Coercion is inherent in every case of parent/child incest. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
It is clear for the context that she is talking about adults. How can she make such an assertion? There’s no way she knows the dynamics of every single relationship. She is like the racist who says that every interracial relationship is about rebelling against parents, or the rare lesbian who says that all male-female sex is rape. It is insulting. It is telling that throughout her editorial, which is a lot of bluster but little substance, she writes about father-daughter relationships. Not a word about mother-son, mother-daughter, or father-son. I wonder why? Nor does she address other consanguineous relationships outlawed in some or most places, such a between siblings, cousins, uncle/aunts and nephews/nieces (especially those close in age).
Epstein’s daughter is as much of an accomplice as a rape victim who was wearing a low-cut blouse is an accomplice.
This kind of talk is demeaning to people who have been subjected to rape. What doe she know about Epstein’ daughter and her relationship with her father?
I don’t care if she’s 50 when the incest happens. At the end of the day, children do not have the capacity to choose to have sex with their parents, simply because the parent/child relationship ruins the capacity for consent.
Much repetition, no evidence.
You can’t have sex with your children. You also can’t have sex with anybody who is below the age of legal consent. Are these hard rules to follow?
That’s a nice try at guilt by association, trying to link consensual sex between adults to statutory rape or child rape.
By this reasoning, all parents of adult criminals should be tried for the crimes as well, especially if they gave any indication that they approved of the crimes. Depending on how supportive the parents were of the criminal acitivity, their adult children shouldn’t be prosecuted.
The truth is, some adults consent to have sex with relatives, including parents. You do not have to like that, but it should not be against the law.
" Epstein’s daughter is as much of an accomplice as a rape victim who was wearing a low-cut blouse is an accomplice."
ReplyDeleteThis lady knows nothing about children who are actually forced or coheresed into insestual/sexual abuse. I agree with you that this kind of talk is demeaning to people who have been subjected to rape.
I think that she makes a good argument.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty reasonable to presume that if a parent is having sex with their child, even an adult child, that the parent groomed the child into the sexual relationship. That seems like an abuse of power.
It follows then that the law should prohibit incest to make sure that parents aren't grooming their children into a sexual relationship.
I think that you've argued that there is no evidence that the parent-child relationship raises the implication of coercion, but it seems reasonable to assume that a 22-year old woman who has sex with her father was groomed. It seems far more unlikely that she just suddenly discovered at 22 that she wanted to have sex with her father. The sexual relationship builds on their prior 22-year relationship as father and daughter.
It seems uncomfortably close to go from the parent-child relationship when the child is a minor, where I presume you would agree that sexual relations would be wrong, to a sexual relationship as adults. There are not rigid distinctions between these two relationships because of the possibility of grooming.
I don't think this is "guilt by association" since we are talking about the continuation of the same relationship. It is not a comparison of groups that have no relationship.
You also criticize her for dealing with only one type of incestuous relationship. But, I would ask you if at least some incestuous relationships are wrong?
What about the incestuous relationship where we know for certain that the father has groomed a daughter as a sexual partner? Would you agree that in that limited circumstance, incest would be wrong?
Though he already answered, I thought I would give my opinion, even if it somewhat follows his. It goes:
DeleteThen the crime should be grooming then. This isn't limited nor is it inherent in incest. Actually, if anything the law has increased the ratio of the crime to situations where no crime has been committed.
A more general example. Some people have sex by raping a victim, therefore we should ban sex. But then most of the people having sex would be those that don't care about the ban, most of which would be the rapists. Bonus points if sex legally becomes rape anyways in such a law, then there would be absolutely no way for anybody to prove there wasn't a resulting victim nor an intended one.
Back to the incest, a small amount of fathers may groom their daughters,and going by this we are banning the rest of father/daughter couples. Except that the law didn't exactly protect anybody in this situation. Fathers can still groom their daughters unofficially, and the daughters are hopelessly turned into accomplices so they really lose incentive to speak out. On the other hand, we are changing the ratio since legitimate father daughter couples wouldn't speak out for fear of criminalization so the results end up looking worse than they really are.
I can't answer for the owner of this site, but I believe the answer to your last question is no, the incest is not wrong in a situation where a father grooms his daughter, the grooming is wrong, just as wrong as it is to groom anybody else. Claiming that incest is wrong in cases where there is a grooming victim is like saying heterosexuality is wrong in cases where there is a rape victim. It's a conflation of terms.
Thank you, Anonymous!
DeleteAnonymous, thanks for your thoughtful consideration and comment. I have posted a response: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2010/12/others-may-consent-to-something-you.html
ReplyDelete