this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
139 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14285 readers
624 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My pet theory on this is, porn is highly dependent on the “ooh la la” factor of hedonistic taboo boundary crossing as a crutch to cover for 95% of traditional studio porn being garbage with no sense of sensuality or eroticism. Make a big deal over the actress doing some act that “good women” don’t do to cover for the complete lack of chemistry.

Problem is, today’s taboo has a tendency to become tomorrow’s vanilla. Blowjobs used to be a thing only the dirtiest Parisian women of the night did, now they’re about as plain as plain gets. So porn ran into territory where all their previous taboos had lost that luster, and that left acts that were too far/gross for the average porn consumer’s taste.

Then comes incest, riding on a semi-highbrow wave of intrigue off GoT, with a workaround. The sex acts can be vanilla, but the presented relationship between the two characters is the hedonistic barrier. However, even though the whole thing is fictional regardless, they see going full incest as a bridge too far so the semi-incest step-relative sex becomes the “just spicy enough” middle ground.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

they see going full incest as a bridge too far

afaik it's actually illegal in USA porn, that's why they have to mention they're not blood related

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What if the actors are related, but they play step relatives?

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Fossifoo@hexbear.net 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

buddy-christ

It's a threesome.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 16 points 1 day ago

Ah that would make sense

[–] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have this theory as well which is why I also think feet are such a fetish for many people. Feet are culturally gross in a lot of ways. I think another thing is a lack of exposure as well. I'll explain.

Additionally feet are generally the one part of the body that is left completely to imagination. A woman could wear all kinds of tight and revealing clothing that shows pretty much every curve (no criticism here just an observation) but then her feet are covered. An example would be a woman in workout wear, like a body tight stretchy one or two piece outfit that is breathable and flexible. Withe that everything is more or less on display except her feet. They are in shoes. Feet are pretty complicated in structure with all the bones and moving parts so you can't fully guess what they look like. There is a mystery there and I think that contributes to the fetish.

I want to be clear I am totally not a foot guy. I like thick woman.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

I want to be clear I am totally not a foot guy. I like thick woman.

stalin-approval