Forum: Author Hangout

I want to look at the tales with a different lens. While the folktales themselves may be old, the relationships between people, the way that people behave, the way human nature dictates actions etc. are very interesting to me.

Also, Indian mythology is very misunderstood in other parts of the world. It is time to provide a more modern approach to it to allow others to relate and understand what it is about.

In California, incest exists when the participants are on the "forbidden" list, parent-child, siblings, etc., etc., *and* there is penetration by penis in vagina.

One law firm I found on Google says: "Incest is illegal in California under Penal Code § 285. This law states that marriage or sexual relations between close relatives is a felony, punishable by up to 3 years in jail and fines up to $10,000."

So it's illegal to simply marry. Since same sex marriages are allowed, if two sisters marry they are guilty of incest. No penis involved.

I'll have to dig up the site where I found my information. The Internet is never wrong, of course.

I'm not a lawyer.

I asked ChatGPT "is it considered incest in California if two blood sisters marry? Can they be prosecuted?" It's answer was "Yes, in California, if two biological (blood) sisters attempt to marry or engage in a sexual relationship, it is considered incest under the law, and they can be prosecuted."

The above answer is misleading because of the "or." The marriage is void because the law says they can't marry (blood sisters), but they must have sex to be prosecuted for incest.

- The law applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex relatives.
- Any sexual act (including oral sex, manual stimulation, or genital contact) between sisters can qualify as incest.

So going back to your original "there is penetration by penis in vagina" that isn't correct.

You should read the link posted by Joe_Bondi_Beach. Personally, I'll take an analysis by an actual law firm over Chat GPT which has a strong propensity for making shit up.

My first response was after reading what a law firm said. The ChatGPT was simply a followup

So going back to your original "there is penetration by penis in vagina" that isn't correct.

Language matters. I'm the best barstool/dugout/latrine lawyer you've ever met. (OK, that's silly, strike that.)

Language does matter. We are talking specifically about sexual intercourse, not sexual activity or a sexual relationship. Marriage ban aside, the text of the law (California Penal Code Section 285) says you commit incest if you have sexual intercourse with [parent, child sibling, etc., etc.].

Sexual intercourse is defined as any penetration of the vagina or genitalia by the penis. It helpfully adds "no matter how slight," and that ejaculation is not required. So even if you don't come, you've still committed incest.

CALCRIM 1180 – Incest (Pen. Code, § 285). ("Sexual intercourse means any penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or genitalia by the penis. [Ejaculation is not required.]") This is footnote 11 on the page I cited earlier.

"CALCRIM 1180" is jury instructions in incest cases.

the text of the law (California Penal Code Section 285) says you commit incest if you have sexual intercourse

Okay, I don't know where I found the other definition. Probably an AI.

You are right about the same sex ban and two sisters. In that case, there is no penetration issue. It could be a totally platonic marriage and still be prohibited and considered incestuous.

If they don't marry, the two sisters could carry on an affair and still not be guilty of incest.

All that said if you write a story where a parent masturbates a son, while [ed.] the parent may not be prosecuted in in California, your readers who do not expect this will be pretty ticked off if you did not code it as incest to warn them.

If they don't marry, the two sisters could carry on an affair and still not be guilty of incest.

It's the marry part that confused me. It's not marry or sex (although that's how it was written). I finally determined the articles were talking about two different California laws. If siblings (same sex or not) got married, one California law voids that marriage. It has nothing to do with incest. It has to do with taxes, benefits, etc. married people get. Now if there was also incest involved, another California law would be used to prosecute them.

ChatGPT is not a source, and its output is not information.

I know that. I'm not sure where I saw what I posted. If it was AI, it was probably Google's AI which is the first thing that often comes up when you do a Google search.

That's a major issue I have with AI. If you never know if the information it's giving you is correct, then how can you ever trust anything it gives you?

For relatively complicated and unusual questions, sometimes (often, it seems like) the actual links don't really answer the question, while the AI answer provides links that do answer the question. I used to just scroll past it, but now that the AI is providing links, often it turns out to be quite useful.

You can't trust it (or, at least, you cannot trust it to be completely correct - there are other definitions of 'trust').

But you can still use it.

For instance, if I ask ChatGPT something that's not particularly easy to answer ('What restaurants would have been popular in Omaha in 1984?', for instance), I get back answers. I can then verify those answers. Finding those answers by some other means might be quite difficult.

You can also get it (or, say, Google's AI) to provide links. Those can aid in verifying whether the information is accurate (or, at least, is accurate according to the provided links - which may themselves potentially be inaccurate).

you cannot trust it to be completely correct

For a story, I was researching whether prostitution was legal in NY in the 1880s. I asked ChatGPT and Meta AI. One said yes, the other said no.

However, when I dug deeper, they were both right.

It was illegal, but the authorities looked the other way so it was basically "legal."

Hebe was a cutie, no question.

I test the various AIs by asking it about myself, and they've gotten much better. Now to the level of omitting some information, but much less hallucinating such as giving me credit for other people's works.

I will note that ChatGPT can readily access all the story blurbs here but doesn't appear to read the story itself.

Hey, I know, just a glimpse of cleavage at school could get me going, but then I'd go home and see Mom virtually every day (and she would see me) so guess which images filled my mind when I closed my eyes for a late night stroking session.

But back then 30 seemed ancient, but now I have the ability to find something good and disregard the less than good rather than the other way around. "Yeah, her butt's a little big, but she has such a great smile!"

So instead of looking at 13-18, now my upper limit's around 60. I write stories about older guys and younger girls who are eager to live a little.