18
Banned from multiple communities for saying incest shouldn't be a crime (between consenting adults) (lemmy.today)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
230 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Criminal codes around adult incest punishes both parties

Many countries don't actually criminalize this. In less densely populated countries it's more likely to be illegal due to the risk of medical complications for any potential offspring. In countries like Germany, same-sex incestuous relationships are actually legal because of this.

Feel free to actually source scientific facts and concrete numbers. Maybe what is believed to be "high-school biology" is the problem. The folklore part is beliefs that defects can be born out of otherwise healthy individuals (e.g. with no carried bad genes, in high-school biology parlance).

Here's an entire list: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/inbreeding

Autosomal recessive disorders is the word you're looking for. I have no idea which Croatian study you're talking about. The logic is pretty basic, recessive disorders only present if you're carrying two copies of a certain gene, and that's much more likely if both of your parents share many of their genes since both are likely carriers of the recessive gene if it's in the family, hence they can both pass it on, meaning the odds of getting the disorder are vastly increased.

What makes it taboo, what is it precisely that is taboo, what reference ideology/statues (if any) is it based on

It being an extremely strong indicator of sexual abuse, increased medical risks for potential offspring (and their subsequent offspring, so the population at large), largely originated from the innate instinct to avoid incestuous mating shared by many other animals with biparental parenting structures. It's not ideological in origin, it's biological and instinctual.

The laws in the modern nation state and how they come into existence fundamentally lack that logical rigor, irrespective of the topic at hand.

If you don't believe any laws match this criteria then it's just a bunch of gish-gallop and not worth bringing up.

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

    Many countries don’t actually criminalize this. In less densely populated countries it’s more likely to be illegal due to the risk of medical complications for any potential offspring. In countries like Germany, same-sex incestuous relationships are actually legal because of this.

    And you ran off-topic again. And the few countries where same-sex got through usually happened because of a loophole (criminal code explicitly mentioning vaginal penetration), not the reason you hallucinated.

    It being an extremely strong indicator of sexual abuse, increased medical risks for potential offspring (and their subsequent offspring, so the population at large), largely originated from the innate instinct to avoid incestuous mating shared by many other animals with biparental parenting structures. It’s not ideological in origin, it’s biological and instinctual.

    You employ a lot of circular logic and "street talk" in your replies. Provide direct applicable sources. And they better not be a generic category index in some website.

    Here’s an entire list: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/inbreeding

    Please provide specific facts from a modern study regarding human populations, nothing from 18xx-196x studies, or "sociology" sources, or artificially inseminated animal populations (you will be surprised).

    And spare me the high school genetics talk. It's curious how you glossed over the folklore about how a bad gene will come to exist if it was never carried in the first place.

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

    And the few countries where same-sex got through usually happened because of a loophole (criminal code explicitly mentioning vaginal penetration), not the reason you hallucinated.

    It's a directly cited reason in a constitutional challenge to the law in March 2008. Feel free to Google it, you should try that sometime before you start claiming hallucinations.

    And spare me the high school genetics talk. It's curious how you glossed over the folklore about how a bad gene will come to exist if it was never carried in the first place.

    What do you even mean by a "bad gene". There's dominant and recessive genes. Some can cause disorders, many of those recessive. With recessive genes, both parents can carry it and be fine, but offspring may not be. There's no point arguing until you show you understand how this works. I'm not arguing some strawman where this happens through magic, I've been very explicit I'm talking about autosomal recessive disorders, which is very well known and well understood.

    I've literally cited an entire corpus of studies that you keep dismissing as "folklore". You can look at any of them and see you're wrong. At this point you either get to cite a study showing it's fine, or you should accept you're wrong.

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

    It’s a directly cited reason in a constitutional challenge to the law in March 2008.

    • Not every country is Germany.
    • Post-hoc rationalizations happen always anyway. No one is immune.

    There’s dominant and recessive genes.

    You seem to think that people missed high school biology.

    Recessive genes causing defects are rare and most people don't carry them at all. No amount of incest will will them into existing if there are no carriers. That was the obvious point about folklore, where any offspring of incest is thought of as some disfigured hobo tard.

    Some nation states may require prior testing for any pair who want to become a couple (this is not just theoretical btw), using the exact same reasoning, yet most people would agree that that's overstepping and authoritarian-adjacent. Yet, the same reasoning gets re-employed and reused to post-hoc justify continuing banning incest. Another data-point pointing to illogical hubris at play.

    Feel free to site a specific study from the corpus on actual human populations, and let's check its date, specific claims and numbers, and check the validity of process and statistical analysis.

    Here is a hint: the few flawed modern studies that tried hard to find a hint of correlation about something already understated (like some type of hereditary high blood pressure, nothing close to typical folklore) didn't get helped by the basic understanding genes like you learned them in high school. And had to speculate about theories that involve genetics topics you didn't actually get taught at high school.

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

    That was the obvious point about folklore, where any offspring of incest is thought of as some disfigured hobo tard.

    I never claimed this. You were arguing a strawman argument. I think we're done here if you're not going to argue in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Still waiting for specific sources for all your claims. Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself. Winning an argument on the internet, with whatever faith, is a useless futile goal, and always was.

    I thought I would trigger a higher-level discussion about the legalize in the so called democratic modern nation state. Because some of your scientific claims actually went defunct decades ago. But I guess I was wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent