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.
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
They do. You cited them using the phrase “old enough”.
Then “under 18” is clearly not “old enough”.
I don’t know why you’re having so many problems with this. The phrase “old enough” left no room for you to argue lack of capacity due to age. Perhaps if you started engaging in good faith, this would be a more productive discussion.
They don’t. Old enough means what age exactly. Old enough where exactly.
For me and you and in this country, for other people and other places that varies wildly from one to another.
I don’t know why you abandoned every other part of your argument to focus on age but I have some theories.
Bad faith argument. Rejected. “Old Enough” is sufficiently descriptive to reject your insinuations of pedophilia.
According to whom and where?
Any reasonable, hypothetical person, hearing the phrase “old enough” would assume an age where the individual had acquired the requisite mental capacity. Any assumption of a lesser age is simply unreasonable.
Where the assuming party has been granted full license to adopt any reasonable meaning they want, refusal to do so is simply in support of a bad faith argument.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=285.&lawCode=PEN
It’s California. So what’s that about reasonable?
Maybe there’s a reason they don’t get specific huh?
Yeah that’s not how life works. If you want specificity you provide it or request it. I’ve requested, they haven’t provided and you simply assume benevolence when there’s no evidence that that is the case.
Any reasonable meaning in the case of law is the worst assumption not the best. We don’t assume people wanting to take part in incest are altogether reasonable, logical or for that matter moral so assuming any of those things is the unreasonable thing to do.
But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?