I am confused though on the definition of incest. If a mother or father is educating through example and practice sexual topics is that incest? Or is incest only when the two are romantically being sexual?

I would opine that true incest would be defined only if actual physical sexual contact occurred between parent and child, either for mutual gratification or educational intentions. This would not include simple genital contact for reasons that were entirely clinical. Accordingly, in societies that had experienced elders educate young people who were willing and ready to learn in that manner, I would see no reason why it would be more ideal for parents to educate their own children in this way rather than trusted village elders (or equivalents) who were not related to their students.

Or is incest anything sexual between family, making a mother massaging her kids genitals to soothe them incest.

In my opinion, the above would not constitute an act of incest, nor would any type of necessary genital manipulation related to medical care. For it to count as incest, I would think it would have to involve intentional contact for sexual purposes of either gratification or education, or something specifically to do with sex that was not clinical in purpose.

Like what if a non-paedosexual parent were to play with a child's genitals just to show how things work and what ways are best to bring pleasure? In our society most would consider that incest regardless of the intention but it doesn't seem to be to me.

Personally, I would count the above as an incestuous action, since it was conducted for explicit sexual purposes, even if the goal was sexual education rather than sexual gratification. Note again what I said about village elders being more ideal for this purpose, with less of an emotional conflict of interest, than parents.

Excuse my confusion on this topic. It may be because our society has muddied things heavily.

Not a problem, as you are doubtlessly correct on that.