I appreciate the depth of thought that went into this article. And I especially appreciated the references to Oedipus, Keynes, and Nietzsche ( Friedrich, not Ray, and old joke), and the footnotes. It shows your approach as a scholar. Really, Alex, keep writing and I will keep reading.

Another writer on this site refers to this kind of stuff as "fauxcest" and tells how much and why she likes it. I didn't know this term. I am now better informed, and always the grateful learner. But, as always, I have a couple of things to point out.

First, you quickly make it clear that the stepson is the bad guy, and therefore the one whose actions are to be criticized, not only for himself, but as representative of men in general, and also of porn makers. Early on, you refer to him as "the Fucking Loser Stepson or the FLS." . So, the die is cast here, and everything later has to be taken in that perspective. Yes, you did once refer to her as "coeval," but if the narrative did not otherwise clearly reveal the bias, your later reference to him as a rapist, which is 200% unwarranted (unless you consider breach of contract rape) kind of seals the deal in terms of presumption of blame. This doesn't negate your points, but it does detract from their legitimacy and credibility.

Second, although this particular scenario involves a step son making the initial overture to his step mother, it is as often the other way around in this genre, as well as step daughters initiating matters with step fathers, and step siblings in either direction. The makers of porn are marketing a product; what someone wants and will buy, they will make.

Again, in case I didn't say it well enough, I read what you write with great interest, and if I didn't take it seriously, I wouldn't spend the time to pick at it.