Talk:Incest

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

POV

I know we're not NPOV like Wikipedia, but the wording of "Explanations or justifications for including incest in a story" is majorly biased in and of itself and despite listing three reasons, it all comes down to "anyone who writest incest does it just because the guys (as if all incest is slash...?) are hawt". I don't even know how to rewrite that so that it's not insulting. --Kyuuketsukirui 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a quote from a single essay; it's not intended to mean "this is why people write incestfic," but "this is one reason, in three parts, that people write incestfic." (Roughly, "because it's cool and fun, and what's wrong with that?") I'd like to see other reasons offered, and it's possible the current bit will be removed entirely removed.
It's been difficult to track down "why people think incestfic is okay" or "what literary/fannish purpose does incestfic serve," because so many of the essays & comments about it are sharply fandom-specific. (Also, there seems to be little pro-incestfic meta that stands alone; most of the pro side is comments in screeds against it. And maybe that's worth a mention of its own.) There's justifications for waycest, wincest, weasleycest (although the latter often boils down to "don't like? don't read"); not sure there's anything about tamcest (is "tamcest" in use anywhere?). The controversy about RP incest seems much sharper than that around FP incest, and since I'm not involved in it, I haven't been able to sort out the more universal themes & statements. --Elfwreck 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"is "tamcest" in use anywhere?" - possibly not! I was just throwing stuff in there to get the article started. There's an entry for it on urbandictionary... but that doesn't mean anything. --greenapple 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I know people who use "Tamcest," though "Crazy Space Incest" is more widely used by far. I also agree with Kyuuketsukirui above re: bias in this article.--Ari 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to get involved with the page because I don't feel qualified, and because incest is a squick for me, but this post in Merry's LJ could be included to add another perspective ("the sibling incest angle is neither a squick nor part of the attraction for me"). --Nestra 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Like Nestra, I'm not very qualified to edit the page because I read almost no incest fic, but this article from Transformative Works and Cultures might provide useful citations. It's specific to Wincest, but the points the author makes right up front in the abstract--that the incest stories have a basis in folklore, Romantic and Gothic narratives, and are also the way the fan fiction gives the characters the happiness that they are denied in canon applies to a number of the incest pairings mentioned, I think. --Sinead 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a link

Does anyone remember, a while back-- there was a fan who asked fandom to give her examples of canonical incest in their various fandoms, and people came up with a LOT of them. I looked in metafandom's memories and searched around on delicious.com a bit, but couldn't find it. All I remember is that their LJ was salmon-colored. D'oh. -- Liviapenn 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Livia, I think you're looking for the entry I remember in kitsune13's LJ. I will hence go look for it. (I found your questions via your facepalmy comment on the Talk:Plagiarism page, which I find is a very funny chain of events).--anatsuno 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Here, two links (I have no time to milk them properly and put them to use on the page, sorry: the list and a a "Why I like incest fic" essay.
FACEPALM. I can't read. This is something else, sorry - a list of published fiction -incest works.--anatsuno 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't Luke and Leia from SW also fit your section for the "attracted to each other, then revealed as siblings" plot as well known example?--RatCreature 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful link

I'm not really into incestfic but this post by sistermagpie explains why she likes brother/sister incest, so maybe that could provide quotes for the "pro" part in the controvery section that would be less slash-centric?--RatCreature 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not Quite" Incest

I'm kind of uncomfortable with siblings by adoption being categorized as 'not quite incest'. I mean, do siblings-by-adoption consider themselves not-quite-siblings? My experience with adoptees is that they find incest fic a major squick, as a rule. --Betty 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I was having a little trouble with that section. The trouble with "not quite incest" is that it covers two areas (1) a pairing that IS, technically (legally?) incest, but wouldn't really squick most readers for the same reason as incest usually does (like say on a soap opera where a grown man meets his brand new stepmom who's the same age as him and they have an affair) or (2) pairings that are NOT technically incest, but might squick people for the same reasons as actual incest. (First cousins, etc.) But yeah, it is sort of insensitive as it stands. Maybe the adopted-siblings pairings could be moved up to "Canonical incest" with a note saying "Sometimes when there's canon incest, TPTB make it between adopted siblings, presumably to make it slightly less squicky, but it's still an incest pairing." -- Liviapenn 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I have always viewed fictional incest between non-blood relatives as a sort of "have your cake and eat it, too" category. Incest in fiction often doesn't RL, so I don't think what people think IRL really comes into it. In this type of fiction, there is usually a huge relief and they go "oh, we're not *really* related, so it's okay!", so the story itself places emphasis on them not being really related, so that readers/viewers can get the forbidden thrill of incest, but not see it as "so" bad. --Kyuuketsukirui 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Utena Incest

The article states that there are both heterosexual and lesbian cannon pairings in Utena but I can only think of het pairings - Nanami/Touga, Miki/Kaoru, & Akio/Anthy. Can anyone clarify? Zephyrprince 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Incest

The "not quite" section, which I've renamed, relied on the idea that there is a clear and universal definition of "incest". This just isn't so. It's not that first cousin relationships can seem "uncomfortably close" to incest for some people; it's that legally/culturally/whatever, they are incest, by definition, for a number of people. (Whether or not they in fact disapprove even in real life is another matter.) So do consider that when you're talking about things being "technically" or "legally" incest: those things aren't constants. Franzeska 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

section removed

A section on perception of slash vs. het incest was just removed. Is it inaccurate? Incomplete? Going to be moved elsewhere?--aethel (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pairing Removed

A incest pairing from Gravity Falls was removed. Is it incorrect? MeeDee (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the summary of the show and AO3 pairings for it the biggest ship does seem to be great-uncle/grand-nephew, which I suppose counts. There's also a brother-sister ship that looks a lot less common. I don't know the show at all; the story statistics suggest it's one for inclusion, but someone who knows more about it should decide. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone added it while I was researching it! --Marcus Rowland (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I consulted my local Gravity Falls experts, and they confirmed that the twincest is a solid and common pairing, along with the great-uncles with each other. (The cartoon is about a family; most of the pairings are incest.) My GF experts are more active on tumblr than AO3; they're starting from a different batch of fanworks for deciding what's common. Elf (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Pairing Removed

The Luke/leia incest paring was removed. I know it exists (there was even a yahoo group devoted to it once). What's going on with the paring removals?MeeDee (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Luke/Leia was not a significant pairing and it is mentioned further up the page. But what about the other two deletions?MeeDee (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Luke/Leia was my fault - but adding it was the mistake! I added it to the list of pairings when I added Dexter/Brian, thinking it had somehow been missed; of course as soon as I saw the page as a whole after editing I realised I'd somehow failed to notice that it was mentioned in more detail further down the page. It was only in the list for about five minutes, I think! Not sure about the others, not my edits. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Marcus, your edits made sense. We were still waiting for info about the other two when yours caught my eye. All is well.MeeDee (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually think it's better to include every pairing on the list, in addition to article discussion. A lot of people just skim, and we lose them if we don't show what they know is a thing. --msilverstar (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That's actually a good point - failing to read past the list is how I came to make the initial Luke/Leia edit in the first place! OK, I'll put it back. --Marcus Rowland (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)