Incest or not?

[Skwim]

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Last week, Nicholas County authorities charged a Mount Nebo man and his stepdaughter with incest - even though the pair aren't related by blood, and are both above the legal age of consent.

County authorities cited the inclusive definition of "daughter" in state law.

Before charging the pair, Shafer researched state law regarding incest and consulted Nicholas County Prosecuting Attorney James "P.K." Milam, Hopkins said. They all agreed that Nicholas and Jarrett should be arrested because of the law's definition of a daughter.

According to state law, a daughter is the natural daughter of a person's husband or wife -- and Nicholas is still married to Jarrett's mother, Hopkins said. Jarrett was about 16 when her mother married Nicholas, he said.

"If you look real close at the code side, and Sgt. Shafer is a real stickler for the details," Hopkins said, "you can look and see it does include stepdaughters."

Deputies charged Nicholas and Jarrett each with seven counts of incest, which is a felony that calls for a penalty of between 5 and 15 years in prison."
source
​

My thoughts,
Without doubt they broke the law; however, I believe it's a law that needs fixin' and not the two involved. If it's based on consanguinity then it fails right out of the gate. There is none. And if the law was conceived merely to reflect a social taboo, I would have to see a good argument to convince me of its necessity. Other than cannibalism, I can't think of any strictly social taboo that deserves to be made unlawful.

 

[Me Myself]

I find it freaky either way.

 

[Draka]

I find it freaky either way.

Why is it freaky? Any way you look at it, he's actually closer in age to the stepdaughter than the mother anyway. He is 28, the girl is 21. He obviously married the mother when he was only 23. If anything, the girl's mother was a bit of a cougar and what would be known as a "cradle-robber" by some. Honestly, Kind of makes sense that he would have more in common with the step-daughter than his wife/her mother. They aren't blood related, there is no real incest, the law is screwed up, they shouldn't be charged with anything. He should simply be allowed to pursue a divorce and proceed with a relationship with the girl if all involved are fine with that. At least, that's JMO.

 

[Me Myself]

Why is it freaky? Any way you look at it, he's actually closer in age to the stepdaughter than the mother anyway. He is 28, the girl is 21. He obviously married the mother when he was only 23. If anything, the girl's mother was a bit of a cougar and what would be known as a "cradle-robber" by some. Honestly, Kind of makes sense that he would have more in common with the step-daughter than his wife/her mother. They aren't blood related, there is no real incest, the law is screwed up, they shouldn't be charged with anything. He should simply be allowed to pursue a divorce and proceed with a relationship with the girl if all involved are fine with that. At least, that's JMO.

Its subjective. I dont have a formal opinion on the matter, I find it freaky to have sex with someone who at any point you saw as your daughter.

 

[Aquitaine]

Indeed, it is rather icky. However, to my understanding at least, it is not actual biological incest, and she is only his "step-daughter" because of his marriage contract with her mother.

At this stage, I don't feel there is sufficient justification for prosecution.

 

[Draka]

Its subjective. I dont have a formal opinion on the matter, I find it freaky to have sex with someone who at any point you saw as your daughter.

Doubtful they actually ever viewed each other seriously in that manner. She was already 16 when he married her mother. Apparently that is when the sexual relationship began between them, which is also the age of consent in WV. After looking again, this is not about what is going on now, as she has moved out and has married someone herself, but a relationship they had over a couple years before she moved out.

And seriously do you ever really think a 23 y/o man would ever view a 16 y/o girl as his daughter or a 16 y/o girl really look upon a 23 y/o man as her father? I mean...really?

 

[Me Myself]

Doubtful they actually ever viewed each other seriously in that manner. She was already 16 when he married her mother. Apparently that is when the sexual relationship began between them, which is also the age of consent in WV. After looking again, this is not about what is going on now, as she has moved out and has married someone herself, but a relationship they had over a couple years before she moved out.

And seriously do you ever really think a 23 y/o man would ever view a 16 y/o girl as his daughter or a 16 y/o girl really look upon a 23 y/o man as her father? I mean...really?

Lawfully speaking what would you do? Would you inser a clause regarding ages of father and daughter and time of the father daughter relationship before the sexual encounter?

I dont know how he felt I odnt now how she felt. I just find the ambiguous idea freaky, that's all

 

[dawny0826]

My thoughts,
Without doubt they broke the law; however, I believe it's a law that needs fixin' and not the two involved. If it's based on consanguinity then it fails right out of the gate. There is none. And if the law was conceived merely to reflect a social taboo, I would have to see a good argument to convince me of its necessity. Other than cannibalism, I can't think of any strictly social taboo that deserves to be made unlawful.

They are related by affinity. And if she had been raised by this man, then, why does it matter whether or not they are related by blood? This is more than a mere social taboo. These laws also serve to enforce protection against those who abuse.

There's a rational solution to engaging legally in such a relationship. Divorce your wife. Then, you're no longer a step father and can lawfully enjoy a relationship with your of-age, former step daughter.

Incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skwim]

They are related by affinity. And if she had been raised by this man, then, why does it matter whether or not they are related by blood?

It would only matter if you can show why being a social taboo is sufficient reason to outlaw it.

This is more than a mere social taboo.

Okay what more is it?

These laws also serve to enforce protection against those who abuse.

We already have laws that do this. Redundancy is inefficiency in this case.

There's a rational solution to engaging legally in such a relationship. Divorce your wife. Then, you're no longer a step father and can lawfully enjoy a relationship with your of-age, former step daughter.

So, it's the lawful relationship that sticks in your craw, not any taboo or ideal to protect from abuse. Nice. but this is the very thing I addressed in my OP.

"Without doubt they broke the law; however, I believe it's a law that needs fixin' and not the two involved."

IOW, It's a bad and stupid law.

 

[BSM1]

[quotMy thoughts,
Without doubt they broke the law; however, I believe it's a law that needs fixin' and not the two involved. If it's based on consanguinity then it fails right out of the gate. There is none. And if the law was conceived merely to reflect a social taboo, I would have to see a good argument to convince me of its necessity. Other than cannibalism, I can't think of any strictly social taboo that deserves to be made unlawful.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Although not in the post, this brings the problem of step-brothers and sisters (or step-brother/brother-sister/sister in some states). Whether we like it or not society is not static, it changes. BTW having family in WV I started to make a joke about any female in the state with a full set of teeth ought to be fair game for any guy; but I won't.

 

[Draka]

They are related by affinity. And if she had been raised by this man, then, why does it matter whether or not they are related by blood? This is more than a mere social taboo. These laws also serve to enforce protection against those who abuse.

There's a rational solution to engaging legally in such a relationship. Divorce your wife. Then, you're no longer a step father and can lawfully enjoy a relationship with your of-age, former step daughter.

Incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, for starters, he didn't raise her, she was already 16 (the age of consent in WV btw). Abuse was not a factor in this relationship. She was considered a consenting adult in this relationship. Were we to be talking about a man who raised up a child from the tender age of, say 6 y/o, and then started having sex with her at 16, then I can see feeling the ickies over that. We are talking about a man of 23 walking into the life of a 16 y/o though.

 

[dawny0826]

It would only matter if you can show why being a social taboo is sufficient reason to outlaw it.

I don't construe there to be a case of incest if a woman or man has divorced their spouse and is no longer a legal, parental figure in the life of the former step-son or step-daughter. Is this not the rational and common-sense way to enter into such a relationship?

The greatest issue that I see in the article in the OP, is that the step-father is still married. I'm thinking we might be in agreeance there.

It Okay what more is it?

Ethics.

Would you feel the same if this man raised her as his own since infancy?

We already have laws that do this. Redundancy is inefficiency in this case.

In this case, yes. I don't disagree with you.

So, it's the lawful relationship that sticks in your craw, not any taboo or ideal to protect from abuse. Nice. but this is the very thing I addressed in my OP.

Not at all. It's the ethical piece that I question. I think that's the best way I can put it.

I wouldn't have the same comfort level if this was a man who raised this girl from infancy. I wouldn't be questioning whether this was a stupid law - I'd be questioning his sanity. See where I'm getting at?

 

[Skwim]

Agreed. Although not in the post, this brings the problem of step-brothers and sisters (or step-brother/brother-sister/sister in some states). Whether we like it or not society is not static, it changes.

source​

 

[dawny0826]

Well, for starters, he didn't raise her, she was already 16 (the age of consent in WV btw). Abuse was not a factor in this relationship. She was considered a consenting adult in this relationship. Were we to be talking about a man who raised up a child from the tender age of, say 6 y/o, and then started having sex with her at 16, then I can see feeling the ickies over that. We are talking about a man of 23 walking into the life of a 16 y/o though.

I know. I don't really take issue with anything these two have done outside of the auspices of sleeping together before the dude divorced his wife. I'm with you.

If he wasn't married to her mother, she would no longer be step-daughter and in my opinion, there should be no issue.

Skwim presents as if there's a problem with questioning social taboos and I imagine even ethics with incest situations. There would be a difference in my opinion, if this were a man who raised a girl from infancy. By law, he may have been a step-father if he didn't adopt her, but, he was her father for all intents and purposes.

I don't think I'm strange for questioning the ethics of such a man who would pursue a relationship with a girl that he raised. And I think it's a deeper issue than a mere social taboo, personally.

But, if Daddy isn't married to Mommy anymore, from a legal perspective, step-daughter isn't step-daughter anymore. I don't see legal issue with such actions. But, I won't take ownership for being odd in any way for questioning the ethics of such people.

 

[DallasApple]

I would not consider this incest.We need to use our damn brains to interpret the spirit of the law..

 

[Skwim]

I don't construe there to be a case of incest if a woman or man has divorced their spouse and is no longer a legal, parental figure in the life of the former step-son or step-daughter.

Yes, I got that.
So then you believe that social taboos are basis enough to enact laws. I don't agree.

Is this not the rational and common-sense way to enter into such a relationship?

Oh, I agree, but just because something lacks common sense is not grounds enough to outlaw it. There has to be a more compelling reason.

Ethics.

Whose, yours or mine? Or those of the guy slouched over in the corner of the bar?

Would you feel the same if this man raised her as his own since infancy?

Yes I would. As I asked in my OP, just give me a good argument to convince me why it should be against the law for two consenting adults unrelated by blood to have sexual intercourse. Up to now I haven't seen any.

Not at all. It's the ethical piece that I question. I think that's the best way I can put it.

Okay, then why is it unethical for two consenting adults unrelated by blood to have sexual intercourse. There has to be more than some icky factor at work.

I wouldn't have the same comfort level if this was a man who raised this girl from infancy. I wouldn't be questioning whether this was a stupid law - I'd be questioning his sanity. See where I'm getting at?

Yes, I do. You're saying that things too far outside the norm deserve to be put in check. And I don't see this as reason enough to make them unlawful. As I see it, to make a law against X, X must be harmful, damaging, injurious, or detrimental in some way, and I don't see this in two consenting adults unrelated by blood having sexual intercourse, no matter what their affinity may be.

I would not consider this incest.We need to use our damn brains to interpret the spirit of the law.

And this is the problem with people who are too timid to think on their own, but rely on the letter of the rule or law to get from A to B, and particularly when they're put in authority of enforcing the rules.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEAnd this is the problem with people who are too timid to think on their own, but rely on the letter of the rule or law to get from A to B, and particularly when they're put in authority of enforcing the rules.][/QUOTE]

And that's as disgusting as the crime itself.IMHO.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Freaky or not, as long as age of consent is met, the government needs to stop poking into peoples private lives.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The law should have no say over relationships that are consensual and freely entered into. Someone thinking it's "gross" or "immoral" should have no bearing. They can mind their own business. Many think it's "immoral" to be gay and "gross" to have gay sex, but they are protected under the law. The same legal protection should extend to everyone else.

Even cannibalism should be legal if it's consensual, as in the case of Armin Meiwes. But there needs to be a will made out to prove that it's consensual.

 

[dawny0826]

Yes, I got that.
So then you believe that social taboos are basis enough to enact laws. I don't agree.

I said that I question the ethics of an individual who would raise a child and then later have a sexual relationship with that person, as an adult.

I don't quite feel as passionate as you do, because I can see how such a law could be of benefit to someone who is underrage and being abused. As a mother, if I married a creep who sexually abused my child, I'd want the piece of **** to go down on every charge imaginable. If you can't understand that...fine.

Oh, I agree, but just because something lacks common sense is not grounds enough to outlaw it. There has to be a more compelling reason.

That's not exactly what I said, dude, and you know it. I was specifically commenting on that couple. My opinions are a non-issue, really. The dumbasses would have had NO issue at all if Daddy wasn't married to Mommy.

Whose, yours or mine? Or those of the guy slouched over in the corner of the bar?

My views have absolutely no impact on this case or present laws regarding incest. Just an opinion. I don't feel compelled to jump up and push for this type of change - as I have more important things to worry about.

Yes I would. As I asked in my OP, just give me a good argument to convince me why it should be against the law for two consenting adults unrelated by blood to have sexual intercourse. Up to now I haven't seen any.

I don't have a problem with what consenting adults do behind bedroom doors (if they aren't related) although - It's simply my opinion that it's sleazy for married folk to cheat on their spouses with their step-children.

Okay, then why is it unethical for two consenting adults unrelated by blood to have sexual intercourse. There has to be more than some icky factor at work.

It's not icky. It's morally repulsive when a parent engages in a sexual relationship with their child - regardless as to the age of that child. If you don't understand my ethical objection, you and I come from different planets. But, hey...it's all good.

Yes, I do. You're saying that things too far outside the norm deserve to be put in check. And I don't see this as reason enough to make them unlawful. As I see it, to make a law against X, X must be harmful, damaging, injurious, or detrimental in some way, and I don't see this in two consenting adults unrelated by blood having sexual intercourse, no matter what their affinity may be.

Nope. I said that I question the ethics of such people.