As disgusting as the thought of a step-dad and his step-daughter having sex was to me, the article I posted in yesterday's blog led me to believe they were both consenting adults.  I didn't like the idea one bit; but I'm also not a huge fan of the government legislating morality.  I would not enjoy being urinated on by my wife or performing oral sex on another man.  Yet I don't think the government should be able to tell me and another consenting adult who isn't my blood relative that we can't do these things.  Yucky should not necessarily be synonymous with illegal.  After all, having Bush as our President is yucky to me.  (-;  But he has a right to be President because America, through the electoral process, gave him consent to be President (at least the second time).  CONSENT was a huge key in my mind, along with ADULT....

However, yesterday my friend Sharon and others pointed out that we did not have enough information to conclude that Paul Lowe, the step-father in question, should not have been convicted of a crime.  This sent me on a bit of a fact-finding mission.  After doing some research, I must conclude that they were right.  Apparently there was NO consent in his case, and in the end he did not even plead Not Guilty or insist on a trial.

I think the following article expresses very well how my opinion of Mr. Lowe has changed with this new knowledge.  And now I regret posting yesterday's blog and giving his defense any sort of legitimacy.  I meant only to defend sexual freedom between consenting adults.  I definitely do NOT defend Mr. Lowe's (or anyone else's) right to "have sex" with anyone, adult step-daughter or not, without full consent.  That's rape. 

Here's the article I promised, from:

http://pervscan.com/2006/02/08/high-court-to-rule-on-law-banning-sex-with-a-stepchild/.

"The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a man who says he should not have been convicted of sexual battery for having sex with his stepdaughter, because they were consenting adults. Paul Lowe, 43, admitted to investigators that he had sex with the woman, and that was enough to charge him under the Ohio law prohibiting sex between stepparents and stepchildren, Stark County prosecutors said. The stepdaughter told investigators that she passed out on the couch at Lowe's home following a night of drinking with friends in 2003 to celebrate her 22nd birthday. She said that when she woke up, Lowe, a former Stark County sheriff's deputy, was having sex with her. Stark County Common Pleas Judge Sara Lioi denied Lowe's request to dismiss the charge. He pleaded no contest in July 2004 and appealed." — Cleveland Plain Dealer (US)

Here's a picture of Mr. Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy. Additional details about his case can be found in an article about his original conviction, and also in this legal brief. The brief makes for quite interesting reading, since it details the arguments and legal precedents utilized by both sides.

In the incest stories published here on PervScan, commenters have generally supported the right of people to commit incest when all parties involved are consenting adults — adults. And certainly there is merit to Mr. Lowe's contention that he should not be criminalized by a law plainly designed to protect children. The legal brief notes that the law forbidding sexual relations between stepparent and stepchild make no mention of age, so the conviction is technically correct on that score. But still, it doesn't seem very reasonable. If both adults wanted to do it, then why should authorities intervene?

But did both adults really want to do it? Mr. Lowe's stepdaughter may have been of legal age, but she was also sleeping off a state of inebriation when Mr. Lowe jumped her bones. By most definitions, that's rape regardless of how old she was. Indeed, she ended up reporting it as rape — and that really seems to be the complication of the entire case. To convict Mr. Lowe under the law preventing stepparents from having sex with their stepchildren is technically correct but rather unreasonable, given the age of both parties. However, to charge and try him for rape would be perfectly appropriate. After all, how consensual could the sex have been? You don't see the victim making a public declaration of her stepfather's innocence