Talk:Incest between twins

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Incest between twins article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Incest between twins. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Incest between twins at the Reference desk.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep (nomination withdrawn), 5th July 2010, see discussion.
no consensus, February 1, 2007, see discussion.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sshen18, K10vea, A.M. Tatarian, Jarango22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info

The material on Milo and Elijah Peters (RN Michal and Radek Cuma) is outdated. I do not have any hard information or sources but from what I can gather they worked for Bel Ami Studios from 2008 to 2009 only, though studio owner George Duroy continued to release material starring the twins after their contract expired, maybe as late as 2012. But the discussion here should absolutely not be in the present tense. All indications online are that the twins "broke up" at some point; e.g., they do not appear to be Facebook friends. I know this isn't sourceable info, but the data on this page is unquestionably out of date. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case reports

Should this be removed really? [1] --213.21.93.252 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Twin Porn Actresses

Would it be out of line to mention the porn twin sisters Chantel & Chloe Stevens in this article? Google "Twin British MILFs" to see their... ahem... work.

I'm surprised Shane and Sia Barbi (i.e. the Barbi twins) are not mentioned here. Seems only fictional, rather than real, are better known. Nargrakhan 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were once listed in the "See also" section but were removed with the reason: "Removing the Barbi twins, their article says nothing about incest". Since this is a BLP issue and since I've tried to focus more on the academic literature on the subject, I didn't choose to investigate further. Given that Incest in popular culture is already linked, I'm not sure a "See also" section is needed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see what you mean and agree it works best as everything is now. On the Barbi twins: they've have legal action to prevent personal photos of their incest sex life being released, shown several of the "tamer" pics in Hustler, and admitted to "sharing" Ken Wahl despite him only being married to one of the twins (all mentioned and referenced in their article). I'm not challenging that the article needs more references; just that I felt an encyclopedic entry should reference "real life" more than fictional, to better support that "twincest" is not pure fantasy... although even in real life, it's mostly known via porn entertainment... which is a form of fantasy in itself... so... meh... Nargrakhan 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 Czech twins named Bianca and Tamara. Two very beautiful brunettes with killer bodies. They actually have sex with one another on film, and the DVD called SEX PARTY is easily distributed and available for sale. Also, you failed to mention the adult twin stars Brooke and Taylor Young who did many scenes together in the middle to late 70s. Also, adult film stars Kimberly Franklin and Lanny Barbie are real life blood-related half sisters and have sex with each other on camera as well. Though they are not twins persay, they look very much a like and could easily pass for twins. Can you enlighten us on why these particular acts of incest are easily filmed, distributed, and available to the public when the law states that it is clearly illegal to depict incestuous sex on film on a hardcore level even if the performers are just pretending to be related. It seems that every adult production abides by this, except when it comes to incestuous sex that involve two or more sisters. Please indulge us on why this double standard is prevalent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.171.81 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all countries but fake incest porn is not illegal in the U.S. Even real incest porn is not specifically banned either (at least not nationwide) though they can prosecute it as obscenity which I think is likely why I've never hear of any verifiable real U.S. made incest porn made in recent decades. There have been some claims of half-sibling incest porn such Kimberly Franklin and Lanny Barbie, though there is verifiable proof they are actually truly related and some think the claim was made up by a porn studio to increase interest in the movies they appear together on. Now there also appears to be a distinction made between girl on girl incest content vs male-female incest content due to the former lacking any risk of pregnancy. Also, a number of jurisdictions do not prohibit incest between consenting adults, especially where no pregnancy occurs or can occur (i.e., gay and lesbian incest). So I suspect that the same jurisdictions likely would not banned real incest porn involving if the underlying sex depicted is legal. Now as for fake incest porn possibly being also charged as obscenity. That has never happened as far as I know in the U.S., which is why it likely is still seen in porn. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Please don't add or readd any lists of fictional (or real-life!) twins that "many fans" or "someone" "suspects", "speculates", "feels" are incestuous. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that. For example, the "Action film" article does describe some examples of action films. Is there anything in particular to certify a film as action? Probably not. If it looks like a duck...

I must confess the whole listing got out of hand and it was hard to verify any of the information due to the lack of scholarly sources for Twincest.

If there is a list it should be a separate page.

Having said that, I think we should remove the Star Wars reference as it's no better than the example listings that used to exist.

Also, the fanfic reference seems to come out of the blue and dominates the article when it shouldn't. Also, it's not cited and highly speculative.

Back when I created this article originally as an anonymous user, I think the definition of twincest was just fine. The current incarnation does not seem much better. I'm tempted to revert back to it.

Fxg97873 05:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples in culture? In the Capcom video game Resident Evil:Code Veronica there appears to be some sort of twincest between Alexia and Alfred Ashford, villians in the story, evidenced by Alfred's overly adoration of Alexia, cross-dressing as her, as well as a scene of the two much younger staring deeply after torturing a dragonfly (the last example may not be that good, but it adds to it in general). I think this is more than just speculation and seems to be an interesting example in culture. Peachslide 05:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Peachslide[reply]

I find it horribly amusing that the best examples include Wagner and Cruel Intentions 2.

Whoever keeps adding the Ouran High School Host Club notion needs to remember that its a clear example of speculation ad is far from a solid example. Stabby Joe 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody might mention Eirika and Ephraim's relasionship from Fire Emblem 8, they can get married in the Japanese version and the dialogue between them in the US version hints strongly at them being a pairing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.45.50 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on a possible merge to Incest

I initially supported merging this article to Incest but decided against doing so after comparing the two articles. Incest is usually a form of (non-consensusal) abuse (and the article explicitly treats it as such), whereas "incest among twins" essentially amounts to a genre of eroticism, pornography, or shock advertising. Please keep this in mind if you are considering merging to incest. Black Falcon 20:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the discussion about a proposed merge to Incest in popular culture, please see here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I fail to see the point of this article as all it deals with is a certain aspect of incest... we don't have articles for anyother kind and of course the examples on this pages are trivial... I mean there was a vote before but NO ONE voted either way... well I would if I could. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not only is this entry not encyclopedic, but it's even more poorly written than the main twin article. I nominate this article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case for speedy deletion[2]. --Cyfal (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a case for speedy deletion, but it certainly is eligible for nomination, on the grounds that its subject strains notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over the speedy deletion tag is not the way to go about it. You can use the PROD and AFD methods, if somebody has removed your speedy deletion tag. Corvus cornix_talk 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the article does deal with a subtype of incestual relationships, it is a type that is a distinct subject of scholarly interest. While some of the article's content could perhaps be merged into the main article, I think the topic is notable in its own right. (I did a search for journal articles on the subject some months ago and found several articles that non-trivially cover the subject.) As for the "popular culture" section, I agree that it's currently a laundry list and needs to be trimmed (at minimum) or completely rewritten; however, I don't think its presence justifies deletion of the whole article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2016

Incest between twins → Twincest – I noticed that twincest gets 1060 returns while incest between twins gets 108 google books returns. Therefore I wonder, do you support renaming this page? Ninefive6 (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:COMMONTERM. In google scholar, incest between twins gets only 14 returns while twincest gets more than double. In google news, incest between twins has only 2 returns, while twincest gets 615 returns. Ninefive6 (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this seems to be a neologism (without any definition in any dictionary as far as I can tell), therefore not apt for article name. Even the 'google hits' are not very persuasive as the same thought can be expressed 'incest between/involving/engaged in by etc. … twins'. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Pincrete. Even Wiktionary calls it "chiefly fandom slang", and it certainly doesn't seem to appear in any reliable real-world dictionaries. In many of the google hits that do appear, it's given in quotation marks. Its recent rise in popularity seems largely to do with Game of Thrones, and that's a very niche, and arguably ephemeral context. John Lanchester in the London Review of Books in 2013 called it "a neologism popular with fans" (quoted here). Maybe in another few years it'll get into the mainstream, but it's not there yet. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my proposal. Ninefive6 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yosuga no Sora

I do not know where you find the idea that they are get married, but in the anime or manga such a moment there is no. Not to mention the fact that the very slogan of "loneliness for two" implies the impossibility of such a "fantastic" show ending. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useful link: Twins and Deviance

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-9694-8-sample.pdf 95.249.78.120 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]