The telling qualification of the step-father-daughter relationship, in the opinion, is this:
The opinion read that, had Lowe divorced his wife, the family bond would have been broken, but because he was still married to his stepdaughter's mother when the crime occurred, it remained formed.
Regardless of whether or not this guy had been her step-father since she was 2 years old, or just one month prior to the 'crime', the decision was based on the marital status of this guy. However, this 'family bond' could be easily broken be a simple piece of paper declaring the marriage null.
That this important bond could be nullified so easily suggests that it isn't so important. Blood ties remain, regardless of marital status. Underaged children and teenagers are protected, regardless of family bonds. Why should non-blood related, consenting adults, be covered by the law?
What those two adults did was most likely wrong, but morally wrong. Not everything that is morally wrong should be made legally wrong.
I don't know what strange flaw exists in me that I feel compelled to tell this joke...but compelled I am so here goes...
A young man steps out of the bathroom with just a towel around his waist. His sister, clad only in a robe playfully snatches the towel away from him. In retaliation the brother snatches away her robe. They stare at each other's nakedness for a moment and then begin frantically having sex. After many passionate minutes the two lay back in each other's arms and begin catching their breath. The sister says...
"Wow. You are way better than dad!"
To which the brother replies,
"Yeah, that's what mom says too".
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
Incest is just plain icky. But a step dad and step daughter don't have a genetic tie. They have a familial tie, but "families" really vary in nature from unit to unit. The risk to the family unit really can only be judged on a case by case basis in this regard. But I just don't see it as incest where there's no blood tie. But then you bring in teh issue of adopted children. If a parent and an adopted child have sex, that is not a "blood tie" but I guess it is still incest. But I think adults for the most part should be allowed some lee-way in these matters.
Look at poor Oedipus. The guy married his own Mom, but he didn't know, and she didn't know, that they were mother and son until after things had been consumated. Icky yes, but more tragic than anything else. I heard of a German couple, they are brother and sister and they have many kids together. But tehy love each other and are happy. Icky, incestuous, taboo, and tragic.
This is such a dangerous issue, because legislating it always involves intense emotion, and it is full of shades of grey. Woody Allen is a dick for marrying his step daughter.
3
 2
|
Re: Note to Woody Allen: Avoid Ohio
Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:51:21 PM EST
5.00 (astute, interesting, astute)
|
There's a little more to it though. As even the dissenting opinion noted, there is a need (at least as expressed by the law) to protect "children against a broader class of persons who can exert a parental role." In other words, we have other laws that protect people from being coerced or otherwise pressured into sex by people who are in a position of power over them. A step-parent, it seems to me, can be one of those people. One thing not mentioned in the article (forgive me for not reading the entire decision) is how long was this man her step-father? What if he raised her from the time she was 2? Would it be ickier then? Should there be a law against such a thing?
I'm not saying that I feel there necessarily should be a law against all sexual relations between step-parents and 'children' or foster parents and 'children', but I am saying that it isn't, in my mind, as cut-and-dried as just saying it's two adults and that's that. There's more to it than that (if not in this particular case, then certainly in principle).
Now with caps!
7
3
|
Re: Note to Woody Allen: Avoid Ohio
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:26:36 AM EST
|
I agree, and I think I was trying clumsily to get across that it isn't so cut n dried. Liek Woody and Soon Yi Previn. This is his step daughter, Mia Farrow adopted her, there is no blood tie. Woody and Soon Yi get hitched. In Ohio this would be a crime. But in another sense it is two adults who become lovers, and their relationship is not really a father-daughter relationship, per se. It gets murky. To some it may be clean cut, they need to draw the line somewhere.
You mention incest laws are meant to protect "children against a broader class of persons who can exert a parental role." Soon-Yi is not a child. I'd say we agree much more than we disagree on this issue.
8
7
|
Re: Note to Woody Allen: Avoid Ohio
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:38:56 AM EST
5.00 (astute)
|
You mention incest laws are meant to protect "children against a broader class of persons who can exert a parental role." Soon-Yi is not a child.
I don't think the issue is so much whether or not Soon-Yo is a child, but whether or not there was a parental relationship with Woody when she was a child. To clear up, from what I can tell there's no evidence there was ever a relationship between Woody and Soon-Yi until she was already an adult, and there also doesn't seem to have been any kind of "step-father" like relationship when she was a child. Mia Farrow adopted her before marrying Woody Allen (she was married to Andre Previn at the time) and by the time Farrow and Allen had a relationship, Soon-Yi would have been in her teens (not sure how far into here teens). What I'm getting at is that it would be far different if Allen had been in the picture (or if he was known to have been in the picture) as a parental figure during Soon-Yi's childhood. That would possibly merit something like the protection of an 'incest law'. As it stands, all we know (or at least, all I know) is that he's 35 years older than her and that's icky. No doubt.
Now with caps!
Why can't guys just learn to control themselves?
