Not entering into the merit of how the position is actually the opposite of reactionary, precedent created, mod should just add "no defending incest whatsoever" to the rules, issue warning, and enforce after it

Not entering into the merit of how the position is actually the opposite of reactionary

Making it easier for people to get away with rape and grooming sounds pretty damn reactionary to me.

mod should just add “no incest” to the rules, issue warning, and enforce after it

They could, but I don't think it's a common enough occurrence to need it. Like, if somebody comes around saying, I don't know, "Kill everyone who's uncircumcised" does there really need to be a rule specifically against that for them to get banned? Why?

Therefore, to legalize incest means that nearly every pedophile or groomer

You seem to be assuming that "incest" implies "pedophilia". However, OP is explicitly referring to relationships between adults, not children. The legal status of incest does not affect in the slightest the illegality of grooming or pedophilia. Regardless of the legal status of incest, adult/adult relationships are readily distinguishable from adult/child relationship. Relationships between teachers and pupils, jailers and inmates, guardians and wards, parents and children, doctors and patients, is criminalized separate and apart from incest. Incest does not need to be criminalized for the general, power-imbalanced relationship to remain criminalized.

Any argument involving minors is well outside the scope of this discussion, as is any argument of non-consenting adults or individuals lacking mental capacity. Restrict your arguments to relationships involving capable, consenting adults.

No they are not, with very good reason.

In the context if individuals deliberately and voluntarily imbibing them, nothing in your link makes a special distinction of illegality between rohypnol and other schedule IV drugs that don't induce unconsciousness or amnesia. That your partner chooses to use cocaine or rohypnol makes them a criminal drug user, but their drug use says nothing of your criminal culpability. I think we've taken the roofie argument beyond any useful analogy.

You seem to be assuming that “incest” implies “pedophilia”.

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.

The legal status of incest does not affect in the slightest the illegality of grooming or pedophilia.

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.

Any argument involving minors is well outside the scope of this discussion, as is any argument of non-consenting adults or individuals lacking mental capacity. Restrict your arguments to relationships involving capable, consenting adults.

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.

nothing in your link makes a special distinction of illegality between rohypnol and other schedule IV drugs that don’t induce unconsciousness or amnesia. That your partner chooses to use cocaine or rohypnol makes them a criminal drug user, but their drug use says nothing of your criminal culpability.

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.

It isn’t.

I understand your unsupported opinion. I feel I've adequately demonstrated mine.

a relationship that causes actual physical societal baggage ie birth defects

Sorry, I've already conceded the birth defects issue, but that only affects a procreative relationship. I've asked you to consider a non-procreative relationship.

and familial rape

Rape is already criminalized, regardless of the legal status of incest. Decriminalizing incest does not in any way affect the criminalization of familial rape.

Why the fuck would you want it legal for a father to fuck their child

Where did I say anything of the sort? That relationship violates the power imbalance standard. Incest does not need to be criminalized for that relationship to be prohibited.

no form of incest should be illegal as long as they’re “of age” and who knows what that actually equals given some states or was like 14 until recently.

I feel that is not at all a reasonable representation of OP's position. OP made no argument about a 14-year-old. This topic is too sensitive to tolerate less-than-genuine representations of each other's arguments.

Please engage honestly, earnestly, and in good faith, or don't engage at all.

Yeah, if you are dead set to always ignore the words consenting and adult sure it is, and then the state deciding what consenting adults can do in their intimacy is somehow progressive and not what the church and the state have done through all history...

Surely that other case can be covered with rules of hateful comment, group discrimination, inciting violence, blah blah blah... hey, if mod wants to say it's absolutely impossible for blood-related people want to engage in sexual activity out of their own volition and everyone that thinks otherwise are advocating rape and should be banned from the community, whatever, their community their rules, just be clear about it

Yeah, if you are dead set to always ignore the words consenting and adult

The possibility of grooming destroys any claim about incest being "consensual." Parents can control what their children are raised to believe, so even if they wait until they're adults, it's not meaningful consent.

Surely that other case can be covered with rules of hateful comment, group discrimination, inciting violence, blah blah blah…

Maybe, but I still don't know what this obsession is with having to have every single thing enumerated. A community could very well just have one rule that says, "Don't be a dick." Or even no listed rules at all. Does that mean that the mods are automatically PTB because they don't spell out every single thing that'll get you banned?

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.

We're mostly in agreement. However:

there’s no way to know how that child was raised

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 you drug your partner, even with their consent, it is a criminal act.

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.

Yeah... ever heard that one long standing theory that homosexuals are that way because they were "groomed" or raped when kids? Then you have sodomy laws because people can't possibly in good conscience consent to that abomination blah blah blah, same mindset of the self appointed gods of "meaningful consent" that believe they somehow have authority over other people to define what they can consent to or not... these guys here (https://stonetoss.com/comic/no-choice/) they also believe they are fighting grooming and rape, that's actually their whole rhetoric, consenting adults can't want to do what their minds can't conceive, so you can reply if you want, we are no longer talking about the moderation here, but I'm not engaging further because I see no difference between you to them.

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.

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?

You commit no criminal act.

Completely false. The drug itself is illegal so drugging them is a criminal act. That's what the drug being illegal means.

The whole “rohypnol” argument has devolved into nonsense. No reasonable analogy arises from it.

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.

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.

Yeah the fact that people use a similar argument, in bad faith with assumptions that aren't remotely true, doesn't really concern me.

Believe it or not, it's possible to arrive at conclusions based off reason and evidence, and not just, "That sounds vaguely similar to something a shitty person said, therefore the vibes are bad and it must be wrong."

If you look at cases of incest, there's very often clear evidence of grooming. That evidence does not exist with homosexuality. It's not at all comparable.

The reason incest is illegal is because it facilitates rape.

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.

You’re shifting the goalposts.

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.

As I already said, courts generally make exceptions in those cases.

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.

Incest is bad for scientific reasons that don't have anything to do with religion. You can leave the moral stuff out of it if that's the angle you want to play. Ever seen the blood lines of families that have had incestual children? The defects add up over time. If that isn't enough for you, i don't know what is.

I don't understand why you're arguing this anyway. It's such a weird thing to argue about. It's pretty universally recognized that incest is bad.

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.

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.

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 could've just said, "No, I can't find a single case, I'm just whining about a problem that doesn't exist."

Legalized incest very much does facilitate rape because of grooming.

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.

You could’ve just said, “No, I can’t find a single case, I’m just whining about a problem that doesn’t exist.”

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.

No, sorry, again, criminalization of grooming does not require criminalization of incest

Again you keep harping on "requiring," something I never said. Incest does facilitate grooming.

Before homosexuality was decriminalized, you would have had a hard time finding people admitting to knowing people who had been jailed for it.

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.

Bigotry is always a problem regardless of whether you can name a victim of it

Is it? Is there any other form of "bigotry" where you can't name a victim?

Hey, I appreciate the discussion. This has honestly been fun. We should do it again sometime.

Gotta say that it's strange that you enjoy talking to bigots. But I guess victimless bigotry is lower stakes.

It's because in the vast majority of cases, incest follows grooming or a disturbed power dynamic, meaning there's no consent. However, proving that can be hard, meaning those abusive relationships are allowed to continue.

By outlawing incest, you harm very, very few people who are in a healthy incestuous relationship, but are able to much more easily crack down on abusive relationships between family members, since proving incest is generally quite easy in comparison.

I guess the justification can be seen as similar to why we outlaw speeding: what you want is outlaw dangerous driving since that's a risk to others on the road, but that can be hard to prove/subjective. Instead, we ban speeding (and other stuff), which are very strong indicators of dangerous driving, directly. Easier to prove, targets very few who could "break" that law "safely", actively makes the road safer for everyone.

Except that speeding is, in and of itself, actively dangerous and harmful

People clutch their pearls. With certain topics, a lot of people are incapable of nuance.

Failed logic, since that premise implies abuser-victim dynamics are the default, yet laws punish both, yielding net-zero results (net-negative in reality since punishing victims is worse than not punishing abusers). The "deterrence" arguments wouldn't logically fly either, since deterring by punishing victims is also incoherent.

But that would be relevant if we are operating within a coherent logical framework in the first place. And western political ideologies (including communism) are based on the feelings of the plurality, or the whims of the guarding party. Which is why what's "right"/"correct" and/or the "why" behind it is always changing from one generation to another, which is in and of itself an indication of an illogical process.

Former western (public) arguments against incest (and "inbreeding", extending to cousin marriage) were based on fake medical/genetic/... concerns that were fully based on mythical folklore that still partially survives. But since this doesn't fully fly today, coming up with some new fake rationalizations like the one you provided became necessary.

Note that I'm not arguing for (or against) incest (which itself is not globally fixed in definition, see cousin marriage above). I'm just showing that pretending that either position would be based on "logic" in any modern "post-christian" western ideological framework is hubris.

The only logical coherent system would have to be based on fixed (not whim-sensitive) above-human code (a la sharia law). But a "post-religion" crowd is not ready, emotionally or intellectually, to epistemologically entertain such thoughts.

There's multiple comments about American puritanism but OP got banned from hexbear communities

Well, you made a very good point and I thank you for it. I was waffling (not a supporter of the act, but also skeptical of state intervention between adults). You made it very clear why one side is very easy to support over the other.

You never can completely rely on it alone. The spirit of the law, or Lemmy community rule, always originates from some letter. The two concepts are fundamentally linked and concern the other.

What a deeply weird post and thread. It seems like a lot of people somehow think the idea that incest is bad is only related to religious beliefs. I don't really care if it is even considered bad by religions (I'm not even certain it is), because it's bad for obvious reasons that have not a damn thing to do with religion. I had no idea so many people would argue in favor of incest.

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.

Bro you're bending over backwards to defend word nuanced incest that seems to be a weird caveat only you need to have.

Dude literally wants it to be legal, all forms. You're defending a pro rape advocate which I'm sorry makes you a pro rape advocate. Think it through Buddy, what your doing is gross.

Wow. Still mad that a bunch of people shut you down last time, hey?

I post here because I enjoy the posts here, so I contribute.

It was a permanent ban from that community and a seven day ban from the others. So I guess I did get more?

I specifically said she was likely grooming her son, which is bad. I'm against incest being a crime.

Because incest isn't inherently bad and we already have crimes for all the reasons it could be bad.

To be fair I'm not arguing for incest, I'm arguig against it being criminally punishable.

Which would be a distinction that mattered if incest weren't very harmful in a variety of ways. But it is and it doesn't.

The varieties of ways incest can be harmful are already, or should be illegal. Incest in itself isn't harmful unless they're producing children with each other.

That's simply dishonest. OP clearly specified only cases where capability and consent are present. You are deliberately misrepresenting them. You are making a strawman argument: the point you are trying to make exists solely within your own head.

Engage in good faith, or do not engage at all.

As everyone who isn't also in favor of this practice has pointed out. This is a beyond bizarre hill to die on

Again, I'm not dying on it and I'm not in favor of incest. I thought it would be an interesting post for this community.

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.

The existence of this post and the repeated defenses are what people mean by dying on a hill. I don't know what else to tell you

Engaging in debate is fun and a great way to test your knowledge and biases, I don't know what else to tell you.

Considering the number of responses accurately pointing out that this topic is pedophilia adjacent, it's interesting that it interests you

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.

No he doesn't. What the fuck are you reading?

Literally the comments they were banned for.

Ed: you misunderstand her said so long as they consent, until iirc a year ago the lowest age of consent was 14. Op is saying after 16 incest should be legal with consent. None of your nuance, none of your direct relative exceptions. Just can they say yes?

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.

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

I see. OP used the phrase "old enough", and you think that refers to something other than "old enough".

We aren't having a discussion on the appropriate age of consent. We are having a discussion on incest. We will not be considering any participant unless YOU deem them "old enough". We will only be talking about people that meet your definition of "old enough". Feel free to raise the age of consent to 21, 25, 47. Whatever you deem an appropriate age is the age we will be using.

Insisting that OP is referring to underage individuals when they say "old enough" is intellectually dishonest. Engage in good faith, or don't engage at all.

I refer to it that way because they don't get specific and I think that's for very specific reasons they refuse to deny but please do deny it on their behalf.

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.

"Old enough" is sufficiently specific for you to assume "old enough". Assuming anything less than "old enough" from the phrase "old enough" is a bad faith argument.