Repeat after me: incest does not mean every family boundary disappears.
Dynastic incest has rules, taboos and political logic. It is about bloodline, succession, power and exceptionalism, not about turning every family relationship into a sexual possibility.
The Targaryens marrying siblings, uncles, nieces, cousins, etc. does not automatically mean parent and child incest is a normal or obvious extension of that system.
Even historically inbred dynasties (for the peace of the Habsburgs) still had rules, religious and legal limits, dispensations and boundaries. Endogamy does not mean "family free-for-all".
So no, "the Targaryens are incestuous" is not a magic argument that makes every possible taboo equally coherent.
And "this character is disturbed" is not a magic argument either.
A character having trauma, unhealthy attachments, poor boundaries or a damaged idea of affection does not mean every extreme sexualized interpretation suddenly becomes inevitable or well-written.
Unhealthy attachment is not automatically sexual attraction. Trauma is not automatically fetish. Parental issues are not automatically sexual desire toward a parent.
You can see the dysfunction without accepting the idea that this was the natural, inevitable or well-written conclusion.
"Intentional" does not always mean "good writing". Sometimes it just means the writers made a choice, and people are allowed to think that choice is bad.
