Hi! We're a fairly diverse plural system with various origins and interests! ADHD, autism, likely BPD. Uhm... Yeah, gonna work on this a bit more soon?
you cannot commit crimes against fiction. it makes me insane to know this is not a universal understanding. explain to me how "uh oh that cartoon looks too young" is actually any different from "uh oh that cartoon looks too much like an animal" i will wait and then make fun of you until i am bored and block you
why wait?
cartoons are not people
Pretty offensive to all the cartoons I know u_u
No but seriously, yeah
Yeah
speaking from a conscious point of hypocrisy as im navigating my own fetishes and have been wrestling with self conscious moral arguments for years, consider this playing a bit of devils advocate: uhhh, isnt it a little fucked up for a nsfw cartoon to look too much like an animal? yeah furry art is a thing, but like, the average furry porn i see gives them enough human features to be excuseable imo. no less human in appearance than a raunchy alien or robot character, the only difference is that a furry's appearance draws inspiration from something in real life that we're more familiar with like dogs, cats, etc.
in my opinion, the shunning of this material is simply under the umbrella of "does this fictional creature look like something that can consent?" and that does nothing to change the fact that its fictional and nothing is ACTUALLY getting hurt, but i dont think people who believe this stuff is morally wrong are being hypocritical themselves for that reason, hell if they arent a furry theyre probably the type to hate any kind of furry porn. Thats the reasoning ive built at least.
idk sorry for the hassle, i kinda saw this as an opportunity to talk about something ive had issues with myself on for years, so i hope its not taken in bad faith.
i cannot understand what you mean. imaginary acts are not real. drawings are not agents capable of consent. moralized sexuality is a psychosocial trap meant to keep people from spreading beyond the artificial confines of the nuclear family, and it has a kill count
thats pretty uncalled for, and not exactly productive for anyone. Especially considering my circumstances and why i pre-emptively established my whole argument as hypocritical. i hope saying that made you feel better about something at least?
it does illustrate a good point though. the devil you are playing advocate for is real, well-represented, and kills queers for fun and profit. take it as a lesson that doing so in public among strangers is not without risk
right, well, when i said that i was struggling with internalized shame and wanted to vocalize it i wasnt expecting a hug and a kiss, but i didn't exactly expect such a hostile reaction. Is that all the risk you mentioned is? Because yeah, generally speaking I'm used to how discussions on the internet go, I just wanted to defend myself here and didn't think anything of it until your response just now.
, actually. 
it just hit me in a real bad spot but i did not want to start shit in someone elses comments
would've been ok, but i also appreciate your discretion
yeah i dunno i feel a bit sheepish that i took it as seriously as i did in the reply but also like, the implications just feel odious, you know? instant urge to Clear Your Name of... Something Untoward
in the end i deleted a few less kind bits i was considering saying but yeah not a great interaction. then their absolutely nothing of a reply. thanks, good talk
"i basically accused you of being a pedophile. its fine." brainwormed bullshit 🙄
This post has gotten me thinking. Because my initial reaction to this post was kind of a visceral "uh-oh, what are we trying to defend here?"
But as I tried to sort through what you said logically, I couldn't find any argument that didn't reduce down to thoughtcrimes. It's impossible for any other person to be harmed by something you imagine.
The phrase that came to mind was "kill the priest in your head," which leads directly into the thought that the people most famous for actual sexual harm to minors are "respectable" priests and youth pastors.
And this is before taking into account the long history of accusing queer people of pedophilia and sexual predation to demonize and justify hate crimes. No one is beating the priests to death.
So this feels like a dangerous position to take. Society is so primed to act with extreme and swift violence against perceived (but not actual) pedophilia that it becomes instinctive to avoid looking like you approve of "questionable" art.
But dangerous doesn't mean incorrect. And these thought patterns remind me too much of my history having grown up in fundamentalist Christian schools and churches. "Avoiding even the appearance of evil" meant we couldn't go see movies in theaters because someone might think we were there to see something salacious. My first time in a liquor store, I felt like I crossing some kind of moral line. A woman who gave a speech in one of my college classes was judged as slutty for wearing tall black boots with her entirely modest outfit. This kind of puritanical reaction grows like a weed if you let it, and it has to be pulled out by the roots.
Anyway, thanks for posting this and indulging me working out my reaction to it in your comments section.
