Can't agree. The fact that four-five-six year olds have no problems whatsoever playing house/doctor with their siblings lead me to believe that left up to nature, and not society, the same prejudices that children learn (homophobia/racial/and taboos including incest) would fall by the wayside. (snip) Wonder why? Maybe because they got punished when they were found/caught doing it and told it was wrong over and over?
Looks like we will never agree on this one, Del. I think many kids don't play doctor with their siblings at all, and those who do stop by the time they get to kindergarten. Is that because all of their parents gave them "no more incest" lectures? Then how come so many MORE kids disregard their parents' "no more [insert any number of other behaviors] lectures? Sure, many children grow up to be racists and homophobes, but many children
don't , even if their parents were. Far more than grow up to be incestuous. I have already mentioned my extreme lack of interest, to say the least, in having sex with my brother. Yet I don't remember my parents ever specifically telling me not to.
But I can already hear the counterarguments you might make -- all kids get the lecture but don't remember it, or they pick up nonverbal clues, or whatever. So it just comes down to this: the idea that aversion to incest is something that's environmental rather than inherent just doesn't ring true to me. Apparently it does to you. So there we are.
But back to the hypothetical movie. What are we even talking about here? A movie that's controversial and interesting of the subject matter, or a movie that's controversial and interesting because of stunt casting? To me, there are all kinds of good reasons to film controversial subject matter: gay romance, pregnant nuns, male rape victims, any number of documentaries. For that matter, I can easily, easily imagine a fascinating movie -- fictional or documentary -- about incestuous siblings!
But it sounds like you're talking about a movie that's extraordinary mainly because a brother and sister, who as far as we know are NOT incestuous, are cast as lovers. In other words, a publicity stunt. That's what would put pull people into the theater -- not the content of the movie per se.
Or is it? Meanwhile, you're also talking about a movie that's SOOOO GOOD that, out of all the projects they could possibly be working on, Jake and Maggie choose to be in it, and the filmmakers would cast them, out of all the actors that could potentially fill the roles and despite the possibility of turning off audiences because ... why? If the movie's that good, why does it need stunt casting to get publicity?