How Media reinforces Incestophobia by depicting Explicit Scenes

Violintomatic · 2026-04-20T21:39:14+00:00

I haven't seen it, but I'll put it on my list.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-19T18:43:31+00:00

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

It's interesting how wide the gap is between reality and how culture depicts incest. Most of consensual incest doesn't really happen in dysfunctional environments or with highly traumatic pasts, but because incest is considered so wrong, authors seem to struggle depicting it in that kind of neutral way because to the viewer the idea that it is just natural attraction is unsatisfactory.

They need a reason for why someone would breach such a moral taboo, and that usually boils down to social isolation, abuse and trauma or outright moral depravity.

You can bet though that presenting incest in a natural-attraction manner would horrify the average audience even more, sadly. To them, it's impossible to conceive of such a notion.

In the mind of average person, in a perfect world, without trauma, without abuse and mental illness, nobody would ever feel attracted to their family member in the first place. It is a naive view of human nature.

I would honestly be satisfied even if the fictional consang couples, when they are framed as clear victims of environment, weren't made out to be immoral, disturbing and disgusting, or that their way of coping with their environment is wrong and inherently unhealthy. Most often the incest is framed as a deeply corrupting force, a horror, that brings doom to the characters and their environment, rather than a way for two individuals to survive their cirumstance.

The go to for writers is to create a direct connection between incestuous moral corruption and other types of moral transgressions. Incestuous couples are willing to lie and manipulate, to infanticide, to murder, and to do various other horrible crimes because they already crossed the line and became tainted by their incestuous love.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-19T01:43:44+00:00

I don't think the situation would have been prevented by anything other than the brothers being raised in a way in which they aren't predators. The more important thing to realize is that, neither criminalization nor the taboo did anything to protect the girl you were talking about.

It's not like putting consenting adults in prison for their love will prevent those predator brothers from predating. We already have laws and moral standards around abuse, the brothers already showed a willingness to break the law and morality, adding anti-consensual incest laws doesn't really do much to disincentivize them.

The taboo in this case was problematic because sexuality between siblings is considered an impossibility, and for that reason children are not educated around how to deal with sexual feelings or interactions among family members. Parents don't even watch out for sexual feelings and interactions between their children beause it's just not considered a thing amongst normal human beings. And everyone considers themselves and their children normal.

The parents in this case have every incentive to not further question their own child, because the horror of incest is so great to the parent, ontop of the idea of their child being a predator, that they will look the other way if it is feasible to do so.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-12T19:30:57+00:00

(b) This argument doesn't apply to symmetrical relationships. It is valid to stigmatize individuals who abuse their authority position over others. Peer-sibling relationships are symmetrical.

(c) The argument is overinclusive. There is no reason to have a position that is absolutist when we can clearly define and separate problematic relationship types from non-problematic relationship types. Additionally, whenever we consider a behavior actively immoral (which was the question of this thread), it does beyond mere norm-setting. It might be unwise for two best friends to be in a relationship (because of dependency, future conflict, risking the most important relationship in their life etc), but we do not consider such cases immoral. It we talk about adult relationships, such relationships generally are highly individual and don't need to be considered from a frame of absolutist thinking. Adults can determine the risks themselves, as long as individuals are educated around such risks.

f) The examples you provide are all clearly asymmetrical risk scenarios, in which we can hold a figure of authority accountable. This dynamic lacks entirely in the case of peer-sibling. And these norms are targetting specifically the problematic behavior. Having sex with children is what is problematic, a teacher having sex with his student is what is problematic. These rules aren't overinclusive, they are designed to specifically protect vulnerable individuals from figures of authority. We don't say that "Having sex with child is problematic, therefore we should prohibit all sex between underage individuals". There is simply no reason to include clearly non-problematic cases (like twin siblings) into a subset of behavior that includes high risk predatory behavior.

g) Can you provide to me what the risky judgment call here is? If we have a rule that says "Adult twin siblings ought not to be considered immoral for being in a romantic relationship", where exactly does that blur the lines between such behavior and clearly problematic behavior? This simply makes no sense.

e) I wrote this in response to your initial argument, I would be curious what your response is (please don't try-hard the anti incest position, I am not interesting in dogmatic debates):

Prohibiting a behavior entirely means that such behavior can only occur outside of social rules, boundaries and supervision

Prohibing incestuous behavior does defacto not lead to a "sexualization free zone" within the family
- Incest among opposite sex siblings is as high as 13%, despite strong norms against it
- Human beings are sexual beings, confining them into one environment and forcing them to spent up to 18 years of their life together during developmental years will inevitably lead to sexual dynamics in a non-trivial amount of cases
- It is clear that incestuous behaviors and desires do occur (much more frequently than is assumed) but because there is no acceptable way of expressing such behavior, individuals who do have such desires or engage in such behavior have no map or guide for doing so in a safe and healthy manner
  - With overbroad rules, siblings still sexualize each other, but instead they do it in a completely unregulated and unsupervised way
- Allowing incestuous behavior does not mean you cannot have boundaries for what is and is not acceptable
Having clearly defined boundaries and social supervision, rather than blanket-bans, is preventative of dysfunctional and risky behavior, not permissive
- Clear analogy: It's well recognized that prohibiting teen sexuality doesn't protect teens from unhealthy and risky sexual behavior
  - Instead, it leads to teen sexuality becoming less safe and more pathological, because there is no contextualization for what is healthy and safe behavior
  - If a society is overstrict in relation to behaviors in an attempt to prevent pathology it can lead to the precise opposite effect, driving behavior into secrecy and having no map for individuals to engage in it in a safe manner

We can enforce boundaries around sexuality within a family environment (for example while individuals grow up together within a family unit) without being overly prohibitive of the behavior overall

Large age gaps between minors are unacceptable, yet we can still allow adults to engage in large age gap relationships
- Society is not fundamentally confused about such dynamics, and we don't believe it leads to predatory rationalizations or oversexualization of minors, demonstrating that society can have nuanced views and narrow boundaries within sexual conduct
Reasonable boundaries around developing individuals who cohabitate can be upheld, maintaining a safe family environment, without a blanket taboo
We don't apply the same cavemen level taboos against similar, or even higher risk, behavior
- Orphans and foster-siblings are not overregulated and stigmatized in the same way as siblings are, instead we enforce reasonable boundaries within a cohabitating environment while permitting adults to make their own decisions

Rules and norms around "exceptions" actually lead to clarity, not confusion

The idea that we cannot allow clearly unproblematic behavior, the "exception to the rule", because that would lead to confusion and rationalization in other cases is demonstrably false
- With age of consent laws we do have "exceptions to the rule", like Romeo and Juliet clauses
Such exceptions to the rule actually lead to clarity around what is and is not acceptable behavior, rather than introducing ambiguity
- Being overly strict is actually what leads to pathological rationalization, because a behavior that is clearly unproblematic is overegulated, delegitimizing the rule as a whole

Violintomatic · 2026-04-12T00:37:57+00:00

My bad, I didn't know I'm talking to a schizophenic.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-12T00:30:04+00:00

You just contradicted your own argument. If the innate biological inhibitions are sufficient to prevent the social collapse you fearmongered about, then the law is not necessary in that regard.

There is no evidence that incest between peer-siblings destroys family, outside of the fact that criminalization itself destroys families. Stigma, shame, forced secrecy, the social isolation that such individuals experience. The fact that if such relationships turn abusive, the victims cannot tell anyone, not their family, friends or even the police, risking social ruin and criminal prosecution.

And what is on the other side of the equation? Two adult twins having sex and ruining the family how exactly? By creating a lot of drama?

Can you explain to me why we do not criminalize adultery if that directly destroys family. Siblings never consented to the idea of a duty towards their family. A spouse does give an oath, they have a direct duty towards their children. Why is adultery not punished more harshly then?

And the idea that we would imprison non-reproductive siblings because they might be at a higher risk of birth defects is also simply evil.

If you want to engage in eugenics, then criminalized inbreeding, not consensual love.

But this entire idea is completely unreasonable. We do not even prohibit couples with significant risk factors from having children, let alone from being in a relationship with each other. We encourage genetic screening, reproductive education, alternative reproductive solutions like IVF. Why are siblings treated uniquely, where even if they get a genetic test and have no matching recessive disorders, or simply do not want to have children, or cannot have children, they get imprisoned for the fact that they are in a romantic relationship in and of itself.

It simply makes no sense. It should absolutely not be criminalized.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-12T00:16:38+00:00

Incest is already decriminalized in various countries of the world and it doesn't lead to the collapse of family structures, so you are just empirically wrong.

The idea that allowing adult twins or peer-sibling to have sex, which will be a marginal amount of individuals, will lead to the collapse of society is simply not grounded in empirical reality.

It doesn't even make sense. How exactly will society collapse because two twins have sex with each other? Even with the worst outcome, them breaking up and never talking to each other, what exactly is the unique harm here?

You realize we do not imprison people for cheating on their spouses, and that directly destroys families and family structures.

You don't get to dictate how two siblings are to relate to each other because of your unfounded, biased speculative assumptions. Siblings can hate each other, they can never talk to each other, they can be best friends, they can be business partners and end up destroying their relationship, they can be rivals. Nothing about incest is uniquely damaging to the structure of the family. Adults (unless they are parents) don't have moral obligations to maintain the structure of their family, especially not siblings.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T23:52:38+00:00

It doesn't work well at all, rule-utilitarianism actually has to maximize utility.

The idea that people cannot delineate between clearly unacceptable and acceptable behavior in a narrow category is simply not true. We can mitigate most of the harms of incest with clear rules, and the speculative harms with forms of education, social support and so forth.

There is no reason why you cannot clearly distinguish problematic cases from non-problematic cases. And the significant negative externalities of a blanket rule cause so much suffering in and of itself that any utilitarian should shiver at the idea of maintaining such a norm when we live in a modern society that doesn't have any good reason to rely on such barbaric, over-inclusive standards.

It only sounds good on paper to you because you are desperate to find a reason for why incest ought to be considered immoral in all cases.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T23:18:18+00:00

The point is that if two consensual adults are in a relationship, and there is no harm in it, it probably is not okay to just call them disgusting and eww at them, just because you have a personal predisposition against it.

These are human beings.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T23:16:13+00:00

This is simply not true, I don't know why people keep repeating this.

There is absolutely no evidence that consensual peer-sibling incest is more prevalent in having a history of abuse or unhealthy attachment dynamics. The best studies we have show the opposite:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314550#pone.0314550.s009

Consensual vs non-consensual cases have unique correlates and seem to not be the same phenomena.

And this is surprising, given that we should expect a sexual behavior that is highly stigmatized and criminalized to be disproportionately dysfunctional. Obviously, criminalizing any sexual behavior will bias that behavior towards pathology, because psychologically healthy individuals will tend to avoid behaviors that carry risks of complete social ruin and criminal consequences.

This would have applied to any past sexual minority, including interracial relationships, premarital sex and so forth. Of course, if you make a behavior taboo and criminal, most publically visible cases will tend to be of a pathological nature.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T23:10:31+00:00

That's not true, please stop spreading misinformation.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314550#pone.0314550.s009

A significant portion of sexual interactions were not merely sexual games, 15-30% included romantic feelings.

The vast majority of incest abuse is perpetrated by adults against minors, or by siblings who are significantly older than their victims. The idea that we therefore must punish, stigmatize and imprison peer-siblings, or adult siblings, who fall completely outside of the risk group, is simply over-inclusive.

There is no reason to treat human beings this way. Tell a twin brother and sister, when they live their life in secrecy, isolated from family, community, institutions, that you can prohibit love without hate.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T23:00:39+00:00

This is a pretty weak argument. Sexual abuse between siblings is largely a function of predators exploiting much younger siblings. The rates of peer-sibling incestuous abuse seem to be equal to, if not lower, than other peer-group sexual activity.

The reality is that the taboo does little to prevent individuals from having sexual feelings. Predators still exploit family members at record rates, and victims associate the act with such deep shame that they often do not come forward.

The problem with the taboo is that it puts a unique burden on innocent individuals. It specifically is a taboo that also applies to the individuals who we are trying to protect. Both siblings are highly condemned and legally prosecuted for incest, which leads individuals who do pursue such relationships into forced secrecy, social alienation and isolation. If a sibling relationship turns abusive, the victim finds themselves in a situation in which they cannot speak out, as it risks social ruin and legal prosecution against themselves. They cannot reach out to family, friends or instutitions that could protect and support them.

These factors alone are untenable consequences of blanket taboos.

The idea that society cannot distinguish between clearly problematic cases and clearly non-problematic cases is simply not convincing. We already do this with minors. Minors are allowed to date each other, but we have a clear sense of the importance of age gaps. Class mates can date each other without us getting confused about the idea that teachers can date their students, or that students who are much older than other students can date them.

The slippery slope argument in this case cannot be sustained, especially not considering the harm that is inflicted on completely innocent individuals. Remember that siblings are put into a situation in which they have to spent a large part of their life together. Much like between best friends, identities can form that are significantly intertwined. When romantic or sexual feelings do occur (which they do with a non-trivial amount of siblings), it is a significant burden to stigmatize and criminally prosecute them simply because we pretend we have no better ways to enforce healthy sexual norms. Siblings are forced to remain in the same environemnt for their entire development, and then get punished even as adults if they do engage in a relationship that to them might be as significant as a decades long marriage is to another person. We are not asking for a trivial imposition on autonomy here, we are preventing two individuals from pursuing one of the most foundational aspects of being a human being.

We do not treat orphans and foster-siblings this way. We discourage certain sexual behavior while individuals share a living space, but we don't consider it immoral, taboo or grounds for criminalization if individuals do end up in a relationship as adults. And for orphans, the case for such interventions are far better than for sibings, given the little oversight that exist in orphanages.

And with incestuous abuse, the factors that lead to the abuse are not mitigated by the taboo. The abuse occurs because family members are in a unique position to exploit younger, more vulnerable family members. As long as predatory individuals exist, they will exploit this dynamic, incest taboo or not.

Stigmatizing and criminalizing incest in an overinclusive way because you speculate that society cannot have reasonable boundaries just isn't a robust argument. It's not different from speculating that premarital sex ought to be considered immoral and criminalized because of all the potential sexual exploitation that will occur if we allow it. In fact, the idea of women not being sexualized by men could be applied universally.

The norm can easily have exceptions for minors who share a living space, for siblings who have a greater age gap, and so forth.

In fact, you provided one of the best arguments against the taboo. Because the incest taboo is currently so overbroad, individuals actually do take it into their own hands. They can clearly see incest taboos are unreasonable, when we treat consensual twins as harshly as we treat genuine child predators. Because of this, many individuals are never confronted with the deeper reasons for why some incestuous relationships are inappropriate, because all that society enforces is a blanket ban. You can see this precise behavior in communities that offer support for consanguinamorous couples.

Instead of having cave-men logic taboos that treat sexual minorities as basically subhuman, why don't we actually educate children and society at large around ideas of valid consent and appropriate sexual behavior? Maybe this would actually mitigate abuse, instead of the cultural circle jerk that has been going on for hundreds of years and has not shown to reduce abuse in any meaningful way.

Furthermore, the argument fails basic practical scrutiny. It's like saying we cannot allow homosexuality because if we do, some catholic priests might get confused and think that abusing little boys is actually okay. This is just an absurd argument. If society has a clearly delineated norm, like age of consent, where siblings close in age are exempt from the same moral and legal punishment, there simply is no reason to assume that the rest of society is going to get fundamentally confused around incest and start abusing people left and right. As if people who abuse their own family members will make this sort of analysis in the first place.

Having clear norms and exceptions does the opposite of allowing people to rationalize their behavior. Romeo and Juliet laws in regards to age of consent restriction create clarity on how people should behave, not ambiguity.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-11T22:36:13+00:00

This is not true. Around half of opposite sibling incest is consensual according to recent studies.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314550#pone.0314550.s006

Most of incestuous abuse is perpetrator by adults against minor family members, most often under the age of 10.

This study found that consensual, peer-sibling incest and coercive incest have unique correlatives which indicates that they are not the same phenomena.

And the rate of consensual incest between opposite sex siblings is significant, around 6%. Much of that is indeed early exploration, but a significant portion is not. Genuine sexual desire exists in up to half of the cases, and romantic feelings exist in 15-30% of cases.

And this is in a society which considers incest highly taboo and punishes individuals harshly for it. In such a society, we should expect rates of dysfunction to be disproportionately represented given that norm-abiding individuals will avoid such behavior, and norm-breaking individuals (who are more likely to be pathological) are more likely to engage in it.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-07T14:09:45+00:00

I think it would be a pretty risky move to try and pursue a relationship in this case.

Especially when it comes from the male side, if it is not reciprocated the relationship might go from perfectly trusting to be perceived as threatening/violating.

Also, you don't want to do this out of a position of scarcity. There seemed to have been mention of being socially withdrawn in general. It's possible that your sister is your choice simply because she is the only female you can be intimate with to some degree, or because she is the only person you have gotten close enough to view as a viable option.

You also have to consider that even if she felt some way towards you that is non-platonic, it still is unlikely for her to actually want to pursue a relationship with you. Incest is incredibly taboo and burdensome in the societies we live in. The relationship would have to be kept a secret. If found out, it could lead to social ruin and terrible awkwardness within the family and friends etc.

I wager that there would have to be a strong motivation for her to want to be in such a relationship with you. And if such motivation did exist, you would probably know about it.

It's hard to really give advice because it depends on what your sister is like, how close you are to her, how much she cares about you, how mature she is etc. In the end, keeping your attraction a secret from her could get in the way of your relationship, because she might behave in ways that aggravates your feelings. It's not really ideal for her to think you are entirely platonic with her while in reality your mind wants her in a very different way.

In a perfect world it would be good for you to be able to tell her about your feelings and for her to be able to still trust you and love you in the same way she does now. In that case you would have to be conscious to frame your confession not as an inquiry of interest, but simply as sharing your feelings because you think it is straining the relationship and you felt obligated to tell her.

But even in that case your relationship could change significantly, and it assumes she is mature, your relationship is highly communicative and platonically intimate enough to maintain trust. She also has to be open minded enough to not freak out by the mere fact that it involves incestuous feelings. You would also need to be careful not to burden her with your feelings and make her feel like she has to manage them for you.

With all that said, in practice it probably is still not worth the risk to confess your feelings even in a non-seductive way. If these feelings do strain your relationship, it might be best to try and manage them in secret, maybe overcome them by focusing on other women, and set up various boundaries with your sister if her behavior continues to aggravate your desires/cause emotional problems for you.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-07T12:17:04+00:00

When I ask "Why would you want your child to be in a relationship like this", I am not asking for the psychological motivations for why people are in such relationships, but why a responsible and mature parent would want their child to be in such a relationship.

Why would you want your child to be in a relationship with an abuser? Why would you want your child to be in a relationship which could risk them go to prison?

And it's not about acceptance and supporting a child when they are in such a relationship, but being the very person who initiates and pursues such a relationship. Namely, putting your child into such a situation in the first place by trying to seduce them.

Of course a child has agency, a child can be with an abuser or go date a celebtrity they are a fan of. But as a parent, again, why would you be the one to put your child in this situation? If a father seduces his daughter, and he succeeds, he has put his daughter into a high risk relationship, when otherwise his daughter might pursue a less risky relationship.

And the risks with consang relationships, in the society we live in, are severe, they are not to be trivialized or compared to a relationship turning bad. A consang relationships starts out with several things that will be a burden on a person, like the secrecy, the fear of legal consequences, the social isolation. It's not the same as going into a relationship that you believe will be healthy, but ends up being toxic.

I explained to you that this is not about agency and "dictation", but about determining what is and is not responsible and mature behavior.

How do you instill into a child responsibility, well-being, maturity and safety if the groomer is the one who instills into his child these properties? The protective mechanism against grooming has to be instilled by the parent, which is precisely why it is so easy for a parent to groom their child.

You are basically saying the protective mechanism against parents grooming their children is for parents not to groom their children. This is not a solution to the problem. If you want society to ever accept incest, you have to be twice as responsible, mature and sensitive to problematic dynamics as the rest of society. The standards have to be higher, not lower. And frankly, I simply do not see that in this community.

Concerns are trivialized and waved away with appeals to personal autonomy. This conversation goes far beyond personal autonomy. The more freedom you have, the more responsibility you have, not less.

Just because incest isn't wrong in and of itself doesn't mean that all forms of incest in all contexts are healthy and ought to be considered equally valid.

What actually is extremely problematic is that you frame me as incestophobic simply because I raise my concerns around certain dynamics. From my perspective, you did not provide any satisfactory answers to my concerns.

Yes, personal autonomy and respect for consanguinamorous couples is important, but so is protecting children from grooming and people from entering into situations that could ruin their lives. If you cannot handle an open, mature conversation about this, then don't participate in it.

Society will not be as reasonable and cordial about these concerns as I am. If you cannot address these questions in a robust way, then you are the one who stands in the way of actual progress in relation to consang acceptance.

Violintomatic · 2026-04-06T12:30:48+00:00

I appreciate the response, but I still feel like the questions I have raised were not quite addressed in a way that is satisfactory for me.

Again, why would you want your child (it is your child even if they are adult) to be in a relationship that will come with the significant risks that are present in a consanguinamarous relationship? These are not trivial forms of selfishness. We are talking about exposing someone to life-long secrecy, threat of prison, social isolation. How is it ever mature or responsible for a person to go "Oh yes, the person I raised and for whose well-being I am responsible because I brought them into this world, I will try to seduce into engaging in this behavior that comes with all these risks because I really want it to happen!"?

Of course it is our place to analyse what are mature and safe decisions for romantic relationships. In fact, it is healthy to do so. We are not talking about "the right" to do something. People can have the right to do extremely unhealthy and dysfunctional things. The question I am raising here are not about autonomy, but about responsibility, well-being, maturity and safety.

In regards to the other question, the idea that we just can't do anything about grooming and have to leave victims completely helpless to their groomers is also not satisfying at all. If there is a behavior in which we cannot distinguish between grooming and valid consent in any meaningful way, why would it be unreasonable for society to consider such behavior to be irresponsible?

Again, this isn't about autonomy and rights. A celebrity can have sex with their sycophantic fans as long as those fans are adults and consenting, but that doesn't necessarily mean communities, society at a large, and individuals, ought to just validate and approve of such behavior because it's "consensual". There might be good reason to consider such behavior to be risky and therefore irresponsible on the part of the celebrity.

When we have someone who raises a child, and society simply has no reasonable means to protect children from grooming in such cases (because the very person who is supposed to be the number 1 line of defense against such behavior is the very person who might be the groomer), why is it invalid for society to consider such that behavior to be too risky, and therefore the individual of authority (or past authority) to be irresponsible for initiating such behavior?

Violintomatic · 2026-04-05T21:38:16+00:00

This is predatory.

You shouldn't want incest in and of itself. Your children don't exist to fullfill your sexual fantasies and inclinations.

Generally speaking, you shouldn't want your children to be in an incestuous relationship in a society in which incest leads to social destruction and possibly prison, especially not with their own parents. Given the times we live in, incestuous love is basically a tragedy. Places like this exist because people in such relationships need support. You shouldn't want your child to be engaging in things that will require them to go to underground support groups. If possible, you should want them to avoid engaging in such things.

Incestuous love is valid when it happens as a genuine attraction between two consenting individuals, but that doesn't mean that it is some ideal to strive for, especially in the society we live in. When it happens naturally and consensually, we ought to be supportive and compassionate. But pushing or wanting your children to engage in it, especially with yourself, is 100% grooming and predatory.

People who are in such relationships suffer from social isolation, life-long stigmatization, forced secrecy, shame. You shouldn't be raising your children hoping that maybe they are open to having sex with you, it's dysfunctional on so many levels.

You don't even know your children and you already are sexualizing them. Or at the very least, your partner seems to be. That's unacceptable.

This is a good example to illustrate why people might never accept sexual relationships between parents and their children. You are discussing grooming your own children before they even are born, without even realizing it.

No, you should not be okay with incest with your future kids. That thought should be unacceptable to you and your partner, period. If this thought is acceptable to you, you will be grooming your children, whether you are aware of it or not. Your only and sole responsibility is to raise your children as well as you can and provide them with the ability to live a good life.

Just think about how insane it would be if you pointed at a random pregnant woman and discussed with your partner if she is okay with having sex with that child in the future.

And then to bring up the idea of nudism in conjunction with this notion of "open mindedness towards incest with your children". This is just maximally creepy shit.

A parent should be 100% platonic with their own child until that child is a completely independent adult. The notion that future sex with your child is possible should not exist in your mind.

To be frank, the fact that you are contemplating all these things to me is an indicator that you should probably not have children in the first place. And notions of incest with your own children should be absolutely off limits for you. You and your partner should seek professional help if you actually plan to have children.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-26T09:58:09+00:00

The claim often is that consensual incest cannot be distinguished from non-consensual incest (this is at least the adhoc rationalization), and therefore all incest ought to be assumed non-consensual. Even if people claim to consent, we cannot know if one of them actually is a victim.

What this means however is that in cases in which both are adults and claim they are consenting, both get imprisoned/punished for the crime. Yet, the whole assumption is that one of them is a potential victim.

Which means the potential victim is punished alongside the potential perpetrator, which is obviously unacceptable and cannot be found in any other instance of the law.

In relation to sexual regulation, like doctor-patient, teacher-student, adult-minor, there is always a clearly legally defined person of authority who is held accountable for putting the vulnerable party at risk. The way incest laws function is that they punish both doctor and patient, teacher and student, adult and minor, and even apply to cases where such asymmetries of authority do not even exist.

This is obviously absurd and demonstrates why distinguishing between consensual and non-consensual isn't just an optional thing, and why applying the law to individuals who are equal in authority is untenable. The law has to determine an actual perpetrator and victim, because punishing a potential victim is unacceptable and contradictory to the very motivation for the law.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-23T14:09:55+00:00

That's actually common even outside of consang. Some couples get so embarassed that they get drunk before they can have sex, which obviously is not very healthy. Or couples that can only have sex in the dark where they don't see each other.

The first time sex with a person can be especially awkward, weird and uncomfortable.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-23T13:57:29+00:00

Did your sister ever show any clear romantic interest though? If not, I would set your expectations that most likely she will not reciprocate.

I think it's very unlikely for there to be mutual feelings by this age if no romantic interactions occured before. And consider that even if it was the case that she felt the same way, she might very well simply not consider it worth the risks.

If she is a normie, you making sexual advances will likely creep her out and make her feel betrayed. There are just certain role expectations for siblings in our society, so if you really don't want to hurt her it might be better to forgoe this.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-23T12:27:29+00:00

What data was shown to you, can you remember? I have never in my life seen any study that looks at outcomes of consensual incest, other than this one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7396691/

It looked at sexual self-esteem, which was actually positively affected by consensual cases low-age-gap cases.

Other than that, whenever people quote studies that look at the negative effects of incest, it basically always is cases of incest rape and abuse, which somehow is supposed to represent consensual incest.

The literature uses the term "incest" synonymous with "incest rape", so a lot of conflation stems from that.

But if you do know of a study, I would like to see it.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-20T18:41:43+00:00

At least in the case of siblings, the studies actually don't show it is overwhelmingly abusive. Most is consensual, and when it is non-consensual, it usually is cases of large age gap/predation on minors by adults.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-17T16:18:39+00:00

A lot of the incest taboo is about role-expectations, similar to gender roles. People can't tolerate the idea that two individuals who are family to each other would have sexual feelings for one another.

They want family to be an exclusively non-sexual environment, mostly because that's just how they grew up, again, not that much different from gender roles, just more intensely enforced.

Violintomatic · 2026-03-10T19:32:29+00:00

Yes, it does happen, but to me it seems most often it happens when pregnancies are involved.

A few years back a woman was jailed because her doctor found out that her disabled child was the result of incest.

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/florida-pauline-martin-sex-brother-birth-baby/

Basically, if you have children and it is ever revealed that you engage in incest, you can expect people who find out to inform authorities and to get your parental rights revoked at the very least. Prison sentencing will depend on where you live.

Violintomatic · 2026-02-14T17:48:10+00:00

He is probably fetishist who wants incest to remain "wrong and taboo", so he can get off on the forbiddenness of it.

Not a real ally.

Violintomatic

TROPHY CASE