A Columbia professor is charged over consensual sex with his adult daughter

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Don't God-fearing Christians believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve?

If so, we are all products of incest, aren't we?

And how about masturbation? Wouldn't that be an even more intimate relationship?

Edited December 12, 2010 by Just Bob

[Kathryn41 3,205]

How hypocritical. Charles postulated that sex between parents and children is not a problem for him so how was that a personal insult? If he had said that he considered it immoral and wrong then clearly it would be.

There is no hypocrisy involved. The phrasing of your comments left no doubt they were meant as personal attacks. You can disagree with a poster's comments, but you have no right to make personal attacks against other posters because you disagree with their comments. Address the comments, don't attack the poster. There were a number of other posters who stated the same position as Charles, yet you chose to attack Charles and ignore them.

[Peikko 1,575]

There is no hypocrisy involved. The phrasing of your comments left no doubt they were meant as personal attacks. You can disagree with a poster's comments, but you have no right to make personal attacks against other posters because you disagree with their comments. Address the comments, don't attack the poster. There were a number of other posters who stated the same position as Charles, yet you chose to attack Charles and ignore them.

Explain how one can be insulted by a comment on something that one doesn't find offensive? If I wanted to be hurtful I wouldn't say something like that at all, that's just stupid.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just to labour the point a little more. If I postulate that eating babies is not offensive, how can I pretend to be offended if someone asks me how the baby tastes? What that person would be doing would be challenging my claim. If I was offended by them asking, clearly I would actually believe eating babies is indeed offensive, and that was my point.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Explain how one can be insulted by a comment on something that one doesn't find offensive? If I wanted to be hurtful I wouldn't say something like that at all, that's just stupid.

Charles' statement was that it was up to the two individuals involved and he didn't have a problem with it if they didn't. It was a statement made in general about the nature of the relationship between 2 people he does not know nor care about. You, however, took it from the general to the personal, and basically accused him of personally participating in an activity you acknowledge that you find offensive. His opinion on the activity is irrelevant in the situation - it is your position on this relationship that determines your intent - and that is why your comments were viewed as personal attack and removed as such

I have explained my decision and it is no longer open for discussion in this thread.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Kathryn41 3,205]

post continuing closed discussion has been removed

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course it has.

[Danno 1,228]

I guess really depends on how you view sex that is as a result of coercion. Personally, I think it's objectionable but not necessarily criminal. I was not aware that I was putting forward an argument for or against its criminality, I was addressing the moral aspect.

I find it hard to understand those who derive pleasure from coercion of all sorts. In the specific case, there's also the fact that this was s duplicitous relationship, unless we are accepting that the wife knew all about it and was encouraging them, or at the very least could not care less - which seems a tad unlikely. I am also wondering if this isn't the extreme end of protective father syndrome, you know those guys who would like to kill the prospective lovers of their daughters because imagining their daughters engaging in sex at all enrages them.

While I don't have any experience with inter family Coercion when it comes to SEX...... I'm betting there are but just a few men alive, who have not dabbled in "coercion" when it comes to sex...... sadly enough, in some cases, it involves their Wife.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

While I don't have any experience with inter family Coercion when it comes to SEX...... I'm betting there are but a few men alive who have not dabbled in "coercion" when it comes to sex...... sadly enough, in some cases, it involves their Wife.

Coercion is not a euphemism for experimental sex Danno. Coercion is seriously messed up behaviour and if you think that a good relationship involves a man routinely coercing the women to engage in sex she is not happy to engage in, then there's nowhere to go with this. Women are not simply sex toys, period.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Danno 1,228]

Coercion is not a euphemism for experimental sex Danno. Coercion is seriously messed up behaviour and if you think that a good relationship involves a man routinely coercing the women to engage in sex she is not happy to engage in, then there's nowhere to go with this. Women are not simply sex toys, period.

I never said they were "simply" sex toys.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I never said they were "simply" sex toys.

[Peikko 1,575]

I never said they were "simply" sex toys.

Yeah, that's so funny. Sexual abuse is not funny Danno.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Which one wore the sheep outfit?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Justifying sexual abuse.... There are some seriously messed up people on vj. Perhaps the site should be renamed "perverts journey"

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Justifying sexual abuse.... There are some seriously messed up people on vj. Perhaps the site should be renamed "perverts journey"

Who pray tell is justifying sexual abuse? You are mighty loose with blanket judgments.