[QUOTE=Bricker]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Well, there’s the Virginia Code’s definition of “forcible sodomy” (Va Code 18.267.1.A), that says in relevant part:
(and the rest of the definition goes into what makes it “forcible”)
And 18.2-361, the “Crimes Against Nature” part, deals with both sodomy and incest:
[QUOTE=Malienation]
Incest statutes apply only when one of the partners is a minor. It’s perfectly legal, AFAIK, to have sex with a relative, even a close one, when all persons involved are adults. Of course, they would not be allowed to marry if they so desired (although first cousins are allowed to marry in some states, and, in fact, in most of the rest of the world).
[/QUOTE]
Fascinating.
But then how do you explain Virginia’s Code § 18.2-366, which provides in pertinent part:
Any chance you might be a bit off base with your statement?
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, there’s the Virginia Code’s definition of “forcible sodomy” (Va Code 18.267.1.A), that says in relevant part: [legalese]
(and the rest of the definition goes into what makes it “forcible”)
[/QUOTE]
“…or shall cause complaining witness to squeal like a pig…” :rolleyes:
The original claim: Actually, in a lot of cases “sodomy” is defined simply as “sexual activity that is non-procreative”.
I asked for a cite.
Captain Amazing offers:
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, there’s the Virginia Code’s definition of “forcible sodomy” (Va Code 18.267.1.A), that says in relevant part:
(and the rest of the definition goes into what makes it “forcible”)
And 18.2-361, the “Crimes Against Nature” part, deals with both sodomy and incest:
[/QUOTE]
And you contend that the list of activities mentioned above are coterminous with “sexual activity that is non-procreative?” You contend it’s correct, based on the laws you’ve quoted, to define sodomy as “sexual activity that is non-procreative?”
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Come to think of it, there are a couple of identical twins, whose names I can’r recall, that do porn films together. I wonder if they’ve talked to a lawyer about this?
[/QUOTE]
As an aside to the main conversation: In the vids I’ve seen of the twins, there is very little touching between the women - they seem to focus on the man. They will watch and touch themselves… I suppose that makes sense, as they are probably not into each other, being sisters and all.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Wait a sec. Is incest illegal, or are we all just assuming it is? Obviously and truly, incestuous *marriage *is illegal (although different states have different definitions of “incest” for marriage), but is incestuous *sex *between consenting adults illegal in all states and nations? I tried googling an answer, but besides sex sites, I only found one actual cite that incestual sex is illegal: Maryland’s Model Penal Code Sec 230.2, apparently forbids incestual sex. What about the rest of us?
[/QUOTE]
I was actually about to use Maryland’s law as an example. Most states have some incest prohibition (try looking it up through the individual states’ statutes, not through Google) but the specifics vary widely. In Connecticut, for instance, any sex in the same degree of consanguinity that would prevent marriage is technically illegal, but the wording of Maryland’s law only prohibit’s vaginal intercourse. I suppose the MD law originally assumed the other sorts would be taken care of by sodomy laws, but since those have been struck down they’re off-limits. Upshot: a brother and sister can screw, but only if it’s up the butt.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
And you contend that the list of activities mentioned above are coterminous with “sexual activity that is non-procreative?” You contend it’s correct, based on the laws you’ve quoted, to define sodomy as “sexual activity that is non-procreative?”
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I thought you were challenging the statement “oral sex falls into this category as well”. The cite I gave was merely in support of that. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that defines sodomy as any “sexual activity that is non-procreative”.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Actually, I thought you were challenging the statement “oral sex falls into this category as well”. The cite I gave was merely in support of that. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that defines sodomy as any “sexual activity that is non-procreative”.
[/QUOTE]
We’re in agreement, then.
[QUOTE=Bricker, quotingVirginia’s Code § 18.2-366]
Any person who commits adultery or fornication with his daughter or granddaughter, or with her son or grandson, or her father or his mother, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.
[/QUOTE]
So under a strict reading of the statute, the OP’s scenario is legal in Virginia. Nowhere does the statute state that a person who commits adultery or fornication with her daughter or her mother is guilty of anything.
Unless maybe Virginia has a statutory construction law that allows for gender-specific pronouns to be read non-specifically?
If you are not married to both the mother and the daughter, then your scenario would clearly be illegal wherever both polygamy and fornication are prohibited.
I would be very curious to know whether jursidictions which permit polygamy, such as Sharia Islamic countries, would permit you to marry a mother and her daughter. For that matter, I’d like to know whether it’s normal to have group sex in polygamous Islamic marriages, or if the husband is expected to have sex with only one wife at a time.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
We’re in agreement, then.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Appears so.
With you all focused on the women, I’m still uncertain on MY legal position, though I’m gaining confidence that I’m in the clear.
I accept as a fact that there are likely places where one or both of them might face charges.
The terms *inciting. abetting, *and conspiracy still ring mental alam bells for me. Jeez, if I could be guilty of abetting their incest, I wouldn’t even have to be sexually involved myself. It might be that all it would take would be for me to talk them into it, or knowingly provide them a room for the purpose. If I could be charged just for watching, I might as well join in.
Wait, so great-grandma is still on the table? Awesome!
[QUOTE=psychonaut]
If you are not married to both the mother and the daughter, then your scenario would clearly be illegal wherever both polygamy and fornication are prohibited.
[/QUOTE]
How are you running afoul of anti polygamy laws in this situation?
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Wait, so great-grandma is still on the table? Awesome!
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t she be more comfortable on the bed?
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
With you all focused on the women
[/QUOTE]
And this shocks you… how?
[QUOTE=Otto]
Wouldn’t she be more comfortable on the bed?
[/QUOTE]
Bwahahaha…
Just to send things further afield, I’d just like to point out that there’s a slang term for this kind of 3-way in Japanese: oyakodon, literally: “parent and child in a bowl”, which is the name of a dish made from chicken and eggs, and was the same dish that inspired Paul Simon to write “Mother and Child Reunion”.
Just so you have something to think about the next time that song comes on the radio.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
With you all focused on the women, I’m still uncertain on MY legal position, though I’m gaining confidence that I’m in the clear.
[/QUOTE]
Well, sure, but if what they’re doing isn’t a crime, then you’re not inciting, abetting or conspiring to commit a crime, see?