While I do agree on being relatively loose with the rules especially on a social platform - it still seems a bit one sided. You're taking the side of the mod (its pretty clear), but consider being the poster - the rules state nothing about the thing op is ranting about.

So tell me how is it fair for the other party? Of course the mod could've went about this somewhat differently - but they resolved it with the nuclear option. A warning is a thing you know - and it's a tool mods should use before resolving to more rigorous methods.

incest cannot be about ‘consenting adults’ because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined

If you can provide a way to quantify the extent to which 2 people are "psychologically intertwined", I'll consider this, but at the moment, it doesn't sound credible.

Then I find your position even more odd.

Is it something you think about, like what is the motivation here? Like is statutory rape wrong to you or is that another "well there's consent" issue for you.

That's called a bad faith argument. I stated in my comments that people need to be capable of and enthusiastically consenting.

I'm opposed to overreaching laws based on ideas about sexual purity.

For instance, under Canadian law, two people who don't know they're blood relatives who begin a sexual relationship can be guilty of incest if they later learn that they're related and continue that relationship. And that seems insane to me.

Problem is that the law is based on morals rather than damage. SA is illegaland grooming is illegal, why does incest need to be illegal in addition?

They literally could not consent for the same reasons consent in statutory rape. The power Imbalance is too too far skewed.

So you draw any limits to incest. Same legal age siblings. Mother son, father daughter, grandparent grandchild? Or where when and how do you draw your line.

Your permanent ban for defending incest, a situation that is widely agreed to be an abuse of trust in any configuration, thus making consent dubious. Specifically, your response defending a woman who fucked her son, suggesting grooming to be at play.

Once again, is this a cause you want to keep fighting for? Or do you want to just take the damn L already?

Because consent is extremely hard to determine if it is even possible when there are family dynamics involved and moreso if there's religion involved. They might say whatever because their loyalty to their family is an religious obligation.

You chose to die on the mums can fuck sons hill idk what to tell you man XD

YDM. Only a seven day ban, from a couple communities? Got off too lightly.

You're not considering the full picture, and looking at it in a vacuum. The vast majority of people are not ok with incest, so the probability of two people in the same family just happening to be into it is incredibly low. It's far more likely that something fucked up is happening, that there was grooming, that the child was taught it was normal, and it's very possible they were subject to sexual abuse as a child, which is often incredibly difficult to prove. Even in the best case, the power dynamics are very fucked.

You're assuming that the only opposition to it comes only from "puritanical" attitudes. In fact, there are very strong arguments against it from the perspective of consent, especially when it's considered not in some theoretical abstract, but in the practical, material reality of what those cases tend to look like.

Doubling down on it just looks worse. The seven day ban seems like it's just giving you a chance to realize that you're wrong, if that's not happening you should probably be permabanned.

I knew a guy in the Navy who had been porking his cousin for months and didn't find out she was his cousin till he brought her home to meet the folks.

He was from Alabama.

No.

Yes that's it exactly that is why I talk about power dynamics directly.

There are religions where honoring your family's wishes is more an obligation like I said.

No they're both issues for the same reason, power dynamics.

I'll play devil's advocate...

The vast majority of people

...

It’s far more likely

We've seen nearly identical, statistical arguments made against transexuality, against homosexuality, against miscegenation. Those arguments do, indeed, arise from puritanical attitudes, and fail here for the same reason they've failed everywhere else.

Genetic Sexual Attraction between relatives separated at a young age is a common enough phenomenon to argue that "the vast majority" and "it's far more likely" statistical arguments don't actually stand up to scrutiny.

"power dynamics are very fucked" is a valid concern in relationships arising from formalized superior/subordinate social structures in general, which include teacher/student, jailer/inmate, doctor/patient, parent/child, etc. But, those social structures don't necessarily arise in sibling, cousin, and certain nibling relationships. They don't arise in scenarios where the individuals were separated early and did not reunite until adulthood. They don't arise in cases of "accidental incest", where the parties are unaware of kinship beforehand. The "power dynamics" argument actually extends only to a narrow category of incestuous relationships. They justify prohibitions against that narrow category, but they don't justify prohibitions against the general case.

Your arguments don't actually challenge OP's position. The presence of complicated power dynamics issues would conflict with the "consent" requisite they presented.

Two adults, raised by different families, enter into a relationship. 10 years later, they find they are biological half-siblings from the same sperm donor. Does this constitute incest? What interest does the state have in criminalizing the continuation of this stable, long-term relationship?

You ask for a line, but you described the proper line:

The power Imbalance is too too far skewed.

The line is not drawn on the biological relationship between the parties. The line is drawn on the formalized social structures in place at the commencement of the physical relationship.

Prohibit a relationship between parent and child, while recognizing that, being separated for the entire childhood, the social structure of "parent" and "child" never actually existed. While there is a biological kinship in such a relationship, there is no power imbalance to criminalize.

It should include a fairly short statute of limitations. Prohibit a student/teacher relationship for example, but don't come back 20 years into the relationship to jail the (former) teacher.

incest cannot be about ‘consenting adults’ because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined, and the decision to perform the incest cannot be held separately form those relationships.

Not every incestuous relationship fits that description. Two half-siblings of the same sperm donor don't share any of the problematic psychologies you describe.

there is no such thing as a ‘healthy’ sexual relationship with regards to incest, hence its illegality.

I just described one. Any number can exist. Criminalizing the parties in the situation I described is fundamentally unjust.

The problem you're describing isn't actually one of incest. The problem you are describing is one of a power imbalance significant enough to justify stripping one of the parties of their personal agency with regard to consent. While the scenario you describe does call for the state to so deeply tread upon the individuality of this person, it is not their biological kinship that justifies this intrusion. It is the power imbalance between them; the exploitation by the social superior against a subjugated inferior.

Those arguments do, indeed, arise from puritanical attitudes, and fail here for the same reason they’ve failed everywhere else.

I disagree. There was a time when I was more partial to OP's perspective, but it's the arguments I made here, not suddenly developing some "puritanical attitude," limited exclusive to this topic, that convinced me that perspective was wrong.

None of the arguments against the other things are "nearly identical." Trans people are statistically a small percentage of the population, but on a large scale small percentages show up. Homosexual relationships are not constrained to a handful of people like incestuous ones are, so you can seek out other people even if the percentage is small. Your comparisons, as well as your assumptions about the motives behind my position (which isn't really important regardless) fall flat.

If one in a million people are naturally into mother/son relationships, the chances of it happening naturally are 1 in a trillion. And that's only saying that they're potentially ok with such a relationship, whether they actually get along is another question. It's safe to say that it simply doesn't happen, and if by some miracle it does, it's a trivial percentage of cases which is secondary to the majority of cases where it's the product of abuse/grooming.

But, those social structures don’t necessarily arise in sibling, cousin, and certain nibling relationships.

As someone with siblings, they absolutely do.

They don’t arise in scenarios where the individuals were separated early and did not reunite until adulthood.

And courts often make exceptions in those cases, and if OP had limited their position to those cases they might have had a point. But OP took the "strong" version of the claim. In fact, the specific story involved both a mother/son relationship, where you acknowledge power dynamics are relevant, and a situation where the two people were not separated growing up. If you want to defend OP then you have to defend that.

The presence of complicated power dynamics issues would conflict with the “consent” requisite they presented.

That's like saying roofies should be legal because some people would consent to having sex while drugged. Technically, sure, again, if you're looking at it purely in the abstract. In practice, the vast majority of the time, drugging someone before having sex with them is rape. Which means if the law makes an exception for consensual drugging, it's one more thing the victim has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if roofied sex is fully illegal, then a small handful of people might be inconvenienced and have to find another way to get off, but a much larger number of people will be kept safe.

In a world where less than 4% of rapists face convictions, adding additional hurdles for rape victims to clear is obviously a bigger concern than inconvincing the much smaller number of people trying to shag their sisters. It is far better to err on the side of caution.

There's been a few studies on positive incest cases, not sure if you've ever heard about the Reddit story of the guy with two broken arms that evolved into an incestous relationship with his mom - They've been part of one of such studies

In fact, the specific story involved both a mother/son relationship, where you acknowledge power dynamics are relevant, and a situation where the two people were not separated growing up. If you want to defend OP then you have to defend that.

Ok, I can do that pretty easily: OP did not defend this specific mother/son relationship. Transcribed from the images the posted:

"Now, there was for sure some grooming going on here and that should be illegal. But otherwise people should be able to bang whoever they want as long as everyone can and does consent".

OP was contemplating the general case of incest, not this specific one. OP explicitly declared that this specific case should be criminalized, and chose to discuss inoffensive behaviors.

To address the remainder of your comment: In everything you're describing, the offensive behavior is the imbalance of power. You are not describing "biological kinship" as the offensive factor. You are using "biological kinship" as an implication that a social power imbalance exists. You're allowing for exceptions to criminalization on the basis of biological kinship, if the power balance implied by that relationship doesn't actually exist. You don't seem to actually have a problem with the biological kinship. You have a problem with the power imbalance.

Why not just prohibit the power imbalance?

Why confuse the issue of power and consent by first weaving it through biological and genetic circumstance?

"Power imbalance" avoids the non-problematic incestuous relationships for which you allow judicial exception, while also capturing problematic non-incestuous relationships, like step-parents/step-children, and socially-close relatives too distant to qualify as incest (third cousins, being communally raised, for example)

If one in a million people are naturally into mother/son relationships,

The attraction between adopted children and their biological relatives is not at all rare. It's a very well known phenomenon. Reuniting parties are widely cautioned to expect sexual attraction to their long-lost family members. It's not "one in a million" behavior. I completely reject your statistical arguments because they have no basis in reality.

what is the motivation here?

The same reason a white person with a white partner would argue against anti-miscegenation laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.

The same reason a straight person would argue against homosexuality prohibitions: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.

The same reason a cishet person would argue against transphobic laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.

You don't have to be in a miscegenated, homosexual relationship with your trans half-sister to realize that the public and the state has no valid interest for interfering in the free association of capable, consenting persons. Such interference is wrong, and needlessly harmful.

By all means, ensure that any such association is freely entered. Ensure that the individual participants are capable. Ensure that the individual participants are consenting. Once those three criteria are met, the public is free to speak its mind, but it is not free to arrest or otherwise interfere.

incest cannot be about ‘consenting adults’ because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined, and the decision to perform the incest cannot be held separately form those relationships.

Distant cousins, children adopted out and meeting for the first time (it's actually a thing that separated siblings find eachother more attractive than average which is a bit of a genetic health fail lmao), people that have lived full lives and decide to incest at like 50 years old or something. It's not preposterous to imagine scenarios where it's just odd rather than some fucked up messy tangled thing.

Idk Americans can be a bit puritanical and weird about stuff. A lot of them never remove their christian brainworms.

Some coms are on a hair trigger though because people that know the age of consent in ever jurisdiction often have a weird interest in bringing up all the ways that doing something something sexually transgressive that might involve grooming is actually cool and good.

Hexbear probably isn't the place to discuss this stuff because they're very defensive of the community vibes and safety of users, and also weirdly puritanical sometimes.

I think it's probably mod overreach your position seems clear that grooming is bad and you're discussing theoretical other scenarios but in the context of the article it's understandable that the timeout would happen.

fwiw I think incest is a crime because it's a blunt legal instrument to just easily protect people from a lot of extremely nasty scenarios.

The vast majority of people are not ok with incest,

Have you seen the porn tubes in the last decade?

Those are people capable of consent, your child simply isn't capable of that no matter how much you convince yourself they are.

So no lines, you believe n it should be legal to fuck your child?

I think the ban isn't far enough you should probably be instance banned for trying to normalize gross and quite honestly criminal behavior.

There's an enormous difference between watching two people pretend to be stepsiblings and actually wanting to fuck your siblings.

Why not just prohibit the power imbalance?

Why confuse the issue of power and consent by first weaving it through biological and genetic circumstance?

This is a nonsense point because decisions will still have to be made regarding what is and isn't a power imbalance. If you change the law to allow incest but only if there's no power imbalance, then eventually courts will have to decide whether there is inherently a power imbalance in such relationships, whether a parent/child relationship automatically qualifies or not. All you're doing is moving from a practical standard to a theoretical one, but then you'll have to move back to a practical standard, you know, in practice.

Since it's true that there is almost always a power imbalance in incestuous relationships, the law should reflect that. If the courts rule correctly, then legal precedent will make incest functionally illegal regardless, so it's just shifting the decision from the legislative branch to the judicial, which there's no real reason to do.

You are not describing “biological kinship” as the offensive factor. You are using “biological kinship” as an implication that a social power imbalance exists. You’re allowing for exceptions to criminalization on the basis of biological kinship, if the power balance implied by that relationship doesn’t actually exist. You don’t seem to actually have a problem with the biological kinship. You have a problem with the power imbalance.

Yes, correct. The standard that I'm applying theoretically already is consent and whether there's a power imbalance, and based on that theoretical standard I am arriving at the practical conclusion of banning incest.

In the same way, I don't have a problem with roofies in theory, I have a problem with the fact that in practice they are used to rape people. That doesn't mean that I should want to legalize roofies.

OP is such a fucking train wreck. This is all you do: make shitty comments, get banned, and then cry about it incessantly.

The last time I lit you up for this shit I had absolutely no idea that next time would be because you were going to bat for incest. Fucking freak.

I’m still wondering why incest is considered wrong under a secular liberal framework, given that liberalism places high value on consent and sexual freedom.

I think the ban isn’t far enough you should probably be instance banned for trying to normalize gross and quite honestly criminal behavior.

That is the same language used by anti-miscegenists, homophobes, TERFs...

So no lines,

No, I specifically described a line, the exact line that you drew. I quoted it and everything.

This is a nonsense point because decisions will still have to be made regarding what is and isn’t a power imbalance.

Those are the only decisions that need to be made. Those are the only points that need to be raised. When two parties engage in a relationship, and don't discover a biological kinship until later, that biological kinship cannot alter the nature of the relationship to the point of criminality. The "incest" component is completely irrelevant to the issue of criminality.

The power imbalance is the sine qua non of the issue. Without the power imbalance, the right of free association greatly exceeds the authority of the public and the state to violate the personal agency of the participants.

That doesn’t mean that I should want to legalize roofies.

Among consenting adults, they are already legal.

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.

Pretty sure that ship has sailed.

All of your examples sans terfs which I think you just randomly threw in are consenting adults without an intrinsic power dynamic.

No my line is it is illegal for good reason.

Fuck what god, the state, and especially what you (and I) have to say about what consenting adults do when you are not one of the parties involved (you don't want people patrolling what you willingly do with your genitals? don't fucking patrol what others do with theirs), nonetheless, OPs crime was of disagreeing with mod? Those are the cases that I just block the mod and the community so I don't have the displeasure of interacting with those little Mussolinis again... that to say, didn't take many days for me on lemmy to just block that instance entirely.

All of your examples sans terfs which I think you just randomly threw in are consenting adults without an intrinsic power dynamic.

They are today.

In the past, the power dynamic between the participants was the same as that present in bestiality. Homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent. Minorities were considered inhuman. Your argument is only valid after the parties were actually considered equal and competent, but that supposition also defeats your argument here.

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.

Americans are weirds. Thank protestantism

"giving you a chance to realize that you’re wrong, if that’s not happening you should probably be permabanned." for... what crime? Or are they adding "no defending incest between adults" to the rules?

Correct, we're talking about today after all. You seem to be implying it's a form of bigotry rather than a cross continent commonality for good reason. Ie. They noticed kids kept coming out messed up when people are increasingly related.

Bro your word salad of examples and pundit wording makes no sense. The power dynamic hasn't and doesn't change and that ignores the fact that interfamily births are riddled with birth defects. Why you feel the need to bring up homosexuality alongside beastiality is baffling to me but at least to me sounds really really gross.

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.

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.

You seem to be implying it’s a form of bigotry

I'm not implying. It is, indeed, a form of bigotry. Without a compelling state/public interest to justify it, criminalization is, indeed, a form of bigotry.

They noticed kids kept coming out messed up when people are increasingly related.

That could, in theory, justify prohibiting procreation, but not the relationship itself. Two siblings are perfectly capable of raising an adopted child without that child "coming out messed up". Justify your argument in a non-biologically-procreative relationship. You can assume same-biological-sex individuals, or sterility.

Rules aren't designed to cover every possible hot take a person can have.

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".

they kind are... banning at whim when no rules are being broken is exactly what a power tripping bastard does

Those are the only decisions that need to be made.

Yes, and the determination I have made is that cases of incest overwhelmingly involve issues with consent. Whether that decision is made legislatively or judicially is not important.

When two parties engage in a relationship, and don’t discover a biological kinship until later, that biological kinship cannot alter the nature of the relationship to the point of criminality

Agreed.

The “incest” component is completely irrelevant to the issue of criminality.

Disagree. That does not follow.

Should it be legal to run out of a bank, holding a trash bag and wearing a stocking over your face, and to jump into the back of a car shouting, "GO! GO! GO!"? If you did all that without actually robbing the bank, technically, you didn't harm anyone. And if someone tries to forcibly stop you while doing your silly little prank, should they be criminally liable for using force?

That would be absurd. If you see someone doing that, then you can reasonably assume that they robbed a bank. You don't have to see them sticking up a cashier or shoving the money into the bag to arrive at that conclusion. In this example, you can't really verify those things because by the time you do they'll have gotten away, while in the case of incest, it's generally impossible to verify because family members are going to be spending so much time privately, it's always going to come down to "he said, she said" which is not enough to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be an imposition on freedom for it to be illegal to do that specific prank, but the other concerns obviously outweigh it. Just do a different prank, aka, just fuck one of the 7 billion people out there who's not your mom. It's not a big ask.

Therefore, to legalize incest means that nearly every pedophile or groomer will be able to get away with it, because it puts the child into a position of having to prove something that they could not reasonably prove. If a parent takes a child aside, 1-on-1, at some point in all the time they're alone together, and grooms them to believe incest is normal and fine, then how could they ever prove those words were said beyond a reasonable doubt to a court? What, are we expecting 5 year olds to be secretly recording every single thing their parents ever say to them? It's ridiculous.

Without the power imbalance, the right of free association greatly exceeds the authority of the public and the state to violate the personal agency of the participants.

The state's first responsibility is the safety of the citizenry, and with the danger I just highlighted, the right to not get groomed or molested vastly outweighs the right of free association.

Among consenting adults, they are already legal.

No they are not, with very good reason.

Your argument isn't even consistent.

Should incest be illegal at all on any level?

Start there.

It isn't. No one is against either person but a relationship that causes actual physical societal baggage ie birth defects and familial rape.

Why the fuck would you want it legal for a father to fuck their child because let's be clear the person your interjecting yourself with says 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.

Weird hill to die on, weird bedfellow to choose.

I don't see it that way at all. Mods aren't supposed to be robots, they can use their own judgement in banning someone that's technically following the letter of a rule, or not banning someone who's technically breaking it.

In any case, I presume the mod would say that their position is reactionary.