Talk:Fauxcest

Incest
Who does it Charles 1007 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Should non-consanguineous be so classified?
Should non-consanguineous relations such as stepfamily be classified under incest? I don't see a reason to do so. 92.13.141.177 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename?
I dont mind renaming this to pseudo-incest. Would that be a solution? 92.13.141.177 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be merged with the Incest pornography article?
Sometime ago, was merged with. The rationale behind this was WP:NEO, WP:POVFORK and that the Fauxcest article was not much bigger than the section on Fauxcest at the Incest pornography article. An IP has challenged this. The IP somewhat expanded the article, and has argued that "stepfamily is non-consanguineous" and that "we could rename [the article] to pseudo-incest." A counterargument is that that "fauxcest" mainly concerns pornography, sexual activity between step-siblings is still referred to as incest, and the current version of the article contains some WP:Synthesis.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Retain merge. The topic of fauxcest is mainly about pornography and is sufficiently covered at the Incest pornography article, which is apparently what incest pornography is mostly about. The Fauxcest article is therefore an unnecessary WP:Content fork. It is a WP:POVFORK as well since the IP is asserting that sexual activity between step-siblings is fake incest, even though the Incest article and its reliable sources make clear that sexual activity between step-siblings also falls under the incest category. Per WP:NEO, we also typically avoid articles on neologisms. The first line of the article is made-up wording by the IP. The following content added by the IP is WP:Synthesis: "Examples of pseudo-incest include, Ani Imo, a romance,[6] and season two, episodes 10 to 12 of Orange is the New Black." Furthermore, pseudo-incest and fauxcest do not always automatically mean the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No It should not be merged because incest usually distinguishes between consanguineous and non-consanguineous. Step-family falls under non-consanguineous. I support a page move to pseudo-incest though. 92.13.141.177 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even with the incest literature mainly focusing on those related by blood, this does not negate the fact that sexual activity between step-relatives also falls under "incest." It is not described as fauxcest, and usually not as pseudo-incest either, in academic or legal sources. And either way, the focus doesn't address the problems I mentioned with you insisting on a Fauxcest or Pseudo-incest article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. From a legal and religious perspective, consanguineous and non-consanguineous relatives are usually distinguished from one another. For example many national incest laws define it requiring either lineal ancestors or descendants; sometimes a first-degree relative or second-degree relative distinction is made. Among the three largest religions in the world, the consensus on the taboo is centered on immediate family members. I think it can be demeaning and condescending to classify gray areas under a felonious term. 92.13.141.177 (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Reliable sources? I see no scholarly or legal sources calling sexual activity between step-relatives "fauxcest." And "pseudo-incest" is not widely used in scholarly sources to refer to the matter either. And what legal sources call sexual activity between step-relatives "pseudo-incest"? Problems with the article you created exist regardless of any of this anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge — As noted by the Esquire article in the references, "fauxcest" is more or less a matter of legal formality for porn companies. Virtually all "incest pornography" (especially all commercial "incest pornography") is fauxcest. Actual incest pornography is illegal, or at least depicts illegal acts. The concept of "fauxcest" just allows producers to straightforwardly declare that their videos do not contain illegal content, with a "wink wink, nod nod" that allows their viewers to continue to indulge their fantasy. Like Flyer22 Reborn, I doubt the existence of a non-pornographic context asserted by the IP, and even to the extent that there is such a context it doesn't seem to justify a separate article. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I only weighed in (I swear; the subject matter completely grosses me out) because I'd previously read the Esquire article (this is what I get for following Luke O'Neil on Twitter). —BLZ · talk 23:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoever closes this thread should ignore the above post since it incorrectly purports that I support the title fauxcest. My argument is for the title pseudo-incest. 92.13.141.177 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I think this is a distinction without a difference. Even if it made a big difference, Flyer22 Reborn has pointed out that there doesn't seem to be any significant use of the term in secondary sources. Whatever peripheral significance the term has outside of the video porn industry—in literary erotica or otherwise—can be described succinctly within the other article.
 * I feel like the concept you're describing may be a valid subject matter for an article. It sounds like you're describing the phenomenon of non-consanguineous relationships that are nonetheless taboo because of a relation by adoption or as stepfamily. The relationship of Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn comes to mind. There are some articles in this ballpark already; see Phaedra complex, which is a more specific type of the general topic you're describing. If you made such an article, I don't know what it would be titled, but I don't think it should be called "pseudo-incest," which seems a bit ad hoc. But regardless, the article idea you're describing is not Fauxcest, the article we're discussing here—not in subject matter, not in contents, not in sources. So it should be merged. —BLZ · talk 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge: it's just another aspect of the same topic, and the term itself just doesn't seem to be notable. --Slashme (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge: Far too specialized and not notable in and of itself. Is much better suited to being part of the larger article.Legitimus (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per resaons above -- Whats new?(talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * One other point. The IP has argued that "fauxcest" is generally legal, while actual incest is generally illegal, but this does not change my mind that there should be a merge. In fact, I think the fact helps make the case that "fauxcest" is better suited as a section within the "incest pornography" article. Any events depicted in (esp. commercial) pornography are usually understood to be "fantasy," i.e. fictionalized/dramatized in some way. Therefore, I don't really see any compelling reason to create a separate article to distinguish real/illegal and fictional/legal porn in general. The existence of a distinct, "technically legal" action does not by itself imply that there should be a separate article, especially when the existence of the distinct legal act is only notable because it allows porn producers to depict or allude to an illegal act. By analogy, consider a different Wikipedia article about another porn genre that depicts (or purports to depict) taboo material: the rape pornography article, which notes that it covers recordings of both real and simulated rape. Recordings of real rape are broadly illegal (duh), while the legality of recordings of simulated rape varies by jurisdiction. But the existence of that article would absolutely not justify the existence of a separate "simulated rape" article. There is a simulated child pornography article, true, but it should be obvious that the legal and moral issues implicated there are more serious, and more complex, and subject to much much much more study and legal consideration. —BLZ · talk 00:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Implemenation
I've closed the RfC as merge, but as someone who knows next to nothing about this topic and has little experience in the way of content creation, implementation of that result is probably better left to someone else. , would you be willing and able to handle this? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll merge what isn't redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And what isn't synthesis or not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)