I expected to make this post sometime earlier but a certain Lagooner who I might identify with long scarlet flowing locks thwarted that.
Our various countries obviously take “common law” into account when developing legislation.
“Common law” was necessary for wholesome coexistence of a tribe/community. Various tenets would have developed over different temporal periods and passed on in “songlines”, folklore, and eventually by scholars.
“Incest” has obviously been founded upon very early tribal/community understandings where the then unknown concept of “recessive genes” became apparent.
Ultimately our international communities have inherited principles of “common law” akin to the
Christian set of “The Ten Commandments”.
Governments, not always removed from religious influences, legislate upon practicalities,
the here and now. This brings me back to where I was ‘upset’ by
Skelaturi’s:
link. It is very clear, from my reading, there is little commonalty of the definition of “incest” other than it is sexual intercourse between a parent and a child of the opposite sex. Oh! I should add, that seems to be consistent whilst the junior is not of age to be a consenting adult.
Oh! I note above that
LRM expressed his opinion of incest within “Teasing Holidays”. With respect, I understood that “incest” was about intercourse, but I also thought, erroneously, that it related to other sexual activity not involving intercourse (this occurs between Emilee and her brother). Consistent with LRM’s supposed stance is that the legislature where he lives (not necessarily what his early family values embedded) is against intercourse with cousins (Alyssa and Andy). Now…. France – Belgium and Luxembourg! …. The Wiki article at this point lacks the clarification that I’d like, but with Shark’s comment (above) I assume that those legislatures embody the idea which I quote from above: ” Oh! I should add, that seems to be consistent whilst the junior is not of age to be a consenting adult.”
Now I came full circle to those “long scarlet flowing locks”.
Skelaturi suggested that developers, and others, propose certain keywords regarding content, much as one would build into a site so that webcrawlers make the site more visible to search engines.
… but someone stated here somewhere before, to lazy to read it all again who said it. But i think there should be a rule that both creators and users when posting a new topic about someting in the first post all subjects should be listed. Incest, orc on elf, bdsm, futa. So noone should be in for a (un)pleasant suprise. And the mods only have to read the first post …
For authors that would work fine, but for someone who is offering a “treasure”, the full scope may be unknown to the poster; maybe the poster must offer as much content knowledge that is known. While I have some “embryonic” thoughts, are there others who might give some insight? Please keep them within the framework of this thread since even this thought is somewhat going “off-topic”.
Now, how is the Lagoon is to deal with “incest” since we now have a wider exposure to deeper understandings of governance? My simplistic view is that we propose, if content is “incest” then either “the junior is a consenting adult” is acceptable or else “no parental-child relationships are acceptable”.
Shark may or may not accept any advices but, …… let me further add, I expect that any comment upon my remarks should be constructive.