# Daddy does daughter, DNA determination damning **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 27, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723 "2004-08-27T02:27:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/41 "2004-08-27T17:06:25Z")
After a long article about a guy having sex with and them marrying his daughter, my first thought after reading this: > [@](#): > > Steen has also been charged with a class C misdemeanor for harboring a class III wild animal without a permit. … was that they were talking about his penis. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/42 "2004-08-27T19:49:30Z")
> [@Vlad/Igor](#): > > a strong possibility that Steen manipulated his wife as a minor under his care. If that is the case, then it isn’t surprising that she consented to marry him, as her view of normal relationships would be quite different that what most of us believe in and experience. \ and if coercion and manipulation were present, then Steen should be charged. Well, certainly I agree with you there, which is why I specified adult onset incest in my previous post. I know of no way father/daughter incest could be considered “between consensual adults” if the daughter is still a child. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/43 "2004-08-27T19:58:37Z")
Did they swab the alligator for DNA? Might be able to tack on a reptile abuse charge. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/44 "2004-08-27T20:40:25Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > The woman is 18, and old enough to marry. Any reason why she’s not being charged with the exact same crime he is? Because young females are NOT capable of Coercion. :rolleyes: \<\<---------- Would love an answer to this too. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/45 "2004-08-27T20:50:48Z")
I wonder if some sharp defense attorney could get Woody Allen to be an expert witness. ---
**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/46 "2004-08-27T20:55:43Z")
I didn’t see anyone else bring this up yet so I will. What about the fact that a father/daughter combo has the potential to produced defective babies? I don’t know a whole lot about this topic but I have read many times that the closer you are related the more likely you are to have children that have mental and physical defects. Isn’t that a good reason to keep family members from marrying? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/47 "2004-08-27T21:17:27Z")
My husband’s sister and his mom’s brother have been shacked up for decades, on and off. No kids together, but 10 between them. Most of their kids are skeeved out. We were fine with it from a logical standpoint when they first took up with each other, but lately, we vascillate between “Whatever floats your boat” and “Jesus! What the fuck were they thinking!” They don’t have much contact with the family…usually just Christmas, although I talk to my SIL frequently (and was very close with her until the last couple years). My husband’s other sisters are disgusted with the whole thing. It’s their business and theirs alone, but…Jesus, what a clusterfuck. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/48 "2004-08-27T21:25:09Z")
> [@Bongmaster](#): > > I didn’t see anyone else bring this up yet so I will. > > What about the fact that a father/daughter combo has the potential to produced defective babies? I don’t know a whole lot about this topic but I have read many times that the closer you are related the more likely you are to have children that have mental and physical defects. Isn’t that a good reason to keep family members from marrying? Although lacking a cite, I’d presume that to be the rationale behind all laws prohibiting marriages and sexual unions between close relatives. Take a look at Prince Charles-there was no lifeguard blowing his whistle at that gene pool. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/49 "2004-08-27T21:31:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I were defending this man, I would certainly be preparing a brief that cites _Lawrence v. Texas_ for the proposition that **Weirddave** enunciates above. I think you’d have a very difficult uphill battle given the language in _Lawrence_ which specifically limits the decision’s scope. > [@](#): > > The present case does not involve minors. **It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused.** It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Emphasis mine. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/50 "2004-08-27T21:37:08Z")
My first thought was whether _Jerry Springer_ or _Maury Povich_ would book them first… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/51 "2004-08-27T21:46:01Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I think you’d have a very difficult uphill battle given the language in _Lawrence_ which specifically limits the decision’s scope.Emphasis mine. Not at all. The _Lawrence_ language specifically excludes persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused, as you correctly point out, but encompasses adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices with each other. The question of consent then becomes a matter of fact for the jury to decide. If this were not so, then all the prosecution would have to prove under IC 35-46-1-3 is that my client (1) engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman who was (2) his daughter and (3) he knew she was his daughter. If _Lawrence_’s rationale is applied, then the prosecution also has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a relationship where consent might not easily be refused, or that the daughter was coerced. It lets me put on a defense of live-and-let-live, mutual consenting adults, whereas without that loophole, it’s a prosecutorial slam-dunk. And even better if the trial judge rules I can’t present such evidence under _Lawrence_: automatic appealable issue. Personally distasteful though I find these circumstances, it’s an almost guaranteed shot at a state supreme court hearing, and a better-than-your-average-trial-issue’s chance for US Supreme Court cert. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/52 "2004-08-27T21:59:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. The _Lawrence_ language specifically excludes persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused, as you correctly point out, but encompasses adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices with each other. The question of consent then becomes a matter of fact for the jury to decide. > > If this were not so, then all the prosecution would have to prove under IC 35-46-1-3 is that my client (1) engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman who was (2) his daughter and (3) he knew she was his daughter. If _Lawrence_’s rationale is applied, then the prosecution also has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a relationship where consent might not easily be refused, or that the daughter was coerced. It lets me put on a defense of live-and-let-live, mutual consenting adults, whereas without that loophole, it’s a prosecutorial slam-dunk. There is also the question of injury by virtue of the risks inherant with sexual relations with extremely close biological relatives. Even if this particular couple plans not to have children, and/or one of them is sterilized, the statute could stand because it is in the state’s legitimate interest in forbidding relationships with high degress of risk of producing defective offspring(which then go on to become handicapped members of society). Then it becomes a question of if the criminalization of the behavior is constitutional or not. Odds are they can, for the above rationale, refuse to sanction the marriage in any case. They still be able to lock them up if the state’s interest in only allowing relationships which are at lesser risks of producing handicapped citizens outweighs their right to boff any consenting adult. > [@Bricker](#): > > Personally distasteful though I find these circumstances, it’s an almost guaranteed shot at a state supreme court hearing, and a better-than-your-average-trial-issue’s chance for US Supreme Court cert. I guess we may get those questions that the weird Due Process based holding of _Lawrence_ raised answered sooner rather than later. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/53 "2004-08-27T22:39:57Z")
> [@Bongmaster](#): > > I didn’t see anyone else bring this up yet so I will. > > What about the fact that a father/daughter combo has the potential to produced defective babies? Personally, I think this idea was created to scare people. Somewhere down the line someone had offspring, from the result of incest, which netted double heads/diseases and such. From then on, “Don’t do it! The babies will be deformed!” OMG!1 Shockingly though, the same double heads and diseases also come from regular people with non-family relations too. I also don’t have any cites either, but I have read some things that debunk these “deformed” theorys. I’ve also read the ones that claim it “will” happen too. So it’s kinda up in the air, and still needs more fact finding research. IMO, I feel the ones that say it “will” happen, are most likely scewed and slanted for a specific agenda. Kinda like smoking will kill you, but KNOWONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE. Kinda like that. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/54 "2004-08-27T23:12:35Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > Personally, I think this idea was created to scare people. Somewhere down the line someone had offspring, from the result of incest, which netted double heads/diseases and such. From then on, “Don’t do it! The babies will be deformed!” OMG!1 > > Shockingly though, the same double heads and diseases also come from regular people with non-family relations too. > > I also don’t have any cites either, but I have read some things that debunk these “deformed” theorys. I’ve also read the ones that claim it “will” happen too. So it’s kinda up in the air, and still needs more fact finding research. IMO, I feel the ones that say it “will” happen, are most likely scewed and slanted for a specific agenda. Kinda like smoking will kill you, but KNOWONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE. Kinda like that. Well, actually, Bongmaster has simplified the situation unduly: 1. Every relationship has the potential to produce children with either inherited diseases, congenital defects, inherited predisposiotions toward diseases, etc., through reinforcement of recessive traits. 2. A relationship in which the members are related shares more genes, and thus the chance of negative reinforcement is greater. 3. If these members are closely related, they will share many genes, and quite possibly several recessive traits that cause diseases, etc. QED, incestuous relationships are genetically dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/55 "2004-08-28T00:01:51Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > There is also the question of injury by virtue of the risks inherant with sexual relations with extremely close biological relatives. Even if this particular couple plans not to have children, and/or one of them is sterilized, the statute could stand because it is in the state’s legitimate interest in forbidding relationships with high degress of risk of producing defective offspring(which then go on to become handicapped members of society). Then it becomes a question of if the criminalization of the behavior is constitutional or not. Odds are they can, for the above rationale, refuse to sanction the marriage in any case. They still be able to lock them up if the state’s interest in only allowing relationships which are at lesser risks of producing handicapped citizens outweighs their right to boff any consenting adult. Could the state criminalize sexual contact between two unrelated people, if they each know that they each carry a recessive gene that makes it highly likely they will produce handicapped offspring? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/56 "2004-08-28T02:13:16Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > My husband’s sister and his mom’s brother have been shacked up for decades \…Jesus, what a clusterfuck. I believe that’s actually an **uncle** fuck. Wonder if they’ve seen _SP:BL&U_? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/57 "2004-08-28T03:43:14Z")
> [@dwalin](#): > > QED, incestuous relationships are genetically dangerous. Perhaps, but the people on Pitcairn Island have been having incestuous relationships for over 200 years (I think there’s only three last names on the entire island and sooner or later someone’s going to have to tag their cousin at leastto keep things going) and I’ve heard of no deformities or genetic defects. ---
**Author:** ![AveDementia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@AveDementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AveDementia)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/58 "2004-08-28T04:28:26Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Perhaps, but the people on Pitcairn Island have been having incestuous relationships for over 200 years (I think there’s only three last names on the entire island and sooner or later someone’s going to have to tag their cousin at leastto keep things going) and I’ve heard of no deformities or genetic defects. The birthrate is perhaps not high enough to show it. In 2003 the first child for 17 years was born. They are a population hanging on by its fingernails. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/59 "2004-08-28T05:23:33Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > There was a case not too many years ago of a brother and sister who at very early ages had been removed from an abusive family, adopted by different families, and met again as adults. Having no memory of one another, they fell in love, married, and had children. When they discovered that they were in fact biological siblings, all hell broke loose. > > I wish I could remember the details, but IIRC they were ordered by the court to cease living together or they would be charged with incest, and their kids would be taken away so that said kids would not be living in an incestuous environment. A tragedy on an operatic scale. > > I’d google for the whole story, but I’m afraid of what would come up were I to type “brother sister incest marriage” into a search engine. I believe that was actually in France, but a google search turns up the usual amount of comercial websites ☹ Declan ---
**Author:** ![AveDementia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@AveDementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AveDementia)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723/60 "2004-08-28T05:56:33Z")
I thought it was Australia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/daddy-does-daughter-dna-determination-damning/261723.md?page=4)