No dude, the fauxcest genre is only prevalent due to the fact that incest porn is literally illegal.
But the actors aren't blood related, anyways, because it's the act of
actual sibling incest that's illegal (in 48 U.S. states
neither of them being Alabama). If the mere narrative identification of two actors'
characters being blood related was enough to meet the bar of illegality, HBO would have been investigated right after premiering the first episode of Game of Thrones.
So it's not about incest being illegal-- porn producers just aren't all that interested (at present) in serving that specific demand, probably because most
consumers are not interested (as far as metrics indicate) in porn videos with narratives proposing that the actors' characters are blood related (at least in America, that I know of). Porn producers could also restrict their production of "incest" porn to POV-types involving one actor, but-- as far as I've
heard-- they don't even bother with that. "Fauxcest" gets a lot more conversation, in contrast.
I don't deny that porn producers would absolutely attempt to tap into the incest market, using actual blood related actors to the extent they were capable, if it was generally legal to do so-- because of course they would. They'd do
anything to the brink of illegality if they were assured they'd turn up profit.
These very same drawings can affect reality.
That's true. However, it isn't in a one-to-one fashion, especially when the material is drawn and the characters are not real identities. It's not like with real people porn, where the actors objectively exist-- you (or the author) can theoretically project onto and perceive whatever you want in a drawing. Whether those projections and perceptions are taken seriously by others is another matter, but the fact that it's as possible as it is for fiction necessarily diminishes any cause for alarm beyond personal displeasure.
The exact way it "affects reality", by affecting people, is difficult to generalize because individuals are not uniform in their cognition, interpretation or interests.
That's why actual observation is valuable, if not necessary-- you actually talk to people that openly profess to be into "onee/shota", and you'll largely see garden-variety perverts or next-level otaku who think allegiance to this trope is a status symbol in their otaku groups. Neither being close to criminality.
This argument relies heavily on the fact that children would follow the age restriction.
The demographic labels aren't age restrictions-- they're marketing categories that inform one of the target group of a given magazine. The point isn't that they aren't allowed to read it at all, but that it's not for them to begin with.
Apologies for misunderstanding your point on the fourth one, so your point is: "its a joke chillax".
Less "it's a joke", more "I can't justify winding myself up morally about an un-serious work that doesn't even propose itself to be moral or advocating morality, appealing to the sensibilities of Japanese herbivore men with femdom kinks."
As an aside:
Its still fucking creepy as shit lmao.
You can't retreat to this argument. The start of this conversation was about whether or not a comic marketed towards young adult men "destigmatizes"
grooming.
