This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I’d been banned from that community for “pro-incest comments” and several others I don’t think I’ve ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I’d even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I’m not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
Leaving aside whether the rule was the right one to use, I will stress that, when it comes to incest, the power dynamics in play make consent dubious at best. This is doubly so for parent/child incest, such as the case you were talking about.
This is a weird hill. Are you sure you want to die on it?
Won’t die on it. Still think it’s weird to be banned for it.
By making this post, you are still fighting on it.
I think a permanent ban was unjustified, yes.
Your permanent ban for defending incest, a situation that is widely agreed to be an abuse of trust in any configuration, thus making consent dubious. Specifically, your response defending a woman who fucked her son, suggesting grooming to be at play.
Once again, is this a cause you want to keep fighting for? Or do you want to just take the damn L already?
I specifically said she was likely grooming her son, which is bad. I’m against incest being a crime.
After nearly a full day of inactivity where people lived their damn lives, you came back to offer nothing new, yet you keep trying to nitpick your way into an argument. Why is this so important to you?
Actually, no, don’t answer. Just stay on your weird family-fucking hill until you die on it, as you so obviously want to. I’m done with you.
You’re mad because I was busy for a day?
In a lot of people’s mind there can’t possibly be consent so it’s simply rape which makes you a pro rape advocate. If that makes it make a little more sense to you.
That’s a hell of a long walk to call me a pro-rape advocate. No, that doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s quite a short walk I’m afraid and yeah I figured that was the case. Fun question, are you now or have you ever participated in incest?
I have not.
Then I find your position even more odd.
Is it something you think about, like what is the motivation here? Like is statutory rape wrong to you or is that another “well there’s consent” issue for you.
That’s called a bad faith argument. I stated in my comments that people need to be capable of and enthusiastically consenting.
I’m opposed to overreaching laws based on ideas about sexual purity.
For instance, under Canadian law, two people who don’t know they’re blood relatives who begin a sexual relationship can be guilty of incest if they later learn that they’re related and continue that relationship. And that seems insane to me.
I knew a guy in the Navy who had been porking his cousin for months and didn’t find out she was his cousin till he brought her home to meet the folks.
He was from Alabama.
They literally could not consent for the same reasons consent in statutory rape. The power Imbalance is too too far skewed.
So you draw any limits to incest. Same legal age siblings. Mother son, father daughter, grandparent grandchild? Or where when and how do you draw your line.
The same reason a white person with a white partner would argue against anti-miscegenation laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a straight person would argue against homosexuality prohibitions: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a cishet person would argue against transphobic laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
You don’t have to be in a miscegenated, homosexual relationship with your trans half-sister to realize that the public and the state has no valid interest for interfering in the free association of capable, consenting persons. Such interference is wrong, and needlessly harmful.
By all means, ensure that any such association is freely entered. Ensure that the individual participants are capable. Ensure that the individual participants are consenting. Once those three criteria are met, the public is free to speak its mind, but it is not free to arrest or otherwise interfere.
Those are people capable of consent, your child simply isn’t capable of that no matter how much you convince yourself they are.
Problem is that the law is based on morals rather than damage. SA is illegaland grooming is illegal, why does incest need to be illegal in addition?
Because consent is extremely hard to determine if it is even possible when there are family dynamics involved and moreso if there’s religion involved. They might say whatever because their loyalty to their family is an religious obligation.