From the telly

Facts
A fading telly 'star' has written a 'tell al' book in which she said that as an adult, after a night of mutual consensual drugs she woke up in the morning to find she had sex with her more famous father.
From there the affair became consensual for 10 years. Now almost 20 years after she's claiming victim status but now forgives her father.
dad died in 2001 at 65.
Ignoring
The religiously motivated cultural revulsion against incest.(practiced many cultures in history and some today)
The cynical publishers timing.
The possible pecuniary and cathartic motives.
And plain Misogyny and feminism.

additional factors to consider.
a. Given that the father and daughter were both consenting adults. there were no children involved.
b. The relationship went on for 10 year consensually.
c. She had both a mother and was old enough to leave or prosecute.
d. We as a culture ignore even encourage 40+ men having relationships with young women (daughter type ages).despite power differences.

What do you think about the moral conflict between A&D?
Where do YOU draw the line and why?

I draw the line at writing an entire book just to tell Al.

I draw the line at the headline...

Mamas and Papas singer 'raped daughter'

Surely there's a posthumous defamation lawsuit in that. Even if you take the quotes (which are there as a poxy ass-cover), it doesn't make sense because of the word daughter inside them, the quote isn't from the dead guy.

At least the marginally better SMH had an 'accused' in there...

Mamas & Papas singer accused of rape by daughter

Dear Examinator,

You've given us a rather bad example with this case -
where the father was heavily into 'everything', had no
moral boundaries, and took sexual advantage of his
teenage daughter, who herself was heavily into
drugs as well as being a very 'troubled,'
young woman. I don't think either of them really
knew what they were doing.

Sociologist, Ian Robertson tell us:

"The incest taboo has developed over time because it is
vital to the survival of the family and thus of society
itself. Neither traditional nor modern societies
consciously appreciate the reasons for the taboo. We simply
accept it as natural and moral."

Kinglsey Davis points out:

"The incestuous child of a father-daughter union
would be a brother of his own mother, i.e. the son of
his own sister; a stepson of his own grandmother;
possibly a brother of his own uncle; and certainly a
grandson of his own father..."

Also, sexual rivalry among family members would disrupt the
normal roles and attitudes of the various relatives.
The father for example, might experience role conflict as
both the disciplinarian and the lover of his daughter,
the mother might be jealous of both, and the child, of
course would be caught in the middle. Faced with constant
conflict and tension, the family insitution might simply
disintegrate.

Hence the incest taboo. But, in the case you cited - I guess
none of this applied - those two were off with the faeries,
until now, that is - with the need to publish the 'tell-all
book.' She must either need the money - or her psychologist
told her to write it.

Where do I draw the line?
Very firmly between father and daughter!

Parents are supposed to protect their children -
not abuse them. How can a daughter with a drug
problem realise just what she's consenting to?
She's not rational. The father had all the power
and control, and he used it to his advantage.

Nice argument Foxy.
I have always felt that, although rare, if it was consensual and didnt involve offspring then it is none of societies business but your argument has swayed me. The conflict and potential for jealousy in parent child sexual relations is very good reason for society to restrict them.

This case seems like a good illustration of what happens to people who abuse drugs and a rather sad example of someone trying to cash in on it. If it really happened.

Foxy and others,
I didn't mention names because they are irrelevant to the questions I'm raising.

I did say religious/cultural mores aside.

I'm trying to examine the actual differences between two sets of adults with similar age differences choosing who they have sex with (no children as a result). Hence the question difference between A&D

I see the issue of focus as both potentially abuses of power.
And where does one draw the line and why.

The roles of father/daughter differs greatly depending on circumstances and particularly once we're talking about adults.

Suppose I was divorced and started an affair (sex fling) with my younger secretary who ten years later turns out to be my estranged daughter. Did our not knowing really change anything? What father/daughter role was interrupted.

Homosexuality tends to interrupt family roles too.
Aren't we talking about two individuals really.

Knowledge doesn't change realities just our attitudes towards them?

Examinator< "Suppose I was divorced and started an affair (sex fling) with my younger secretary who ten years later turns out to be my estranged daughter. Did our not knowing really change anything? What father/daughter role was interrupted."

You are really playing with fire with this thread Examinator!
Incest is one of the biggest taboos in the vast majority of cultures/peoples in the world, and for good reason.

Are you suggesting it would be ok as long as children are not born out of the incestuous unions?

The mental health wards are home to many people who suffered through incestuous relationships, while disability services attend to the mental and physical needs of damaged people born to close relatives.

It is NEVER ok to have sex with close relatives!

Dear Examinator,

I question your premise of this being a
case of two consenting adults.

The daughter was a teenager
the first time the father had sex with her - both
had a serious drug problem at the time.
Later, it seems that
the sex continued - but so did the drugs.

If the father was able to understand what he was
doing, I rather doubt the daughter's mental
capacity to do so.

As I said previously - this case doesn't appear
to be about two consenting adults. This case appears
to be about one totally debauched individual simply
taking advantage of a younger, weaker person that by
rights he should have protected until she at least
was capable of consenting/or not.

I draw the line at any individual taking advantage over
another. Be it in the workforce, in society, or in the
family.

Come on examinator - this is a story that includes celebrities, drugs, rock'n'roll and incest! It's just the kind of salacious crap that sells trashy books and tabloid newspapers. The people who should've drawn "the line" are the hapless starlet and her erstwhile Papa/lover.

Fascinating that his band was the Mamas and the Papas. Now I'm wondering how they arrived at that name...

Excellent posts Foxy.

Examinator I think your question has been adequately answered. Or is there an underlying agenda to this topic?

CJ and others
you should have read my first post with more effort or my 2nd post.

NOTE : I didn't mention specifics because they are irrelevant to the question I was asking.
I did mention a list of exclusions for good reasons because they are essentially emotional, cultural/religious affectations that prevent or retard our ability to see things for what they are.

In other words I was leading to perspective which is one of the arch enemy to prejudice and irrationality.
NB That doesn't mean I'm advocating or condoning it, just that I took a broader perspective.

I was trying to get at what is the ACTUAL differences between Cases A&B in real terms. (beyond the exclusions)

Apart from the the 'risk' of inbred faulted etc children. Which is by no mean is guaranteed . I see only perceptions and potential abuses of power.

By establishing that, the next point was to suggest then it's the abuse of power that is the problem, why aren't we dealing with that IN BOTH cases and punish(?) the culprit?

My next point was to then ask the question why then do we stigmatise the victim ? Much like we used to do with bastards. We don't now, that's enlighten thought. In its place we teach sensible/protected sex.

The companion point is that we culturally make too big a fuss over SEX allowing/encouraging it to be a subject of titillation/salaciousness and ultimately the victims suffer (unnecessarily IMO).
The solution is to de-glorify sex.

10 years of listening to crisis (many suicidal) this seemed to be a good, if only realistic solution. Generally it's more difficult to handle sex based crises because of the perceived stigmatising by and of the victim .

To simply come out with that I would have been accused of 'pontificating' rather than making a point.

CJ I guess if you as a ex Anthopologist can't extricate from cultural mores it is unreasonable for others to do so .
Sorry.

Dear examinator,

Some people's demeaning, gross and pathetic attempts to
sexualize the world inappropriately is an
immorality. It lacks respect not only for human
beings, but also for the role that sex can and
should play in a spiritually mature existence.

As Marianne Williamson says in her book, "Illuminata,":-

" There is a category of sex that
is very dark. Rape, incest, molestation, abuse of any
number of varieties, centred around sex, then lodged
like a knife in people's souls. Millions of people
are thought to carry the burden, the vicious psychic
wounding of someone somewhere having violated them
sexually."

As a counsellor, you should know that sexual abuse
survivors are haunted by horrible memories, in bed and out.
Their efforts to forgive can feel like the need to lift
a boulder with one little finger, their access to one
of the most beautiful human energies having been sullied
and damaged and grossly misused.

Sexual abuse is an obscene betrayal. It is such a sign
of the insanity of our times that anyone would touch
a child, yet many people do; that anyone would rape,
yet many people do; that anyone would have to suffer such
a terrible degradation, yet many people have and do.

We don't need to de-glorify sex as you suggest - what we
need to de-glorify is its abuse.

Has any of the allegations been verified?.

Apologies for being a little too flippant, examinator.

What I do know is that definitions of what constitutes 'incest' vary very much between cultures - although I can't think of any where father-child or mother-child sexual relations are acceptable (mind you, there is apparently a fairly common practice in Japan whereby mothers masturbate their adolescent sons so they don't get distracted from their studies by girls).

There have been plenty of examples in Western history and in contemporary non-Western societies of endogamous marriage practices that would raise eyebrows among most contemporary Australians (except perhaps Tasmanians... joke!). In some royal and other high status lineages there have been examples of brothers marrying sisters, and in such situations marriage between first cousins is still reasonably common.

On the other hand, in many exogamous societies sexual relationships that would be considered quite normal in our society are considered incestuous. Interestingly, in parts of Australia one of the most damaging things the missionaries did was to encourage 'wrong-marriages' between people of the same moiety as part of their 'civilising' project. Ironically, in so doing the missionaries actively destroyed the basis for some of the most strictly controlled sexuality described in ethnographic literature.

Indeed, it wouldn't be hard to run an argument that most of the appalling cases of sexual abuse that are being reported in contemporary Aboriginal communities are the direct results of the deliberate transgression of Aboriginal Law regarding incest by well-intentioned but blundering missionaries and social workers.

However, too much knowledge can be a bad thing - which is perhaps why I didn't respond to your OP as seriously I probably should have...

CJ's response partially validates my point. Incest depends on the religion influenced cultures.
If one can intellectually exclude those issues one is then left with the base acts and one can then investigate their primary cause i.e Abuse of power.
then the rest follows doesn't it?

Dear examinator,

I'm not sure about the 'religion-based cultures,'
to which you refer. However, I am sure about the Law.

Acts of sexual penetration are prohibited between parents
and children, other lineal descendents or step-children
and between brothers and sisters and half brothers
and sisters. Under the Law - consent is not a defence
for incest. It is a criminal offence.

I don't understand to what you're referring in the last
sentence of your post.

Foxy
I'm referring to the fact that religion defines taboos/mores etc within cultures. These are often codified into laws. Which tend to create unnecessary victims as well as anomalies, A&D.

Much of the religious input is in the final analysis was to ensure their power over their devotees. This is best seen by the extremes, the sects. take the Hasitic Jews, The Brethren, Scientology, etc.
They all use a common Psychological methodology. Alienate them from the rest so they are dependent on the leadership/organization.

As the religion changes so does the taboos/mores and therefore the culture.

While there are similarities and some have an element of substance they are never-the-less R/C defined add-ons/justifications.

Outside of cultural mores say in Islam, a defiled woman isn't worthy of marriage. The essence of that is clearly patriarchal and it's truth was based on the need to ensure, legitimize hereditary power structures.

Religion arguably adopted this to ensure their lines of hereditary accession(exclusivity) and as a means of controlling the devotees.

In so doing, they left the door open for victimization of those that were outside the rules, children and victims of incest etc.

The 'victim' in the example continued a consensual relationship for 10 years. Now the 'father' is dead and can't defend himself she's claiming victim status because the system allows her to do so.

There are several issues of fairness and justice etc. there. The key is the flawed way we decide right or wrong.

The “natural” (sic) brain electro/chemical argument for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
The problem is that it over generalises and over states.

Sex is a bodily function, albeit a pleasurable one to most. Our preoccupation with sex and its sanctity, publicity value etc. is religious and culturally (R/C) based.

Many of the traumas that victims face are as a consequence of this R/C conditioning. We are told from childhood that it's some how dirty, inappropriate except under R/C defined/approved situations.

In the examples I clearly showed that Rape is about aggressive dominance over the victim ergo its about abuse of power.

Some people can't climax, unless there is an element of dominance is used. In the extreme cases they become rapists.

When I said de-sexualised I three interpretations of that non word in mind.
1. Neutering the common over fascination of sexualising every thing i.e. media stories, ads, etc. (NB I didn't say get rid of it just keep it in perspective) less salaciousness.
2.Reduce the impacts on victims in legal cases and R/C induced stigmatising aftermath. Violence is easier to prove than rape and would lead to discouraging other abuses of power i.e. the 40+ ex-football (star?) executive who had a series of sexitaries who were just of legal age.
One case I remember was of a 20 yo uni student and Muslim who had given herself to her boyfriend but he prematurely died in a car crash. She committed suicide because she could never get married because of the R/C shame.
.
3.De genderise and bias the public perceptions of rape and rape victims
Consider the plight of the Mormon male pack raped by bikkie type females. The
police and according to Stuart's principal, his biggest problem should have been how
to get the smile of his face.
Likewise the scenario of a male dressed in the fashion of the day was pack raped
'because he looked like a poof (someone's bitch).'
In both cases the common element is violent suppression of the victim (power) might is right so punish that not sex.

Dear examinator,

Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this,
as well as your rape topic.

I don't care to continue any further discussion
with you (on either topic).

It appears that I'm much more conservative in
my outlook then I thought.