dude, i read. your posts in particular, which eloquently describe your personal distaste for the issue.

however, your personal opinion (augmented by 'clearly', good one) is still just your personal opinion. and given that you speak out of a need to voice your hate and disgust your opinion hardly doesn't count as objective nor contibutive to a discussion.

And thus, my question was not answered, especially not by you.

Also, you try to denigrate me by suggesting I don't read before I post, which is a time honored debate tactic of attacking the discussant while circumventing the topic. A valid method of dominating a debate but not conducive.

What you said is

While I basically agree with the wrongness of parent-child incest (which you'd have noticed up if you had tried reading, haha), you only claim that it's "clearly" rape because it's father and child. Chances are good that it indeed was rape in some form, but no facts in that regard have been put forward at that point of the discussion. And that's what a prosecution is for: Finding facts, not finding facts that suit you.

Likewise, lulapilgrim basically argues that parent-child incest is wrong because it is wrong, without attacking me personally, however (Thanks btw.). That again is a personal opinion and not a valid argument (in absence of hard data it's perfectly fine to speculate).

An example for a valid argument would showcases or statistics showing that consensual incest cases produce "harm" to the child. I assume that's hard to do, though, since most similar incest cases are likely rape cases, too.

That in itself, however, makes this case interesting for scientists of social anthropology, since it can provide factual data to the question I originally asked: "What IS the 'much harm done' to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship anyway, apart from the social scorn that might ensue?"

I admit, the question is phrased in a way that makes it sound dismissive of the notion that incest could indeed cause harm, so let's rephrase it: "What harm is done to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship, if any?"

And just to avoid getting further crap from you: I don't bugger relatives and I don't suggest that anyone should.

To answer your question: None to you - if you're not a member of the family in question.

Finding such statistics from studies would be a tad difficult, if they could be conducted at all.  They would necessarily start with the assumption that parent-child incest is acceptable until & unless 'harm' is proven.  Then you have the issue of defining what constitutes harm.  And to be valid, the subjects of the study could not know they were in it.  Such a study, if it could be pulled off, would rank up there with the Tuskeegee Experiment.  Maybe up there with Dr. Mengele.

This is the moral relativist's refuge - everything is OK until 'proven' wrong.  Especially when 'proof' is impossible.  Easy way out.

No you have not - or you have not understood what you read.  It is not MY opinion, it is accepted knowledge from the body of science called Psychiatry.   Now you may argue that branch of science is bunk, but trying to marginalize it by calling it MY opinion is your tactic and a lame one.  If you had taken the time to READ and understand the information on this page, you would then have the answer to your question.  However you chose instead to try and make up a strawman that does not exist and accuse others of your crimes.  that is YOUR problem.

See above.  You are the one diverting the debate.  I created the topic, you are only trying to excuse the inexcusable with idiotic statements not born out by any data in the professional world.

Ah yes!  The mindset that rape is never rape! It is all about sex and they really want it.  You are a sick puppy.  Clearly someone who is under the control of another cannot "consent", but to misogynists like you, that is immaterial!  Well done!  You have just thrown out all the data ever collected by anyone of any intelligence in favor of your OPINION.

Good luck finding your data on a reputable site that is not run by rapists, pedophiles and polygamists.  I guess Elizabeth Smart asked for it too, right?

Debate Lula on your own, do not include words I did not pen to me.

Whether you do or do not, no one here can tell since your anonymity protects you.  Nor do we care (other than to protect the innocent victims - excuse me - the ones who want it in your mind).  You are still not reading or understanding.  There can be NO CONSENT when one is obeying orders from an AUTHORITY figure!  No court of law, no non-deviant psychiatrist or psychologist would ever agree with you.  For you to be right, then every rapist out there can claim "She said yes" even if he forced her to at the point of gun or knife.

And you are why this sick episode is out there.  There is no right and wrong to you - only consensual regardless of the means to reach the consensus.

Well put!

I failed to point out that heil's question also assumes consent, an assumption that is very much in question itself.

And in some cases impossible.  My children do not "consent" to my authority.  And some even into adulthood still recognize the parent as the authority.  Even if they rebel, they are rebelling AGAINST the authority.

In my family that is done by force....lol.  Talk smack to an "elder" and watch your face get slapped!!

No, that incest is objectively wrong and for that reason causes harm is not a personal opinion. It's valid because every person has a hardwired sense of right and wrong. We know interiorly when we are doing wrong and our conscience rebukes our conduct. People inherently know that incest is wrong and therefore harmful.

Egads! "If any?" 

OKay. I'll rattle off a few....Incest causes psychological, moral, familial, societal and spritual harm. Incest is incompatible with the moral, familial and social order.

.....................

[quote]"What harm is done to anyone in an incestuous consensual relationship, if any?"[/quote]

Ya, "if any?" smacks of moral relativism.

Oh my, there's actually an argument in that wall of rage. "Accepted knowledge in psychiatry". You could have proven me wrong completely without getting nasty at me, if you'd have posted something like that from the start. You still can if you pull up something scientific relevant to the question.

You were only raving against that man anyway. Besides, all is still on topic. Congrats for creating the topic. Well done. You are very good at creating different topics which somehow seem to be all the same topic: "I hate liberals!"

And now your fantasy is making you see things I never wrote and didn't imply. Is there a chance that anytime soon you are stopping to project your hate of Mr Epstein onto me?

I was making the point that you can debate without denigrating each other. I actually enjoy civilized debate.

And now you imply that I do practice incest. That is low.

I am so awesome at reading your stuff, I can even spot the words between lines!

And a second argument hidden in a pile of screaming fury: There is no consent in a relationship with an authority figure.

You know, that does make sense, although it can be argued that for adults the authority figure 'father' becomes less of an authority than in someone's childhood. Still, you made a valid argument and I accept that, even though you made it very hard looking for that diamond of wisdom in all that muck.

And now I am responsible for them, too?? Even assuming you mean that figuratively, you again try to dress me up in your rape fantasies.
No right and wrong to me? I wrote in my very first post that this episode doesn't seem right to me, a notion I reinforced later. But no, you have to fight the hated "liberal" (I assume you think I'm a liberal) and in your rage you twist everything into a blade to strike me with.

I have given no offense, I didn't question your beliefs. Yet you act like I'm some kind of enemy.
Look, if you got abused in the past and this a personal touchy issue for you, then I'm sorry. But even then I don't deserve that kind of foul mouthed behavior.

True, the majority of humans seem to be hardwired to avoid incestuous relationship. And there's a good biological reason for that, no argument there.

 Well, the couple seems perfectly cheery about it. Although I can't imagine that his wive is thrilled about his mistress. Now that they are out in the open, the harm done to them is great on all fronts, indeed. And during the time they were living in sin, they had to be worried about getting caught. But apart from that worry, do you think the girl suffered?

In no way would or did I suggest to conduct incest experiments!

There's actually no need to do so anyway. One has only to look at history and different cultures, where incest is or was less of a taboo than it is in our culture. 19th century Hawaii, for example. Or royality in general.

I don't know anything more about Epstein and his daughter other than a few news blurbs and what DrG has written here.

One article reported the sex affair lasted from 2006 to 2009.

They may "seem" perfectly cheery, but what's really going on as a result is he's facing  one count of third degree incest, and on administrative leave.  

The wife, other family members, friends and professional acquaintainces, etc.  Neither one will ever be able to look at these people in the same way now that's "the cat is out of the bag".

Yes, even if the sexual activity was consensual, there is no such thing as benign consequences.

Yes you did - by trying to excuse or justify it.  We are already on the slippery slope as demonstrated by your "feeling" responses that have no relation to reality.

NAMBLA is your organization.  They are not trying to legalize the rape of infants - yet.  They know that first they just lower the age of consent - and then lower and lower it.  in other words, once you breach the dike, you do not have to pull it down all at once.  The slow trickle will wear it away until there is no protection left to the innocent.