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.
They aren’t automatically imprisoned in the in us or Canada as per your example. You seem to be getting upset about situations that are already handled to favor the unknowing participant even if that is both of them. No we’re still discussing incest were just not discussing extreme hypotheticals that already have mechanisms to deal with. Going along with the “incest should be legal” guy is a weird route to take if you don’t actually believe it shouldn’t be illegal.
Your new nonsensical example are not blood relatives, which is gross and immoral but it actually cuts against your argument given it isn’t illegal but still gross and immoral.
Quite the contrary, it cuts against your argument. Your argument ensnares inoffensive relationships in an attempt to capture gross and immoral relationships. Your argument ignores functionally identical gross and immoral relationships, because they don’t technically qualify as the kind of relationships you were thinking of.
Just because some relationships are gross and immoral doesn’t mean that we need to criminalize every relationship. We can go ahead and criminalize the “gross and immoral” relationships, without criminalizing the inoffensive relationships. We can draw a more logical, more rational, more effective distinction than “biologically related”.
Your argument isn’t even consistent.
Should incest be illegal at all on any level?
Start there.
There are specific circumstances - which can arise in any sort of relationship, including incestuous - that should be criminalized. Barring such specific circumstances, incest should not be illegal.
I’ve provided numerous examples of inoffensive relationships that qualify as incestuous, including Genetic Sexual Attraction and Accidental Incest. These inoffensive relationships are those lacking any of the “specific circumstances” that would be criminal.
I’ve also provided or addressed a variety of “special circumstances” that should be criminalized - circumstances that may exist with or without an incestuous relationship, and should be criminalized regardless.
It is these “special circumstances” that should be illegal. Not the generalized relationship.
You’re standing up for a dude who says there shouldn’t be criminal at all ever. That makes you a pro rape advocate boss. Think that through.
Your last argument reflects neither OP’s position, nor mine. It is a strawman that exists entirely within your own head.
OP’s argument explicitly applies only to situations where both capacity and consent are present. Any case of “rape” requires the absence of at least one of these conditions.
Engage in good faith, or do not engage at all.
Horseshit.
Read the first image in the post which specifically states incest should not be illegal but consenting adults. No nuance, no fine details. You’re defending incest, literal Father daughter mother son incest.
Moreover what your describing is in general already the way the system works so why are you defending the guy who says it shouldn’t be illegal? Huh? Fuckin gross dude, legitimately read his comments and figure it the fuck out.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/c3e2b60b-1cf5-4ff4-835b-86f4984136c2.png
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/caf0af97-cb84-4fc7-a980-9da03a495973.png
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/339cfb4b-1bff-4421-9469-241ea43fe4de.png
You say “horseshit” like you’re disagreeing with me, but then you specifically cite text/images that demonstrate my argument and refute your own point about “rape”.
In each of your citations, OP specifically refers to “capable” and “consent”. OP is specifically referring to scenarios where “consent” is not in question. Your arguments about “rape” are outside the scope the OP described. OP is clearly not talking about rape.
In one of your citations, OP explicitly states that grooming should be illegal. Grooming is a separate crime.
Grooming involves a power imbalance, such as student/teacher, coach/athlete, doctor/patient, jailer/inmate, and yes, parent/child, where the parent raised the child as a minor. Under grooming laws, the social inferior is not deemed capable of consent. OP is not proposing the scenario you are talking about. The scenario you’re talking about is already criminalized without incest laws.
I’ve posed this before, and nobody has yet to respond to it: Genetic Sexual Attraction is a widespread phenomenon well known to those familiar with adoption, where upon reunification as an adult, an adoptee and the biological kin of that adoptee develop strong sexual attraction toward eachother. This same phenomenon has been found to be common among half-siblings of the same sperm donor. With separated full siblings. With “Kissing Cousins” who rarely interact as children.
What legitimate interest does society and the state have in suspending the right of free association and criminalizing these individuals?
It’s not. Even consensual incest between capable adults is criminalized, much in the same way that homosxuality between consenting adults was previously criminalized.
It’s statutory rape under 18 bud. They don’t make that distinction, they don’t even make the distinction of what they believe is consent or who is capable of giving it, what grooming is in their opinion so on and so forth. But regardless he is advocating for no restrictions like you are so I don’t see why you decided to tie yourself to the anchor with them.
No it’s not criminal incest always involves a sexual act, they’re free to associate and technically speaking there’s no law regarding non sexual familial relationships. Which means they’re only technically criminalizing a sexual act that can create offspring that weigh on society.
What law are you citing for your weird references to consensual incest being illegal for non direct relatives. The Canadian reference you used seems to be explicitly bullshit and no state I know of outlaws relations past half blood which is usually accepted to be cousin or second cousin and but include men’s rea which means they have to know to be committing a crime at all. Ie. The way you want it to work is the way it works. The way homie wants it to work does not bar direct familial relations so long as they aren’t the guardian, it’s gross dude.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-155.html