Well, that made me spit soda all over my keyboard.
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the OP say these kids are fourteen. Fourteen. Do you people really think fourteen is an appropriate age to be having sex? I know making sure birth controll is available isn’t the same as condoning sex, but come on. No one seems to have even considered that these are kids who might be more interested in “mak[ing] kissy face” than “get[ting] it on like rabbits” or that they should be. The Ryan is the only other person who seems to have noticed this, and several others have made good comments, but I can’t believe that no one else seems bothered by the automatic assumption and approval of fourteen yearolds having sex!
Alan Smithee:
Why is it that you assume that people approve of it just because they recognize that it is likely? Something like a quarter of American kids have engaged in sex by the age of 14. It’s not approval, but foresight that makes people advise birth control. I can say for certain that at 14 I wanted sex. Had I a willing partner, I would have engaged in sex without hesitation.
I don’t even think providing fourteen year-olds with birth control is wrong or imprudent. I included the first quote, from DocDaneeka because three is a nice number, and because there seemed to be some assumption (though not necessarily approval) of fourteen year-old sex. I have no idea what I would have done with a willing partner at 14, but I sure wasn’t trying to have sex. Keep in mind, this si from a family that went on Dr. Laura. They are probably fairly conservative. Not that that necessarily says anything about the kids, but I don’t think all or even most 14 year-olds are trying or even wanting to have sex. Certainly many are not. And I find the fact that some of us apparently do approve indiscriminately of those 14 year-olds who do have sex appalling.
Is it incest, yes, they cannot marry.
in•cest "in-'sest\ noun [ME, fr. L incestus sexual impurity, fr. incestus impure, fr. in- + castus pure — more at caste] (13c)
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship
©1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Well, I think the more flip comments are from people thinking “If I were in that situation…” rather than “If my kid were in that situation…” Some might not even have a problem then, but most would really rather not face that sort of parental situation.
On the legal side it is still incest (at least in South Dakota, and I think more than likely in other states as well) due to the fact that their parents are married. As their parents are married that makes the kids siblings by affinity - which is to say they are legally seen as bio-sibs.
Here is the American Jurispurdence 2nd to help explain:
(emphasis mine)
41 Am. Jur. 2d Incest §§ 15 (1995)
and the South Dakota Statute for incest:
SDCL §22-22-19.1 Incest – Prohibited sexual contact – Felony.
So no matter what you may think about it, it is still against the law.
[Caring, Responsible Adult Mode]
As a Caring, Responsible Adult, I can’t say I condone sex at the age of 14. From my observation, being too sexual that young generally has negative consequences. (I personally believe that many of the negative consequences are a result of our society’s illogical and unhealthy view of sexuality rather than some innate danger in sex at a young age. However, that’s an entire thread in itself. Whatever the cause, the reality is that having sex too young often has negative effects).
I realize that sex isn’t necessarily a given for these kids, but I would bet heavily it’s going to come up. I remember being 14.
I’m also acutely aware of the fact that kids are going to do what they want to do. I was forbidden to have sex at a young age, but I did it anyway. (I had sex with my first girlfriend 2 weeks after her 15th birthday. I was 16, I think. I used to joke that I missed my only legitimate chance to bag a 14 year old by 2 weeks. She didn’t think it was funny).
What would I do if I were a parent in this situation? I don’t know, but I’ve thought about it. Even before seeing this thread, I recognized this as a (probably remote) possibility as I am the single father of a 5-year-old daughter, who is going to be a babe. (Yes, she’s the product of the relationship mentioned above. I was 17, she had just turned 16 when our daughter was born. We were married for a while, but didn’t last. I never said I didn’t face the consequences of sex at such a young age).
Regardless of the choices made, I see this as a difficult situation for all involved. If the parents forbid the relationship, both kids will likely be resentful and fight back somehow. This could tear apart the family. Bad. I realize this is a very unlikely scenario, but from time to time you hear of kids committing suicide because they’re denied whoever they are “in love” with. I, personally, would rather have my daughter diddled than dead.
If the parents choose to send one of the kids away, to the other birth parent or something, that is also breaking up the family. Again, I vote “bad”. That would make me terribly angry and resentful, probably worse than just trying to keep us separated.
On the other hand, if the parents choose to allow it (not necessarily condone, but allow), well, there are definitely problems there as well. For one, how many relationships between 14 year olds are long lasting and healthy? The relationship is most likely doomed. Most breakups seem to involve some pain and hard feelings, sometimes hatred. Imagine having to live with that other person after a breakup. (On the other other hand – I’m running out of hands – maybe the parents could turn a blind eye for a couple of months, then the problem might go away on its own).
All parties have the social stigma to face. Both kids are going to get the whole “yuck” factor from their friends. The parents might even have it worse. As has been mentioned, there might even be legal problems for the parents.
What would I do? As I said briefly earlier, I would definitely sit down and talk to the kids about it. I would make it known that I wasn’t condoning a relationship, but I’d also let them know that I still loved and accepted them no matter what, and all that new-age hogwash. The worse thing I could do would be to alienate either kid. I’d clearly lay out the disadvantages of the relationship and make sure they think it all through. I’d try to make them accept the possibility of breaking up (I know, they think they’re going to be together forever) and make them think about how they would feel having to live with the person who broke their heart. I’d call in a counselor if necessary. At all cost I would avoid alienating the kids and breaking up the family. And I’d keep a box of condoms in the bathroom.
As much as it’s hard to accept, much of this is up to the kids. I’d do my best to guide them, but they’re going to do what they’re going to do. I could step in and force something, but the resentment and pain that would cause isn’t worth the pain it would avoid, in my opinion. In some cases (hardcore drug use, a really abusive relationship, etc. etc.) it would be worth the risk.
Mostly, I see this relationship as not a whole lot more complicated, and in many ways less dangerous, than a serious relationship with some other kid out there. I’d much rather my daughter be messing around with my 14 year old stepson, who I know and have some control over, than some 28 year old scumbag she met at the candy store. (Now we’re talking shotgun time).
For the record, I’d feel basically the same way if the kids were blood brother and sister. There’s definitely an increase in the “yuck” factor, but that’s about it. Everything remains basically the same.
Sorry if this post dragged on a bit. I’m feeling longwinded today.
[/Caring, Responsible Adult Mode]
[Horny Teenager Mode]
Now that I’ve said all that, I still think it would’ve been cool to have some hot stepsister for a while. MmmmmHmmmm. Ahhh, to be 15 again….
[/Horny Teenager Mode]
As usual, Hollywood has been there and done that:
http://us.imdb.com/Plot?0091958
It’s wrong. If the married couple are serious then they need a stable as-normal-as-possible family for their kids. If the marrage will last the step children will eventually look to their step-parents as legitimate kin…and they will already have done the nasty with their sister/brother. Forget the bible, this is wrong in so many moral ways.
This thread brings Woody and Soon-Yi and Mia to mind. He argued that Mia didn’t have a “family,” but a foster home for international orphans. Since Soon-Yi wasn’t a biological child of him or Mia, he didn’t think it was wrong to have sex with 16 year old Soon-Yi.
Should a person be allowed to marry an uncle or aunt by marriage? First cousin? Second cousin? Adopted relative?
Stepparent?
I’m lucky that I did it all with my step sister before our folks got married. Whew.
In the 70’s was this flick called LUNA. It was about a Mother & son sexual relationship. It’s still burned in my retinas. gross.
well following the Dr. Laura theme, if they are in love w/ each other, they should not be sleeping together under the same roof until marrage. If they are to continue, I would think they would have to be seperated and see each other in a conventional teenage dating manner (maybe one live with the other ex’s while the other is there then switch).
It was actually La Luna which was made in 1979, and suprisingly enough was a very good film. The incestuous parts were there, but the base of the movie was not around that. It was emotional film with a stunning amount of good cinemetography and locales.
I have not been able to find this movie in years (I orignally saw it as a part of an indie film convention in 94), and would love to have it again. 
It is that good of a movie.
16 year old living in <insert name of small redneck town or state here> bloke comes home and duly informs his father that he has a girlfriend. The father promptly enquires at to whether or not he has slept with her yet. “no” the son replies, “she’s a virgin!”
“Piss er’ off then” says the Pa; “If her family don’t want her…neither do we!”
Well, in Montana, unlike South Dakota, it’s not incest. Here, incest is defined as marrying or having sexual contact or relations with “an ancestor, a descendant, a brother or sister of the whole or the half blood, or any stepson or stepdaughter. The relationships referred to include blood relationships without regard to legitimacy, relationships of parent and child by adoption, and relationships involving a stepson or stepdaughter.” None of that business about “affinity.”
So while Woody (the pig) committed incest with his adopted daughter, what these hypothetical kids are contemplating is not necessarily incest – depending on how you define it.
That said, I think it’s a big ol’ bad idea. They are living in the same house in an arrangement identical to that of brother and sister – as members of a single nuclear family. I would certainly forbid the relationship on the grounds that sexual (or even romantic) relations intra-family are verboten except for the (presumably married or at least committed) parental figures. If, in the anguish of young love, they insisted on being together, then I would have one or the other move out (to their other parent, hopefully). If that couldn’t be arranged and they both had to stay, then tough noogies. But under no circumstances would I allow them to pursue a romantic relationship while living in the same house. Y’know, IMO.
Soon-Yi was not adopted by Woody, but by Mia and then husband Andre Previn. However, Woody is still a pig.
And legally, he and Soon-Yi’s adopted child is Mia’s grandchild.