What is the legal standard our justice systems use to justify criminalizing incest
even when it's in the form of consensual sexual activity? The only way the courts
can question as to whether adult incest is ever truly consensual is:
Ignoring the age of a child, there is still a theory that the parent is always a
parent, and that a child is always a child. From this logic courts find there truly
can never be a consensual sexual act between parent and adult child. The impossibility
of consent explains why adult children are never charged in cases of incest with
their mothers or fathers. The legal reasoning is that the perpetrator is the parent
and the victim is the child. Courts do not normally prosecute a person falling within
the protected [victim] class, and in cases of incest, the adult child always remains
a member of the protected class even above age of consent."
It is difficult to be sympathetic toward the lack of adult consent argument. It makes
no legal sense either because it stretches the definition of ‘adult' to claim an
adult child with functioning mental faculties doesn't possess the ability to consent—or
refrain from consenting—to sex with another adult. Isn't it a violation of rights
to prevent an adult child from engaging in incest? The courts enshrine "consensual"
as an unimpeachable standard for why there should be no compelling state interest
in regulating sexual activity.