Talk:Fauxcest

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Incest pornography
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Incest pornography

Sexology and sexuality

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles

Pornography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles

Sociology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

Psychology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Romance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles

Literature

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles

Popular Culture Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Law

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Incest[edit]

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

Should non-consanguineous be so classified?[edit]

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)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

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

RfC: Should this article be merged with the Incest pornography article?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to merge this article into incest pornography. The use of the term "fauxcest" primarily serves as a label to market pornography depicting (fictitious) incest to consumers who are interested in the genre but wary of viewing something illegal. As incest is illegal, and incest is often construed to include step-family, the legality of fauxcest is no different than the legality of incest itself: both are legal so long as the persons/characters depicted aren't actually family. As this genre is similar to incest pornography in terms of both content and appeal, the distinction between the two for marketing purposes can be easily and concisely covered in the parent article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime ago, Fauxcest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was merged with Incest pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 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)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Merge per resaons above -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC Implemenation[edit]

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. Flyer22 Reborn, would you be willing and able to handle this? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll merge what isn't redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what isn't synthesis or not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]