, which could apply in this case, where the consent of the daughter would be largely irrelevant, like it or not.

Like it or not, they are applying the law as it stands I am sure. Argue for a change perhaps but you can't argue for people to be exempt on the basis of what we believe the law should be.

prinz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

not seeing the connection. what you describe is a breach of contract.

Not necessarily. It might concern something not explicitly mentioned in your employment contract, what then?. Even if you don't object as an individual, a union or other representative body could act on your behalf.

Good example, these doctors could be deemed to have 'consented' by doing the work, does that make the actions of the health trusts any less problematic :
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/junior-doctors-being-bullied-into-hours-of-unpaid-overtime-805243.html

It's about investigating whether or not there was an abuse of a position of authority.

28064212

prinz wrote: »

It's about investigating whether or not there was an abuse of a position of authority.

I'd agree, except that doesn't seem to be what's going to be investigated. The charge is felony incest, which is purely about whether the act happened or not.

midlandsmissus

Don't underestimate the power a parent has over the child. Look at what Mackenzie Philips said last year

Mackenzie Phillips, daughter of The Mamas & The Papas frontman John Phillips, revealed last night that her incestuous relationship with her father was not consensual, contrary to her past claims that it was.
"I'd like to reframe my word consensual," Phillips said on Tuesday night's "Joy Behar Show."
"As I was writing , I thought, this word, it kept sitting wrong with me. But I used it for lack of a better word," she said. "Since then, I've been schooled by thousands of incest survivors all across the world that there really is no such thing as consensual incest due to the inherent power a parent has over a child.
"So, I wouldn't necessarily call it a consensual relationship at this time."
Phillips, 50, revealed on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" last September that she was 17 when she began sleeping with her famous father.
She recounted over 30 years of constant sexual contact, even though she eventually married and had a family of her own. The actress even claimed she had an abortion after her father, who died in 2001, impregnated her.
Phillips documented her controversial relationship in the book "High on Arrival."
During her recent appearance on VH1's "Celebrity Rehab," Phillips got some insight from Dr. Drew Pinsky -- incest is never consensual.
"The child is trying to make sense of this situation she feels as though the only she can survive it is by saying, 'I'm creating it, I have some power in this, I'm consenting to it.' When the fact is, the kind of relationship a parent has with a child makes consent actually impossible," he explained.
Since speaking out about her personal issues, Phillips said the ordeal has impacted her world.
"I've had so many people come forward, saying 'I never had the strength to tell my story,'" she said. "It's been an incredible experience becoming part of a community."


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/02/03/2010-02-03_mackenzie_phillips_explains_incestuous_relationship_with_father_john_phillips_wa.html#ixzz184j1I3pG

GLaDOS

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

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

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No I think that's cousins. And the genetics are 4x as similar in a father daughter case

'Tis cousins

Here's a study of Father-Daughter and Brother Sister pregancies, the figures aren't good.

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2882%2980347-8/abstract

Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.