@deactivated4ab9f3
exactly. Why does it need an incest tag as theres no proof theyre anything?

Still want.

Have these two brushies been released yet? :j

@Background Pony #6621  
You’re kinda late to the party, bro… >_>

Well  
That was fast

@Background Pony #1C1C  
I think BP#8740 may be referring to the Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting. When two or more people are raised in close proximity to one another (regardless of whether they’re blood related or not), they essentially never develop the ability to be sexually attracted to each other.
 
Though if that’s what he meant, then it’s still a rather odd thing to say. If two siblings were raised together, then the question of whether or not incest is permissible would be a moot point, since the siblings would have no interest in such things in the first place.
 
(At least, that’s how it would go down in real life. In fiction, there are no rules ^_ ^)

@Background Pony #8740  
If you believe the first paragraph of what you just said, why would being raised together matter?
 
I’ve always felt that how others live their personal lives isn’t anyone’s business but their own. Also, it turns out the odds of messed up kids - obviously not a factor with a same sex couple anyway - is significantly less than people have always assumed. (Also, the idea of making these two sisters just for incest purposes is HILARIOUS.)

I like where this is going.

I vote Liling.

@Background Pony #8A29  
Works for me. I suppose it’s either that or Sterlily as far as portmanteau couplet names go.

So, onto more important matters, what do we call this ship? I vote Goldling.

Tags are based directly on the image, not what you want the image to be,  
No proof they’re related, no incest tag should be placed

@TricornKing  
…You do realize that we’re talking about completely fictional characters, right?
 
Obviously there’s no question that incest is rather inadvisable in real life. But, see, I’m not talking about real life. I’m talking about fiction. As in, imaginary situations that have no actual bearing on reality whatsoever. In fiction, anything goes. That’s why it’s fiction. ^_ ^

@Background Pony #8740  
Shouldn’t they be?
 
Because that’s not exactly a great standard.

@TricornKing  
Just because it is considered taboo or illegal does not make it wrong. You have to think about it without cultural bias.
 
I personally think it is permissible as long as and the siblings were not raised together.

LanceOmikron That only applies to something as innocuous as “I find feet sexy” or “I’m into furry animal people”. THIS is INCEST we are talking about here though, which is still a major “Stop! Go directly to jail! Do not pass go, do not collect $200” subject in human society.

@TricornKing  

 
It doesn’t. I’m not criticizing your personal preferences.
 
But effectively telling other folks “Ew, I don’t like that! You shouldn’t do that, because I think it’s wrong!” probably does. Folks tend not to appreciate that.

I love how this fandom can take hasbro toy garbage and make them into beautiful characters

@qorl  
Dunno. Haven’t thought of that, really. Doesn’t quite count as incest, though, since that’s an inherently sexual thing.  
Maybe something like (platonic) pseudo-incest? Can’t come up with anything better off the top of my head right now… :P

@Exhumed Legume  
what would you call it then, out of curiosity? Siblings in love with each other but not involved in anything sexual.

@qorl  
Using a dictionary can be really helpful.
 
“Chaste incest doesn’t really work either, since – by definition – one part refers to actions precluded by the other.  
I suppose you could argue that siblings being in love with each other and living together but refraining from any and all sexual activities could count as “chaste incest” but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
 
^*^_{As an amusing (to me, at any rate) side note, the Latin root of “incest” pretty much literally means “unchastity”, so there’s another layer to the oxymoronitudinosity – Is that even a word? It is now – of the phrase. :D}

@TricornKing  
Well, you were talking about porn, so platonic would mean they don’t fuck. Maybe I’m using the wrong word? Maybe I meant chaste.  
Oh and I suppose being squicked out by incest speaks well of you.

@LanceOmikron Since when is being naturally squicked out/disturbed by incest qualify you as a “wet blanket”? It’s not even like I’m saying “no lesbians with these two” either. I’m just saying that it’s unnecessary and uncalled for to add incest to the equation as well. Not everything needs to satisfy boners after all.
 
@qorl What the hell is platonic incest even?

@TricornKing  
Oh we can make platonic incest of them if you want

@TricornKing  
Oh come on, don’t be such a wet blanket. They’re lazily palette-swapped, toyline-exclusive characters whose personalities and backstories are completely blank slates (blanker than the CMC’s flanks…). Since they’re completely inconsequential characters, what’s the harm in cutting loose and having a bit of fun with them? ^_ ^