Father and Grandfather

[Raptor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/7334649.stm

An Australian man and his daughter have asked for understanding after revealing on national TV they have an incestuous relationship, and have a daughter.

John Deaves, 61, appeared on the TV show 60 Minutes with daughter Jenny, 39, and nine-month-old Celeste - to whom he is both father and grandfather.

Last month a judge banned them from having sex with each other and revealed they had a child in 2001 who died.

But they insisted on the programme that they were "normal intellectual adults".

Mr Deaves said they both "had careers, had a normal life like everybody else".

He added: "But [we have] fallen in love with each other when we are biologically related, when we've discovered each other later in life."

Mr Deaves had left the family home when his daughter Jenny was a baby, and did not see her again for 30 years.

When the couple met, in 2000, they began a sexual relationship.

Ms Deaves told 60 Minutes she began to see John as a man first and a father second.

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad. Like you might look at a man across the bar at a nightclub," she said.

"John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults. We are just asking for a little bit of respect and understanding."

The couple each pleaded guilty to two charges of incest last month and were banned from having sex with each other.

According to the judge's ruling in the case, the couple had a child in 2001 who died from congenital heart disease shortly after birth.

Poor kid, hope she doesn't suffer.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Hmmm... The reason against incest is that it causes problems with any children that might be brought into existence. They can love each other all they want - no one can truly stop them from doing that - I just wish they hadn't had kids...

[Pye]

You stole my article! Haha. =P Was going to post this next. Touché!

Yeah I agree that them having children was irresponsible. Even if it was biologically sound (which it isn't totally) it is socially cruel. The child will be known when she grows up and people will pick on her because of this.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Pye

You stole my article! Haha. =P Was going to post this next. Touché!

Heh apologies. I wouldn't have seen it except I looked at the link on the article you posted in the other thread.

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

Hmmm... The reason against incest is that it causes problems with any children that might be brought into existence

Yeh and you would have thought they'd get the idea after the first one

[Pye]

Aha, I shoot myself in the foot yet again! Only joking, I'm delighted someone else saw it. I might have actually forgot to post it, I'm a bit too hyper tonight.

[HumanePain]

That is just wrong, biologically and culturally.

[drewsilla]

I have some cousins that married each other. The kids they had turned out ok (no mutants), but the kids never got away from hearing about their parents while growing up. It's not mentioned too much anymore, but still...*shudders*.

[Dark Clarissa]

They are being so selfish. The poor children. One they have in effect killed because of their actions (the chances of these defects being SO high), and the other they have condemned to a life of mental and emotional abuse by others that find out about her parents. And then to top it all off they put their kid on TV!!!!! So even if there was any possibility of keeping her origins a secret to protect her - they've all gone now.

Fucking irresponsible and selfish people. I think its disgusting that they're having sex anyway, but in a way I don't care if they fuck each other to death, but to bring a kid into the world - they are just fucktards!

[Pye]

Originally Posted by drewsilla

I have some cousins that married each other. The kids they had turned out ok (no mutants), but the kids never got away from hearing about their parents while growing up. It's not mentioned too much anymore, but still...*shudders*.

Genetically cousins are far enough separated for no major complications to occur with any subsequent children. You can get married to your cousin in the Anglican Church and marriages between cousins can be allowed with the permission of the diocesan bishop within the Roman Catholic Church.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Incest doesnt really cause problems in offsrping unless it has been happening for a while in past generations. Incest also doesnt make a baby have mutations it just raises the chances of diseases caused by submissive genes to present them selves.

[korinna5555]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Incest doesnt really cause problems in offsrping unless it has been happening for a while in past generations. Incest also doesnt make a baby have mutations it just raises the chances of diseases caused by submissive genes to present them selves.

Correct.

I see no problem with incest as long as both are consenting adults.
Gene-related medical complications can occur regardless; I had (well, still have) a serious and potentially life-threatening disease, and as far as I know, my parents aren't related. (Don't worry, I'm not gonna die from it. I have a variant gene, so it's only half as bad as it could be )

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Is it just me or is has this thread bought out the stupid in some people?

[korinna5555]

What? Me? *is confused*

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

No not you other people who i just decided to read their comments. I'm sure people think that If I fuck my brother Il give birth to spiderman with lazor eyes or something.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Another thing to add ..How the hell is incest biologically wrong? Biology isn't some ethics community there is no right and wrong it ether can happen or it can't and when it can't its due to some natural barrier or due to the fact the idea is really crazy ( eg Jewish zombies in space eating coco puffs while bouncing a ball) Its like calling shooting someone against the rules of physics.
Also humans have inbreed in the past alot before, We are so close genetically(compared to other species and how close they are to each other) to each other its not funny

[Raptor]

Physically of course it is possible... if anyone said "biologically wrong" I'm sure thats not what they intended by it. Inbreeding increases the chances of fixing particular traits, whether good or bad. Their first child died from congenital heart disease.

[korinna5555]

Congenital heart disease happens regardless.. my old neighbor's little boy died of it.

[††BlackRose††]

Okay that's just wrong on so many levels. It's like Oedipus complex/Electra complex, only it is her father.

[Pye]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

Correct.
I see no problem with incest as long as both are consenting adults.

I agree. Although I don't think those who are too closely related should have children. Biology aside, society would always see them negatively. I feel this is unfair.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

Congenital heart disease happens regardless.. my old neighbor's little boy died of it.

True, I've always thought the increased chances of reccessive genes becoming dominant were quite big from inbreeding. But Wednesday Friday Addams said it was only a major problem from several generations.

And disease can be past down in any relationship, so banning incest on health grounds would be rather hypocritical without preventing other couples from having children for other reasons.

[Renatus]

Makes me wonder, you always hear how diabetes skips a generation, if the father has diabetes this might screw things up, because not only will the daughter's child have diabetes but the child's child will also have it thus eliminating the skipped generation. Same thing happens if two people with opposite diabetes cycles gets married. Or is the whole skips a generation thing just false.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

I see no problem with incest as long as both are consenting adults.

You're going to need to elaborate on this. Are you saying you see no problem with two strangers who fall in love, only to discover later that they're fraternal twins separated at birth? If you are, I agree with you, for although the scenario's a total mindfuck, the two hypothetical individuals involved are entirely without blame. However, if you're saying you view the father who comes to lust after the daughter he raised from infancy to be completely normal and well-adjusted, I contest you.
The nature of the relationship between a parent and child is so fundamentally different from that which exists between lovers that one can never shift and become the other. In the context of a sexual relationship, the power dynamic which defines the former will manifest as an unhealthy imbalance, as one partner constantly pursue the approval of the authority figure represented by the other. Additionally, I doubt anyone suddenly 'snaps' and becomes the kind of guy who would fuck his own daughter- in all likelihood, the desire emerges early and shapes the upbringing of the child in question.
In establishing this, I submit that the relationship described in this article is not a healthy one. Perhaps this extrapolation of the facts presented is cynicism on my part, but I see in the daughter an emotionally damaged young woman who grew up in the absence of paternal affection, who now, as an adult, will do anything to attain it, and in the father a man so sick as to, after reuniting with a woman he must have at least considered to have possibly been his estranged child- barring a name change on her part- chose to connect with her as a lover rather than as a dad.

Originally Posted by korinna

Congenital heart disease happens regardless.. my old neighbor's little boy died of it.

Okay, sure, there's no horribly dire biological consequences are likely to arise from one incidence of incest. However, once that incidence is excused, who is to say the practice of incest is ever to be condemned? Hence the problem becomes a larger one, a blight on a population and a society. Saying incest is okay because there are no immediate, microcosmic consequences and because congenital defects happen regardless is like placing 100 kids, one after another, into a room and asking them to press one of a hundred buttons, one of which will trigger the release of poison gas, then proclaiming this practice is okay, because some of them make it out fine, and children can die of poisoning anyway.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Okay, sure, there's no horribly dire biological consequences are likely to arise from one incidence of incest. However, once that incidence is excused, who is to say the practice of incest is ever to be condemned? Hence the problem becomes a larger one, a blight on a population and a society.

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Saying incest is okay because there are no immediate, microcosmic consequences and because congenital defects happen regardless is like placing 100 kids, one after another, into a room and asking them to press one of a hundred buttons, one of which will trigger the release of poison gas, then proclaiming this practice is okay, because some of them make it out fine, and children can die of poisoning anyway.

But not that really. What about when a couple know that theres a high chance of their children having some condition? Should they be banned from reproducing? If they should, when do you decide that the condition is bad enough, or the chance of it occuring high enough?

Earlier post should have read "passed" not "past", whoops.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Raptor

But not that really. What about when a couple know that theres a high chance of their children having some condition? Should they be banned from reproducing? If they should, when do you decide that the condition is bad enough, or the chance of it occuring high enough?

Earlier post should have read "passed" not "past", whoops.

Were I personally a part of your hypothetical couple, I would never risk inflicting agony on my child out of a selfish desire to have kids. Honestly, I wish people in that situation could be barred from having children, especially given the option of adoption, but to take away that freedom is to facilitate the restriction of others, and therefore I wouldn't deny such people their right. I feel this rationale doesn't apply to incest, however, as incestuous relationships shouldn't be happening in the first place.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Were I personally a part of your hypothetical couple, I would never risk inflicting agony on my child out of a selfish desire to have kids. Honestly, I wish people in that situation could be barred from having children, especially given the option of adoption, but to take away that freedom is to facilitate the restriction of others, and therefore I wouldn't deny such people their right.

Nor would I. Theres always adoption.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I feel this rationale doesn't apply to incest, however, as incestuous relationships shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Fair enough, I was just making the point from a biological side. Short term anyway. Not the only thing to take into consideration of course.