The Spectacle Blog
For decades, Americans have been lectured that there is exactly one standard by which sexual activity can be judged: Were the participants “consenting adults”?
Now comes the news that Columbia University political science professor David Epstein, 46, has been arrested and charged with having a three-year-long sexual affair — with his own daughter.
The daughter, now 24, was an adult when this incestuous relationship (allegedly) began in 2006 and, while incest remains illegal in New York State, some commenters at the Columbia University student newspaper Web site are mystified as to why it’s illegal: “Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they’re adults and they consent, who cares what they do?”
Readers might suppose that arguments involving phrases like “thou shalt not” and words like “abomination” are sternly frowned on at Columbia University, so that the faculty would have a hard time answering such a question from their students. Likewise, readers will scarcely be surprised to learn that Professor Epstein is an ardent admirer of President Obama and a vocal critic of Sarah Palin.
View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/10/but-they-were-consenting-adult
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- A Panoply of Beauties
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 9:59PM
This is an intereswting one. Being of age does not necessarily guarantee consent. Power relationships can come intop play. For example, a male psychiatrist who has sex with a female patient can be sued for malpractice for misusing the "paternal transference." Hmmm.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 9:26PM
There are just some things that we're born knowing are wrong. God gave us all tender consciences when we were born. Then Sin comes in and we ruin it. This type of thing is one of them, as well as every other type of perversion.
"Behold, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices." Ecc. 7:29.
And then, Mr. Occam's Tool, we need psychiatrists to sort it all out! :^) That's a nod to the good ones like you out there.
And then there are those God Himself rescues and restores, by His mercy and Grace.. like me.
ggoblue| 12.10.10 @ 10:30PM
this explains a lot. now we know why the libs seem so retarded.
ItHappenedIn1773not1776| 12.11.10 @ 2:05AM
I have long suspected inbreeding among liberals.
Anne| 12.12.10 @ 8:32AM
LOL Got that right!! :)
Ria| 12.10.10 @ 11:09PM
what is this piece trying to imply? that ALL supporters of Obama are involved in incestous relationships? i don't think being a liberal has anything to do with this man's sick sex life. for instance, republican activist beverly russell had an incestous relationship, too, and was allowed to continue working in the GOP's executive committee in south carolina. this doesn't mean that all republicans have sex with their relatives, either
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:23PM
Mem-sahib Ria,
Try to develop what we in Conservative circles call a "Sense of Humor."
Nick| 12.10.10 @ 11:46PM
Ria,
"[...] with this man's sick sex life."
Sick.
Who are you to judge these two consenting adults? By what authority do you condemn them? Don't people have a right to live, and love, whomever they want to?
And, what if they wanted to get married? Why would you deny them the same civil rights as other Americans?
Being a bleeding heart liberal means you can never judge anyone. Didn't you know that?
Cheryl M. | 12.11.10 @ 11:35AM
You fail to recognize a daughter of a father is emotionally vulnerable and prone to brainwashing. It is never considered consensual because of these factors.
Nick| 12.11.10 @ 12:48PM
Cheryl M.,
I'm not failing to recognize anything. I'm making a point.
What about fathers and...sons? Or, mothers and daughters.
What about brothers and sisters, Cheryl?
Your explanation is completely subjective. You are claiming that all incest between a father and daughter (and mother and son, I presume) are the results of "brainwashing." That defies the odds.
What if these incestous people are born this way? Who are you, Cheryl, to deny them a loving relationship?
Sound familiar?
RobertF| 12.11.10 @ 2:24PM
If the father had "convinced" the daughter to murder someone would you allow her to claim "brainwashing" as a defense? You can't have it both ways; someone is either a responsible adult or they aren't.
Eisenhower| 12.12.10 @ 11:50AM
"You can't have it both ways; someone is either a responsible adult or they aren't."
Exactly, I'm disgusted by this as the rest of you, but if she was 24 years-old and it was consensual, then disgusting or otherwise, its not our problem. Its their lives, and not the "government's lives" and that has to mean something.
Nick| 12.12.10 @ 2:25PM
Sorry Ike, but sexual behavior, like all behavior, affects society as a whole. Or, have you been asleep for the past 50 years?
The libertarian notion that we can do whatever we want to, as long as we don't violate the rights of others, should be predicated on the people actually knowing what rights really are, and from Whom these rights are derived.
Sadly, too many people in this country think they know, but they don't. They are interested, not in liberty, but in libertinism.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 9:19PM
Well said, Nick. May I use your words for my future posts with regards to Libertarianism?
Nick| 12.12.10 @ 11:28PM
Hi Margie!
Long time, no chat!
Sorry, I've been a little busy lately. Business picked up, which is good.
Thank you! And, yes, of course, you may use my words. If they are my words!
I don't claim to be a great thinker, just using the logic the Lord gave me, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, like wisdom. So, it is entirely possible that I read it somewhere, but don't remember where. The line about "libertinism" I believe was from Alan Keyes.
Merry Christmas to you and Victor.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 11:45AM
Merry Christmas Nick, from both of us!
I'm glad business picked up for you, it's part of the American Dream, and you're living it. I hope it continues to increase!
Well, if Alan Keyes said those words, it doesn't surprise me. I wish more people understood the bottom line as to Libertarianism, or Libertinism. Sadly a lot of the younger among us are thinking it's all the rage.. as it has so much in common with Liberalism. I get excoriated for saying it IS leftist but I know I'm right. People may THINK it isn't but it is.
If a person wants to be conservative, they would not be against those of us who are. When you do a side by side comparison of what conservatism is, and what Liberalism is.. Libertarianism has more in common with the Left.
God bless.
Eric Cartman| 12.10.10 @ 11:53PM
That is exactly what we're trying to imply. Not only that, but all Obama supporters drive Priuses powered by bio-fuel made from the dead gerbil pile out side of San Fransisco. And Nancy Pelosi is ugly and her butler dresses her funny. So there. Nyahhhh.
jamman| 12.11.10 @ 2:44PM
You are the typical liberal. How in the hell do you read from this an implication that "all" anybody is doing anything? I have seen liberals making the same illogical deduction you just have, dozens of times. Try studying logic, you idiot.
Betty| 12.11.10 @ 10:13PM
"Likewise, readers will scarcely be surprised to learn that Professor Epstein is an ardent admirer of President Obama and a vocal critic of Sarah Palin."
this implies that because Epstein was a supporter of Obama and didn't think Palin was god's gift to America, it was predictable for him to be a sexual deviant.
i'm curious as to how you interpreted the last line of this article?
Le Cracquere| 12.11.10 @ 10:58PM
Not at all. It shouldn't surprise you or me one bit to learn that a major MoveOn donator votes Democrat; this hardly implies that all Democrat voters donate big bucks to MoveOn. I believe they call this fallacy "affirming the consequent."
Ty Right| 12.12.10 @ 7:34PM
I wonder how many Republicans gave big bucks to moveon.org?
Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 1:28AM
Betty,
I believe, aahh, that Mr. McCain was attempting to point out, aahh, that where there is one logical fallacy, others may follow. Again, Betty, try to develop what we in Conservative circles call, aahh, "a sense of humor."
DLB| 12.13.10 @ 6:40AM
Ria, you have made a category error. The point was not, as you infer, that all liberals are perverts. It was that (almost) all perverts are liberals. Sort of like Muslim/Terrorist.
Mrs. Very Stupid | 12.10.10 @ 11:18PM
LOL....are you somehow trying to make the statement that Obama supporters and Palin detractors believe in incest? Are you crazy? Do you think that no one who likes Palin commits crimes? Do you think that ONLY supporters of Obama have incestuous relationships with their children? You are sick and so are people who think that having sex with their children is OK. It isn't OK, just like getting knocked up as a teenager isn't OK....(now think about that one you Palin supporter you). Someone's political views doesn't make them a good or bad person. Grow up!
Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:25PM
Sometimes the political views DO reflect the underlying morality of a person. Take John Edwards. He was all of a piece.
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 11:24AM
I agree about the sometimes part. For example, some are Liberals by birth.. which I actually have a theory about. I believe we're all born Liberals. Just think about the "give me, give me!" of a child. It's natural, right? But then if the child has good parents they learn to grow up and become responsible.. they learn that it's better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). They learn that it isn't all about just them.
The ones who never learn this, for whatever reason, usually grow up to become Liberals. Think about it. When you look at Obama's upbringing, what do you see? A product of his parents and others surrounding him. I think that what Winston Churchill said was right:
"“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
If you're still thinking stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is cool at 30, you're a Leftist Marxist!
Only Republican at Woodstock| 12.11.10 @ 12:25AM
Good name. It fits. But I'm confused. When did Sarah Palin get pregnant as a teenager? I believe that was her kid. Nobody's parenting skills are perfect.
Oh, and Hitler's political views didn't make him a bad person?
jstwndring| 12.11.10 @ 1:20AM
You miss the point completely. Par for the course with you Dims--hence the nickname.
It has always been those of you on the left that have, through social/political revolution in this country, tried to redefine what constitutes moral behavior. In this case, the author merely points out the obvious "new" standard regarding sexual activity. Consenting adults. Fine. However, that is so broad as to include a lot of previously frowned upon behavior, such as incest. He's not saying you all engage in it, or, even tolerate it. He's merely observing yet another area where the social activists of this country have cheapened yet another human activity to the point that now, some actually wonder aloud why incest is even illegal. Another example of moral relativism. Kind of like, oh, I don't know, abortion. Now that killing babies is a woman's "right", we hear some lunatics arguing on behalf of a woman's right to kill her infant up to two years after it has been born. Kind of a trial period for the baby, I guess. You see, some of us have been warning others about the slippery slope the left has gotten us on for decades. I guess we're just dangerously old-fashioned. Or, correct afterall.
Will someone please put the adults back in charge? Pretty please?
Paul A.| 12.11.10 @ 6:56AM
Let me get this straight..... You think a teenager getting pregnant by her boyfriend is somehow the same as a sexual relationship (consensual or not) between a father and her daughter.
Does your hate for Sarah Palin go that far???
That's sick......
sanjuro| 12.11.10 @ 10:53AM
Exactly Paul! I get the sense that Ria is inwardly disgusted with the story but like with all lefties, her knee jerk reaction is to compare it with something else rather then to make a judgement call.
Yes Ria, It's more important for your kind to remain nonjudgemental then to take a moral stand. Our society is daily paying for that idiocy.
Seek| 12.13.10 @ 11:23AM
All Ria was saying is that the professor's liberalism had nothing to do with his lust for his daughter. It was a sexual expression, not a political one. McCain's comment was both nutty and gratuitous.
I may add this: Plenty of conservatives have engaged in incest over the years. I believe it is called monarchy.
Le Cracquere| 12.11.10 @ 11:01PM
That's the SECOND "affirming the consequent" fallacy to infest this thread (see above). "You say all cats die. But Socrates is dead. Ergo, you're accusing Socrates of being a cat."
Rich Rostrom| 12.10.10 @ 11:28PM
Human beings have an instinct against incest; that is, someone who has been a nuclear family member (or equivalent) since early childhood.
For instance, Israeli children who were raised communally on kibbutzes never married someone from the same kibbutz.
On the other hand, siblings or parents/children who meet as adults have no resistance to sexual attraction, and may be drawn together by shared interests.
For instance, hedge-fund billionaire Bruce McMahan first met his long-estranged daughter when she was her 20s, and later "married" her in Westminster Abbey. (No fooling; one can rent the Abbey for enough money, and he _is_ a billionaire.)
The law reflects this instinct, and also the recognition that inbreeding is a bad idea biologically.
jstwndring| 12.11.10 @ 1:00AM
Some are mystified as to why it's illegal? Does it matter you idiots? I may wonder why going 150 mph on the freeway is illegal, you know, since i'm such a fabulous driver (j/k), but, it doesn't matter. It's illegal. I may argue that it shouldn't be! I didn't kill anyone! It was in the middle of the night down an interstate with no-one on the road! No one but the trooper saw me do it! It may even happen that one day that I get enough support and influence with my local representative to get the speed limit raised to 150 mph, or, better yet, removed all-together. But, in the mean-time, I broke an existing law. So, I pay a fine. Maybe I go to jail for my absolutely reckless behavior. Same with this selfish p.o.s. of a father who cares so little for his daughter that he would take advantage of her this way. Whatever the penalty, he should pay it. Of course, as we all know, rules/laws don't matter to democRats.
ItHappenedIn1773Not1776| 12.11.10 @ 2:13AM
Yes, there will be a movement for parent-child marriage. Owner-pet marriage will soon follow. Don't you folks understand that these people are intellectually and morally superior and are just ahead of the curve?
donbtex| 12.11.10 @ 8:21AM
Owner-pet 'marriage' bec ame a reality in England recently - you knew it was coming!
wukong| 12.11.10 @ 10:06AM
I want to marry the tree in my back yard. It's ok, aint it?
Le Cracquere| 12.11.10 @ 11:03PM
And inherently dramatic! But "The Knothole Monologues" just doesn't have the same ring.
Dollface| 12.12.10 @ 1:29AM
Only if the tree consents to it.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 9:16PM
Oh, no! Matreemony.
And who's gonna marry you?
A Horticulturist?
Occam's Tool| 12.12.10 @ 10:08PM
Margie:
I guess this leaves him up a tree.
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 11:08AM
Or out on a limb.
MikeBee| 12.13.10 @ 10:43AM
Wukong,
Liberals would consider your marriage "moving up" for you, as, to them, trees are gods. You also have to not mind too much if a liberal sits in your spouse's lap, just to save him/her from the devastation of capitalist society..........
Zilla | 12.11.10 @ 7:22AM
I don't understand how anyone can deend this. Sure, at 21 the girl is legally an adult, but think back to how you were at 21, I'm willing to wager that you were not the pillar of maturity and responsibility.
In your early 20s you are still impressionable and your parents' often still help you to get by in the world by providing financial or emotional support. A 21 year old's parent still has the ability to hurt their child and their love is still important.
While this girl may have been legally old enough to consent, i highly doubt she was making an informed and rational decision when she let her father sleep with her. He likely had been grooming her for years. Something happened to this child that left her unable to cross the bridge into adulthood as a normal person, something happened to this child that made her think there was nothing wrong with her own father having sex with her.
If anyone took the time to look closer, they'd probably see a girl who has been subject to abuse for a very long time before she was of 'legal age'.
Eisenhower| 12.12.10 @ 12:01PM
"I don't understand how anyone can deend this. Sure, at 21 the girl is legally an adult, but think back to how you were at 21, I'm willing to wager that you were not the pillar of maturity and responsibility.
In your early 20s you are still impressionable and your parents' often still help you to get by in the world by providing financial or emotional support. A 21 year old's parent still has the ability to hurt their child and their love is still important."
Black Mail is illegal, as is rape or any attempt to force someone else to do the will of another. And if this was the case then of course the Father should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, at some point personal responsibility has to play a role here.
Unless, their was some sort of ruling or it can be proven someone cannot be responsible for their actions, then being adult means being an adult. Treating 20 somethings like their children because some of them or many of them are still depended financially on their parents, will not benefit them in away. By doing that we end up becoming the very Nanny-Statist liberals we claim to oppose. Adult-hood means personal responsibility, and if people don't learn that in their 20s, then when?
Tim Williams| 12.11.10 @ 11:15AM
Too bad he's not a quirky, Oscar-winning, clarinet-playing Hollywood director. Then it would be all good and he could marry her.
(Yes, I know Woody was not her father by blood. So I'm comparing apples to perverts. Sue me.)
Seek| 12.13.10 @ 11:25AM
Actually, Woody Allen is New York City, not Hollywood. As if you could offer even a halfway intelligent discussion of his films either way.
Nick| 12.13.10 @ 2:29PM
I can.
They ALL suck!
jbriz| 12.11.10 @ 11:19AM
To the author: You ARE aware that there is no "thou shalt not commit incest" in the 10 commandments, right? Seriously, it's NOT in there. And don't give me "it's somewhere in Leviticus" either, because Leviticus also says you can't eat rabbits or pork. (Should Columbia implement those rules?)
And why the rush to prejudge the school? You know if he's found to have done this he'll get fired instantly.
I'm pretty sure the school is anti-incest. It's certainly anti-felony -- hence the forced "administrative leave" for the professor while the legal stuff is pending.
jbriz| 12.11.10 @ 11:29AM
Oh yes, and are you the same Robert Stacy McCain who wrote this?
"The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."
Do your "thou shalt nots" spill over into interracial marriage? Should Columbia implement this rule, too?
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:27PM
Sigh. Ok, folks, basic genetics: father-daughter marriages are not a good idea for the same reason 1st cousins shouldn't marry: reinforces potentially fatal recessives. I am aware that some of those "supporting" this are playing Sultan of Snark, but some others seem genuinely confused. The best way to demonstrate my point is by looking at hemophilia rates in the 1800s among the royal families of Europe. It's a bad idea.
jbriz| 12.12.10 @ 2:08AM
Nobody's disputing that incest is a bad idea. But if Mr. McCain and others want to suggest that Columbia and lefties have been soft on incest, I'd like to hear the suggestion for what Columbia ought to do. Do they fire a person for being accused of a crime, before the person either pleads guilty or is convicted of it?
News flash: that's how you get sued for wrongful termination. There is absolutely nothing more the school can do, without violating the (non-convicted, innocent-until-proved guilty) person's rights.
If I accused McCain of sexually harassing me, should the Spectator fire him? Nope! Not until the legal process plays out.
And the moral sanctimony -- "thou shalt not" and "abomination" -- McCain wants to lecture liberals on being godless. But he also doesn't want black people to marry white people.
Does he justify that on religious grounds? Biological grounds?
If Columbia implemented McCain's "thou shalt nots," they'd be firing people for interracial dating.
John Barleycorn| 3.29.11 @ 12:33PM
I'm pretty sure that the term "adultery" covers incest, along with homosexuality.
Dale Cord| 12.11.10 @ 11:31AM
This is Satan's world and his dwelling place. His past residence and home has been laid waste in the ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah. Soon the western hemisphere will be added to those ashes, along with those cities that have become landmarks and rotting pillars of decadence in America by his inspiration to do evil,Washington DC and Hollywood. We as a nation have gone the way of the pagan nations of the past, and our future has been cast in the granite that marks the residents of sinners throughout our world of graveyards.
L.N. Smithee | 12.11.10 @ 12:05PM
Hear ye, all you people who rend your garments and begin boycott blogs whenever someone speaks aloud the blasphemy that rulings against laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to the legalization of polygamy and/or incest. Within this sordid event lies (upon serious analysis) the evidence proving your outrage reactionary and shallow.
The attitude toward laws prohibiting incest expressed by the "consenting adults" crowd within the Columbia community are the blueprint for an off-ramp of the Rubicon Bridge expressway designed by David Boies, Theodore Olson, and anti-Proposition 8 activists who believe same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The bedrock of their Federal case for having the California Constitution's sole definition of marriage as one man-one woman struck down is to have unelected jurists determine whether there are sufficient reasons to prohibit additional forms of marriage. On that particular docket is their support of same-sex marriage within two parties, but their position as advocates of such unions sets the table for future challenges to the idea that marriage ought to be limited to just two individuals, be they straight, gay, or bisexual. In short: If their California victory currently being appealed should be confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, all future challenges to America's longstanding marital norms won't be based on the question "Why expand marriage rights?" but "Why should marriage rights NOT be extended?"
For people who insist that's a wild, dystopic projection, consider this: The 2008 California Supreme Court opinion striking down the 2000 voter initiative cementing traditional marriage into the California family code (In re Marriage Cases) was carefully designed to mirror its previous 1948 decision striking down anti-miscegenation laws (Perez v. Sharp). Had someone declared 62 years ago that establishing a right for blacks and whites to marry would eventually lead to marriage of two men or two women, that person would have been called insane. After all, sodomy was a crime -- who was going to allow two homosexuals to get married as if they were two members of the opposite sex? Neither the affirming nor dissenting opinions in Perez even address sodomy law. But twenty-one years later in 1969, the state legislature decriminalized sodomy under the "consenting adults" banner. That opened the door that has, to date, been busted down twice; in 2008 and in 2010.
So, here we are now in 2010, and some of the same crowd who undoubtedly snickered when Saturday Night Live joked in 2008 about New York Times reporters imagining Todd Palin was "doing those daughters" are in all seriousness making statements such as this one, posted in the Columbia Spectator comments section: "[L]egally speaking, I do have my doubts about why the law should see this as any different from any relationship between consenting adults,There used to be an adherence to natural law in the West that saw all such relations i.e. same sex relations, incest, bestiality, as the same legal category. We abandoned that some time ago, and are we better for having done so? I don't know, but those people that see this as deplorable need to show why it is any different from the other categories of behavior that used to be prohibited under a concept of natural law like gay sex."
The prosecution rests.
Yosemeti Sam| 12.11.10 @ 1:02PM
" ... some commenters at the Columbia University student newspaper Web site are mystified as to why it's illegal: "Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do?"...."
And this breed of future-to-be-ADULTS are expected to burden themselves with the National Debt?
LOL.
Occam's Tool| 12.11.10 @ 11:29PM
Dear Sam: and no ordinary University: Columbia. Ivy League. Most Selective. Sigh.
southernsue| 12.11.10 @ 1:18PM
i imagine that this guy has been having sex with his child for a long time. what normal 18 year old girl wants to have sex with her father. ewe! i certainly don't know any normal teenage girls that want to do their daddy.
this girl needs help, just another child abused as she was growing up.
NotALibertarian| 12.11.10 @ 1:36PM
Um, anyone ready to admit Western civilization's mistake here and start going to church again?
NotALibertarian| 12.11.10 @ 1:40PM
Question: If, God forbid, one of these two sad, troubled people kill themselves because of this humiliation, are they going to amend the anti-bullying programs?
L.N. Smithee | 12.11.10 @ 4:14PM
Excellent point. Maybe not now, but don't rule it out down the road. See my previous comment.
PattyMor| 12.11.10 @ 1:44PM
Well, the country has come full circle from a nation borne of christianity to Sodom and Gorrorah. It didn't end well for them and it isn't going to end well for us.
Augusta| 12.11.10 @ 1:59PM
The lefty motto and mantra in America has ever been, "If it feels good, do it." The leftist has his own way to twist himself into semantic pretzels in order to justify just about any atrocity. They will always take the side of the failed, evil and wrong. They will most often empathize with criminals over victims, welfare abusers over earners, pro-aborts over the unborn, terrorists over the soldiers who fight them, third world despots over American Presidents. They believe that morality and truth are always relative and that more government control equals more freedom. This is why we directly associate this reprobate's vile sexual proclivities with his leftism. The key difference between left wing and right wing evil doers is that when conservatives' moral failings are exposed [and yes lefties, everyone has moral failings], they name it properly, i.e. sin. Conversely, when a lefty is caught they blame society or other external factors and sometimes even contort their evil actions into heroism. Introspection and moral truth are anathema to the left wing mind. Isn't that what we're seeing here - the students at Columbia are already attempting to shrug it off. As we speak, the brain addled Columbia students are organizing candlelight vigils and legal fundraisers. Hyperbole you say? Wait and see.
ML| 12.11.10 @ 2:05PM
Consent does not imply morality. For example, a person can, as an exercise of their personal autonomy, consent to harm.
Spectator of Spectator| 12.11.10 @ 6:11PM
In all of this debate, in which both sides do horrible things out of evil, wicked, perversion, I don't believe the Right has ever contemplated (wicked and horrible) trying to normalize it by legislation:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...../nro-staff
Jim Hlavac | 12.11.10 @ 6:25PM
This disgusting example of heterosexualism has nothing to do with gay people. Despite the allusion made ("consenting adults") that somehow gay folks having the legal right to nookie without benefit of a police state intruding into people's private lives is therefore the opening of the door to polygamy, or incest, or trees, or animals, or whatever, is reductio ad absurdam. To even allude that we gay folks are responsible for this crime is farcical. The reality is -- reality folks -- is that 5% of the population in this country, and all over this world, in every country, say the same thing -- being gay is natural. We just are. And we have no idea why we are. The archbishop of the armed forces says it's "largely unexplainable" and Tony Perkins of the FRC says it's due to a "mix of developmental factors." I believe them. Well, explain it, what are those factors? Do set out this "mix." So far all attempts at doing so have been futile. If you think I wake up hetero every morning, and then by the evening decide to be a sick and demented "homosexual" then you're nuts. And once you figure out that we're as natural as apples you might then well construct a morality and teaching so as to push us toward monogamy, instead of just constantly bleating that gay people are the cause of the social problems in this nation.
There is ample scientific ability to figure out that gay folks simply have a brain wiring switch. Do a brain scan, see my nookie center light up differently. The numbers of us neither rises nor falls. There are 106 boys born for every 100 girls -- whom do you think those other six boys are? I'm one. For after the 100 marry the 100 -- what are we to do? We're not violent, and we are productive members of society. We do not do this sort of sordid nonsense. I've never heard any gay man say "oh, good, let's go have sex with our daughters." Or with our sons, should we even have any. Indeed, I have heard the opposite -- and I dare say I know more gay folks than all here combined. We're disgusted with this. We're disgusted with the Jerry Springer set. We're disgusted with the arrant violence you perpetrate against your spouses, your children, your families, and us. And we're particularly disgusted that you blame us for it all. It's just not sensical. You all sound like a bunch of liberals half the time on this gay thing. Group think and casting aspersions by association. It's horrific.
But it's you heterosexuals doing the abortion, the unwed mothering, the child abandoning, the murder, rape and pillage. Not us. Not us gay folks. We're so peaceful and docile it's a good thing you keep us out of the military -- we have no killer instinct as you all do. Clean up your own house before you cast stones at us.
But let me tell you folks, all clamoring for liberty -- there will be no return to the police state of the pre-Stonewall Riot. You're not going to bust down our bar doors and arrest us again. There are some 20,000,000 of us -- you don't have the heart or the police forces. And long before we could even be free for a moment from the police all this sordid heterosexual conduct was happening. Don't blame us, it's unbefitting a free Republic of individuals.
But, if you truly believe that gay people are some threat to this nation, or to families, well, then prove it. Go figure out "why" we're gay. It behooves you to find out why we are -- so you can "cure" or "prevent" the menace you seem to think we are.
And while you're at it, the next time you're on a flight, or in a bank, or checking in at a hotel, or getting your hair done -- take a good long hard look at the slim, flighty, flimsy, effeminate men there -- do you truly believe we're faking it? You don't have to be a phrenologist to figure out that there's a physical difference between, well, us sissies, and all you fine he-man of heterosexualism. And if you can't see this, you're blind as a bat. Willfully so. And that's sad.
Though if you are going to reinstitute the theocratically based police state to arrest us all -- and oddly, throw us into jail with all those other men of a similar kind to keep us apart from each other (talk about stupid eh?) -- well, then, you have my name. And there ain't too many with mine name around.
Get a grip -- gay folks have nothing to do with this story -- and you know it. And this magazine, of fine thought on 99% of all subjects -- and which I've been reading for 35 years -- has once again visited calumny on the least of God's children -- the Pink Sheep of the flock of God.
CalMark| 12.11.10 @ 6:30PM
Incoherence alert!
Stay on point, man. This is about incest. Gay activists have a one-track mind. And your paranoia is downright spooky.
Talk about projection! Gays make insane claims about persecution. Then they persecute people and religions who won't bless their degenerate lifestyle.
Nick| 12.11.10 @ 6:48PM
Mr. Hlavac,
I think I speak for many here, please, return to your closet. No one cares.
If homos are going to claim that they were born that way, they will have to defend other perversions like incest, pedophilia, and even rape.
Why? Because how do we know these reprobates, also, weren't born that way?
How do we know the pedophile wasn't born with an attraction to pre-pubescent children? Or, that the rapist wasn't born with the inability to have sexual gratification without forcing a woman?
I know why. You don't. Because you are a slave to your lasciviousness. You choose, with a free will, to commit the acts you engage in.
What about bisexuals, Mr. Hlavac? Are they born that way? Or, do they choose with whom, and whom not, to pervert the marital act?
I will pray for you. God Bless.
p.s. Homos comprise less than 1 percent of the population.
Le Cracquere| 12.11.10 @ 11:06PM
It ain't all about you, Miss Thing.
Leeada47| 12.12.10 @ 8:44PM
There are 6 million of you (counting little children) and you can engage in any sex you want, but don't think you will get same sex marriage. SCOTUS will squash that one flat.
JRooster| 5.27.11 @ 1:43AM
Mr. Hlavac, I commend you sir.
Nicely said.
CalMark| 12.11.10 @ 6:26PM
Incest is OK, huh, lefties?
Every time some Republican is even accused of sexually harassing someone NOT related to him, leftists and feminazis destroy him for exploiting power, position, etc. A father "doing" his daughter is apparently immune from such censure, especially if he's a hate-filled leftist professor "doing" his daughter.
Let's take religion and morality out of the picture and talk science. Specifically, genetics. Children conceived in incest almost always have serious defects, sometimes grotesque, of mind and body. Look at the Egyptian pharaohs or the inbred Romanoffs. Whoops, I forgot; scientific fact is irrelevant if it contradicts the liberal position (see Global Warming, pesticides, etc.)
So I guess liberals are OK with incest. Provided, of course, the participants are both consenting and behave responsibly and use birth control, and (mandatory one, here) abort all defective babies conceived in incest.
Must be nice to have no morals: make whatever choices you want, then escape the bad consequences. And when your choices bring you misery, blame society, Republicans, and Sarah Palin.
John DuBose| 12.11.10 @ 9:16PM
Rember Oedipus ? Poor guy accidently commited incest. It trashed his whole life. Imagine the creepiness of deliberately doing that.
Consider that rats do not worry about incest. They just eat their own less than healthy young.
I guess the liberals want us to live like rats.
Intelligent Design| 12.11.10 @ 9:32PM
Instead of messing around with the concerns raised by NY state law, Columbia should consult with Muslim Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the drive to build a mosque near Ground Zero, to see what Shari'a says about a father shacking up with his daughter. Is it OK or should he be stoned to death on campus? (Rauf received his bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from Columbia.)
Eddie Kovacs| 12.12.10 @ 7:51AM
What kind of leftard could defend incest? Well, just look at jbriz here: he obviously doesn't know anything about anything, and wants us all to know how little he knows because ignorance is strength. Apparently, his total incapacity to read and comprehend the Bible, Robert Stacy McCain's articles, or really much of anything, makes him vastly morally superior to those of us who do know how to read and comprehend these things. Or something.
proje haberleri | 12.12.10 @ 10:51AM
Um, anyone ready to admit Western civilization's mistake here and start going to church again?
Wayne | 12.12.10 @ 12:26PM
I was listening to Judge Napolitano on the Stossel show defend Gay Marriage. He said that the neighbors do not have the right to say who you can and can not marry. Well following his Libertarian logic, that means that incest should also be legal, and this person should have the right to marry his daughter.
Margie| 12.12.10 @ 9:10PM
Libertarian logic. Isn't that an oxymoron, not to mention moronic all on its own merit, with or without an Ox?
Occam's Tool| 12.12.10 @ 10:11PM
Margie:
Be nice to the Oxen. I don't think they routinely commit incest. ;)
matthew s harrison| 12.13.10 @ 11:08AM
Incest......its not just for West Virginians any more!
verbatim| 12.13.10 @ 3:06PM
Excuse me while I throw up.
Steve| 12.16.10 @ 9:56AM
If you substituted the word Republican or Conservative everywhere in the article professor is mentioned....they would interupt the Super Bowl to report this!
completely disgusted| 12.19.10 @ 12:08PM
Most of you are just incredibly blind to how incredibly messed up this is.
Give societal approval to consenting incest between a father and adult daughter and men will begin to relax the taboo overall and groom their daughters from a young age to eventually engage in it.
I don't know about you, but if I were raised as a daughter in a culture like that, I would be nothing, dust.
If my father made a pass at me, you'd have to hold me down to keep me from beating him. It is a betrayal. It is one of the few constrictions on male behavior there is. Take that away, and tell me, what daughter or wife would want to put up with it? I highly doubt his daughter isn't going to resent or hate him or dump him as a father for it eventually. His imperative as a father was putting her interests first. This is a joke.
It should remain illegal because of the degradation of culture that would ensue if it were deemed acceptable. There is no need, therefore, to address whether it is coercive or consensual or anything else.
If he did it and is found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him to make an example of him to the creeps and sociopaths that are coming out of the woodwork to debate in favor of incest on blogs carrying this story. Thank God none of you is my father and lucky for you you aren't.
GarandFan| 1.7.11 @ 9:28AM
It's all part of the "everything is relative" morality exposed by liberals. After all, we don't want to be "judgmental" now, would we?
steve| 2.20.11 @ 11:57PM
Ahem, maybe the writer should take a little peek at this website before aligning political opinion with sexual preference haha http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/