SludgerSlipfwysh

mammal-mollusk sowslug

  • shi/hir, it/its, they/them

Shape-shifty mutant chimera hermaphrodite. Problematic garden pest. American badger kinnie. That rotten tranny faggot cockroach queer.

I'm pro-kink and don't take kindly to kink-shaming or antis. If you can't get along with paraphilic people you might just be a bigot. Cohost was not pro-kink, and that's bad.

You can message me on Telegram @ Sludger_Slipfwysh



Wish we could all collectively get over the prudishness that leads to art gallery sites banning some completely legal artwork. Part of the problem is that artists are a little too centralized around certain sites because it's their business network. Sites like FA slowly roll back what's allowed on the site for seemingly arbitrary reasons and in that particular case I'm thinking it's just the sheer peer pressure from antis going to Neer's head.

Part of me also wants to see the abolition of obscenity laws in the US just because they're predicated on what an "average person" might think about the fucked up content we generate. It doesn't have too much of a bearing on what we can actually get away with right now, and we seem well-insulated by our First Amendment and state rights, but the attitude is there in the law and leans towards criminalizing obscene works in any other environment. Good luck winning a case for repealing laws like that though, I guess. Criminalizing just about anything is usually not justice; it doesn't adress the core issue in virtually any context and mostly disadvantages people with little legal knowledge or resources, like the poor and disabled. People should be free to think and create works in the ways that please them without even so much as shame, nevermind legal pressure.

Anyways. Pondering on what will help people out here. In the perfect world people would have their own websites to host their galleries and journals and stories, if those can be made more accessible and appealing it would be ideal for hosting, I think. I'm seeing webcomics hosted exclusively on Twitter and thinking "oh, this is going to just go up in smoke someday," and even furry gallery sites depend on specialized work to archive content that would have otherwise been lost media today. Hosting your work on an open site and sharing it will really ensure it can be archived and treasured many years after you're done with it, and I wish I could convince more people of the utility of this as artworks from internet heritage sites that have stood for decades are now content that would be banned under gallery policy made within the last year.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @SludgerSlipfwysh's post:

It's a sort of problem where people are cherry-picking what they're opposed to based on their preferences, acting like there's a moral imperative to stop, harassing the people that like something they don't, and then surveying and bullying the people around them to act in similar fashion.

I've experienced this a couple times, and I know at its very worst it can corner some people into saying and doing things against their own self interest. People will really act in bad faith against something they might otherwise enjoy or participate in for fear of being judged. Even if they don't enjoy it they could just as well exist around it and not participate.

More directly regarding your question though, the prudishness seems to be especially pointed at the things that social conservatives have used to demonize queerness. The conflation of transness and a tendency towards sexual assault is a very intentional means to sow mistrust between people and their queer peers. It has grown to such a point that now even queers are mistrustful of eachother; they swallowed the poision.
You see the strongest reactions to work of fiction that depicts acts of rape, child sexual behaviour, or zoophilia. Even peer-reviewed academic research in these areas can be taboo. This is not coincidence, nor a natural inclination towards disgust, it is social engineering aimed to cleanse the public conciousness of whatever the prevailing moral institution (read: Christian) deems "impure." As such, the goalpost is always moving, and there is no strong consensus between malicious actors.