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.
Two adults, raised by different families, enter into a relationship. 10 years later, they find they are biological half-siblings from the same sperm donor. Does this constitute incest? What interest does the state have in criminalizing the continuation of this stable, long-term relationship?
You ask for a line, but you described the proper line:
The line is not drawn on the biological relationship between the parties. The line is drawn on the formalized social structures in place at the commencement of the physical relationship.
Prohibit a relationship between parent and child, while recognizing that, being separated for the entire childhood, the social structure of “parent” and “child” never actually existed. While there is a biological kinship in such a relationship, there is no power imbalance to criminalize.
It should include a fairly short statute of limitations. Prohibit a student/teacher relationship for example, but don’t come back 20 years into the relationship to jail the (former) teacher.
So no lines, you believe n it should be legal to fuck your child?
I think the ban isn’t far enough you should probably be instance banned for trying to normalize gross and quite honestly criminal behavior.
That is the same language used by anti-miscegenists, homophobes, TERFs…
No, I specifically described a line, the exact line that you drew. I quoted it and everything.
All of your examples sans terfs which I think you just randomly threw in are consenting adults without an intrinsic power dynamic.
No my line is it is illegal for good reason.
Yeah you said it’s gross. Everyone knows if people think something is gross, it should be illegal.
That’s the base of your argument. You think it’s gross and are grasping at straws to justify banning it. You don’t actually have supporting arguments.
Way to not read the things that disagree with you. Congrats.
Cool let’s talk about a specific incest law you want repealed and we’ll discuss it and figure out why you want it repealed.
They are today.
In the past, the power dynamic between the participants was the same as that present in bestiality. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent. Minorities were considered inhuman. Your argument is only valid after the parties were actually considered equal and competent, but that supposition also defeats your argument here.
Correct, we’re talking about today after all. You seem to be implying it’s a form of bigotry rather than a cross continent commonality for good reason. Ie. They noticed kids kept coming out messed up when people are increasingly related.
Bro your word salad of examples and pundit wording makes no sense. The power dynamic hasn’t and doesn’t change and that ignores the fact that interfamily births are riddled with birth defects. Why you feel the need to bring up homosexuality alongside beastiality is baffling to me but at least to me sounds really really gross.
I’m not implying. It is, indeed, a form of bigotry. Without a compelling state/public interest to justify it, criminalization is, indeed, a form of bigotry.
That could, in theory, justify prohibiting procreation, but not the relationship itself. Two siblings are perfectly capable of raising an adopted child without that child “coming out messed up”. Justify your argument in a non-biologically-procreative relationship. You can assume same-biological-sex individuals, or sterility.
It isn’t. No one is against either person but a relationship that causes actual physical societal baggage ie birth defects and familial rape.
Why the fuck would you want it legal for a father to fuck their child because let’s be clear the person your interjecting yourself with says no form of incest should be illegal as long as they’re “of age” and who knows what that actually equals given some states or was like 14 until recently.
Weird hill to die on, weird bedfellow to choose.
I understand your unsupported opinion. I feel I’ve adequately demonstrated mine.
Sorry, I’ve already conceded the birth defects issue, but that only affects a procreative relationship. I’ve asked you to consider a non-procreative relationship.
Rape is already criminalized, regardless of the legal status of incest. Decriminalizing incest does not in any way affect the criminalization of familial rape.
Where did I say anything of the sort? That relationship violates the power imbalance standard. Incest does not need to be criminalized for that relationship to be prohibited.
I feel that is not at all a reasonable representation of OP’s position. OP made no argument about a 14-year-old. This topic is too sensitive to tolerate less-than-genuine representations of each other’s arguments.
Please engage honestly, earnestly, and in good faith, or don’t engage at all.