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.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
    122·
    9 days ago

    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.