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.
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.
Bro you’re bending over backwards to defend word nuanced incest that seems to be a weird caveat only you need to have.
Dude literally wants it to be legal, all forms. You’re defending a pro rape advocate which I’m sorry makes you a pro rape advocate. Think it through Buddy, what your doing is gross.
That’s simply dishonest. OP clearly specified only cases where capability and consent are present. You are deliberately misrepresenting them. You are making a strawman argument: the point you are trying to make exists solely within your own head.
Engage in good faith, or do not engage at all.
No he doesn’t. What the fuck are you reading?
Literally the comments they were banned for. https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/339cfb4b-1bff-4421-9469-241ea43fe4de.png
Ed: you misunderstand her said so long as they consent, until iirc a year ago the lowest age of consent was 14. Op is saying after 16 incest should be legal with consent. None of your nuance, none of your direct relative exceptions. Just can they say yes?
I see. OP used the phrase “old enough”, and you think that refers to something other than “old enough”.
We aren’t having a discussion on the appropriate age of consent. We are having a discussion on incest. We will not be considering any participant unless YOU deem them “old enough”. We will only be talking about people that meet your definition of “old enough”. Feel free to raise the age of consent to 21, 25, 47. Whatever you deem an appropriate age is the age we will be using.
Insisting that OP is referring to underage individuals when they say “old enough” is intellectually dishonest. Engage in good faith, or don’t engage at all.
I refer to it that way because they don’t get specific and I think that’s for very specific reasons they refuse to deny but please do deny it on their behalf.