The title itself suggests the story’s relation with religion, in that sense, it already poses as psychological since religion as a belief in literature is mostly used to emphasize hypocrisy and the relationship of humans to gods and oneself.
The female lead isn’t spineless nor weird. The story is set to have happened in an era where women are believed to be of no value or are damaged goods once they are either scarred or incapable of giving birth (even the simplest flaws actually, just hold a teacup the wrong way and your social life is done.) That said, more than the time itself, the fl is a traumatized child raised in a religious household where after her mom died and her leg was burnt, she was treated like shit by her father who’s an abbot and by her stepmom who into the house after fl lost her mom. She was a child when all these happened, given then setting, she mostly likely lived constricted by the time’s societal and religious standards.
When you take account of all these, the pseudoincest plot makes more sense. In a house where no one gives you the time of the day, an ounce of affection stirs every rationality you have. “They were raised as siblings she’s weird” were they? On name yes, however, the fl was a child longing for affection and the ml gave that, mind you, he kissed her not to feed her like she does every night but simply bcs he established that she’s the one he likes. The fact that she responded and started touching herself thinking abt the ml makes sense when you take what she saw her dad was doing to her stepmom when she was a kid. Research in developmental psychology suggests that early exposure to dysfunctional family dynamics and inappropriate sexual material can influence how children later perceive affection, relationships, and desire. This also suggests that the fl was not weird for “thinking” abt her father doing that to her stepmom, bcs in a religious household where purity comes before all else the scene of her dad doing that to her stepmom was mostly what she perceives as the act of catering to one’s affection and desire.
and seeing the fl as no more than “weird” and not saying anything abt the ml is kind of a misogynistic take on the story, if we intend to reduce the story as weird then we should still take the father’s and ml’s role in why the fl’s affection and desire to receive such thing stirred this way.
While i do not support pseudoincest i do believe we should consume such literatures in a manner where we analyze why the relationship came to be instead of seeing it as weird. I do understand why some readers would like to drop the story, we each all have our differences in terms of preference after all, however i think it is inappropriate to stop other readers from trying it out or saying it is a bad book as it still early to judge it as such.
The title itself suggests the story’s relation with religion, in that sense, it already poses as psychological since religion as a belief in literature is mostly used to emphasize hypocrisy and the relationship of humans to gods and oneself.
The female lead isn’t spineless nor weird. The story is set to have happened in an era where women are believed to be of no value or are damaged goods once they are either scarred or incapable of giving birth (even the simplest flaws actually, just hold a teacup the wrong way and your social life is done.) That said, more than the time itself, the fl is a traumatized child raised in a religious household where after her mom died and her leg was burnt, she was treated like shit by her father who’s an abbot and by her stepmom who into the house after fl lost her mom. She was a child when all these happened, given then setting, she mostly likely lived constricted by the time’s societal and religious standards.
When you take account of all these, the pseudoincest plot makes more sense. In a house where no one gives you the time of the day, an ounce of affection stirs every rationality you have. “They were raised as siblings she’s weird” were they? On name yes, however, the fl was a child longing for affection and the ml gave that, mind you, he kissed her not to feed her like she does every night but simply bcs he established that she’s the one he likes. The fact that she responded and started touching herself thinking abt the ml makes sense when you take what she saw her dad was doing to her stepmom when she was a kid. Research in developmental psychology suggests that early exposure to dysfunctional family dynamics and inappropriate sexual material can influence how children later perceive affection, relationships, and desire. This also suggests that the fl was not weird for “thinking” abt her father doing that to her stepmom, bcs in a religious household where purity comes before all else the scene of her dad doing that to her stepmom was mostly what she perceives as the act of catering to one’s affection and desire.
and seeing the fl as no more than “weird” and not saying anything abt the ml is kind of a misogynistic take on the story, if we intend to reduce the story as weird then we should still take the father’s and ml’s role in why the fl’s affection and desire to receive such thing stirred this way.
While i do not support pseudoincest i do believe we should consume such literatures in a manner where we analyze why the relationship came to be instead of seeing it as weird. I do understand why some readers would like to drop the story, we each all have our differences in terms of preference after all, however i think it is inappropriate to stop other readers from trying it out or saying it is a bad book as it still early to judge it as such.