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.
Not at all. It can, of course. And it's generally impossible to determine if the fucking started before or after everyone turned 18.
It does, however, almost always imply grooming.
And the legal status of roofies doesn't affect in the slightest the illegality of rape. It would just make it way, way easier to get away with if they were legal, which is exactly why they aren't. It's exactly the same way with incest.
Absolutely not. If a mother and son start fucking after the son turns 18, the whole reason I'm opposed to that is because there's no way to know how that child was raised and what they were taught before they turned 18. If they were groomed, then they cannot consent even when they are of legal age.
What happens before they're 18 is extremely relevant to the discussion, and it's literally the whole basis of my position.
You said it was legal. It isn't legal. Nobody said anything about that distinction.
If you drug your partner, even with their consent, it is a criminal act.
We're mostly in agreement. However:
Acknowledge Genetic Sexual Attractions. This is a very common phenomenon, where upon reunification as adults, adoptees are sexually attracted to their biological kin. In very many cases, we can know how that child was raised, and we can know that the biological parent had no influence on the minor child.
The "grooming" circumstance you describe is already criminalized under laws that apply to where one is in a position of power or authority over the other. The status of incest does not affect these laws. The status of incest only affects the situation I described above, where there is no unequal position of power or authority, no undue influence over a minor.
If the "whole reason" is that grooming can't be criminalized without criminalization of incest, your "whole reason" is defeated, and you have no further justification to prohibit incest.
If it's with their consent, you aren't drugging them. They are drugging themselves. You commit no criminal act. The whole "rohypnol" argument has devolved into nonsense. No reasonable analogy arises from it.
You're shifting the goalposts. As I already said, courts generally make exceptions in those cases. The reason incest is illegal is for the cases you're trying to exclude, where grooming is a possibility.
Can you cite even a single example where someone went to jail over a case like you described?
Completely false. The drug itself is illegal so drugging them is a criminal act. That's what the drug being illegal means.
Not at all. The reason rohypnol is illegal - which it is, even if you try to pretend otherwise - is because it facilitates rape. The reason it is illegal even in situations where it isn't facilitating rape - which it is, even if you try to pretend otherwise - is because the individual freedom to have drugged sex is greatly outweighed by the freedom to not get raped, and it is too difficult to ensure it's being used consensually.
The reason incest is illegal is because it facilitates rape. By the exact same logic, it makes sense for it to be illegal even if there are cases where it isn't facilitating rape. Because the freedom to not get groomed outweighs the freedom to fuck your mom, and you have to choose one or the other.
So the analogy is perfectly valid, even if you try to pretend otherwise.
That argument is complete nonsense. Legal genetic sexual attraction and legal accidental incest does not facilitate rape. Criminalizing rape does not require criminalization of incest. The entire argument is nonsensical. Rejected outright.
Nah. OP set the goalposts of capable and consensual adult relationships. I've tolerated your diverting exploration of pedophiles and groomers, but I'm dragging you back to that original point.
Society and State need compelling reasons to strip individuals of their personal agency. In the situations OP describes, there is no compelling reason. That they would even go to the courts is a problem that should not exist. The capable and consenting individuals involved have no need to justify themselves before the courts.
You can "reject it outright" all day long, it doesn't make my argument any less correct. Legalized incest very much does facilitate rape because of grooming. Criminalization of rape does not require criminalization of roofies, so long as you don't care whether the law against rape is actually enforced. People who do care about preventing rape support the criminalization of means of facilitating it, means such as roofies and incest.
You could've just said, "No, I can't find a single case, I'm just whining about a problem that doesn't exist."
No, sorry, again, criminalization of grooming does not require criminalization of incest, and criminalization of incest does not address all incidence of grooming. Grooming must be criminalized separately, because not all grooming is via an incestuous relationship. The legal status of incest has no bearing on grooming. Grooming is not at all relevant to the circumstances OP discusses.
I could have, but that would be dishonest. Jail is not the only possible consequence. Before homosexuality was decriminalized, you would have had a hard time finding people admitting to knowing people who had been jailed for it. Before homosexuality was decriminalized, you didn't have a lot of homosexual looking for marriage licenses, for example.
Bigotry is always a problem regardless of whether you can name a victim of it.
Hey, I appreciate the discussion. This has honestly been fun. We should do it again sometime.
Again you keep harping on "requiring," something I never said. Incest does facilitate grooming.
I didn't ask "do you know someone this happened to" I asked "has this ever happened?" I can absolutely find cases of people being jailed for homosexuality from before it was decriminalized.
Is it? Is there any other form of "bigotry" where you can't name a victim?
Gotta say that it's strange that you enjoy talking to bigots. But I guess victimless bigotry is lower stakes.