Incest is Best

I saw this story and I'm glad you brought it to our attention by way of this article.

"How" you ask. or why? Because the sexual revolution is being orchestrated in a cultural campaign run by the "anything goes" crowd. It all began in 1972 in an attempt to "normalize" homosexuality and other deviant sexual behaviors.

wincest is only cool in pron fantasies and dog breeding. in the human case, the social consensus matches the biological one.

however, if they don't breed, no harm is done. still doesn't seem right.

I can understand some taking that out - perhaps in the case of first cousins.  However in the case of parents and children, there is more going on than sex.  It is clearly rape by the parent since he basically raised the child and was (and probably still is) the authority figure.  Besides having the biological implications, just that is enough to sicken most people, especially women.

The man should be castrated - period.  And then sent to jail to explain his situation to the other felons.

There is no way he waited until she old enough to "consent."  That's just wrong...on so many levels.

well, i suppose the state could choose to ignore the wishes of the people involved and start arresting and interrogating them to get at the truth.

however, if it's indeed consensual and they started humping at the right time ... no crime. or a victimless crime, in case someone digs out some law to nail them. besides, getting dragged out in the open is terrible enough in a country without privacy protection laws.

Well, for right now I'm curious what (if anything) was Columbia U. reaction to finding out they have an incestuous David Epstein on board.  

Maybe as far as actual laws, there is no crime, but there is much harm done.

It is undeniable and absolutely wrong and much harm done when a father and his adult daughter consent to a sexual relationship.  

Who said consent makes something moral? Remember the mass suicide at Jonestown? Was it simply a matter of consenting adults? My point is we can't universally say that whatever consenting adults do is OK. Some things are objectively wrong whether adults consent to them or not.  

Josefine Mutzenbacher might disagree, but it does go against our cultural standards.

What IS the 'much harm done' to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship anyway, apart from the social scorn that might ensue?

Anyway, there's a biological reason that incest is not acceptable, so insisting on 'undeniably much harm being  done' is moot. It's illegal anyway.

That IS actually a very good point. Sometimes the freedom of the individual has to take second place, if only for their own good.

And besides, who knows if daddy didn't brainwash his daughter into believing it was consensual? parents can do that, given enough time and - ahem - love.

this whole story kinda reminds me of the Clarissa comics from DeepFried:

Being who he is - he may have, but then he still broke a law, so I suspect you may be right.

You apparently did not read anything written here, and have no children. 

There was no gestapo involved - remember?  Obamination is in charge and if a black is not being victimized, no crime is being committed.

I am not at all interested in Columbia's thoughts.  But I find it somewhat satisfying to see the fears of many laid bare by the naked (no pun intended) support for a truly heinous crime.  And it is being demonstrated here by the idiot that keeps saying "No harm, no foul".

There are 2 kinds of people that jump up in this type of situation and claim no harm, no foul - pedophiles and supports of them (that will be next for the no harm, no foul group) and Idiots that are liberals (in other words, they do not have to think).

That proves you do not read.  that question was already answered above.  Try reading - I know it is hard for someone who only gets their information from talking points - but you may find it enlightening.

Let's be clear. Incest is a morally vile act. Incestuous acts are wrong regardless  of the issue of consent becasue not every act can be reduced to the level of preference.

In other words there are some issue that are objectivly right or wrong. Incest is objectively wrong and for that reason alone causes harm. We know this because every person has a sense of right and wrong. It's the inward voice of conscience and a person  knows interiorly when he is going against an inward voice. That's why I said some things are objectivly morally wrong whether adults consent to them or not.

I jumped into a family snake pit (hissing loudly)  on my husband's side regarding this issue on FB a week or so ago.  One of them wrote in using bad examples of marriage (Tiger Woods, Elizabeth Taylor, Brittany Spears etc) to show support for homosexual marrriage. 

My husband replied first explaining that these bad examples  show  the sinfulness of man.  There are many things we're not allowed to do and marrying the same sex is just one example. 

The conversation that ensued got nasty and ugly fast with absolutely no logic coming from these very very liberal relatives (all from MA) .  The attacks started almost immediately.  So typical.  When we'd answer their questions logically, backing them into a corner they'd end with an "I'm done with this conversation" never answering our questions. 

What many didn't see was that the most vicious one publicly was writing to me privately and I have to give him credit because he did apologize in the end.   Although I'm a firm believer that if you make a public idiot of yourself you should rectify it publicly as well. 

But the lack of logic and the attack mode was just so typical.  Even if it's a contentious issue there's absolutley no need for the ugliness that this can generate.   I can't believe they can't see this.  It's just so darn evident.  Instead they seemed to be cheering each other on with a love fest.

And it's true, if you open the door to legalizing homosexual marriage/sex between two consenting adults there can be no justification for NOT allowing incest and the other stuff that comes directly behind it.  Once that door is opened, it's opened.   

Ain't that the truth. Ya, consent is the catchword. If you'll check the homosexual movement is pushing for lowering the age of consent. And in sex ed classes, they tell the kids, sex, any kind with anyone is OK, as long as it's consensual and using contraceptives.

I totally disagree - but it will be used that way.  As long as their  ARGUMENTS are validated, then bestiality (talk to the dog whisperer), pedophilia (consent gets lowered - after all you do not need parents permission to have abortions now), and incest will jump right in with the SAME argument.  and that is what is happening.  What that shows is the basic argument used by some - is fatally flawed.  It does not say that the concept of homosexuals joining is wrong.  But as you pointed out earlier in your post, that is the argument of choice.  And I think many who would not otherwise think of themselves as supporting incest, pedophilia and bestiality do so because they are too stupid to admit they are wrong and stop using fallacious arguments to shove a politically correct point down the "unwashed masses" throat.

dude, i read. your posts in particular, which eloquently describe your personal distaste for the issue.

however, your personal opinion (augmented by 'clearly', good one) is still just your personal opinion. and given that you speak out of a need to voice your hate and disgust your opinion hardly doesn't count as objective nor contibutive to a discussion.

And thus, my question was not answered, especially not by you.

Also, you try to denigrate me by suggesting I don't read before I post, which is a time honored debate tactic of attacking the discussant while circumventing the topic. A valid method of dominating a debate but not conducive.

What you said is

While I basically agree with the wrongness of parent-child incest (which you'd have noticed up if you had tried reading, haha), you only claim that it's "clearly" rape because it's father and child. Chances are good that it indeed was rape in some form, but no facts in that regard have been put forward at that point of the discussion. And that's what a prosecution is for: Finding facts, not finding facts that suit you.

Likewise, lulapilgrim basically argues that parent-child incest is wrong because it is wrong, without attacking me personally, however (Thanks btw.). That again is a personal opinion and not a valid argument (in absence of hard data it's perfectly fine to speculate).

An example for a valid argument would showcases or statistics showing that consensual incest cases produce "harm" to the child. I assume that's hard to do, though, since most similar incest cases are likely rape cases, too.

That in itself, however, makes this case interesting for scientists of social anthropology, since it can provide factual data to the question I originally asked: "What IS the 'much harm done' to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship anyway, apart from the social scorn that might ensue?"

I admit, the question is phrased in a way that makes it sound dismissive of the notion that incest could indeed cause harm, so let's rephrase it: "What harm is done to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship, if any?"

And just to avoid getting further crap from you: I don't bugger relatives and I don't suggest that anyone should.

To answer your question: None to you - if you're not a member of the family in question.

Finding such statistics from studies would be a tad difficult, if they could be conducted at all.  They would necessarily start with the assumption that parent-child incest is acceptable until & unless 'harm' is proven.  Then you have the issue of defining what constitutes harm.  And to be valid, the subjects of the study could not know they were in it.  Such a study, if it could be pulled off, would rank up there with the Tuskeegee Experiment.  Maybe up there with Dr. Mengele.

This is the moral relativist's refuge - everything is OK until 'proven' wrong.  Especially when 'proof' is impossible.  Easy way out.

No you have not - or you have not understood what you read.  It is not MY opinion, it is accepted knowledge from the body of science called Psychiatry.   Now you may argue that branch of science is bunk, but trying to marginalize it by calling it MY opinion is your tactic and a lame one.  If you had taken the time to READ and understand the information on this page, you would then have the answer to your question.  However you chose instead to try and make up a strawman that does not exist and accuse others of your crimes.  that is YOUR problem.

See above.  You are the one diverting the debate.  I created the topic, you are only trying to excuse the inexcusable with idiotic statements not born out by any data in the professional world.

Ah yes!  The mindset that rape is never rape! It is all about sex and they really want it.  You are a sick puppy.  Clearly someone who is under the control of another cannot "consent", but to misogynists like you, that is immaterial!  Well done!  You have just thrown out all the data ever collected by anyone of any intelligence in favor of your OPINION.

Good luck finding your data on a reputable site that is not run by rapists, pedophiles and polygamists.  I guess Elizabeth Smart asked for it too, right?

Debate Lula on your own, do not include words I did not pen to me.

Whether you do or do not, no one here can tell since your anonymity protects you.  Nor do we care (other than to protect the innocent victims - excuse me - the ones who want it in your mind).  You are still not reading or understanding.  There can be NO CONSENT when one is obeying orders from an AUTHORITY figure!  No court of law, no non-deviant psychiatrist or psychologist would ever agree with you.  For you to be right, then every rapist out there can claim "She said yes" even if he forced her to at the point of gun or knife.

And you are why this sick episode is out there.  There is no right and wrong to you - only consensual regardless of the means to reach the consensus.

Well put!

I failed to point out that heil's question also assumes consent, an assumption that is very much in question itself.

And in some cases impossible.  My children do not "consent" to my authority.  And some even into adulthood still recognize the parent as the authority.  Even if they rebel, they are rebelling AGAINST the authority.

In my family that is done by force....lol.  Talk smack to an "elder" and watch your face get slapped!!

No, that incest is objectively wrong and for that reason causes harm is not a personal opinion. It's valid because every person has a hardwired sense of right and wrong. We know interiorly when we are doing wrong and our conscience rebukes our conduct. People inherently know that incest is wrong and therefore harmful.

Egads! "If any?" 

OKay. I'll rattle off a few....Incest causes psychological, moral, familial, societal and spritual harm. Incest is incompatible with the moral, familial and social order.

.....................

[quote]"What harm is done to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship, if any?"[/quote]

Ya, "if any?" smacks of moral relativism.

Oh my, there's actually an argument in that wall of rage. "Accepted knowledge in psychiatry". You could have proven me wrong completely without getting nasty at me, if you'd have posted something like that from the start. You still can if you pull up something scientific relevant to the question.

You were only raving against that man anyway. Besides, all is still on topic. Congrats for creating the topic. Well done. You are very good at creating different topics which somehow seem to be all the same topic: "I hate liberals!"

And now your fantasy is making you see things I never wrote and didn't imply. Is there a chance that anytime soon you are stopping to project your hate of Mr Epstein onto me?

I was making the point that you can debate without denigrating each other. I actually enjoy civilized debate.

And now you imply that I do practice incest. That is low.

I am so awesome at reading your stuff, I can even spot the words between lines!

And a second argument hidden in a pile of screaming fury: There is no consent in a relationship with an authority figure.

You know, that does make sense, although it can be argued that for adults the authority figure 'father' becomes less of an authority than in someone's childhood. Still, you made a valid argument and I accept that, even though you made it very hard looking for that diamond of wisdom in all that muck.

And now I am responsible for them, too?? Even assuming you mean that figuratively, you again try to dress me up in your rape fantasies.
No right and wrong to me? I wrote in my very first post that this episode doesn't seem right to me, a notion I reinforced later. But no, you have to fight the hated "liberal" (I assume you think I'm a liberal) and in your rage you twist everything into a blade to strike me with.

I have given no offense, I didn't question your beliefs. Yet you act like I'm some kind of enemy.
Look, if you got abused in the past and this a personal touchy issue for you, then I'm sorry. But even then I don't deserve that kind of foul mouthed behavior.