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.
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.
thinking out loud to come to the conclusion below:
I am a bit confused to be honest. Does saying “my brother molested me” hold less weight than “this guy on the street molested me”?
It does make it harder for victims to come forward, i’ll give you that, and i suppose by the laws of democracy if most of us decided it was worth banning incest just to prevent that, then it would happen.
There aren’t religions which advocate incest, though there are some cultures (and i guess subcultures of familiar cultures) which advocate incest. When religion is brought into it, it’s an excuse - but they’re always making up their own writings, their own off-shoot cult which wants to claim it belongs to the wider religion so as to shield the cult from scrutiny a little bit.
I just don’t get how the presence of religion would make it harder to distinguish if someone was sexually abused
So rather than a “determining consent” problem you mean it causes problems with victims coming forward in the first place?
No.
Yes that’s it exactly that is why I talk about power dynamics directly.
There are religions where honoring your family’s wishes is more an obligation like I said.
No they’re both issues for the same reason, power dynamics.