• it / its

local queer disaster pack of critters | ΘΔ &
mid 20s


jayrockin
@jayrockin

There's a genre of person that is like genuinely offended if you show them artwork of people who don't match their myopic beauty standards. And because they think its icky and their default state is looking at pictures that make them horny, they assume the only possible reason you could be drawing people like that is if its a fetish


jayrockin
@jayrockin

Also worth noting that fetishes are entangled with people's non-sexual interests. This is normal brain stuff. Using it as a way to imply someone is duplicitous for drawing their interests because they may find some of that cloud of concepts sexy sometimes is asinine. Also so crazy how it's only duplicitous to do this if you are queer or have non-normative sexual interests. Het guys with an extreme bias for drawing/writing a single female body type and personality in their fiction seem to generally be off the hook for sneaking in wank material. How curious.


StrawberryDaquiri
@StrawberryDaquiri
This page's posts are visible only to users who are logged in.

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @jayrockin's post:

And of course they are mad the drawing isn't pretty because everyone has been catering to them treating humans as a fetish and objects. What's worse is that those trying to learn art, also cater to that mindset because they don't know any different. They just draw what everyone else is drawing because that's what's "normal" so the cycle continues.

(Also doesn't help that officially a certain gender body has been labeled as "object of art" and said to "just look better" by people not of that gender who like to do the objectifying and fetishizing.)

I do wonder if these people would burst into flames if they saw their grandparents naked. I'm prescribing them mandatory life drawing sessions with nude subjects they don't want to bang until they stop thinking of ordinary anatomical features as either repugnant or inherently sexual