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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 month ago (34 children)

I have been very clear in my arguments that the relationship you describe is not and should not be lawful. I have been very clear that the reason it is not and should not be lawful is due to the power imbalance in the parties you describe. I have been very clear that the biological kinship of the parties you describe is not at all relevant to the illegality of the scenario.

Your comment here does not seem to be based on a desire for genuine discussion, but rather an ad hominem attack. Should you wish to raise a genuine argument, I'll be happy to discuss. Otherwise, I do not intend any further engagement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (33 children)

    It 100% is relevant, the law exists because people were and technically still are having kids to fuck and pretending they weren't theirs.

    There's no ad hominem, I said I cannot fathom your position unless you yourself are involved in it or drawn to it. No person in know would advocate for going Giuliani on your family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (32 children)

    Two individuals enter into a relationship. 5 years later, they determine they were half siblings, born to different mothers via artificial insemination from the same donor. The did not know of eachother until they were both adults; they did not know they were biologically related until long after they were in a relationship.

    Justify criminalizing the individuals in this relationship. Give me a compelling reason why these two individuals should be imprisoned. When you can provide a compelling rational reason why the state should criminalize these individuals, you will have convinced me. Until you can do that, you're not actually discussing incest. You're discussing a power imbalance established not by biological kinship, but by social familial structure.

    I have long conceded that the circumstance you are talking about should not be tolerated, but that the circumstance you are talking about does not arise due to incest.

    The same circumstance you describe is present in a step-parent/step-child relationship. That same circumstance is just as problematic and for the same reasons as the scenario you describe, but that circumstance does not actually constitute incest. Whatever method you use to ban the improper step-parent relationship is more than sufficient for banning the improper parent relationship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (31 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (30 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (29 children)

    Your argument isn't even consistent.

    Should incest be illegal at all on any level?

    Start there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (28 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (27 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    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.

    literal Father daughter mother son incest.

    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?

    Moreover what your describing is in general already the way the system works

    It's not. Even consensual incest between capable adults is criminalized, much in the same way that homosxuality between consenting adults was previously criminalized.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    They don’t make that distinction,

    They do. You cited them using the phrase "old enough".

    It’s statutory rape under 18 bud.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    Bad faith argument. Rejected. "Old Enough" is sufficiently descriptive to reject your insinuations of pedophilia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (19 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=285.&lawCode=PEN

    Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or** who being 14 years of age or older,** commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

    It's California. So what's that about reasonable?

    Maybe there's a reason they don't get specific huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    A 14-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old is still statutory rape, with or without the law on incest. That doesn't change. We aren't talking about pedophilia; we aren't talking about age of consent; we aren't talking about statutory rape, or rape of any kind.

    The median age of first sexual contact is 14, with another 14-year-old. It's a fair bet that when you were a minor, you had sex with other minors.

    Two 14-year-olds having sex with eachother is not pedophilia; it's not statutory rape. There are no criminal penalties for two 14-year-olds choosing to have sex with eachother. Unless they are related by blood. Then, they can be sent to state prison. This is bigotry.

    Two 24-year-olds, being well above the age of consent, there is no serious question that they are "old enough". They are capable of consent, and consent is granted. Completely inoffensive relationship; the state has no interest in intervening between them. And yet, if they discover they are biological kin, they are to be imprisoned. This is bigotry.

    The pedophilic insinuations you are making play no role here. They serve only to distract. And yet you keep raising them, again and again. You insist on this unreasonable assumption that "old enough" doesn't actually mean "old enough", to distract and detract from the underlying issue. Engage in good faith, or don't engage at all. Discuss the same-age couples above. Justify the california law calling for them to be imprisoned. Justify depriving them of their right to free association. Justify stripping them of their personal agency regarding consent. Justify leaving their future to the whim of judicial discretion.

    Or concede that incest should not be an inherently criminal matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Sure but in California 18 15 isn't and neither is 14 17 hence the law.

    I'm not insinuating anything, did you happen to notice op responded to me and still refuses to specify what they define as age of consent? Kinda weird huh?

    Also they're free to associate they aren't free to fornicate, you really need to look into the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Like I said you keep saying that when you have a question you can't answer and maintain your bullshit.

    Should I point out in California there is no minimum age to marry and after marriage there is no statutory rape?

    It's gross to defend removing them bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    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.

    That is a rhetorical fallacy called "begging the question". Rejected.

    you simply assume benevolence when there’s no evidence that that is the case.

    In the field of philosophy, "Hanlon's Razor" is the most relevant concept. In law, it's called the "pro reo principle" or the "rule of lenity". Related, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". We should, indeed, assume benevolence until malfeasance is positively proven.

    Basically, reasonableness is the default state. We don't need any sort of evidence to assume reasonableness. We need evidence to demonstrate unreasonableness.

    Here, that means "old enough" is, actually, what any reasonable person would deem old enough. OP is not making any sort of argument regarding the current age of consent laws. OP's argument is that, whatever society deems an appropriate age of consent, an incestuous relationship initiated above that age of consent (with capacity and with consent) should also be legal.

    But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?

    They certainly exist. Marriage, for example, has a wide variety of financial and legal benefits and consequences. Incestuous marriage is criminal. I don't need to provide a full, comprehensive list of all the ways that criminalizing incest affects every possible victim of anti-incestuous bigotry. Any social or legal distinction is sufficient to question the need for that distinction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?

    Legality is not philosophy unsurprisingly enough.

    Where, who and what laws are you referencing. These should be easy to provide if they in fact exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?

    It doesn't. You're misreading the incest statute as the age of consent statute. Nothing in the incest statute allows an 18-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old. That is statutory rape, with or without incest laws or incest being a factor. The minor lacked the capacity to consent to sex with the adult.

    Minors do not lack the capacity to consent to sex with other minors. There is no issue of capacity between two 14-year-olds. There is no criminality in such a relationship. Unless the 14-year-olds are related; then they are to be imprisoned. As are the 24-year-old couple. As are the 57-year-old couple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Nope. In California 14 and 17 is legal and 18 15 is legal hence the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Like I said you keep saying that when you have a question you can't answer and maintain your bullshit.

    Should I point out in California there is no minimum age to marry and after marriage there is no statutory rape?

    It's gross to defend removing them bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah, except the person you're defending. You're adorable, tell me to have a nice day and then continue the conversation one more time, it'll be our thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah, except the person you’re defending.

    That's simply untrue, and your own citations demonstrate it. OP is clearly not discussing pedophilia, child marriage, age of consent, or any of the other issues you are trying to use as a distraction from the trouble you're having with consensual adult incest. Bad faith argument; have a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment