This post explores the Westermarck Effect. I'm having trouble reconciling my pedo knowledge with my psychology knowledge, and I'm hoping your comments will help me clear things up. This is posted in the debate section because (I assume) it will be controversial. I give the for/against arguments below.
Against
The Westermarck Effect hypothesizes that children are not attracted to peers whom they lived with before the age of six. It is also referred to as "reverse sexual imprinting". In psychology, it is viewed as an evolutionary control against incest, and is sometimes extended to included caregivers along with siblings.
The evidence for the Westermarck Effect is overwhelming. The Israeli Kibbutz are often used as the primary example. Kibbutzim were communal living arrangements where children were raised together (instead of in separate households). Nudity was common, and sexual exploration was encouraged. Despite this, almost no marriages came out of the system. Of the few that did, all were between children who had not been raised together at a young age. While asking about sexual activity with their fellow children, adolescents frequently told researchers that it seemed "unnatural" and that "they were like family".
Even in the rare exception where those raised together did marry, the Westermarck Effect is evident. Shim-pua marriages brought the would-be bride of a son home as an infant, raising her with her future husband. These marriages often failed, and fertility rates were remarkably low. Likewise, some royal families (notably, the Egyptian pharoahs) did marry brother and sister. In most cases, it is believed that the children did not spent much time together as youngsters. However, infertility and adultery were still common in these unions.
Generally speaking, it is believed that no society in which children were raised together has had successful, consistent marriages among them.
For
As I show above, the Westermarck Effect is considered a well-established phenomenon in psychology. Frankly, the evidence for it is hard to deny. It has proved true in societies where marriage was expected, in societies where sexual exploration was normal and encouraged, and even in societies where children spent their day together in the nude. And yet, everything I know as a pedophile moves me to question it.
Our community is full of parents who have had relationships with their children. Those relationships seem to be consensual, and some have carried on into a child's teens. If children truly "reverse sexual imprint" on people they're raised with, how can there be so many of these relationships? Likewise, we have even had active siblings join us here (although they aren't PSC's target audience).
Criticize me all you want, but I also have to bring up what I've seen in CP. Kids with parents. Siblings with siblings. Preteens. Teens. Adults. All forms of incest under the sun. Hell, I've even seen the family dog involved (not that you wanted that image in your head)! How can all of that be real if the Westermark Effect is so certain?
Perhaps, the effect is a combination of early childhood experience with social norms (although the experiences above dispute that). Perhaps, the effect can be neutralized with early sexual experience, effectively hard-wiring kids to like their siblings sexually. Or perhaps, incest is simply a power imbalance: it's social pressure to participate, not attraction. I just can't figure out how these two things go together.
I really don't feel like any of this is much of a mystery. Yes, most people are affected by reverse sexual imprinting. Usually people are turned off by their step siblings or foster siblings, even though there is no relation. But just because it is a common phenomenon, doesn't mean it's an absolute rule. There are quite a few people who aren't affected by it, or in fact, the reverse happens and they are turned on by incest. Such relationships are uncommon, as both people need to be this way. Saying that no one is into incest would be like saying no one is into homosexuality. That's a ridiculous position to take.
It is very common for a child to have a crush on a parent. Most of them don't feel that way anymore once they become a teenager. Little kids are more willing to engage in sex play with siblings than teenagers are. I find it very fascinating that this repulsion to siblings has a late onset. It is based on who you lived with when you were younger, but doesn't go into effect right away. I wonder also if this phenomenon is tied to why kids can have positive sexual encounters and then as teenagers begin to see them as negative instead. It is entirely possible that many kids would "turn" on their childhood lovers in puberty even if they weren't being conditioned to do so by society, as this reverse sexual imprinting comes into effect.
I highly doubt you can control who is or isn't affected. You can't force anyone to fall in love with anyone else. Changing whether someone is turned on by their siblings sounds a lot like changing whether someone is into homosexuality. Yes, many people throughout history thought that homosexuality was a learned behavior. It is possible that your experiences can have a minor effect on what you like and don't like sexually, but for the most part, all of this is out of our control.
Little kids aren't as discriminating with who they sexually engage with. They can definitely experience sexual pleasure, although for many it is not very intense, more like a nice massage. Not only does it feel pleasant, but they also like getting attention. I assume that the things that turn you on and the things that turn you off come about the same time. You then aren't as open to as many sexual experiences, but the ones you are open to become much more intense.
I am not entirely sure why you feel like your pedo knowledge is conflicting with your psychology knowledge. Nothing in psychology is absolute. There are exceptions to everything. Any psychologist that tries to say otherwise is full of shit. I suppose there are people out there that will try to tell you I can't exist, or explain why I am mistaken when I say I am attracted to my younger sisters. There are tons of psychologists that engage in shitty science, trying to force their world views onto their research. It makes me quite angry. Trying to point to evolution is silly. Evolution needs variety. Yes, the stronger strategies become more common, but that doesn't mean other strategies get wiped out, not unless the other strategies prove to be worthless. Heterosexuality is far more common because it has clear evolutionary advantages, but homosexuality holds on because it too brings its own value.
Yes, modern scientists, especially in softer sciences like psychology, will let their bias show through their research. Their beliefs change their results, at least to some degree, and much more for some than others. The further back in time you go, the worse this is. Just going back to the 1950s, nobody did double-blind experiments, and many other controls we do now to help mitigate these issues. The fact that these old studies were reporting on things like successful marriages shows very heavy cultural bias. That's not to say their results are completely useless, but you do need to understand the context of the experiments. You always want repeated experiments, and the more different the background of the experimenters, the better.
I don't feel like CP is much evidence though. People are performing for a camera. Even kids can be taught to act. You really don't know what is going on before or after the camera is on. You don't know what scenes and takes were deleted, how many times it took to get what you are seeing.
Hi Lillab, and thanks for the reply!
Quote from: Lillab on 18 January, 2026, 02:03:49I am not entirely sure why you feel like your pedo knowledge is conflicting with your psychology knowledge. Nothing in psychology is absolute. There are exceptions to everything. Any psychologist that tries to say otherwise is full of shit. I suppose there are people out there that will try to tell you I can't exist, or explain why I am mistaken when I say I am attracted to my younger sisters. There are tons of psychologists that engage in shitty science, trying to force their world views onto their research. It makes me quite angry. Trying to point to evolution is silly. Evolution needs variety. Yes, the stronger strategies become more common, but that doesn't mean other strategies get wiped out, not unless the other strategies prove to be worthless. Heterosexuality is far more common because it has clear evolutionary advantages, but homosexuality holds on because it too brings its own value.
I'll comment more on this in the next paragraph, but it's about looking for answers. Psychologists are often wrong. If this is wrong, though, that opens a whole can of worms. Before we get into that, do you mind if I ask you about your sisters? How much younger than you are they? According to the theory, you shouldn't be attracted to people you knew in that 0-6yo range. If you're closer in age than that, it provides a good case against this hypothesis. Truthfully, half of why I ask questions here is for experiences like yours. To me, this is the closest thing to "data" I'm ever going to get.
Quote from: Lillab on 18 January, 2026, 02:03:49Yes, modern scientists, especially in softer sciences like psychology, will let their bias show through their research. Their beliefs change their results, at least to some degree, and much more for some than others. The further back in time you go, the worse this is. Just going back to the 1950s, nobody did double-blind experiments, and many other controls we do now to help mitigate these issues. The fact that these old studies were reporting on things like successful marriages shows very heavy cultural bias. That's not to say their results are completely useless, but you do need to understand the context of the experiments. You always want repeated experiments, and the more different the background of the experimenters, the better.
Bias is obviously a major problem. Just look at what happened to the author of the Trauma Myth! But the thing is: saying this effect 'doesn't hold' opens up a whole can of worms. When a rule stops working, we have to ask "why". You suggested that some people (yourself included) are just born different. That's certainly valid. However, what if instead of being "born different," sibling-attraction can be learned? Could early sexual experiences with your siblings destroy reverse imprinting? After all, psychologists aren't having kids fuck each other (anymore), waiting to see how it impacts their long-term attraction. They have very little data on how such early sexual experiences influence children.
To me, this question is really fascinating for pedo families. The Westermarck Effect is presented as such an absolute that any variation is considered pathological. That implies that, even if a parent is attracted to their children, children are unlikely to ever have the same attraction. But what if that's wrong? What if having sex with your siblings and kids changes their sexual attractions? If that does happen, our understanding of how sexuality develops is off.
I shall share my experience Andi, maybe it will mean something maybe not. Humans are not internally consistent and as with anything involving how humans relate and interact with one another the sheer amount of interference (social and biological) makes it hard to find a consistent pattern.
I was 5 years old when my brother was born, I wasn't fully aware of all the implications as I was not a particularly bright kid, I was mostly under the impression I won a free friend and was surprise by all the noise and how long it took for it to grow.
As I grown I started become lonelier and lonelier as I entered primary school (where very quickly I managed to earn the dislike of my fellow kids) and lost my grandmother who was my main link to my cousins. This made me somewhat dependent on the few friends I still had on my street and on my younger sibling. I say this because it may had an effect on what happened later.
For most of my late childhood (6-12) I saw my brother half as an annoyance and half as a someone I could share my interests with, I would be angry at small things when I was with him and would spend my time away desiring to talk to him about whatever strange thing my imagination would conjure, he was the only one I really had to talk about it.
I need to note that we never had any major fight, nothing that ever lasted more than a day or two. And that while I did found it very funny to mess with him (something I still do enjoy) I never had the sadistic glee some of the other kids I knew had, as I never went beyond the general prank and other mostly harmless entertainment. So maybe some early signs of what was to come may already be present, as I would say our relationship was far above the average I was able to observe from others.
As I entered my twin years I start being interested in boys and mostly resigned myself to the fact I was probably gay, nothing romantic had happened and I was just fascinated by their bodies and curious about sex. This would be the status quo till I was around 13-14, I was sexually attracted to boys but never in a romantic way.
But around that time as I entered my teen years I was hit by an overwhelming romantic interest for my brother. I never felt anything this intense before and would never felt anything like it after it, for as long as it lasted it was the main thing occupying my mind. It was the strongest feeling I ever had.
So yeah that's pretty much it.
Quote from: And I Love Her on 18 January, 2026, 00:08:17Our community is full of parents who have had relationships with their children. Those relationships seem to be consensual, and some have carried on into a child's teens. If children truly "reverse sexual imprint" on people they're raised with, how can there be so many of these relationships? Likewise, we have even had active siblings join us here (although they aren't PSC's target audience).
Criticize me all you want, but I also have to bring up what I've seen in CP. Kids with parents. Siblings with siblings. Preteens. Teens. Adults. All forms of incest under the sun. Hell, I've even seen the family dog involved (not that you wanted that image in your head)! How can all of that be real if the Westermark Effect is so certain?
Perhaps, the effect is a combination of early childhood experience with social norms (although the experiences above dispute that). Perhaps, the effect can be neutralized with early sexual experience, effectively hard-wiring kids to like their siblings sexually. Or perhaps, incest is simply a power imbalance: it's social pressure to participate, not attraction. I just can't figure out how these two things go together.
Every rule has exceptions. That's part of one what sees here. I'd be willing to bet that in most cases of close-family incest relationships that actually stick, there's some other type of trauma or adverse event in the child and/or the adult's life that creates an opening for one of these exceptions.
Nyarla's anecdotes seems to contain one; being a social outcast among his peers seems to have been related to his seeing his little bro in a new light.
The incestuous attraction is some kind of coping mechanism for whatever unrelated bad thing happened to them. Father leaves so you're all I got, mommy. Or mommy dies unexpectedly and now it's just you and me, daddy. Or siblings sent into foster care form an even deeper bond lest they lose each other.
Obviously porn isn't good evidence of anything other than someone with a camera gets off on whatever is going on. I think one would struggle to find any CP participants who are still going at it with the same people 20 years later.
The last thing I'll note is the overt coercion factor. People can be manipulated to a surprising extent and if one is brought up where something like incest is normalized, it might stick, despite whatever objections evolution makes.
I like keeping things simple, the pure question in your title.
The obvious answer is yes based on factual occurrences across many cultures and time, not to mention anecdotal evidence most of us have seen ourselves.
The nuances of the Westermarck Effect go to the probability as well of definition of what 'successful' attraction would be, or the why's an attractions happen, which is arguable. But as young people lovers in particular, it is clear, often in our own lives that children can be attracted to their siblings and parents, sexually and of course emotionally for long periods of time, including sometimes for life.
Even one occurrence in 100 million still makes the answer yes.
Quote from: And I Love Her on 18 January, 2026, 02:52:43Psychologists are often wrong. If this is wrong, though, that opens a whole can of worms. Before we get into that, do you mind if I ask you about your sisters? How much younger than you are they? According to the theory, you shouldn't be attracted to people you knew in that 0-6yo range. If you're closer in age than that, it provides a good case against this hypothesis. Truthfully, half of why I ask questions here is for experiences like yours. To me, this is the closest thing to "data" I'm ever going to get.
One is in that range, the other is not. I was attracted to both, but more so the younger one. Them being my siblings has never turned me off at all. There is a picture in an old family album in which when I was about 10 years old, I am very clearly checking out the older one's ass. I thought both of them were more attractive than most of their friends all throughout growing up.
Also, this forum has tons of examples of people being attracted to siblings. I have even known some in real life, having sex as kids all the way into adulthood. Any theory that says this can't happen is clearly wrong. And even if the age gap is over 6 years, if the relationship is mutually consensual, the younger sibling still grew up in the 0-6 range with the older sibling in the home, and I can point out ones where the younger sibling was quite into it.
Quote from: And I Love Her on 18 January, 2026, 02:52:43However, what if instead of being "born different," sibling-attraction can be learned? Could early sexual experiences with your siblings destroy reverse imprinting?
...
What if having sex with your siblings and kids changes their sexual attractions? If that does happen, our understanding of how sexuality develops is off.
I don't have the data to disprove your theory, but I highly doubt it is true. In your Kibbutz example, you said "sexual exploration was encouraged." That seems to suggest that you can't destroy reverse imprinting with early sexual experiences. Of people I know that have had early sexual experiences with siblings, they tend to have mixed emotions, not exactly in favor of incest, but not showing the same level of disgust towards it as many others show. There are so many things that go into those emotions though, as well as it is very difficult for them to assess it honestly particularly with social pressures.
I definitely agree that if you have any power to shape sexual attractions of kids through early sexual experiences, then my understanding of how sexuality develops is way off. That doesn't seem to match anything I have seen or experienced. I can definitely see strong reason for someone to want to believe your theory is true though. It does make for some powerful fantasies. Wishful thinking breeds strong bias, but I do admit it is still possible even though it would shock me.
Well I started a sexual with my mother when I was 12 so clearly I was attracted to her. I say started because it was me who instigated and she just went along with it. It's been many years and we still occasionally have sex. It's wonderful.
I've never been attracted to either of my parents.
My sister and I played a bit as curious kids and we've had intercourse as adults.
Though I've had plenty of wonderful experiences as a child with boy cousins.
I never realized how many members here had sexual relationships with their siblings!
Quote from: nyarla on 18 January, 2026, 15:15:55I shall share my experience Andi, maybe it will mean something maybe not. Humans are not internally consistent and as with anything involving how humans relate and interact with one another the sheer amount of interference (social and biological) makes it hard to find a consistent pattern.
That's a valid point, Nyarla. Psychology is fascinating because it tries to understand the "why" behind what makes us, "us". But there never seem to be clear answers, and your experience clearly contradicts this hypothesis.
Quote from: on the rocksEvery rule has exceptions. That's part of one what sees here. I'd be willing to bet that in most cases of close-family incest relationships that actually stick, there's some other type of trauma or adverse event in the child and/or the adult's life that creates an opening for one of these exceptions.
There's a curious contrast with Lillab's comments here. Lillab is more in favor of the "born this way" view, and seems to support the idea that some people are born differently. You seem to be taking a more environmental approach.
Of course, if the environmental approach is true, then maybe trauma isn't the only thing that can lead to incestual relationships. Perhaps, this is just another area where culture controls behavior, not biology. And yes, I may be thinking with my smaller (well, not THAT much smaller) brain. :eyes
Quote from: LillabOne is in that range, the other is not. I was attracted to both, but more so the younger one. Them being my siblings has never turned me off at all. There is a picture in an old family album in which when I was about 10 years old, I am very clearly checking out the older one's ass. I thought both of them were more attractive than most of their friends all throughout growing up.
Also, this forum has tons of examples of people being attracted to siblings. I have even known some in real life, having sex as kids all the way into adulthood. Any theory that says this can't happen is clearly wrong. And even if the age gap is over 6 years, if the relationship is mutually consensual, the younger sibling still grew up in the 0-6 range with the older sibling in the home, and I can point out ones where the younger sibling was quite into it.
This is what I mean about data! The people here may be as far from normal as they come, but you've already named more modern, consensual incest cases than I've ever seen in any piece of academic literature. Maybe incest is just like pedophilia, so taboo that differences are conflated (abuse vs non-abuse, for example) and researchers are too afraid to attempt objective research.
You seem to be very in-favor the biological explanation of attraction, and it matches your experience well. (My childhood evidently sucked because I wasn't checking out any asses as 10 years old. ???? ) I still can't help wonder about the environmental explanation and whether it could also play a part. Most sexual research I've seen does favor the "born this way" explanation. But there are loads of researchers who claim "childhood sexual abuse" can result in sex with children later. It does make me wonder if both could be true.
Quote from: ChildTrekWell I started a sexual with my mother when I was 12 so clearly I was attracted to her. I say started because it was me who instigated and she just went along with it. It's been many years and we still occasionally have sex. It's wonderful.
Quote from: Pat975I've never been attracted to either of my parents.
My sister and I played a bit as curious kids and we've had intercourse as adults.
Though I've had plenty of wonderful experiences as a child with boy cousins.
I already feel pretty jaded about my childhood, but this is just rubbing it in :fun [/quote]
Generally when it comes to nature/nurture, the answer is almost always 'both'. When it comes to close family incest, I feel like nurture is likely to be the greater factor mostly because of the biological imperative to eschew inbreeding. Reading countless anecdotes on PSC over the years has left me with the impression that most people who report having strong sexual feelings toward a parent especially have some sort of adverse event in their childhood. Sometimes one they don't even note as particularly traumatizing, but it's still not nothing.
Inter-sibling romance seems a little more organic to me where youthful experimentation with a brother or sister results in strong romantic feelings. Particularly if the person has a difficult time connecting with peer-aged romantic partners otherwise. "The girls/boys at school don't get me, but you do."
I think there may be too many variables at play to establish any kind of overarching pattern for humans. We're all just too unique, and our situations are all too unique.
I've been attracted to one of my sisters (M) since puberty. I'd rather bone a faeces-covered cactus than so much as touch my other sister (K).
M and I messed around a lot as children. We both went through puberty around the same time, and we had many similar interests and mannerisms. We explored the hell out of each others bodies, often with me taking the lead and encouraging all sorts of sexual behaviours. We never went all the way, but we did a great deal, and as I grew up, I started to be terrified that she'd one day accuse me of abuse. Imagine how shocked I was when, as an adult, she confessed to me that she actually thoroughly enjoyed our exploration and would have eagerly gone much further. I somewhat lament this now; I often wonder what it would have been like to have had sex with her back then. We've messed around a bit as adults, but still haven't had sex. We might, one of these days. She has a free use kink and has made it quite clear that she'd be OK with me showing up, pulling her pants down, and doing her on her living room sofa.
K and I mostly despised each other and never interacted sexually in any way at any point in our lives.
We all were raised together in the same religiously-fundamentalist household. So... who knows? Humans are just strange creatures.
Quote from: on the rocks on 02 March, 2026, 04:08:50Inter-sibling romance seems a little more organic to me where youthful experimentation with a brother or sister results in strong romantic feelings. Particularly if the person has a difficult time connecting with peer-aged romantic partners otherwise. "The girls/boys at school don't get me, but you do."
This could definitely have applied to M and I. We were both quite socially awkward, yet both struggled with high libidos and a desperate yearning for the opposite sex. We understood each other, in more ways than one.
I know a young adult sibling pair (20s) that occasionally share a bed. They have been at it at least since their early teens, if not earlier. They did grow up in a 'open relationship' household, and took that farther than anticipated I suspect. Parents knew what was going on but mostly ignored it. Some weak attempts to stop it but given the parents lifestyle - calling them 'open' is an pretty major understatement. Well, kids will be kids.
I honestly wish I knew more about the detailed dynamics of their relationship. The girl, younger, is the mature, responsible one. The boy, older, is carefree and often unsettled.
He dates and has had multiple girlfriends that he has lived with. She has not dated much as an adult - one relationship I know of, not intense and seemed from my distant view to be platonic. Her sexual experience seems to be limited to a teen that lived in their household that started when she was a preteen - side note, he was there as a sexual partner to mom and dad - and that might have last two or three years until he was kicked out. But not for that. So him, and her brother. That appears to be it.
He rotates living with girlfriends, other family members and her. He never lasts long with her because as stated by her oldest sister (the valuable fount of information about her family), he ends up living with his sister temporarily for the warm bed, food and oh of course sex. So she tires of him quickly. But also never seems to say no in his times of need. And her needs as well, it seems.
I wonder what she thinks about his occasional girlfriends - I will say the previous two were nothing compared to her in terms of looks or stability.
I do talk to her directly occasionally, we actually have great long conversations, but this part of her life never comes up. The only clue she has ever given me was talking about maybe going to counselling for 'sexual' things that happened to her when she was young. She decided against it.
Sadly, I'm just an old family friend who is... old :) and another ear to bend.
I remember in my early teens having strong fantasies about incest with my family. This is odd, since my experience of growing up had been one of total lack of love, both emotional and physical, and emotional neglect bordering on contempt. Maybe the fantasy was a result of that emotional neglect.
I did not know my parents well as my father was remote and my mother reserved and buttoned-down. I learned more about them from my father's confessions in his last years. At the time I was entering puberty he had begun a life-long love of seeking anonymous sexual encounters with other men, and he was attracted to boys although he didn't tell me of any. Had I known better I might have seduced him into activities we would both have enjoyed.
QuoteHer sexual experience seems to be limited to a teen that lived in their household that started when she was a preteen - side note, he was there as a sexual partner to mom and dad - and that might have last two or three years until he was kicked out.
The fact the sticked the most of your story is that mom and dad brought a teen to live with them as their sexual partner and ended up having sex with their daughter too. What a lucky guy...... and what a nice people you met :)
In many forms of the sciences, especially the social sciences what you hit is the proverbial wall called "the exception to the rule". The problem with the exception to the rule is that when too many exception begin to pile up you either need to change the rule or come up with a new one. Most people in the social sciences and statistics usually just place these outliers off to the side because doing the research into why the anomalies exist can be a career ender for many. Or at worst the scientist ends up being socially ostracized.