astounding ignorance considering I am sitting here disagreeing with you

I said human society, not individuals. You, as an individual, are statistically a minority opinion. American society, as a majority, sees incest as wrong, as does the vast majority of human society today and throughout the distant recorded past, with three exceptions. Ancient Egypt, where the perception of the Pharaoh as a deity allowed him to engage in consanguinous relations due to the religious belief that gods engaged in incest (see like, all Egyptian gods), isolated Balinese tribes who are far from the rest of society deep within the heart of the Indonesiam jungles, who are surrounded by myriad Indo-Chinesr Asians (numbering in the millions) who do still believe incest is wrong (and an anthropologist would be likely to be able to tell you what's up with the Balinese here), and very rarely among some tribes of the Inuit (who are looked poorly upon by the other Inuit for this reason) who rarely engage in incest, probably because they inhabit the harsesht environment known the man, the Artic, and dense populations do not exist in their hunter-gatherer way of life where it is likely that families who find themselves out in the Artic tundra may resort to it to resolve sexual urges and will never be corrected by their peers because their peers are a hundred miles away going ice fishing. In other words, the number of societies that engage in socially acceptable incest (1 of which is now extinct, and even then in a limited, royal privilege capacity) is less than the number of societies which engage in cannabalism another nigh-universal human taboo. So no, your minority opinion is not, in fact, representative of American society, nor even most societies worldwide, but rather, the opinion of an individual, which despite america's whole 'rugged individualism' Schlick, isn't actually all that important in the grand scheme of things, just one voice among many (billions, in fact, billions of whom say the opposite of what your defending)

socialized propoganda

A bold statement if I've ever seen one,let's break it down. 'Socialized' indicates 'to make someone behave in a way acceptable to their society'. This neatly tied back to what I was saying about how it's nigh-universal that incest is taboo among human societies, so yes, I would say it's a targeted socialized stance. We are socialized to know incest is wrong. But 'propoganda'? I take issue with this. 'Propaganda' is information of a biased or misleading nature use to promote a point of view. If you consider biological fact, the genetic uniformity among consanginous Family members, the genetic repercussions of inbreeding, the well-reported and extensively documented psychological damage of trauma caused by sexual relations between family members (particularly between pre-pubescent children and their teenage older siblings or adult parents), as well as the myriad statistics about the frequent 'non-consent' incest manifests itself as, particularly when it occurs between an older sibling and a younger one (especially with the ages depicted by the fan art, which is a teenager a couple years under the age of consent and an adult several years over it) and especially when it is same sex incest (seeing as it is statistically unlikely for two siblings to both be born gay as there is only a 10 percent chance of being gay at all (according to the eminent biologist and sexologist Alfred Kinsey, author of the famous Kinsey Reports and the infamous Kinsey scale) which, doing the math for, (0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 with a plus/minus 0.01 percent error as a fudge factor) is roughly a 1 in 100 chance of occurring, and that's not even factoring in the odds for whether both parties would be okay with incest, leads us to conclude that when same sex incest happens between siblings, it is non-consual 99 percent of the time even when we're being optimistic and assuming they've be cool with incest in the first place which is aboslutley backed up by the data we have with therapists and experts who study this exact phenomenon.