Wincest, nekos, pregnancies: Why is it appealing?

My pragmatic views don't link up with my egoistic, self-serving, id-exclusive impulses. There's a reason people with a proper working brain don't act on their impulses, and why, even if Freudian psychology is almost completely outdated and considered bunk now, the concepts of id, ego, and superego are still sound, imo. Obviously, there has to be *structure* in an organized society, so I wouldn't advocate for a free-fuck-for-all, anarchic environment. Even the most primitive of societies don't fly that way, and that's why even tribal humans had to get along to some extent, or they were, to put it one way, fucked, in that they were *not* fucked. The concepts of the "Alpha" of the group were still consistent before the earliest forms of language were evolved, and those who weren't the Alpha still had to behave, or they were, quite literally, out of the game. Social skills have been important since the day three neandarthals instinctively became tribal and social, as humans have always been social creatures that have innate "let's work together" drives, if evolutionary psychology has any merit at all.

Actually, though, I think, in practice, monogamy is a well-intended, though poorly-thought-out, idea. Still going back to way-before, neither men nor women were monogamous. In terms of fucking, there's an innate reason men can reproduce several times per day, while women can't carry more than one infant (excluding instances of twins, which are still from the same male) at a time. Sexual selection took place with both men and women, and each gender had ways of going about that selection with consideration to that. Essentially, men competed, and women selected among them. Typically, as forced sex (rape is a really ugly word, the effects of which I feel too familiar), which was still looked down upon then because it was indicative that the male lacked the proper courting means and could only reproduce by force, was generally not practiced and, as social creatures, it didn't benefit us as a social species to feel good about that. Psychopathy, or just the most extreme and polar form of egoism and inability to feel some basic emotions like fear or empathy, has always existed, but never widely condoned. Like everything then, it wasn't out of explicit ethics or morals or anything like that, but pragmatism. Humans eventually thrived because of their universal tendency to socialize and eventually create structured societies, which evolved hardcore, ridiculously quickly, compared to practically every other early species of life during that era.

Anyway, the dynamics of sexual selection in their earliest forms were different between the sexes. Men basically tried to be top-tier or at least be on good terms with the top-tiers. Women, on the other hand, had the particular trait of, well, times of the month, which had a real purpose.

By the way, if you've ever wondered, like almost everyone has, "Why do young girls like to fall for antisocial sons of bitches that the other guys always hate?", it's because young women couldn't really have the best of both worlds, in that the "Beta"-tier males weren't the "Alpha" males that were the most attractive and had the sexually attractive traits meant to create the healthiest possible offspring.

So, this is how the theory goes: Women sought after the most intelligent, most healthy males, and got around the male-driven society rules that were structured against that need through hormone changes that were, almost literally, polar opposites when either fertile or not fertile, or pregnant or not pregnant. Consequently (and, imo, this is where monogamy kind of falls apart), women were sort of more cunning, in that they chose to be impregnated by the "strongest" males (today, most of us see them as clinically antisocial jerks, especially in early adulthood), but once that happened, their hormones basically flipped a switch that then made it necessary to have a more "fatherly" figure to ensure the survival of the offspring, so they then preferred not necessarily the "strongest" men, but the most intelligent and responsible men to care for the offspring (the socially acceptable group that got along and weren't necessarily the strongest, but were the most intelligent and best-suited to care for the infant). Infidelity in that sense was common as a result, but somehow men had a sense for when the offspring was or wasn't theirs.

OK, so as a warning, here's where it gets more controversial: Since the right to mate was something that needed to be approved by the dominant males by those with whom they simply got along best, this was a conflict of interest. There was an abundance of male testosterone, but healthy women weren't infinitely available. Men, then, over the span of several generations, naturally picked up that something was off. Since several men were suspected "stepfathers", this didn't sit kindly with them (and this is also presumably why stepfathers tend to resent, and often abuse, their stepchildren much more often than biological fathers, since they don't share the same natural bond that would form between father and son/daughter).

Except there really wasn't anything we could do about it except develop jealousy, which led to violence among men between men, men between women, and women between women. And since we didn't exactly have DNA tests quite yet, different cultures developed their own sets of rules in an effort to prevent the ensuing havoc often caused by the emotion of jealousy. And, well, that's pretty much what we're still doing today, and an explanation why, with the advent of organized religion, ideas essentially revolving around the concept of "sanctimony" and "unionship" were enforced.

All cultures are still working on that. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm only restating the basic theories behind developmental sexual psychology and its highly influential role in developing society and culture across the world.

End of ginormous WoT, but massive props to anyone who can form their own thoughts about those theories based in a myriad of scientific fields coming together to form some kind of explanation for our development as a species into a massive number of different highly-organized cultures and the subjective ethics and creeds of each.