Zarpaulus

Writer of sci-fi and horror

Underemployed biologist and creator of the Para-Imperium setting. Currently writing the webcomic "Joanna: Ghost Hunter."


Loosf
@Loosf
Anonymous User asked:

I have met multiple people who say that ABDL is basically pedophilia, as it is sexualizing the concept of infancy. I am not interested in ABDL but that's not the point. The point is several other people I've come to know and trust have confessed an interest in ABDL. Are the people interested in ABDL pedophiles? Are they evil? Should I sever all ties with them? What about sexualized aged-up versions of characters? I've seen versions of that which I am comfortable with and versions I am uncomfortable with. Does entertaining those thoughts make me evil? I am deeply worried about being a bad person, as bad people don't deserve to live.

oh come the fuck on

ABDL is not fucking pedophilia what the fuck

Get this fandom space tumblr shit out of your brain I fucking beg you


Loosf
@Loosf

Yeah fuck it

the "taboo" fucking kink mentioned and gross is just goddamn diaper stuff.

Come the fuck on
I should have seen that coming. It is always people being weird about people enjoying diapers.

"Hurf durf lets conflate the abuse of children with the sensory enjoyment of padding, piss and such, yes, literally accusing people into losing bladder control of being predators"

fuck off.


PuddlesTheVaporeon
@PuddlesTheVaporeon
This post contains 18+ content. You can view it if you're over 18.
log in

neevspoilsbees
@neevspoilsbees

Forgive me for this ramble but I want to add to this post by talking about the sentiment that "bad people don't deserve to live" a little more explicitly--

There's two things anon satirizes that I think we should all look out for:

  1. The fear that thinking deeply makes one a bad person
  2. The idea that "Bad Person" is some sort of immutable category

One: how are you supposed to know something is wrong unless you've examined it deeply?

Thinking deeply does not make you a bad person it makes you someone able to robustly defend their ideals. People who don't give adequate consideration to the beliefs they hold can be made to change these beliefs into something which harms others when confronted or when the fashions change.

To pick an uncontroversial example: Is murder wrong because if I endorse it online I'll be bullied? ... or is murder wrong because it violates a human's autonomy...? Is human a meaningful concept or should all sufficiently intelligent being have their lives respected...? Historically why is intelligence a problematic metric...? Is the rule then that we value the inherent beauty of any pattern making system...? Is that too abstract?

If you choose to not think deeply about, in this example murder, and claim that it is bad because you'll be bullied online. Then murder becomes okay if those you worry will bully you change their minds... If you choose to believe it's because it violates human autonomy, you may cave when you are told a group of people are subhuman... (especially if you don't understand historically how these groups are created)... ect.

Thinking and discussing about complex issues without fear is the only way to become a better person... The above example may seem cut and dried, but I urge you to consider--do you have an adequate definition for why murder is wrong? How could you build one? Do you need to for a moment entertain it isn't (despite how upsetting that is)?

At risk of reigniting a discourse on this site from before my time, I find drawn pornography of obviously underaged fictional characters gross, it's a "silence this tag" and feel a bit nauseated, but I also can't find a way to justify it as morally reprehensible. There simply doesn't seem to be any way I can (without fear mongering) link it to any actual harm besides being personally, "grossed out." In this case, the best argument I heard allowed it--because that meant people like me could block a tag. Where did I find the line? When I could demonstrate adequate potential for real harm... I digress...

Here these examples are low stakes, but the same rhetoric is what is used by people on the right to pull ostensibly good people into agreeing with laws and policies which do real harm.

Moral panic capitalizes on your inability to think critically. It manufactures a disgust response and then pushes you to make snap choices against a group of people so you yourself are not, "unclean."

This brings us to...

Two: "Bad People" deserve to live too

The idea that any group can be monolithically identified as "bad," "unclean," etc. is, in my opinion, a proto-fascist urge. I don't mean that people can't fuck up, or that specific individuals may not be able to be beyond help. I don't think we should extend empathy, sympathy, or compassion to oppressors beyond that extended to their victims.

Rather, I mean that the concept that a certain group can be immutably bad, and that no individual in it is worth more than, "not deserving to live" is one which is used to justify the criminalization and/or removal of certain groups from society.

Often times, the most violent of these removals can be viewed as logical end states of seemingly less harmless, "bad person," rhetoric.

For example, in the United States, we still allow the death penalty. By itself, this punishment is sometimes hotly debated... after all it's only reserved for those who are actually really bad people, right?

I argue we can view this ultimate dehumanization as a product of the rhetoric which allows the United States' prison industrial complex (something I will not explain in depth here but is essentially legal modern day slavery). The same rhetoric which dehumanizes criminals, keeping the populace tacitly forgiving of one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world, of an occupying police force, naturally ends with executions of "Bad People." (No matter how poorly botched in recent years).

Here I'm trying to illustrate how "Bad Person" rhetoric is used to support hegemonic power.

Perhaps though, the acceptance of this violent rhetoric comes from a more mundane cultural push-- the abstract feeling that people (especially people of certain races and classes and genders) don't change.

So long as we believe in easily identified sets of "Bad People," we will continue to allow systems which brutalize us all.


Anyways I've lost the plot because I'm at work so here have this unedited and unproofread...


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Loosf's post:

genuinely I’m reading this ask as satire/sarcasm, which, unprompted is kind of out of pocket, but i really get the impression that this is someone working through their frustration with this situation by giving you a weird ironic ask

I have seen way too many earnest posts about people being really really really fucking weird and aggro about diaper stuff over at twitter and tumblr, like literal conflation between that and pedophilia to treat this ask as "satire". It is indistinguishable from earnest clout chasing fandom purity shit

I totally understand and don’t think it’s wrong for you to respond to it in earnest. and even if I’m right here, i think doing this kind of thing as an anon ask even if that was the goal is not… something i would do or recommend, since it’s especially hard in that circumstance to tell what the actual tone or intent is

like, you’re right, but the kind of ironic gallows humor sarcasm I’m reading from this often comes in the form of just “repeating arguments made by awful people in a tone that’s supposed to indicate frustration with the thing and be cathartic”. But if you don’t know if that’s happening, you don’t get to also have the catharsis of going “yeah exactly you get it”, given the chance that it’s someone being 100% serious, too.

in reply to @Loosf's post:

this is an especially sore point for me since i have tendencies towards regression for trauma reasons n stuff and it really sucks being seen as some sorta sick immoral pervert for whats more or less just coping mechanisms that help me survive

but the AESTHETICS of it all makes it uncomfortable for some fuckin fandom clout demons and it is an easy way to seem "safe" and "protecting the community"

again replacing consent ethics with aesthetics and disgust and bullshit

Commenting here because I appreciate Luis's defense of a kink that is a core part of my identity in online, and sometimes offline, spaces, but I would like to say something in the off chance the anon is reading these comments:

  1. Don't be afraid of sticking up for your friends, because at the end of the day, they'll remember that. Every non ABDL in my life who's stuck with me when they found out about my weird little secret that I tried to respectively keep away from them but weren't bothered by it when it finally came up is cherished deeply by me. They know and accept a personal piece of me, and I would do the same for them. It brings us closer, and forms community, despite neither party being "into" each other's kinks. It's solidarity in the kink and queer space, and our lives are richer for it. I feel bad for people who are willing to have less friends because a kink icks them out.

  2. Your feelings and fears of being ostracized are completely understandable and it's not fair or right for people to do that. It sucks when people you like and respect are willing to act like this. Whatever your kinks are, as long as you're not hurting anybody, you have a right to responsibly explore and indulge them. I read your asks as someone hesitant to jump on the bandwagon of cutting ties with people you love over things you don't think should matter. I read your comment as you understanding that there was something clearly wrong with the accusation of "ABDL is pedophilia and evil" because you knew that couldn't be true in your gut. And, you're right!

The real reason people, especially young queer people online, act like this is simple: They are confusing personal disgust with a sense of morality. They have not lived and grown enough to understand that something can simply not "be for them" without couching it in a sense of right and wrong. I can happily say, "I really don't like seeing X, because it makes me personally uncomfortable," without accusing someone of a high moral crime for enjoying, indulging, or partaking in it. It honestly feels liberating to do so, and I cannot recommend it enough. I don't like seeing, say, gore, so I mute it and if it comes up in conversation I just say, "I'm not a fan." I have never accused anyone into gore art of being some kind of serial killer in the making or something. Sometimes expression is WEIRD and that's fine! I have tools to curate my online experience so I never have to see something that makes me uncomfortable, AND I can be friends with the people that like it!

Hang on to your friends. Don't be bullied into accusing loved ones in your life as something you know they're not. They'll remember you sticking up for them and it'll mean a lot to them.

honestly, I instantly think less of anyone who conflates ABDL with pedophilia. I’ve avoided one popular piece of pngtubing software on principle because the dev did exactly that, and I haven’t forgotten.

To equate it to pedophilia is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is in the first place - and if you’re willing to crucify your peers over it, I’m going to keep some distance from you. At best you shoot first and ask questions later, at worst you’re just an asshole unwilling to accept anything that doesn’t sound “acceptable” enough compared to your own interests - and probably the only thing separating you from those who wish death on LGBTQ+ people is that you probably just so happen to be LGBTQ+ yourself.

Veadotube. At one point, the license to use it very specifically included "babyfurs" in its list of groups you cannot promote, engage with, or affiliate yourself with if you wish to use the software, and one of the devs had posted on their twitter for babyfurs to fuck off - following it with, in their words "i don't want any pedos following this account or using veadotube at all."

The twitter account is locked so I can't verify if that post still exists or not, and the terms of use removed the section sometime around June-July last year. (You can still find both of these via the wayback machine, however - this has the twitter post, and here's the last time the terms specifically mentioned babyfurs.) However, I've found no evidence of that dev rescinding those statements, and it's very possible they just decided that clause was redundant, so I figured I'd err on the side of caution and assume they still think the same way until I see evidence of otherwise.

"what should i do if i see someone [say] that they despise a kink?" just decide not to care about it. we're all going to the same place. i dont keep my kinks close to my chest and i assume people who dont like them just dont interact with me. i do the same for them. its not hard to kill the cop in your head especially in a place like this. anyway thats all of what i have to say about it i think

in reply to @PuddlesTheVaporeon's post:

They are confusing personal disgust with a sense of morality.

Yes! This!! This is exactly the thing. And it's a shame because personal disgust is so very not a good moral compass.

Even when it comes to, say, loli/shota stuff (kinks that in my mind are not meaningfully different from pedophilia itself), the response I often see on the internet seems like some kind of virtue signaling that I don't understand.

Because even if you can connect the dots between a kink and the concept of childhood there is still a meaningful difference between pedophilia (thoughts) and child sexual abuse (actions). I'm not saying to be uncritically permissive of thoughts -- thoughts may not always lead to actions but they do always precede them. But if a community is so hostile to the concept of pedophilia that people who are struggling to find positive ways to handle the problematic parts of their sexuality can't even talk about them... well maybe that was less about preventing harm, and more about feeling self-righteous.

If you care about protecting children, and I'm assuming you do, it's worth taking an honest look at the problem. Be real about where harm comes from. Overwhelmingly, it comes from family members, gym teachers, priests, creeps in your kid's DMs, and the Epsteins... not artists on Pixiv whose favorite fictional character ships happen to also be teenagers.

in reply to @neevspoilsbees's post:

You see, my friend can like mint chocolate chip ice cream and I can dislike it. My friend knows I do not like mint chocolate chip ice cream and knows not to offer or force it upon me. I do not hate my friend for loving mint chocolate chip ice cream. Besides, I enjoy pine-apple on pizza. My friend does not enjoy pine-apple on pizza. And respects me just the same. We're still very good friends. We do not expect the other to eat what we like. Instead we settle on lasagna, something we both enjoy, every now and then when we want to eat something together.

My point is that the world forgets everything is just a matter of flavor in life. No need to kill over flavors if there's no evidence of poison in the batch.