Millionaire marries his own Daughter
 

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/064...r,74593,6.html
I saw this on other forum a few days ago, and of course it seemed sick to me. A Father should never marry his daughter, that's plain sick. But then, someone made a commentary that got me thinking, this guy posted that he didn't undestanded why everyone was condemning this when the two of them, father and daughter, were consenting adults (65 and 35) and when we live in a time when most of the people doesn't see anything wrong about gay marriage.
It wasn't long enough that society thought of homosexuality as a depravation, just as incest, but times have changed and times will still change, these days gay people have more rights than any other time in the christian age, so, is it ridicolous to think that in a few years incestuos relations will be recognized as legal ones? Given the condition that they don't inbreed, i really don't see, in the light of present time marriage changes, any obstacle to legalize incestuos marriages.
What do you think?

that's just wrong but then again it's only my opinion

An odd thing indeed.

I wonder if they're boning?

Ya wondering now? :| Ew.

I will contribute more to this thread once I get over my innate disgust over the concept.

I can understand why gay marriage is "unholy" but why is incestous marriage is considered to be even worst? After all, according to the bible, god created man and woman. Sure, they're unrelated, but in order to start the human race, ya gotta reproduce right? So Adam and Eve have kids, who are the kids gonna reproduce with? Yep, you guess it right, each other...so I guess that's incestous...

I like to see how the bible explain that part and yet, forbid incestous relationships...

Eeeeewww...

I didn't read the whole article, so I didn't catch that.

GROSS!

On the one hand, it's a gross concept indeed. On the other, they are consenting adults. But she's a psychologist???:eek:
And I always thought it pretty funny my dad sends me dirty jokes.....
These multi-millionaires are a strange lot.

My thoughts exactly.

I guess they're consenting adults...the rest of us can go "eeew" and shake our heads and think it's wrong, but not much we can do about it besides say it's not healthy. But then neither are many relationships between unrelated people.

There's a good reason incest is wrong, biologically its unsound and weakens the species. Comparing incest to gay unions is, in my opinion, corrupting the concept of love and relationships. Biologically homosexuality makes a lot of sense in terms of keeping the population in tact, incest makes none. And why can't a father just love and protect his kids without it being sexual? Its incredibly selfish on his part to take on the role of lover in his daughter's life. She obviously has some issues to deal with as well.
It is, overall, a very "ewy" situation.

If you don't think this is gross, just think about having sex with one of your parents!!

OMFG I need to go kill myself now.

GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS

Wanna explain how it weakens the species?

I find this interesting, not "Interesting" but anyway.. Biologically incest is counterproductive, gives rise to many forms of genetical problems in the offspring. Well, it was counterproductive anyway. Now, when reproduction is controllable, does that really matter any more..
Mentally many of us has a block, a form of mental stop when it comes to mixing even the thoughts of familymembers and sex. Yet still, incest is a huge part of the online written erotica. Forbiden fruit is often imagined to taste the best for some reason.

To the bible reference where Adam and Eve's children are accused of incest, the answer I got when I asked a local minister about that was that Adam and Eve is the first of the Jewish people (Gods chosen people). Which makes sense since if you read Genesis you see that God created Humans to his own likeness before creating Adam and Eve. So there were a lot of non-jews around for them to take their mates from.

Blech, I think I just threw up in my mouth.

But hey, they're rich, and being wealthy makes everything fine just fine right?

Interbreeding can cause a whole host of issues (like hemophilia in the European royalty of the middle ages) Basically when you are wading in a shallow gene pool, all the defects / submissive traits in the dna strand can come to the surface. It doesn't weaken the whole species, until they start breeeding with the wider population again, and these (1 in a hundred billion) defects become (1 in 1000) defects.


As for the thread concept in general. They were married at 35 / 65, but there is no way of nowing when the "relations" actually began. Take your pick 10/40, 15/45, 20/50... They are all still disturbing. Even though it was fine for the Royals to marry cousins, nices, etc..., I just can't see it...

Can you explain this? homosexuality = no offspring. So how is it keeping the population in tact? If everyone were a homosexual the next generation would have a population of 0.

EW! and well, EW!

Maybe its an elalborate tax dodge.

Thats what first came to mind to me.

I googled "Incest, Marriage Laws" and the first entry was Wikipedia, and there was quite a lot of info there (lots I didn't get into). Here's the link address, because I don't know how yet to do an actual link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

As for the squick factor - it is indeed off the charts for me in reading this story. Yowsa, how sick are these people! They are the poster children for the "Money doesn't buy Taste" club.

:lol: :lol: Now...why doesn't that surprise me? When I first read the OP, I knew that you were gonna come up with something along those lines.

You caught that too, huh? Physician heal thyself, anyone?

The "Ick factor" is off the scale, on this one. And, from what I see, most agree.
however...what if...they didn't know? I know, it doesn't apply in this case, but what if a situation arose where the two lovebirds didn't know that they were father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister...whatever?
Cervantes pointed out that; "Mentally many of us has a block, a form of mental stop when it comes to mixing even the thoughts of familymembers and sex." Is that biological? Or is that learned behavior?

No idea, because its logical?


Its both, its learned behavior due to instinct. We have an instinct NOT to mate with those we grew up with, its been shown many times (I don't have time to list them), this creates a natural aversion to incest. Also brother/sisters who are raised appart have a greater than normal chance of falling in love. Likewise non-realted children raised together rarely marry or have children together, even when that was the intended outcome. It would be interesting if the father raised her in this case or not (and by raised I mean be a dad, not just be in the same big house somewhere). This instinct is considered weakest between fathers-daughters.

Er, i'm gona go with biological, inbreeding serves no-one any good. Theres a little bit of research into the area, i'll have a mosey through some of my books and report back.

Edit: i mean, nasty! Incest is a taboo for a damned good reason!

I would be very hesitant to say that it is biological, simply because I have yet to read a study of this. But taken from what we know.. I would guess that we have a mild genetical distaste for reproduction with people who are closely related. The same kind of distaste we have for people we feel are genetically inferior to us.
That distaste is then amplified by social means.

EDIT: Ustwo I would be very interested in reading the study you are citing, could I be so bold as to ask for a reference?

Its at home, so no idea when I'll have time. Its more than one study.

Oh goodie more than one, anyway whenever you have time I would really appreicate it.

I've found that the area in which I live and the people I've met is limited in terms of partners I would want to spend the rest of my life with. To narrow that area down to immediate family is just absurd. But that's just me.

However, if these two feel that their life is bettered as a result of their marriage, then the opinions of others shouldn't really matter much. Though it should be expected that most people will be turned off, even disgusted, by it.

It's often called the Westermarck effect. See the references below for evidence of the Westermarck effect in Israeli kibbutz.

Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second-generation kibbutz adolescents:
avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1:293-
Shepher, J. (1983). Incest: A biosocial view. Academic Press: New York.

Paternity uncertainty at work.

Maybe he is just so in love with his wife/her mother, and she looks just like her, that he's attracted to her? My brother is dating women that look and act exactly like his ex?

I guess there wouldn't be an inheritance tax from your husband? So she's going to get all the money and the gov't none. That could be...

The fart in the submarine here, which no one mentions, but everyone is aware of, is that if this father and daughter don't reproduce, every argument made to justify homosexual relationships applies.

Why is it anyone else's business? Consenting adults. They can adopt.

Conversely, many, if not most on the right would say that homosexuality also corrupts the concept of love and relationships. It's a classic case of not being able to have it both ways, especially if you are homosexual and judging these two.

What was the reason homosexuality keeps the population intact?

That's just the reason that made me thin twice about this situation, Wouldn't be discriminatory to legalize same sex marriage and keep illegal incestous marriage if they consent to not inbreed?
Isn't one of the many justifications for gay marriage that they have the same right to be happy and treated equally than everybody else?
And going even further, shouldn't then poligamy be accepted as well, none of the problems associated with incestous relations and gay marriages exist there...

Just an interesting observation in case anyone didn't click the link and read the entire story, because there was quite a bit besides what was posted...

He didn't know about her until she was 20. From what I gathered, her father had a fling or something with her mother, and then married another woman shortly after. The daughter was given up for adoption and at 18 sought out her birth parents. He had no idea she existed until the mother contacted him when the daughter was 20. After that, he started helping her financially and began to invite her to family functions and the like. Their sexual relationship began several years before the marriage. Basically...she wasn't raised by him, they formed their relationships (familial as well as sexual) AFTER she was an adult.

Regardless of that, it's still gross to me.

That's just the reason that made me thin twice about this situation, Wouldn't be discriminatory to legalize same sex marriage and keep illegal incestous marriage if they consent to not inbreed?
Isn't one of the many justifications for gay marriage that they have the same right to be happy and treated equally than everybody else?
And going even further, shouldn't then poligamy be accepted as well, none of the problems associated with incestous relations and gay marriages exist there...
And don't get me wrong, as you can see in my OP i'm not saying that gay marriage is opening the pandora's box, but that society chnages constantly, and that I think that in a future (not near by the way), this kind of conduct could be widely accepted.

Reading Medusa's post, i couldn't but think about "Old Boy", what a great movie by the way...

This makes much more sense, I should've clicked the link. Still makes me shudder. Like not a little shudder, like almost convulse out of my chair shudder.

To be fair, it's the first thing that popped into my mind too, and I normally do not think along these lines.

I wonder if she's read Oedipus Rex?

Yea that makes sense then.

Whatever, so long as they don't breed.

She must like Sigmund Freud...

Well, my first cousin was hot. I saw her once every couple of years.

We never got romantic, but I thought about it a couple of times. Maybe I'm sicker than this guy, if he didn't hook up with her until she was 20.

If I had a nickel, for everytime that I heard "My cousin is so freakin' hot. Man, if she weren't my cousin, I'd bone her fifteen ways to Sunday." (an actual quote from a friend of mine, by the way)

So...
Parents, grandparents and such...definately out. Right?
Siblings...ok to recognize nice tits, or a tight ass, but other than that...definately out.
First cousins...no guilt over sporting a woody, maybe a little groping...but nothing really more than that. Right?
Anything more distant...fair game?

I just wanna get the rules, 'cause while I, myself, had (well, I guess I still have) a pretty attractive cousin...I always found her to be annoying as hell. It's hard to be sexually attracted to someone that you want to strangle.

I am an "only child", therefore, by sheer definition...no siblings. I did, however, have a close friend that had a drop dead gorgeous sister. I always wondered how he could not...y'know. But, it was his sister. Having no siblings, I could not empathize. But I still wonder, to this day, if he didn't at least think about it.

I really see no problem with this. Whatever floats your boat (assuming no reproducing). I think with the progress that gay marriage has made, marriage, and sex, no longer have to have any biological or even religious significance (though they do to many people).

Poligamy is another one of those things I have no problem with. I think it's likely that the laws against poligamy are more about trying to stop the culture that poligamy exists in, where wives are considered property, than they are to do with any really moral problems.