>>532152298
>but I assume it's for the same reasons you can't actually refute my position
I did, but you refused to comment, so I'll lay it out again:
I could just as easily say that YOU might as well read daughtershit. Your fallacy is taking a (strawman) position to an extreme nobody insists it be taken to.
Hey guys, Peter Griffin here to explain! Anon is implying that he is obviously not going to suggest that you read father-daughter incest as the logical conclusion of your little sister smut journey. This is because whatever armchair psychology you intend to project onto him is simply irrelevant on account of what Anon is declaratively seeking out not being defined as parent-child incest. Likewise, attempts to make similar projections would be equally irrelevant if flipped around for your own position. The ultimate point being made is that sisterfucking exists in its own right without being tied to Freudian crap.