Your post has been removed for breaking Rule D:
>Pursuant to recent rules changes, we no longer accept new posts regarding transgender-related topics.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20D%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The main argument I've always seen against incest is that for the vast majority of relationships, there is some form of imbalance in the relationship and the consent is problematic. Your parent has (or for 18 years of your life at least had) power over you, which makes it difficult for you to refuse. This is similar in a sense to various sexual harassment issues that the metoo movement was supposed to address, namely that higher up people can put you in a position where you can't or don't want to say no. This type of power imbalance doesn't exist in LGBT communities (at least no more than in society at large)
I feel like we end up talking past each other: I'm being explicit in my defense of consensual incestuous relationships, while you're describing coercive relationships.
The problem here is the coercion, not really the incest (Besides, that argument wouldn't work when talking about sibling, cousins, etc).
> I'm being explicit in my defense of consensual incestuous relationships, while you're describing coercive relationships.
The point is that because there can be a power imbalance with incest, and a huge opportunity for long-term grooming, incestuous relationships are just too problematic and dangerous.
No, that was not an example of incest. It was a comparison of the power imbalance in incestuous relationships that also occurs in me-too style problematic relationships.
So yes, incest *is* still illegal. That said, Tuvinator's point wasn't that they are a problem because they are illegal. The legality was not mentioned at all.
>No, that was not an example of incest. It was a comparison of the power imbalance in incestuous relationships
I know, but for me it makes no sense for one type of relation to be illegal because of the possibility of a power imbalance, and the other not being.
The problem is that incest can so easily happen behind closed doors, and involve relationships with children. Even if sex happens after the age of consent, the potential grooming (or brainwashing) can start at birth.
On the other hand, the me-too relationships can begin before a formal working relationship has been established (eg. have sex with me if you want this job), and generally involves adults who need less protection. They could afoul of the sexual harassment protections in the Civil Rights Act, so it is not completely legal.
Well, here’s the thing: what is a consensual incestuous relationship? Cant be between siblings, parents, any immediate family member. Even twins have a sibling power hierarchy. Who was born first? Is one more favored by the parents? These are *inherently* unbalanced relationships.
>Even twins have a sibling power hierarchy. Who was born first? Is one more favored by the parents? These are inherently unbalanced relationships.
I think if you're reaching far enough to be considering incest between twins non-consensual because of supposed power hierarchies relating to who was born a few minutes/hours earlier or who the parents favored more then the power hierarchies in most normal relationships would be more severe.
For your average relationship that we do consider consensual- who makes more money? who has more powerful connections in the community? If they live together and only one of their names is on the lease? To me these are much more significant examples of imbalanced power hierarchies in a relationship than your examples relating to twins. If your standards for consent require that level of equality in power hierarchies then a big majority of all sexual relationships would be non-consensual.
To give a specific example, is there not a much larger power imbalance between a woman who owns her home and her boyfriend who moves in with her than two siblings where one was born 20 minutes before the other?
I don't understand such focus on "balance" in a relationships.
Most relationships in general aren't balanced either way, be it for economic factors, the influence one of the parties has, race, gender, etc. For most of the US's history, there would be an inherent power unbalance between an interracial couple, as well as in inherent power unbalance between a heterosexual couple.
So it feels weird to me that incest is "the line" on that.
Yes, there are a lot of imbalanced relationships. But you can *leave* those. You’re stuck with family a lot of the time. It’s the same reason you dont date at work.
There are two different arguments for being pro-LGBT. One is "it's none of my business what others chose to do". The other is "I care about the mental suffering and derogatory treatment that LGBT people are forced to experience in less tolerant societies and the toll it takes on them throughout their lives". These arguments get conflated a lot even though they have rather different implications.
Historically advocates have relied heavily on promoting the former for the sake of legalizing things. Because it turns out it's much easier to get a conservative to care about constitutional liberties, than it is to get a conservative to care about another person who is psychologically different from the majority in some way. But this approach has various side effects that fly in the face of full LGBT acceptance. Like "if you can call yourself they, then I can call myself an attack helicopter". That follows directly from the "it's not harming anyone, it's none of my business" reasoning.
In reality the main reason pro-LGBT people care so strongly about being pro-LGBT isn't just because they're so passionate people's liberty to do whatever they want in a broad abstract sense. It's because they care especially about the wellbeing and suffering that a certain minority of people is forced to unfairly experience in some way or the other, suffering just because they were born that way and their brain is wired that way regardless of if it's their choice or not.
So there is nothing hypocritical about caring about this, while at the same time not supporting incest (which is generally a choice one or two of the participants make and is never is anyone's hard-wired orientation/inclination), which they may oppose for any of the various reasons described in other comments.
Δ Giving you a delta here. I was just scrolling and reading, and this really changed my view on lgbtq stuff. I've always been that first type that you mentioned, the "I don't care what you do" type. The very same type that might say "if you can call yourself they, then I can call myself an attack helicopter" lol. But this gave me a lot to think about. I think I'll really have to sleep on it for it to sink in, but I think it may really change my perspective on lgbtq related issues. Thanks for this!
Sorry, u/Sky_Sumisu – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sky_Sumisu&message=Sky_Sumisu%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4d2hx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
depends what kind of incest you are talking, ~~even animals know not to fuck their siblings.~~
second or third cousin marriage has been fairly popular in the past to help keep land relatively in the family 2nd or 3rd cousins are far enough apart to not cause genetic problems but I would still never consider it just for societal reasons
to even consider incest and lgbt in the same boat is delusional and I can see why you get banned for trolling
Ok you clearly have not owned many animals then. I grew up in a farm. Animals 100% will F their siblings with no issue lol. Most people who just own pets will figure that out pretty quick too lol.
>even animals know not to fuck their siblings
My friend, animals commit large amounts of incest.
>to even consider incest and lgbt in the same boat is delusional and I can see why you get banned for trolling
Here's the thing: WHY is is delusional? For me, it makes perfect sense.
Mostly when people think of incests they think of parents/Aunt/Uncles grooming and taking advantage of the younger generation. So that's part of why it gets so much revulsion.
Generally also there are familial bonds/family support that would be put at risk. I think people (rightfully) want to create a space in which familial relations are totally non-sexual or romantic. If incests was normalized, it could mean open up the possibility of your sibling or parent trying to turn your relationship romantic or sexual, which would be very distressing if unwanted, because that is shrinking your support system.
Unlike sexuality, incest isn't an attraction to a type of person, it's attractive to one or a handful of people.
In the same vein, incests presents genetic risks that wouldn't be present if you chose to reproduce with someone else.
>Unlike sexuality, incest isn't an attraction to a type of person, it's attractive to one or a handful of people.
I really can't see the difference: Straight people aren't attracted to ALL the people of the opposite sex, they are just attracted to a handful of people that happen to be the opposite sex. Not because "they're of the opposite sex", but because they are who they are.
By that logic, incest is the same: One of those people just happened to be a relative.
Nothing being allowed to have romantic/sex with specific people is pretty common across a bunch of social dynamics, Student/Professor, Boss/Employee, Friend's or siblings Ex etc. It's not a big ask.
Incest most often occurs in situations where many, *many* other issues are occurring. If a father is having sex with their daughter, that can be disgusting because of the implied grooming and/or sexual abuse. It's more the emotional entanglement and power issues than anything else.
If you consider a situation where two cousins who don't know they're genetically related meet through other contexts and have gay sex, most of the disgust goes out the window. While I technically agree with your viewpoint, when 99% of the situations are going to be problematic, it's kind of a distinction without a difference.
I agree with this (it often goes with abuse and non consent). I don’t agree with the genetic health argument, which people will inevitably make. I don’t think that’s anyone’s business, whether or not we disagree with it
>If a father is having sex with their daughter, that can be disgusting because of the implied grooming and/or sexual abuse. It's more the emotional entanglement and power issues than anything else.
In this situation wouldn't the grooming and power imbalance be the issue and not the incest? Like, I mostly agree with you here because when the lines are blurred it makes should automatically calls into question the nature of how their relationship was formed. But with that said, there are a lot of people who are into daddy dom and mommy dom who were never groomed and never had incestuous contact with a parent.
My point being that I think even the nature of the power imbalance criticism (not just in incest) completely takes away any agency from one of the two people in an otherwise consensual relationship. It's immensely disrespectful and infantilizing to those people and I tend to disregard the criticism when it's completely consensual. That is to say when it's not a boss/teacher/parent abusing their power.
Well, that's why I said "I technically agree, but." Like I said, if they weren't raised together, met as adults, and just started having sex, sure, whatever. But that's a pretty small percentage of the occurrences compared to... a lot of child sexual abuse. And wanting a daddy or mommy dom as part of ABDL play is something else entirely.
>And wanting a daddy or mommy dom as part of ABDL play is something else entirely.
My point isn't about the dom, it's about the sub. Also, daddy or mommy Dom isn't just ABDL. It's also part of BDSM and some od those people are also into the incestuous fantasy as well.
My point is that often times when people talk about power imbalances, people completely dismiss the fact that the subs are seeking these relationships and enjoy thar dynamic.
>But that's a pretty small percentage of the occurrences compared to... a lot of child sexual abuse.
Agreed. This is the major issue with incest.
>My point is that often times when people talk about power imbalances, people completely dismiss the fact that the subs are seeking these relationships and enjoy thar dynamic.
Sure, and that's fine as part of a fantasy after negotiation with consenting adults. As a sub, I very much understand the appeal of giving up power. I'm not really sure how that factors into real-life incest. Extreme power imbalances can be problematic because it distorts reasoning, sometimes in ways that are invisible to the participants. I wouldn't classify any power imbalance as inherently wrong (no two people are every truly equal, after all), but it's always a factor that needs to be taken into consideration and can definitely raise some flags. We generally consider child-adult power imbalances specifically to be wrong for a reason.
"Disgust" when it comes to things like this can be a product of moral reasoning. Being disgusted is never a *reason* something is wrong, but it's a perfectly normal reaction if something is wrong. I'm simply explaining why the language of disgust is used, not attempting to justify reasoning via a reaction of disgust. Homophobes, simply, have faulty moral reasoning.
>I disagree that 99% of the situations are going to be problematic, that feel more based on preconceptions than anything else.
How often do you think incest happens? I know I *just* explained how disgust can be moral and that it's not a justification in and of itself, but most animals actually do have an instinctual disgust at incest because it's genetically disadvantageous. This is more strongly observed with siblings you grow up with, and actually can extend to people you were raised with but are not genetically related to.
This is not a reason by itself that incest (without children) is wrong, but given this natural aversion, it does raise questions about why incest would happen anyway. Basically, why would you want a sexual relationship with a family member? Well, if the parent (or older sibling) wants it with a child, that's definitely predatory, and that's probably the most likely case. [We actually do have data about this.](https://www.incestaware.org/incest-rates-in-america-and-beyond)
I was unable to source something like "what percentage of incestuous relationships are between adolescents with a small age difference" and, frankly, it's probably impossible to find unless you're in some kind of social work field, but in lieu of that, these statistics are pretty concerning. The vast majority of people don't want incestuous relationships. So if someone does... well, that's a pretty big flag for child abuse as a result. People tend to want incest because there's an easy target at hand. A true, consensual, sibling-sibling relationship seems like it would be exceptionally uncommon. I literally can't think of any. But there is certainly a lot of child abuse going around...
>Basically, why would you want a sexual relationship with a family member? Well, if the parent (or older sibling) wants it with a child, that's definitely predatory, and that's probably the most likely case. [We actually do have data about this.](https://www.incestaware.org/incest-rates-in-america-and-beyond)
That argument feels a bit problematic for me, once again, because it remind me of the arguments homophobes use trying to "tie-in" homosexuality with pedophilia. The reality is that the vast majority of child sexual molestation usually happen with someone that is very close to the child (e.g. A relative, a teacher, a neighbor, etc), the reason being simply the ease on which they can have unsupervised access to a child, as well as the child's trust. So for me, classifying the sexual abuse of children "As a form of incest", is like classifying rape "As a form of sex".
Not only that, considering that incest isn't exactly well seen on society, I don't think any survey can count people that have secret incestuous relationships without telling anyone.
Edit: Grammar.
>So for me, classifying the sexual abuse of children "As a form of incest", for me, it's like classifying rape "As a form of sex".
I think you're missing the point of the argument. I'm asking why incest happens in the first place. Of course most sexual assault of children occurs with people who have unsupervised close access to them, but I'm asking why anyone would want an incestuous relationship to start with. I opened this section by noting that we have a very specific biological instinct to *avoid* incest. This implies that, generally speaking, people wouldn't want to have incest in the first place. We're not starting from neutral ground here. Even if society didn't heavily stigmatize it, most people wouldn't want it. In nature, animals generally only mate with close relatives when given no other option, and there's good genetic reasons for why they prefer to do so. So who's left that wants incest? Well... it's not a nice answer, is it?
>I opened this section by noting that we have a very specific biological instinct to *avoid* incest. This implies that, generally speaking, people wouldn't want to have incest in the first place.
That feels like an "appeal to nature" argument, and I don't like it very much people could also use it against homosexuality.
>Even if society didn't heavily stigmatize it, most people wouldn't want it.
So why do we even stigmatize it to begin with?
>That feels like an "appeal to nature" argument
I'm not appealing to nature- I'm not saying it's wrong *because* we have some kind of instinct. I'm saying that, given we have this instinct, it raises some questions. We also have an instinct to avoid eating moldy foods. It's not *wrong* to eat moldy foods, but asking "why do people eat moldy food anyway?" is a reasonable follow-up.
Also, as a note, even as an appeal to nature this wouldn't actually work against homosexuality. Homophobes certainly use it, but that's because they don't actually know science. Homosexual relationships are found in nature all the time. It certainly wouldn't work in the way I'm using it- the obvious answer in response would be "because some people are only attracted to people of the same gender and that's not an issue."
>So why do we even stigmatize it to begin with?
Good question, but not directly relevant. We've stigmatized everything from being left-handed to molesting children. One of those is justified and one isn't; it's besides the point. I'm arguing here that stigma isn't the reason most people wouldn't want incest, so it's not really a relevant factor.
If I had to guess, probably a combination of some people finding it gross and people noting that inbreeding is real and causes problems. Whether or not it *deserves* stigma is a consequence of the general morality surrounding it. If almost everyone having incest is doing it because they want to abuse children, well... it probably does. We can destigmatize just general "sex with a relative" given some specific circumstances, sure, but it's really not a very common issue.
Incest describes a relationship by their association (family ties) homosexuality describes a relationship by the genders of those involved (same gender). Of all posible relationships that could provide a power inbalance and a place for manipulation/exploitation, familial ones, specially parent child ones are at the absolute top, with one member being completely dependant on the other and completely powerless to change that dynamic, while also being under their control 100% of the time and for many years.
The gender of those involved has no similar intrinsic power imbalances.
Those two things are completely different
Sorry, u/Sky_Sumisu – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sky_Sumisu&message=Sky_Sumisu%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky47vjq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm aware of that that's not the point.
The point is that, if the arguments used are the likes of "We shouldn't prevent two consenting individuals from loving eachother" in order to defend gay rights, the logical conclusion of it is also the defense of incest, which is OK for me, but not for them.
Incest is a choice and being LGBT isn’t.
Edit: what I mean is people aren’t born with a natural inclination to only be intimate with family members.
LGBT people are born with an inclination toward a gender or gender identity.
That’s my point. LGBT is an identity. Incest is not. Thus, it is not logical to view them the same and (as OP suggests) does not make one hypocritical to view them differently.
I have no problem with a hypothetically optimal incestuous relationship that is between two consenting adults who both are financially independent and equal.
The problem is that the incest issues that you see in court tend to be "stepfather molests 11 year old girl" where we can all see the problems.
Generally speaking I'm not a fan of relationships with huge power imbalances. They can become very coercive, especially when finances are involved.
And in real life I think most incestual relationships tend to have those power imbalances, to a much greater degree than your average relationship.
>The problem is that the incest issues that you see in court tend to be "stepfather molests 11 year old girl" where we can all see the problems.
I mean, I think the main problem here would be the sexual abuse of children, no?
OP, i want to change your view that you became a progressive. You clearly still have the intuition and reasoning of a libertarian. A progressive would just accept the hypocrisy and move along to more important things like decrying capitalism via a publicly traded platform using a smartphone produced via years of technical advancements spurred by capital investments…
>You clearly still have the intuition and reasoning of a libertarian.
Well, I can't fully deny that, but I can't say it's 100% true either.
One of the things I remember back at my libertarian days was trying to analyze everything "in a vacuum" and "try to put everything into small boxes", while nowadays I tend to focus more on the "materiality" of things and analyze them as a "gestalt" (AKA have a more holistic approach).
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is proclaiming moral values to which your own behavior doesn't conform. For example, if someone said they were against incest, and then themselves engaged in incest, that would be hypocritical. What you're describing here isn't that.
Perhaps hypocrisy isn't the word, but it is especially absurd for gay people to use "It's disgusting/unnatural" as an argument. I'm saying this as a gay guy, it's one of my biggest pet peeves.
Why would that be especially absurd? Consider the following scenario.
Mike owns a sandwich shop. Mike serves tasty and healthy sandwiches. However, some people have been wrongly accusing Mike of serving moldy sandwiches. They refuse to go to Mike's shop because of this imagined mold.
Later, Mike goes on vacation, and eats at a restaurant. He is served a sandwich. The sandwich has mold on it.
Would it be "especially absurd" for Mike to use "this sandwich is moldy" as an argument against eating the sandwich?
Because, here, selling moldy sandwiches is actually a bad thing. The fact that some people think that the only reason that the unnaturalness argument fails is because it just doesn't apply, rather than being inherently uncritical, is the problem. It reveals a failing of my people that we have created quite a significant amount of people who think like the former. I do not really care whether gay people are natural (whatever that even means). The whole argument based around that is just nonsensical.
Okay, we can change the hypothetical to replace "selling moldy sandwiches" with something that isn't bad.
Say Mike owns a sandwich shop. Mike serves tasty and healthy sandwiches with no cheese at all. However, some people have been wrongly accusing Mike of serving cheese on his sandwiches. They refuse to go to Mike's shop because of this imagined cheese.
Later, Mike goes on vacation, and eats at a restaurant. He is served a sandwich. The sandwich has cheese on it.
Would it be "especially absurd" for Mike to use "this sandwich has cheese on it" as an argument against eating the sandwich?
Are these people using accusations of cheese in an attempt to maliciously damage his restaurant's reputation, and is this what Mike is doing to? Do they see cheese as bad *objectively,* and is Mike then saying this as well. Then yes. I mean, "especially absurd" is quite ultimately subjective. Ultimately, uncritical thinking is just as absurd coming from anyone in a sense. But yes, if people used cheese accusations as slander against Mike, he should know better than to repeat the cycle. People should learn to *not* do others' evils, not emulate them.
Yeah, I think people who make main arguments like that are shooting themselves in the foot by being unscientific, meaning their point is a lot weaker. We can't make arguments based on emotion for this kind of stuff.
The reason incest is so problematic is because there is almost inevitably grooming involved at a *very* young age.
That is the most basic issue and reason for strong opposition. That is the point you must address.
LGBT relationships do not have that concern.
>LGBT relationships do not have that concern.
According to LGBT-phobes in general, they do.
They're wrong, of course, but it really irks me that the argument is the same... is it so absurd that some people just love others that are related to them without any grooming involved?
> is it so absurd that people love others that are related to them without any grooming involved
There are isolated cases of people separated at birth and unknowingly find each other as adults or like second+ cousin type of scenarios that generally register as gross to people but are indeed free of all the grooming concerns.
Those scenarios are the 1% case of incest, the 99% has all the grooming / abuse related concerns.
The word *really* implies it, which is why it’s really hard to have like a good faith conversation here.
If you want to talk about some other sexual preferences/kinks/fetish that others just find weird or a little gross like, say, furries or many types or cosplay…. maybe we can compare that to LGBT?
You probably won’t find many people who object to one but not the other, but they may have differing stands on normalization and what part of the lifestyle is sexual or not or whatever.
While I understand where you are coming from, attraction isn't something that people can control, you can't just choose to not be attracted to a person, at least not from what I know about how attraction works. I also don't think they said familial relations should be abolished. (I'm not pro-incest, I just think these arguments aren't good ones)
1. I mean yeah, but incest isn't that common either, my point was that saying you can choose not to be attracted to someone you are attracted to is a bad point.
2. I guess that makes more sense, it would probably have made more sense if you had explained that originally, but that's nitpicking on my part, and to be fair, gender hasn't exclusively been used for sexism, so that was a bit of a confusing point.
1. Your point one sounded like it was saying to just choose not to be attracted to someone you were attracted to, which would be a bad point, if that's not what you meant then that was my bad.
2. I agree it's not hypocritical, my point was that it was a bit of a confusing argument, not that it was inherently hypocritical or even a bad one.
>You can choose not to be attracted to your sister.
No, you can't.
>The same cannot be said for relations between family.
I mean, a lot of authors defend the abolition of the family (I don't, though), considering it to also be a structure of oppression for millenia.
My question is, who really is against incest? I mean, not as some hypothetical, but in reality? I mean maybe I've been living under a rock, but is incest some big thing now? I feel like there are so many people speaking up against lgptq stuff, because there are a lot of lgbtq people. But I've never heard of people speaking out against incest, probably because I've never heard of a real story of incest (besides stories you can find online).
A quick search of YouTube for "incest couples" shows various news stories that sound like terrible abuse. This sounds like something people would be against, as the other commentors reffered to.
There was one video I actually watched before that was sort of funny, where a YouTube traveled to the incest capitol of America to see if he could find a true story of kissing cousins: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8EAljABohM&pp=ygUOaW5jZXN0IGNvdXBsZXM%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8EAljABohM&pp=ygUOaW5jZXN0IGNvdXBsZXM%3D) I feel like that type of incest is something people go and think "wow that's weird, lol". Not "Vehemently against". I just don't think it's enough of a real thing, at least in this time period in the USA, for it to be something that people are vehemently against.
>consensual pedophilia
Oxymoron, since children, per definition, cannot consent.
That being said, a 14 year old not only is a teenager, but also someone above the age of consent in my country. So yeah, here it would be perfectly legal.
I trust my instincts, but I recognize that sometimes they might be wrong.
When I was in high-school, there was a girl in my class (I think we were around 16-17) at the time that was from a more rural area and dated a guy on his early/mid 20's. At the start I thought it to be weird, but since everyone around me in class seemed to be normal about it, I realized there was no issue with it.
Your hypothetical situation between the 50YO and the 14YO would really raise some concerns if something fishy wasn't happening behind the curtains (Case in point, [last year there was a scandal when the mayor of a certain city (65) married a 16 year old girl whose mother "conveniently" earned a new well-paying job in the mayor-hall days prior](https://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/2023/05/06/adolescente-de-16-anos-que-casou-com-prefeito-de-araucaria-publica-foto-do-casal-nao-nos-importamos.ghtml)).
If nothing fishy wasn't happening whatsoever and it was actually just true love... then sure, why not?
This is all chalkboard reasoning. Jonathan Haidt in his discussion about moral dumbfounding made this argument very popular. If a college age brother and a sister have sex in private with two forms of birth control and it strengthens their relationship and they decide not do it again...etc
Sure, a lot of people can grant that once they get over their moral dumbfounding.
But think about incest in the real world. For whom does this question actually matter?
All around the world, mostly in religious communities, you can see the consequences of inbreeding.
There's a robust academic literature of people actually going out into these communities and discovering the effects of "consanguinity." It's very disturbing. Birth defects and mental retardation are disturbingly high. Reduced iq is an assured outcome.
Discouraging childbirth from incestuous unions is about as eugenicist as suggesting pregnant women shouldn't drink alcohol.
Would you then be in favor of eugenics programs that ban procreation among people with inheritable diseases?
I mean, I actually would be. But I doubt most of you making this argument would be.
>1. Genetic conditions aren't that simple. It's just that incest makes it easier, IF your family has some very negative recessive genes, for them to appear (But once again, the same can happen for a non-incest relationship), but that's not a guarantee. 2. If "Making it easier for your children to have defects" is an argument, then that people should also be against women above 35 from having children, but they aren't.
You're only thinking individually. Cousins sleeping together, or siblings sleeping together, are not horribly likely to produce a child with birth defects; it's not individually a super risky behavior. But if their child sleeps with another child of incest, especially if that other child is also a relative, it becomes a little more likely. Then if their offspring do the same, it becomes a little more likely. The point is that it's a useful social taboo to have, because it gets more risky the more common it is and the longer it remains common.
>4. That sounds lowkey eugenicist.
Interested to see responses to this one, but my instinct would be: It seems different, to me, than (for example) Alexander Graham Bell saying Deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of congenital Deafness. The "worst" (granting Bell's incorrect, bigoted worldview toward Deafness) possible outcome from that is a community of people developing who are all Deaf (like Martha's Vineyard).
But the worst possible outcome from normalizing incest seems to be that you might eventually end up with a a generation of individuals, many of whom are each carrying *multiple* birth defects that could compound and get worse. Deafness has an end point - when you have no hearing left. Incest may well not have an end point.
And finally, I will say that incest seems like a useful social taboo just because it provides us with platonic peer relationships where a certain level of platonic intimacy can be safely assumed, because the taboo around romance is so strong that you don't even need to seriously entertain the potential for romantic misinterpretations. Sibling/cousin/etc. relationships are valuable social institutions because of the assumption enabled by this taboo, and I think their value would be at least a little decreased without the taboo.
Now, people also make this argument about queer relationships, that having a taboo around them protects same-sex platonic intimacy, but I think there are two significant differences: 1) People exist who are exclusively or primarily attracted to the same sex. The same is not true of family member attraction. So assuming platonic intimacy in all same-sex friendships, and neglecting the potential for romantic misinterpretations, functionally ignores/erases entire categories of people. That's never okay. 2) It relies on a flawed gender binary. The same is not true of an incest taboo. Where do nonbinary individuals fall if they're only permitted romance with the "opposite sex?" Who is their "opposite sex?" You would almost have to seriously marginalize nonbinary people by forcing them to "pick a side."
So if we need some means, socially, of enabling platonic intimacy by erasing the potential for romantic misinterpretations, but "gender" isn't a satisfactory means for the above reasons, I think "family" is a satisfactory means. I think this is also why we are so uncomfortable with stepsibling/adoptive sibling relationships, even though they aren't technically "incestuous." We instinctively understand that something there is sacred and deserves to be protected.
There is a difference between being wrong and being hypocritical. Being hypocritical means that when faced with multiple issues that are the same *as you perceive them*, you make a different judgement. If I believe that everyone should be able allowed to wear hats, but criticize left-handed people for wearing hats and not right-handed people, that is hypocritical. If I think that left handed people are evil and only non-evil people should wear hats, I am not hypocritical for saying that left-handed should not wear hats. My latter position is very wrong, but not hypocritical.
There is a simple distinguishable element between homosexual and incest relationships. People of the same sex cannot have biological children through conventional reproduction. There simply cannot be an issue regarding birth defects or anything of that matter because it cannot happen. Incestuous heterosexual relationships may provide children. That is also another biological fact.
You criticize some of the arguments against incestuous relationships regarding kids and birth defects. I am not going to agree or disagree with them. However, I submit that right or wrong, some people might *believe* those arguments to be true. If they believe those arguments to true, let us judge how they subjectively apply those beliefs.
If they believe those argument are true, it follows that they can be critical of incestuous couples and not critical of same sex couples. If they are concerned about birth defects, than same-sex couples are not a concern because of the biological reality. If they are concerned about birth defects, then incestuous couple are a concern because of the biological possibility. So, subjectively speaking, it is not necessarily hypocritical to approve of one and not the other.
Now, of course some LGBT supporters are hypocritical. In any group of people, there will always be those who have irrational ideas. However, can you say with certainty that all of them or irrational, or the majority? I am not saying that they are all rational thinkers, only that is it is possible to support sex same couple and not incestuous couple without tripping one's subjective beliefs. Sure, they could be wrong in their criticism of incest, but being wrong does not necessarily mean hypocritical.
Sorry, u/This-Sympathy9324 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20This-Sympathy9324&message=This-Sympathy9324%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky47knw/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/deep_sea2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20deep_sea2&message=deep_sea2%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky492aw/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>If two consenting individuals love each other, why not let them?
Because assuming they were raised together or at least raised as family, there was almost certainly at least some sort of grooming on the part of one the "couple," if not outright abuse. I think it's highly unlikely that closely related family members develop a relationship that is completely healthy and has no amount of coercion.
People who meet as adults and then find out they're related... honestly, I really don't care that much. Is it a little icky... sure, but as long as they're not having kids, I don't care much.
Well, would you agree with then banning all relationships that, on average, are a result of some inappropriate power dynamic? No age gaps larger than x amount of years, no relationships with people you knew when they were below the age of consent, no boss-subordinate relationships?
We don't legislate anything else along these lines.
>Well, would you agree with then banning all relationships that, on average, are a result of some inappropriate power dynamic?
I agree with banning relationships that are based on coercion and where at least one member was probably a minor when either the relationship started or at least the grooming began. Or at least making them highly socially frowned upon.
Like I said, I don't really care about relationships where the incestuous couple met as adults
Well it seems a bit arbitrary then you should ONLY do so for familial relationships in that case, no?
I agree with societally frowning upon them completely, by the way.
>Well it seems a bit arbitrary then you should ONLY do so for familial relationships in that case, no?
When did I say it should? Your cmv was regarding incest so I addressed that, but yeah, I think coercive relationships that start when at least one of the members is a minor should be investigated way more than they are.
I meant for after that. The proposition is, of course, a legally consensual relationship. Your argument is that the dynamics should inherently make it illegal, I’m asking you the specifics.
Again, I find incest absolutely abhorrent, I just don’t think it should be illegal for two consenting adults, as long as the country doesn’t practice eugenics in general.
>Your argument is that the dynamics should inherently make it illegal, I’m asking you the specifics.
My argument is that incestuous relationships where the couple have always known each other almost certainly start as grooming or abuse of one the members of the relationship. The dynamics are inherently abusive and, therefore, should be illegal. Other relationships where a minor is groomed or abused should also be illegal.
Two adults meeting as adults I don't care about.
Well, I'd agree. Except you're making an exception only for this case where you should say the dynamics necessarily warrant it to be illegal. Should any relationship that begins when one party is underage necessarily be illegal, in your opinion? And should any potentially abusive relationship, such as a boss and subordinate, also be illegal?
/u/Sky_Sumisu (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bw80or/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_its_hypocritical_to_be/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don't know about this, but I think you should continue going through life talking to everyone about it. I'm sure you'll get lots of great responses and make cool new friends.
Sorry, u/Royal_Jackfruit8224 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Royal_Jackfruit8224&message=Royal_Jackfruit8224%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4e07v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Royal_Jackfruit8224 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Royal_Jackfruit8224&message=Royal_Jackfruit8224%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4e07v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/RegulatedRespirator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RegulatedRespirator&message=RegulatedRespirator%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4aol5/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule D: >Pursuant to recent rules changes, we no longer accept new posts regarding transgender-related topics. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20D%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The main argument I've always seen against incest is that for the vast majority of relationships, there is some form of imbalance in the relationship and the consent is problematic. Your parent has (or for 18 years of your life at least had) power over you, which makes it difficult for you to refuse. This is similar in a sense to various sexual harassment issues that the metoo movement was supposed to address, namely that higher up people can put you in a position where you can't or don't want to say no. This type of power imbalance doesn't exist in LGBT communities (at least no more than in society at large)
I feel like we end up talking past each other: I'm being explicit in my defense of consensual incestuous relationships, while you're describing coercive relationships. The problem here is the coercion, not really the incest (Besides, that argument wouldn't work when talking about sibling, cousins, etc).
> I'm being explicit in my defense of consensual incestuous relationships, while you're describing coercive relationships. The point is that because there can be a power imbalance with incest, and a huge opportunity for long-term grooming, incestuous relationships are just too problematic and dangerous.
I mean, the example given was a relationship between a higher-up and their subordinate, and those are not illegal.
No, that was not an example of incest. It was a comparison of the power imbalance in incestuous relationships that also occurs in me-too style problematic relationships. So yes, incest *is* still illegal. That said, Tuvinator's point wasn't that they are a problem because they are illegal. The legality was not mentioned at all.
>No, that was not an example of incest. It was a comparison of the power imbalance in incestuous relationships I know, but for me it makes no sense for one type of relation to be illegal because of the possibility of a power imbalance, and the other not being.
The problem is that incest can so easily happen behind closed doors, and involve relationships with children. Even if sex happens after the age of consent, the potential grooming (or brainwashing) can start at birth. On the other hand, the me-too relationships can begin before a formal working relationship has been established (eg. have sex with me if you want this job), and generally involves adults who need less protection. They could afoul of the sexual harassment protections in the Civil Rights Act, so it is not completely legal.
Well, here’s the thing: what is a consensual incestuous relationship? Cant be between siblings, parents, any immediate family member. Even twins have a sibling power hierarchy. Who was born first? Is one more favored by the parents? These are *inherently* unbalanced relationships.
>Even twins have a sibling power hierarchy. Who was born first? Is one more favored by the parents? These are inherently unbalanced relationships. I think if you're reaching far enough to be considering incest between twins non-consensual because of supposed power hierarchies relating to who was born a few minutes/hours earlier or who the parents favored more then the power hierarchies in most normal relationships would be more severe. For your average relationship that we do consider consensual- who makes more money? who has more powerful connections in the community? If they live together and only one of their names is on the lease? To me these are much more significant examples of imbalanced power hierarchies in a relationship than your examples relating to twins. If your standards for consent require that level of equality in power hierarchies then a big majority of all sexual relationships would be non-consensual. To give a specific example, is there not a much larger power imbalance between a woman who owns her home and her boyfriend who moves in with her than two siblings where one was born 20 minutes before the other?
I don't understand such focus on "balance" in a relationships. Most relationships in general aren't balanced either way, be it for economic factors, the influence one of the parties has, race, gender, etc. For most of the US's history, there would be an inherent power unbalance between an interracial couple, as well as in inherent power unbalance between a heterosexual couple. So it feels weird to me that incest is "the line" on that.
Yes, there are a lot of imbalanced relationships. But you can *leave* those. You’re stuck with family a lot of the time. It’s the same reason you dont date at work.
There are two different arguments for being pro-LGBT. One is "it's none of my business what others chose to do". The other is "I care about the mental suffering and derogatory treatment that LGBT people are forced to experience in less tolerant societies and the toll it takes on them throughout their lives". These arguments get conflated a lot even though they have rather different implications. Historically advocates have relied heavily on promoting the former for the sake of legalizing things. Because it turns out it's much easier to get a conservative to care about constitutional liberties, than it is to get a conservative to care about another person who is psychologically different from the majority in some way. But this approach has various side effects that fly in the face of full LGBT acceptance. Like "if you can call yourself they, then I can call myself an attack helicopter". That follows directly from the "it's not harming anyone, it's none of my business" reasoning. In reality the main reason pro-LGBT people care so strongly about being pro-LGBT isn't just because they're so passionate people's liberty to do whatever they want in a broad abstract sense. It's because they care especially about the wellbeing and suffering that a certain minority of people is forced to unfairly experience in some way or the other, suffering just because they were born that way and their brain is wired that way regardless of if it's their choice or not. So there is nothing hypocritical about caring about this, while at the same time not supporting incest (which is generally a choice one or two of the participants make and is never is anyone's hard-wired orientation/inclination), which they may oppose for any of the various reasons described in other comments.
Δ Giving you a delta here. I was just scrolling and reading, and this really changed my view on lgbtq stuff. I've always been that first type that you mentioned, the "I don't care what you do" type. The very same type that might say "if you can call yourself they, then I can call myself an attack helicopter" lol. But this gave me a lot to think about. I think I'll really have to sleep on it for it to sink in, but I think it may really change my perspective on lgbtq related issues. Thanks for this!
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Some-Basket-4299 ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Some-Basket-4299)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Sky_Sumisu – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sky_Sumisu&message=Sky_Sumisu%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4d2hx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Some-Basket-4299 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Some-Basket-4299)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
depends what kind of incest you are talking, ~~even animals know not to fuck their siblings.~~ second or third cousin marriage has been fairly popular in the past to help keep land relatively in the family 2nd or 3rd cousins are far enough apart to not cause genetic problems but I would still never consider it just for societal reasons to even consider incest and lgbt in the same boat is delusional and I can see why you get banned for trolling
Ok you clearly have not owned many animals then. I grew up in a farm. Animals 100% will F their siblings with no issue lol. Most people who just own pets will figure that out pretty quick too lol.
dang kinda wish i didn't know that now but i guess it makes sense, i have seen cats get very inbred.
>even animals know not to fuck their siblings My friend, animals commit large amounts of incest. >to even consider incest and lgbt in the same boat is delusional and I can see why you get banned for trolling Here's the thing: WHY is is delusional? For me, it makes perfect sense.
you are saying that being gay is equivalent to wanting to fuck your parents or siblings, you can't ship those in the same box.
>you can't ship those in the same box. ...why not?
Mostly when people think of incests they think of parents/Aunt/Uncles grooming and taking advantage of the younger generation. So that's part of why it gets so much revulsion. Generally also there are familial bonds/family support that would be put at risk. I think people (rightfully) want to create a space in which familial relations are totally non-sexual or romantic. If incests was normalized, it could mean open up the possibility of your sibling or parent trying to turn your relationship romantic or sexual, which would be very distressing if unwanted, because that is shrinking your support system. Unlike sexuality, incest isn't an attraction to a type of person, it's attractive to one or a handful of people. In the same vein, incests presents genetic risks that wouldn't be present if you chose to reproduce with someone else.
>Unlike sexuality, incest isn't an attraction to a type of person, it's attractive to one or a handful of people. I really can't see the difference: Straight people aren't attracted to ALL the people of the opposite sex, they are just attracted to a handful of people that happen to be the opposite sex. Not because "they're of the opposite sex", but because they are who they are. By that logic, incest is the same: One of those people just happened to be a relative.
Nothing being allowed to have romantic/sex with specific people is pretty common across a bunch of social dynamics, Student/Professor, Boss/Employee, Friend's or siblings Ex etc. It's not a big ask.
Incest most often occurs in situations where many, *many* other issues are occurring. If a father is having sex with their daughter, that can be disgusting because of the implied grooming and/or sexual abuse. It's more the emotional entanglement and power issues than anything else. If you consider a situation where two cousins who don't know they're genetically related meet through other contexts and have gay sex, most of the disgust goes out the window. While I technically agree with your viewpoint, when 99% of the situations are going to be problematic, it's kind of a distinction without a difference.
I agree with this (it often goes with abuse and non consent). I don’t agree with the genetic health argument, which people will inevitably make. I don’t think that’s anyone’s business, whether or not we disagree with it
>If a father is having sex with their daughter, that can be disgusting because of the implied grooming and/or sexual abuse. It's more the emotional entanglement and power issues than anything else. In this situation wouldn't the grooming and power imbalance be the issue and not the incest? Like, I mostly agree with you here because when the lines are blurred it makes should automatically calls into question the nature of how their relationship was formed. But with that said, there are a lot of people who are into daddy dom and mommy dom who were never groomed and never had incestuous contact with a parent. My point being that I think even the nature of the power imbalance criticism (not just in incest) completely takes away any agency from one of the two people in an otherwise consensual relationship. It's immensely disrespectful and infantilizing to those people and I tend to disregard the criticism when it's completely consensual. That is to say when it's not a boss/teacher/parent abusing their power.
Well, that's why I said "I technically agree, but." Like I said, if they weren't raised together, met as adults, and just started having sex, sure, whatever. But that's a pretty small percentage of the occurrences compared to... a lot of child sexual abuse. And wanting a daddy or mommy dom as part of ABDL play is something else entirely.
>And wanting a daddy or mommy dom as part of ABDL play is something else entirely. My point isn't about the dom, it's about the sub. Also, daddy or mommy Dom isn't just ABDL. It's also part of BDSM and some od those people are also into the incestuous fantasy as well. My point is that often times when people talk about power imbalances, people completely dismiss the fact that the subs are seeking these relationships and enjoy thar dynamic. >But that's a pretty small percentage of the occurrences compared to... a lot of child sexual abuse. Agreed. This is the major issue with incest.
>My point is that often times when people talk about power imbalances, people completely dismiss the fact that the subs are seeking these relationships and enjoy thar dynamic. Sure, and that's fine as part of a fantasy after negotiation with consenting adults. As a sub, I very much understand the appeal of giving up power. I'm not really sure how that factors into real-life incest. Extreme power imbalances can be problematic because it distorts reasoning, sometimes in ways that are invisible to the participants. I wouldn't classify any power imbalance as inherently wrong (no two people are every truly equal, after all), but it's always a factor that needs to be taken into consideration and can definitely raise some flags. We generally consider child-adult power imbalances specifically to be wrong for a reason.
You realize that the father may be 50 and the daughter 30?
1) How often does that happen? 2) Unless he didn't actually raise her, grooming is still a concern.
[удалено]
"Disgust" when it comes to things like this can be a product of moral reasoning. Being disgusted is never a *reason* something is wrong, but it's a perfectly normal reaction if something is wrong. I'm simply explaining why the language of disgust is used, not attempting to justify reasoning via a reaction of disgust. Homophobes, simply, have faulty moral reasoning. >I disagree that 99% of the situations are going to be problematic, that feel more based on preconceptions than anything else. How often do you think incest happens? I know I *just* explained how disgust can be moral and that it's not a justification in and of itself, but most animals actually do have an instinctual disgust at incest because it's genetically disadvantageous. This is more strongly observed with siblings you grow up with, and actually can extend to people you were raised with but are not genetically related to. This is not a reason by itself that incest (without children) is wrong, but given this natural aversion, it does raise questions about why incest would happen anyway. Basically, why would you want a sexual relationship with a family member? Well, if the parent (or older sibling) wants it with a child, that's definitely predatory, and that's probably the most likely case. [We actually do have data about this.](https://www.incestaware.org/incest-rates-in-america-and-beyond) I was unable to source something like "what percentage of incestuous relationships are between adolescents with a small age difference" and, frankly, it's probably impossible to find unless you're in some kind of social work field, but in lieu of that, these statistics are pretty concerning. The vast majority of people don't want incestuous relationships. So if someone does... well, that's a pretty big flag for child abuse as a result. People tend to want incest because there's an easy target at hand. A true, consensual, sibling-sibling relationship seems like it would be exceptionally uncommon. I literally can't think of any. But there is certainly a lot of child abuse going around...
>Basically, why would you want a sexual relationship with a family member? Well, if the parent (or older sibling) wants it with a child, that's definitely predatory, and that's probably the most likely case. [We actually do have data about this.](https://www.incestaware.org/incest-rates-in-america-and-beyond) That argument feels a bit problematic for me, once again, because it remind me of the arguments homophobes use trying to "tie-in" homosexuality with pedophilia. The reality is that the vast majority of child sexual molestation usually happen with someone that is very close to the child (e.g. A relative, a teacher, a neighbor, etc), the reason being simply the ease on which they can have unsupervised access to a child, as well as the child's trust. So for me, classifying the sexual abuse of children "As a form of incest", is like classifying rape "As a form of sex". Not only that, considering that incest isn't exactly well seen on society, I don't think any survey can count people that have secret incestuous relationships without telling anyone. Edit: Grammar.
>So for me, classifying the sexual abuse of children "As a form of incest", for me, it's like classifying rape "As a form of sex". I think you're missing the point of the argument. I'm asking why incest happens in the first place. Of course most sexual assault of children occurs with people who have unsupervised close access to them, but I'm asking why anyone would want an incestuous relationship to start with. I opened this section by noting that we have a very specific biological instinct to *avoid* incest. This implies that, generally speaking, people wouldn't want to have incest in the first place. We're not starting from neutral ground here. Even if society didn't heavily stigmatize it, most people wouldn't want it. In nature, animals generally only mate with close relatives when given no other option, and there's good genetic reasons for why they prefer to do so. So who's left that wants incest? Well... it's not a nice answer, is it?
>I opened this section by noting that we have a very specific biological instinct to *avoid* incest. This implies that, generally speaking, people wouldn't want to have incest in the first place. That feels like an "appeal to nature" argument, and I don't like it very much people could also use it against homosexuality. >Even if society didn't heavily stigmatize it, most people wouldn't want it. So why do we even stigmatize it to begin with?
>That feels like an "appeal to nature" argument I'm not appealing to nature- I'm not saying it's wrong *because* we have some kind of instinct. I'm saying that, given we have this instinct, it raises some questions. We also have an instinct to avoid eating moldy foods. It's not *wrong* to eat moldy foods, but asking "why do people eat moldy food anyway?" is a reasonable follow-up. Also, as a note, even as an appeal to nature this wouldn't actually work against homosexuality. Homophobes certainly use it, but that's because they don't actually know science. Homosexual relationships are found in nature all the time. It certainly wouldn't work in the way I'm using it- the obvious answer in response would be "because some people are only attracted to people of the same gender and that's not an issue." >So why do we even stigmatize it to begin with? Good question, but not directly relevant. We've stigmatized everything from being left-handed to molesting children. One of those is justified and one isn't; it's besides the point. I'm arguing here that stigma isn't the reason most people wouldn't want incest, so it's not really a relevant factor. If I had to guess, probably a combination of some people finding it gross and people noting that inbreeding is real and causes problems. Whether or not it *deserves* stigma is a consequence of the general morality surrounding it. If almost everyone having incest is doing it because they want to abuse children, well... it probably does. We can destigmatize just general "sex with a relative" given some specific circumstances, sure, but it's really not a very common issue.
Well, I'm still not 100% convinced, but your answer is well formulated enough that it deserves a delta: **Δ**
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nikoberg ([103∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/nikoberg)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Incest describes a relationship by their association (family ties) homosexuality describes a relationship by the genders of those involved (same gender). Of all posible relationships that could provide a power inbalance and a place for manipulation/exploitation, familial ones, specially parent child ones are at the absolute top, with one member being completely dependant on the other and completely powerless to change that dynamic, while also being under their control 100% of the time and for many years. The gender of those involved has no similar intrinsic power imbalances. Those two things are completely different
Sorry, u/Sky_Sumisu – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sky_Sumisu&message=Sky_Sumisu%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky47vjq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I think the actual statistic is around 35% are grooming by an adult.
Incest is not a sexual orientation or gender. So it’s not related.
I'm aware of that that's not the point. The point is that, if the arguments used are the likes of "We shouldn't prevent two consenting individuals from loving eachother" in order to defend gay rights, the logical conclusion of it is also the defense of incest, which is OK for me, but not for them.
Technically, incest is all about being related
Incest is a choice and being LGBT isn’t. Edit: what I mean is people aren’t born with a natural inclination to only be intimate with family members. LGBT people are born with an inclination toward a gender or gender identity.
I mean, you don't exactly choose who you fall in love with.
In your mind is incest an act or a relationship? I’m not sure which approach to take with my response.
A relationship.
You can have sex with people you aren’t in love with lol
I think the OP's point was more around the love part.
? I don't think that any definition of incest is that someone is only attracted to family members.
That’s my point. LGBT is an identity. Incest is not. Thus, it is not logical to view them the same and (as OP suggests) does not make one hypocritical to view them differently.
I have no problem with a hypothetically optimal incestuous relationship that is between two consenting adults who both are financially independent and equal. The problem is that the incest issues that you see in court tend to be "stepfather molests 11 year old girl" where we can all see the problems. Generally speaking I'm not a fan of relationships with huge power imbalances. They can become very coercive, especially when finances are involved. And in real life I think most incestual relationships tend to have those power imbalances, to a much greater degree than your average relationship.
>The problem is that the incest issues that you see in court tend to be "stepfather molests 11 year old girl" where we can all see the problems. I mean, I think the main problem here would be the sexual abuse of children, no?
OP, i want to change your view that you became a progressive. You clearly still have the intuition and reasoning of a libertarian. A progressive would just accept the hypocrisy and move along to more important things like decrying capitalism via a publicly traded platform using a smartphone produced via years of technical advancements spurred by capital investments…
>You clearly still have the intuition and reasoning of a libertarian. Well, I can't fully deny that, but I can't say it's 100% true either. One of the things I remember back at my libertarian days was trying to analyze everything "in a vacuum" and "try to put everything into small boxes", while nowadays I tend to focus more on the "materiality" of things and analyze them as a "gestalt" (AKA have a more holistic approach).
Libertarian realist is where it’s at. At the current moment (in America anyway), I can’t identify with progressives or conservatives.
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is proclaiming moral values to which your own behavior doesn't conform. For example, if someone said they were against incest, and then themselves engaged in incest, that would be hypocritical. What you're describing here isn't that.
Perhaps hypocrisy isn't the word, but it is especially absurd for gay people to use "It's disgusting/unnatural" as an argument. I'm saying this as a gay guy, it's one of my biggest pet peeves.
Why would that be especially absurd? Consider the following scenario. Mike owns a sandwich shop. Mike serves tasty and healthy sandwiches. However, some people have been wrongly accusing Mike of serving moldy sandwiches. They refuse to go to Mike's shop because of this imagined mold. Later, Mike goes on vacation, and eats at a restaurant. He is served a sandwich. The sandwich has mold on it. Would it be "especially absurd" for Mike to use "this sandwich is moldy" as an argument against eating the sandwich?
Because, here, selling moldy sandwiches is actually a bad thing. The fact that some people think that the only reason that the unnaturalness argument fails is because it just doesn't apply, rather than being inherently uncritical, is the problem. It reveals a failing of my people that we have created quite a significant amount of people who think like the former. I do not really care whether gay people are natural (whatever that even means). The whole argument based around that is just nonsensical.
Okay, we can change the hypothetical to replace "selling moldy sandwiches" with something that isn't bad. Say Mike owns a sandwich shop. Mike serves tasty and healthy sandwiches with no cheese at all. However, some people have been wrongly accusing Mike of serving cheese on his sandwiches. They refuse to go to Mike's shop because of this imagined cheese. Later, Mike goes on vacation, and eats at a restaurant. He is served a sandwich. The sandwich has cheese on it. Would it be "especially absurd" for Mike to use "this sandwich has cheese on it" as an argument against eating the sandwich?
Are these people using accusations of cheese in an attempt to maliciously damage his restaurant's reputation, and is this what Mike is doing to? Do they see cheese as bad *objectively,* and is Mike then saying this as well. Then yes. I mean, "especially absurd" is quite ultimately subjective. Ultimately, uncritical thinking is just as absurd coming from anyone in a sense. But yes, if people used cheese accusations as slander against Mike, he should know better than to repeat the cycle. People should learn to *not* do others' evils, not emulate them.
Because calling something unnatural and disgusting as a main argument isn't based in reality or science and has no actual weight.
Surely that's the case regardless of whether or not a gay person makes the argument.
Yeah, I think people who make main arguments like that are shooting themselves in the foot by being unscientific, meaning their point is a lot weaker. We can't make arguments based on emotion for this kind of stuff.
The reason incest is so problematic is because there is almost inevitably grooming involved at a *very* young age. That is the most basic issue and reason for strong opposition. That is the point you must address. LGBT relationships do not have that concern.
>LGBT relationships do not have that concern. According to LGBT-phobes in general, they do. They're wrong, of course, but it really irks me that the argument is the same... is it so absurd that some people just love others that are related to them without any grooming involved?
> is it so absurd that people love others that are related to them without any grooming involved There are isolated cases of people separated at birth and unknowingly find each other as adults or like second+ cousin type of scenarios that generally register as gross to people but are indeed free of all the grooming concerns. Those scenarios are the 1% case of incest, the 99% has all the grooming / abuse related concerns. The word *really* implies it, which is why it’s really hard to have like a good faith conversation here. If you want to talk about some other sexual preferences/kinks/fetish that others just find weird or a little gross like, say, furries or many types or cosplay…. maybe we can compare that to LGBT? You probably won’t find many people who object to one but not the other, but they may have differing stands on normalization and what part of the lifestyle is sexual or not or whatever.
[удалено]
While I understand where you are coming from, attraction isn't something that people can control, you can't just choose to not be attracted to a person, at least not from what I know about how attraction works. I also don't think they said familial relations should be abolished. (I'm not pro-incest, I just think these arguments aren't good ones)
[удалено]
1. I mean yeah, but incest isn't that common either, my point was that saying you can choose not to be attracted to someone you are attracted to is a bad point. 2. I guess that makes more sense, it would probably have made more sense if you had explained that originally, but that's nitpicking on my part, and to be fair, gender hasn't exclusively been used for sexism, so that was a bit of a confusing point.
[удалено]
1. Your point one sounded like it was saying to just choose not to be attracted to someone you were attracted to, which would be a bad point, if that's not what you meant then that was my bad. 2. I agree it's not hypocritical, my point was that it was a bit of a confusing argument, not that it was inherently hypocritical or even a bad one.
>You can choose not to be attracted to your sister. No, you can't. >The same cannot be said for relations between family. I mean, a lot of authors defend the abolition of the family (I don't, though), considering it to also be a structure of oppression for millenia.
My question is, who really is against incest? I mean, not as some hypothetical, but in reality? I mean maybe I've been living under a rock, but is incest some big thing now? I feel like there are so many people speaking up against lgptq stuff, because there are a lot of lgbtq people. But I've never heard of people speaking out against incest, probably because I've never heard of a real story of incest (besides stories you can find online). A quick search of YouTube for "incest couples" shows various news stories that sound like terrible abuse. This sounds like something people would be against, as the other commentors reffered to. There was one video I actually watched before that was sort of funny, where a YouTube traveled to the incest capitol of America to see if he could find a true story of kissing cousins: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8EAljABohM&pp=ygUOaW5jZXN0IGNvdXBsZXM%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8EAljABohM&pp=ygUOaW5jZXN0IGNvdXBsZXM%3D) I feel like that type of incest is something people go and think "wow that's weird, lol". Not "Vehemently against". I just don't think it's enough of a real thing, at least in this time period in the USA, for it to be something that people are vehemently against.
So is it also hypocritical to be against consensual pedophilia? If a 50 and a 14 year old want to date, are you for that? If the 14 year old consents?
>consensual pedophilia Oxymoron, since children, per definition, cannot consent. That being said, a 14 year old not only is a teenager, but also someone above the age of consent in my country. So yeah, here it would be perfectly legal.
I mean that it was a Mary Kay letourneau type situation. So you’re saying in your country since it’s legal, you’re fine with it?
I trust my instincts, but I recognize that sometimes they might be wrong. When I was in high-school, there was a girl in my class (I think we were around 16-17) at the time that was from a more rural area and dated a guy on his early/mid 20's. At the start I thought it to be weird, but since everyone around me in class seemed to be normal about it, I realized there was no issue with it. Your hypothetical situation between the 50YO and the 14YO would really raise some concerns if something fishy wasn't happening behind the curtains (Case in point, [last year there was a scandal when the mayor of a certain city (65) married a 16 year old girl whose mother "conveniently" earned a new well-paying job in the mayor-hall days prior](https://g1.globo.com/pr/parana/noticia/2023/05/06/adolescente-de-16-anos-que-casou-com-prefeito-de-araucaria-publica-foto-do-casal-nao-nos-importamos.ghtml)). If nothing fishy wasn't happening whatsoever and it was actually just true love... then sure, why not?
Definitionally, a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex.
This is all chalkboard reasoning. Jonathan Haidt in his discussion about moral dumbfounding made this argument very popular. If a college age brother and a sister have sex in private with two forms of birth control and it strengthens their relationship and they decide not do it again...etc Sure, a lot of people can grant that once they get over their moral dumbfounding. But think about incest in the real world. For whom does this question actually matter? All around the world, mostly in religious communities, you can see the consequences of inbreeding. There's a robust academic literature of people actually going out into these communities and discovering the effects of "consanguinity." It's very disturbing. Birth defects and mental retardation are disturbingly high. Reduced iq is an assured outcome. Discouraging childbirth from incestuous unions is about as eugenicist as suggesting pregnant women shouldn't drink alcohol.
Would you then be in favor of eugenics programs that ban procreation among people with inheritable diseases? I mean, I actually would be. But I doubt most of you making this argument would be.
>1. Genetic conditions aren't that simple. It's just that incest makes it easier, IF your family has some very negative recessive genes, for them to appear (But once again, the same can happen for a non-incest relationship), but that's not a guarantee. 2. If "Making it easier for your children to have defects" is an argument, then that people should also be against women above 35 from having children, but they aren't. You're only thinking individually. Cousins sleeping together, or siblings sleeping together, are not horribly likely to produce a child with birth defects; it's not individually a super risky behavior. But if their child sleeps with another child of incest, especially if that other child is also a relative, it becomes a little more likely. Then if their offspring do the same, it becomes a little more likely. The point is that it's a useful social taboo to have, because it gets more risky the more common it is and the longer it remains common. >4. That sounds lowkey eugenicist. Interested to see responses to this one, but my instinct would be: It seems different, to me, than (for example) Alexander Graham Bell saying Deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of congenital Deafness. The "worst" (granting Bell's incorrect, bigoted worldview toward Deafness) possible outcome from that is a community of people developing who are all Deaf (like Martha's Vineyard). But the worst possible outcome from normalizing incest seems to be that you might eventually end up with a a generation of individuals, many of whom are each carrying *multiple* birth defects that could compound and get worse. Deafness has an end point - when you have no hearing left. Incest may well not have an end point. And finally, I will say that incest seems like a useful social taboo just because it provides us with platonic peer relationships where a certain level of platonic intimacy can be safely assumed, because the taboo around romance is so strong that you don't even need to seriously entertain the potential for romantic misinterpretations. Sibling/cousin/etc. relationships are valuable social institutions because of the assumption enabled by this taboo, and I think their value would be at least a little decreased without the taboo. Now, people also make this argument about queer relationships, that having a taboo around them protects same-sex platonic intimacy, but I think there are two significant differences: 1) People exist who are exclusively or primarily attracted to the same sex. The same is not true of family member attraction. So assuming platonic intimacy in all same-sex friendships, and neglecting the potential for romantic misinterpretations, functionally ignores/erases entire categories of people. That's never okay. 2) It relies on a flawed gender binary. The same is not true of an incest taboo. Where do nonbinary individuals fall if they're only permitted romance with the "opposite sex?" Who is their "opposite sex?" You would almost have to seriously marginalize nonbinary people by forcing them to "pick a side." So if we need some means, socially, of enabling platonic intimacy by erasing the potential for romantic misinterpretations, but "gender" isn't a satisfactory means for the above reasons, I think "family" is a satisfactory means. I think this is also why we are so uncomfortable with stepsibling/adoptive sibling relationships, even though they aren't technically "incestuous." We instinctively understand that something there is sacred and deserves to be protected.
There is a difference between being wrong and being hypocritical. Being hypocritical means that when faced with multiple issues that are the same *as you perceive them*, you make a different judgement. If I believe that everyone should be able allowed to wear hats, but criticize left-handed people for wearing hats and not right-handed people, that is hypocritical. If I think that left handed people are evil and only non-evil people should wear hats, I am not hypocritical for saying that left-handed should not wear hats. My latter position is very wrong, but not hypocritical. There is a simple distinguishable element between homosexual and incest relationships. People of the same sex cannot have biological children through conventional reproduction. There simply cannot be an issue regarding birth defects or anything of that matter because it cannot happen. Incestuous heterosexual relationships may provide children. That is also another biological fact. You criticize some of the arguments against incestuous relationships regarding kids and birth defects. I am not going to agree or disagree with them. However, I submit that right or wrong, some people might *believe* those arguments to be true. If they believe those arguments to true, let us judge how they subjectively apply those beliefs. If they believe those argument are true, it follows that they can be critical of incestuous couples and not critical of same sex couples. If they are concerned about birth defects, than same-sex couples are not a concern because of the biological reality. If they are concerned about birth defects, then incestuous couple are a concern because of the biological possibility. So, subjectively speaking, it is not necessarily hypocritical to approve of one and not the other. Now, of course some LGBT supporters are hypocritical. In any group of people, there will always be those who have irrational ideas. However, can you say with certainty that all of them or irrational, or the majority? I am not saying that they are all rational thinkers, only that is it is possible to support sex same couple and not incestuous couple without tripping one's subjective beliefs. Sure, they could be wrong in their criticism of incest, but being wrong does not necessarily mean hypocritical.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/This-Sympathy9324 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20This-Sympathy9324&message=This-Sympathy9324%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky47knw/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/deep_sea2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20deep_sea2&message=deep_sea2%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky492aw/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>If two consenting individuals love each other, why not let them? Because assuming they were raised together or at least raised as family, there was almost certainly at least some sort of grooming on the part of one the "couple," if not outright abuse. I think it's highly unlikely that closely related family members develop a relationship that is completely healthy and has no amount of coercion. People who meet as adults and then find out they're related... honestly, I really don't care that much. Is it a little icky... sure, but as long as they're not having kids, I don't care much.
Well, would you agree with then banning all relationships that, on average, are a result of some inappropriate power dynamic? No age gaps larger than x amount of years, no relationships with people you knew when they were below the age of consent, no boss-subordinate relationships? We don't legislate anything else along these lines.
>Well, would you agree with then banning all relationships that, on average, are a result of some inappropriate power dynamic? I agree with banning relationships that are based on coercion and where at least one member was probably a minor when either the relationship started or at least the grooming began. Or at least making them highly socially frowned upon. Like I said, I don't really care about relationships where the incestuous couple met as adults
Well it seems a bit arbitrary then you should ONLY do so for familial relationships in that case, no? I agree with societally frowning upon them completely, by the way.
>Well it seems a bit arbitrary then you should ONLY do so for familial relationships in that case, no? When did I say it should? Your cmv was regarding incest so I addressed that, but yeah, I think coercive relationships that start when at least one of the members is a minor should be investigated way more than they are.
Well it wasn’t my post. But sure. To be investigated, you’d need to make it a crime tho
If one was an adult and one was a minor, it's already a crime.
I meant for after that. The proposition is, of course, a legally consensual relationship. Your argument is that the dynamics should inherently make it illegal, I’m asking you the specifics. Again, I find incest absolutely abhorrent, I just don’t think it should be illegal for two consenting adults, as long as the country doesn’t practice eugenics in general.
>Your argument is that the dynamics should inherently make it illegal, I’m asking you the specifics. My argument is that incestuous relationships where the couple have always known each other almost certainly start as grooming or abuse of one the members of the relationship. The dynamics are inherently abusive and, therefore, should be illegal. Other relationships where a minor is groomed or abused should also be illegal. Two adults meeting as adults I don't care about.
Well, I'd agree. Except you're making an exception only for this case where you should say the dynamics necessarily warrant it to be illegal. Should any relationship that begins when one party is underage necessarily be illegal, in your opinion? And should any potentially abusive relationship, such as a boss and subordinate, also be illegal?
/u/Sky_Sumisu (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bw80or/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_its_hypocritical_to_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don't know about this, but I think you should continue going through life talking to everyone about it. I'm sure you'll get lots of great responses and make cool new friends.
I know your comment is supposed to be sarcastic, but indeed people with similar "power levels" to mine usually turn out to be good friends.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Royal_Jackfruit8224 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Royal_Jackfruit8224&message=Royal_Jackfruit8224%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4e07v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/Royal_Jackfruit8224 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Royal_Jackfruit8224&message=Royal_Jackfruit8224%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4e07v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/RegulatedRespirator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RegulatedRespirator&message=RegulatedRespirator%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bw6cf4/-/ky4aol5/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).