#Its not puritanical to say that sexualizing children is bad

[lpsgirl109]

This is a lot of very angry words for someone who just said making sex jokes about children is weird

Hey, TDP fandom, you know Callum and Rayla are still teenagers, right?

[radfemsiren]

I can’t reblog with my addition because OP (devilith/ @devilith) is a coward that wants to @ me, then immediately block… pathetic behavior when they want to openly mock and bully rape and incest victims, but are too scared of a bigger blog calling them out.

Regarding this post where a woman is sharing her story of sexual abuse from her brother, and how she believes porn played a role in him abusing her, this was OPs direct response:

Porn and rape culture play a role in real life abuse. Abusers don’t magically wake up one day and are just who they are. Society socializes them to have entitlement to violating people’s bodies, and consuming media that degrades and objectifies women and children is a large factor. Pretending like this problem doesn’t exists and speaking to victims like this just so you can jerk it to loli or incest shit makes you a disgusting, vile degenerate. Also, stop using nazis to excuse your misogyny. ITS NOT PURITAN to say that porn with incest and cp, even if it’s fictional, is bad! :

Then devilith wants to pull the “well a lot of us are victims too!” card when backed up against a wall.

So let me get this straight, we should listen to victims when they are totally down for your filthy porn you want to indulge in, but not when they speak out against it? Hmm.🤔

No, stick to what you believe and stand on business! Instead of being a sniveling coward and bullying and backtracking. Taboo porn is bad, and I will always believe that. If a victim agrees with me, good. If a victim doesn’t, then I’m not going to pretend retriggering themselves constantly is healthy or ok. Anyway, fuck you ❤️

[eeveecraft]

This Blog's Stance on Radqueers

Just had to block an account saying that you can't be pro-endo but be against radqueers. Why? Well, I recently discovered what a radqueer is, and I'd like to enlighten you, so you don't make the mistake of mistaking them for something they're not.

What's a Radqueer?

Well, if we input that question into a search engine:

The fact that the fucking MAP Wiki pops up as the third result is already concerning!

This is what the Radqueer Wiki states:

Radqueer is the term used to refer to a radical political movement that advocates for paraphiles, transids, and other ostracized identities to be accepted in mainstream queer spaces. The term was originally coined in late 2021 by now deactivated Tumblr user foucault-divine-mephisto as a response to "the puritanism, hypocrisy and general rejection in the Queer community regarding a range of marginalized and stigmatized Queersexualities (paraphilias), internal identities (transage, transabled, transill/transnoso, transpecies, alterhumans/transnonhuman etc) and behaviours (social, sexual eccentricity etc). " Since its original coinage in 2021, the community made a steady increase in popularity, though never branching out of obscurity.

Oh? Paraphilias? You mean... as the National Library of Medicine defines it:

Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviors of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature. Although not innately pathological, a paraphilic disorder can evolve if paraphilia invokes harm, distress, or functional impairment on the lives of the affected individual or others. A total of eight Paraphilias are listed in the DSM V and include pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, frotteurism, fetishism, and transvestic fetishism.[1]

If you thought zoophilia was missing, don't worry, it's under "Other specified paraphilic disorder," as stated in this Advances in Psychiatric Treatment paper.

Oh. Yeah, including those paraphilias. So... why are we wanting to allow people with conditions that makes them far more likely to hurt children and animals into queer spaces? And if you think the Radqueer Wiki isn't also including paraphilic disorders in the definition, well, here's one of the definitions from the good ol' MAP Wiki:

RadQueer is unconditionally inclusive of: ALL trans-x/transid identities (and supports all their social and medical transitions) ALL paraphilias and the multiplicity of their related contact stances (anti-contact, complex-contact, neutral-contact, restricted-contact, pro-contact). — Pro-c’s on “potentially harmful paraphilias” (if acted upon) are completely welcomed in the RadQueer community if they stay behaviorally non-offending/non-active. Ex-offenders are welcomed too! Debating on contact stances is totally acceptable as long as it doesn’t directly incites to committing offenses ~

Oh? You're skeptical because that's from the goddamn MAP Wiki? Fair enough. This one's from Radqueer Info's carrd:

Here's more elaboration from their FAQ:

So, to summarize: a radqueer is someone who is accepting of ALL paraphilias, including paraphilic disorders, and other "controversial" identities. There's other things they accept that are eyebrow-raising at minimum, but let's stay on topic.

Why is This Bad?

Let me make it clear, as the National Library of Medicine stated, paraphilias are not inherently harmful. It's paraphilic disorders like pedophilia and zoophilia where it leads to the harm of others or the person with the disorder is when it becomes an issue. Being accepting of paraphilic disorders can normalize these behaviors and also convince the person with the disorder that they don't need help. This is like MAPs saying fucking pedophilia belongs under the queer umbrella, and hopefully, you all know why that is a massive fucking NOPE.

Conflating queerness with literal disorders that compel a person to harm children, animals, and/or non-consenting adults is quite frankly, fucking insulting. Being queer does NOT make you more likely to harm others, it does NOT urge you to harm others. A grown dude consensually having sex with another consenting grown dude is NOT the same as a grown man violating a child, period, I can't believe I have to fucking state this.

And just to draw back to my original statement, this is also NOT the fucking same as being pro-endogenic. Endogenic systems, like queer people, are NOT more likely to harm others because they're endogenic. Does me having five Dragons in my head make me more likely to torture some non-consenting person for sexual gratification? No. But if I'm sexually attracted to such a prospect, then yes, that makes it more likely for me to do it.

Notice the language I've used throughout this post, I'm saying having these disorders makes you more likely to engage in harmful behaviors, it does NOT guarantee someone with these disorders WILL do these horrible things. Experiencing attraction is not a crime, nor do thought crimes exist, but acting on this attraction is. A pedophile is not an inherently evil person, but they become one when they act on their attraction and ruin a child's life for good. Same goes with other paraphilic disorders.

Instead of being allowed into the queer community and offered the same acceptance as non-disordered identities, these people should be redirected into getting treatment and help before they do end up causing irreversible harm. However, if they haven't done any harm, they shouldn't be demonized and harassed. Harassing and demonizing these people just causes them to recede further into harmful thinking and behaviors, and it will cause them to seek solace with other people who will encourage that thinking (Think of the "MAP Pride" movement as reference).

And especially with "accepting" these paraphilic disorders, it allows communities based around them to form, which allows echo chambers to form that can make someone with a paraphilic disorder even MORE likely to become a perpetrator. It's like being around a bunch of binge drinkers. If you're around a bunch of binge drinkers for long enough, you're far more likely to start binge drinking yourself.

So yeah! You can absolutely be pro-endogenic and anti-radqueer. I'm anti, "Allowing people who are at higher risk for harming people on the same level as queer people." Like, do you not see how harmful of a connotation that is? It's equating queerness to literal disorders, harmful disorders at that. And after all the queer community's done to prove we AREN'T disordered/inherently harmful, conflating that with paraphilic disorders that are defined by harm is such a slap to the face.

Conclusion

There's other issues with the radqueer label that I could bring up, but this post is long enough as it is, and I hope the stuff I have listed is enough reason already to not like this label. It is important to be inclusive, but not inclusive to the point where innocent people are harmed because of it. Now that I know what radqueer actually is, I'm definitely concerned by their presence in the endogenic tags, and I don't think it's a good idea to welcome them with open arms.

If we happen to have any radqueer followers, I really hope you read this post in full and see where I'm coming from. If you still don't agree, you're free to unfollow! I don't want people who are fine with allowing people with paraphilic disorders in queer spaces instead of encouraging them to get help following this blog.

7-19-2024

[rayasland]

You ought to learn how the tags on this website work, the definition of pedophilla, and how to prevent trivialising acts of pedophilla against children. Focus your efforts on real children, instead of bitching about authors aging characters up, ie. Imagining them as fictional adults and not thinking about abusing fictional children.

Your behaviour is not productive, and not benefiting anyone. Advocate for real children being sexually abused, it will be a far better use of your time. + Puritanism is inherently bad and hinders on depriving us of our rights.

ok

[edit] oh mb i didnt actually read it gimme a sec b4 i reply

[edit2] the excessive use of the tags were on purpose, just scroll if u find that annoying or send someone asks whos constantly doing it

im aware of how they work, it was just a way to get peoples attention cuz we all know nobody would see it without them. im also now aware of the fact i may have over done it with the tags, i didn’t register how many i “clogged up”

u couldve moved along instead of wasting UR time writing this

even if its not real its just… weird to do theres nothing more to say

the post wasnt meant to say “pedophillia against real children isnt as important as aging up anime kids and we shouldnt pay attention to them” just seeing how many people agree with me abt whats on that post and if u dont or js dont think its important dont bother interacting please🙏🏾

i do agree w u that we should advocate for real children going through sa which im pretty sure a lot of people are already doing, but i wanted to bring to light how normalised js writing smut for minors(although fictional) is and how justifying it by saying “its a character” or saying “i aged them up” is strange

part of my point is writing smut involving underage anime characters, even if they are "aged up" or fictional, is still inappropriate and can contribute to the normalization of harmful behaviors irl as well as minors objectification because even if they’re “aged up” in your head it doesnt erase the fact you’re fantisizing over a fictional character who is meant to be treated and viewed as a child

also idfk what puritans rlly are only that they’re a different version of catholic which i dont know of either so idk what u mean there

this was written late at night if sum doesnt make sense lmk have a great day

btw im adding tags AGAIN to spite u 💋(referring to all that went in my asks to complain abt it)

thats all im saying for now im going to bed 🫡

[frasier-crane-style]

Hey, so I saw your post about Quiet on set from a few days ago and it just rubbed me the wrong way. I tried to write a comment a bunch of times but articulating this point is weirdly stressful and kind of nit-picky. This is in no way an attack, I just want to engage in a discussion about it, and maybe understand your point better.

I disagree with a fair amount of what was said about censorship, censorship and age recommendations are at the baseline guidelines that are there to help inform parents. And what it seemed like you may have wanted to acknowledge is that children and parents have a choice in what they watch. (Is that what you meant about the Bluey comment?)

The best way for me to state my disagreement is with the line about dog food, "both a man and a dog can eat dog food". It implies that anything goes and the issue is with puritanical censorship; but if we take the analogy further the implications are different. Starting with the fact that dog food is not safe for human consumption, it is processed at a different standard and the quality and regulations for it are different from that of our food. Sure you can eat dog food in a pinch but you are running the risk of becoming quite ill, even if the risk is slim. So if we apply that to what you were talking about: it is dangerous to kids who are in the industry and can negatively impact the children who are consuming those pieces of media. I will agree its definitely much worse for the children in the show, who are forced to act out sexual innuendos because their job depended on it. But the logic about dog food is flawed and implies that its all okay. I don't know if that was the intention and I am inclined to believe it was not.

Thank you if you took the time to read this, and no pressure to respond

Look, someone Blazed the original post, which is both flattering and a little frustrating, because it means it went outside my little curated bubble and people are engaging with it who don't have Trusted Media Literacy Confirmed status. But I did say, straight up, that I wasn't for "anything goes in children's media," that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and that there was a big difference between slightly off-color wordplay (fingerprints/Finger Prince, how do you go from an A to a D?) and children performing veiled sex acts.

("I'm not talking about some of the outright fetishistic stuff, but simple wordplay in teen shows." "(Sex jokes acted out by adults /= sex jokes acted out by children)")

My concern was basically that, in their justified and understandable outrage over Schneider and his associates' actions, people would go overboard, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and declare war on anything that HINTED at adult content within children's media, such as a rather harmless puberty joke about bosoms in a show aimed at teens. Moral panic is a helluva drug.

Moreover, I believe that part of children's development is consuming media with more mature (but still appropriate) themes as they age. Sometimes even a little inappropriate. Ask most guys and they'll recall being taken to see R-rated action movies with their dads when they were twelve or so. Most women have fond memories of teen sleepovers where they watch movies like Coyote Ugly, Charlie's Angels, or Burlesque.

This is a natural part of growing up. The boys don't see something insane like Terrifier, they see something like Die Hard that's just a bit more intense than PG-13 (or Saving Private Ryan, which is kinda insane, but it's also historically edifying and also Spielberg is the man). And girls don't see something like Bible Black, they see something that's a bit raunchy, but overall harmless and fun.

I just think about this some because I have a lot of nieces and nephews, the oldest is six, and I'm going like "ooh, is she ready for Jackie Chan movies? Would Rumble In The Bronx be okay for her? There is that bit where they beat up Jackie pretty bad... BTAS might be too much for her, but The Brave And The Bold is really silly and lighthearted, she'll probably like that." And there's a lot of stuff that, on God, I am not showing her for a long, long time. I've hidden my Tales From The Crypt DVDs because just seeing the Cryptkeeper on the cover scares her. So I am not advocating for showing Texas Chainsaw Massacre to five-year-olds. I am saying that, by the time they're eighteen, they should be ready for Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the way they get ready is to see the occasional Ghostbusters or Jurassic Park.

[lordelmelloi2]

Idk how many times I have to say it but if you support incest/incest "kink" unfollow me, my blog is not for you. I'm tired of people acting like the fantasy aspect of kink has nothing to do with reality. No one takes incest survivors seriously in general & the societal attitudes currently towards incest & incest survivors are leaning towards this type of abuse's normalization. When a group is already disenfranchised to that point where incest abuse is denied en masse or normalized within media and at times encouraged in certain groups, it is not something that IMO can be practiced as a kink without it being harmful. The same goes for any "kink" that roleplays pedophilic attraction. There are types of kinks that can say something about someone's perception and treatment of members of certain disenfranchised groups, if you know anything about kink and its impact on society or literally anything about psychological dynamics of kinks at all you would know this. Kink is not exempt from analysis. Anything to deal with the psychological dynamics of pleasure is not exempt from analysis nor is it something that should be simplified into "well it's just pretend" or "it's between two adults" as if all kink exists within a vacuum. It's the same reasons why even largely open queer kink communities draw hard lines at raceplay and other forms of roleplay in that vein. It's not a "moral panic" it's simply seeing how these attitudes affect the world around us, and centering survivors in the conversations about these sorts of acts. Centering those who have survived these types of abuses are the way that we stop the cycles of intergenerational abuse. And -- I should add -- the idea that you are not in control of what you do or do not find sexy, what kinks you do or do not engage with, the idea that you can not control your own sexual desires is a concept that denies yourself the agency over your own sex life and erodes your boundaries. This isn't to say that all desire is inherently harmful, but that desire to replicate specific abuses can and will cause you to lose boundaries that otherwise would give respect towards survivors of those abuses. Sexualizing incest, sexualizing children, those are not attitudes that exist in a vacuum. They are attitudes that affect survivors today and assist in grooming more victims of these abuses. Nuance is required in kink. Do not let people convince you that kink exists in a vacuum.

*Disclaimer: I'm someone involved in IRL kink communities, I go to forums, I know elders etc. everything that's involved with anything relating to sexuality deserves nuance and acknowledgment that kink does not exist in a vacuum and that this is still something that affects your psychological interpretations of certain things. Grace is given to those who are coping but when things spill into real life, when it begins to harm survivors and cultivate unsafe spaces for survivors... when it's an abuse that's normalized within society it's not subversive or deviant or whatever. It's already normalized. I do not speak as someone from a sexually repressive household -- actually vastly the opposite -- and I do not engage with reductive bad-faith takes about "puritanicalism" since half of the people who talk about these issues don't even know what that means or what context the term even applies to.

My blog is a safe space for incest survivors, CSA survivors, COCSA survivors, and grooming survivors. It will always be a safe space for abuse survivors. I will never condone abuse or the normalization of abuse and will always be critical of attitudes that contribute to the normalization of said abuses. I am fundamentally anti-abuse. I will never condone attitudes that contribute to abuse.

[see]

basically the conversation going on right now is targeted towards the large majority of booktok, especially those who ask "does this book have spice (that means sexual content)?" about any and all books, and how this is no better than having a porn addiction.

i am not going to start and end this conversation by saying that everyone who reads books should always read classics, should always read horror, should always read nonfiction, etc. i think the conversation of diversifying one's tastes is far beyond helpful at this point. i have seen countless videos of people politely suggesting that 27+ year olds who read only ya/romance content break out of their comfort zone, met with stitches from women (often white women, which might become important depending on the length of this post) well into their 30s/40s/50s spitting with vitriol and claiming misogyny at the bare notion that they branch out. i don't want to save these people from bad literature. i don't want to share a space with these people. the only reason i bring them up is because this issue extends far beyond their spheres.

1. adults in spaces clearly marked for children

there has been a misconception brewing among the majority of circles where older members of "fandoms" and subcultures coalesce to project more mature ideals onto fictional properties, and that is that of the "puriteen," or that younger generations are more puritanical than older generations. besides the fact that this is a very subjective claim that is given no backing, older members of subspaces, in this case, booktok, use this claim to discredit any critique coming their direction. many booktok content creators who face criticism for never deviating from ya or romance genres, or for refusing to read books without spice, will often make the sweeping claim that many comments critiquing them are from children--puritanical, sex negative children, at that--thus their opinions and claims should be thrown aside.

but, hey, pause. why are so many children making this observation about your reading habits? especially reading habits that largely involve sex and smut and "spice"?

you'll notice, often, that the larger claim that older booktok members intend to make is that they do not enjoy being policed on what they should read, hence why i started this post with a disclaimer in which i disclose and explain why i do not care what these people read. however, it becomes very apparent when the two pronged request of "don't police what i read" and "children should stay out of adult spaces" is veered into willful ignorance. YA (literally Young Adult) is a genre typically depicting characters within the ages of 12-18, for audiences of 12-18. this is not restrictive, there is nothing written on or around these books or this genre that claims that people above the age of 18 (or below the age of 12, for that matter) read YA content. by definition, though, ya media is advertised to and written for its intended age demographic. videos blatantly advertising ya books will be recommended most to people within the ages of 12-18, that's how algorithms work. so who do videos tagged with the titles of ya fiction books, or just tags like "#yafiction", get recommended to? who is most likely to see when you comment under a ya book review with the question "does it have spice"? who are you exposing to your claims that you "cannot read a book without spice"? 12 to 18 year olds. it's not that teenagers are the only demographic of people who have an issue with your addiction to smut, it's that they are they age group that is being shown these comments the most often.

2. lack of diversity in booktok spaces

for sake of conversation, are there other demographics who take issue with the booktok standard search for smut?

this post, and conversation in general (this conversation has been longstanding, but its resurgence in particular) came from a post by 21 year old gabe escobar (@/gabesco on tiktok) and a response by mid-20s emma skies (@/emmaskies on tiktok). gabe made the claim that many books that become very popular on booktok are basically just porn, and emma responded that he was misogynistic (a staple) and that he would have no way of knowing what books were popular in booktok spheres because he was not in booktok spheres, also making a point to refer to the 21 year old man as a "boy" throughout the video. not only does emma tick the box of using age to belittle the points of anyone who speaks out against booktok trends, but emma is also wrong--gabe is, by definition, not a boy (obviously). emma not only assumed the age of the person in question, but also assumed his position in booktok spheres, and also the larger identity of booktok.

i'm not claiming that emma was being a misandrist (which would be a pretty funny curveball to throw ngl), but rather that a member of booktok must fit certain qualities: 1. they must be a woman, 2. they must be white, and 3. they must be an adult. this lines up with the frequent silencing of content creators of color who denounce franchises like harry potter and the works of racist creators like rebecca yarros and lana ferguson. to large booktok creators, anyone who does not look like them must not pay attention to booktok spheres, or atleast, must not have a say in them. this is where this false confidence comes from, to denounce any take that does not come from a white woman's mouth as uninformed.

3. ignorance, purposeful misconstruing, and the true cause for concern

when everyone who criticizes their behavior is a misogynist, a puriteen, or just misinformed, where does that leave us? are we met with many people who are up in arms just for the sake of doing so?

it would be remiss to say that many of the people who criticize the smut heavy tbrs of booktok influencers truly just have the best interests of the creators at heart when they call out their porn addiction--but they are telling it like it is either way. reading erotic literature so heavy-handedly that you cannot read anything else slots pretty cleanly under the moniker of porn addiction, and should be a cause for concern if brought to dangerous extreme.

these creators who call out this porn addiction are not doing so because they are concerned for the safety of porn addicted booktok influence, nor because they are trying to "police" the content you consume or be needlessly puritanical. the reason you see many people from many demographics calling attention to this behavior is behavior is because it is public and infringing upon their space.

one large phenomenon spread throughout many subspaces on tiktok (from biketok to cookingtok) is comments along the lines of "Booktok has been summoned!" at the sight of anything remotely related to content from ya literature, especially men who look similar to male love interests in ya books (who, if you remember, tend to be between the ages of 12-18).

booktok influencers who claim that other people are policing their behavior seem to think this criticism comes from thin air, and spin the story that people from out of nowhere are attacking them in their tiny corner of the internet. you are commenting on videos of random people to compare them to teenage characters and often sexualize in the process, your videos are being recommended to 12-18 year olds by your own accord, and you are routinely ignoring the opinion of anyone who does not look like you. be honest: who else do you have to blame but yourself?

[grandhotelabyss]

In connection with the last ask (about sexuality and morality in art), I'd be curious what you think of Alan Moore's "Lost Girls", which excited some minor controversy at the time and would surely have excited vastly more had it debuted in these more prudish and paranoid times...

Not my favorite Moore. The structure is intensely mechanical, the parodies mostly flat. The end is quite moving, and the Rite of Spring scene is good, and there are interesting historical reflections in the middle. Gebbie's art is, so to speak, ravishing; I don't deny that.

(I should say I'm bad on classic children's literature and have mostly not read the relevant source texts beside Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When Moore works with pre-existing properties rather than with archetypes, I find the results quite mixed. The early League is charming, the Lovecraft material profound, but the later League is at Finnegans Wake levels of grand folly, pretty much unreadable in my view. Lost Girls is somewhere in the middle.)

But its quality of polemic is off-putting, a performative contradiction, very D. H. Lawrence: a hectoring puritan sermon about how awful puritanism is. I think of the scene where the hotel owner (M. Rougeur, get it?) is reading Pierre Louÿs's incest and pedo porn during an orgy and pauses to defend it to one of the girls on the grounds that it's only imaginary. But if Alan and Melinda actually thought that, they'd just have shown the scene without anxious moral justification, the way a perved-out mangaka like Asano would. (And Moore does do this in his better works, from Swamp Thing to Providence.) At least allow transgression to have the dignity of remaining transgressive.

Presenting transgression as a wholesome, wholly salubrious, compatible with public morals and public life, leads to the fatal confusions of the present, when adults read only children's books and children are handed sanitary guidelines to safe anal play in elementary school. In that way, I find Lost Girls painfully premonitory rather than usefully untimely. Today is Moore's 70th birthday, by the way, so I will say again that it's a beautiful book with a brilliant historical conceit—quite an oeuvre where something like that is a minor work or a failed experiment.

[raesnovelsblog]

Synopsis from IMDB:

A family in 1630s New England is torn apart by the forces of witchcraft, black magic and possession.

My synopsis: 

A family that is too fervent in their views suffers loss and extreme paranoia by witchcraft and their own mental decline.

My review

I hadn’t watched this movie since it first came out. It is a very good movie that was shot and executed extremely well. The theme of a woman burgeoning sexuality is dangerous is clear in its messaging. However, it’s not something I’d want to watch over and over again. I got what they were trying to do, and they did it well, but it still pissed me off. Everything was Tomison’s fault when she really could only be blamed for one or two things. The injustice makes it harder for me to rewatch. I’m definitely a payback/vengeance lady.

Rating : 8/10

Spoilery thoughts I had rewatching the movie. You have been warned.

Anya Taylor Joy is a great actress. She hasn’t said a word yet and you know exactly how she’s feeling.

How puritan do you have to be to be kicked out of the colonies?

Tomison hesitates and I don’t fault her. I wouldn’t want to move out into the middle of nowhere either.

That mom is creepy looking. 

That music cue was intense.

All feel bad for all women that lived during that time.

That baby got snatched quickly. Like, her eyes were not closed for that long.

Not a fan of the trope that she’s a scary old woman because she’s old. 

His baby brother was snatched, of course the son would be wary of the woods.

If there is anything remotely uncomfortable to discuss, the dad doesn’t want to talk about it.

If it takes that long to load the gun, would you load it, at least partially, beforehand?

Those twins are a menace. 

They don’t listen to the parents yet they yell at Tomison when they won’t listen to her?

Okay, Tomison went too far, but on the other hand, Mercy kind of deserved it.

The dad didn’t speak up and let the mom continue to blame Tomison for the missing cup. Coward.

Tomison is going through puberty so she must be sent away? Why did this woman even have kids?

What part of that lone cabin in the woods looks inviting?

Those kids would have to go.

The kids are caught up in the hysteria; I get that. They have nothing else going on  so they’re easily bored. But they’re still bastards for what they’re doing.

That mother had made up her mind about Tomison a long time ago. Nothing she says would change her mind. At least the dad has some affection for her.

He wants to believe her.

Until he snaps and boards all the kids inside the barn.

The dad looked like he considered burying her in there with the son.

That breastfeeding scene is disturbing.

Damn that ram came out of nowhere.

So the kids were taken off by the witches off screen? Cop out. Murdering children is not something done in a ton of movies, but after all the hell they put Tomison through I wanted revenge.

Of course she went off with the devil. She’d been told that was all she was good for, why wouldn’t she believe it after all this time? At least they wanted her.

[wajjs]

People in fandom like "we have to stop the cishet women from fetishizing gay men!" and then their eyes zoom in on a random gay trans man. Every time.

Is this about the fujoshi thing? The misunderstanding of asian (in this case, japanese) media, its terms, its history, etc via looking at it through a rigid white puritanical western understanding?

Is this about how people in fandom like to say women's desire = bad? How they want everything to be pure and sanitized and think of the children please keep it safe for all ages, we don't want your disgusting womanly exploration of sexuality in a safe place, in a safe way, in a manner that's not hurting anyone?

Or is this about how people in fandom misgender people constantly to fit their fandom rants and fandom wank? How a lot of the so called "cishet women" they hate for engaging with mlm media are actually either genderqueer or trans men?

[ramshacklefey]

Genuine answer: I don't think they do, if most of them ever did.

Now watch me set myself on fire!

If you are one of the people who simply has the knee-jerk "Incest evil" response, but hasn't ever really thought about why it's bad, I invite you to do so. Most of us grow up only ever hearing the word "incest" paired with "rape," so obviously that's a huge negative association. Still, doesn't it seem like there must be something wrong with a practice that seems to be so universally condemned among societies?

Well, let's think about it! What are our options for the source of the badness of incest? Take a step back first, and let's consider what it is that makes other morally wrong sexual interactions wrong. Setting aside a lot of stuff, I'd say the one thing we can all agree on is that if consent is lacking, then sexual conduct is morally wrong. So, that brings us to our first theory:

Incest is wrong because it's always non-consensual (always sexual assault). Is it though? Obviously, there are many cases of incestuous sexual assault. And obviously, there are many cases of children being sexually assaulted by relatives. However, since sexual assault is wrong all by itself, it seems like it's the assault part that makes these relationships wrong, not the incest part. Additionally, not all incest occurs nonconsensually. Grown adults can (and do) have consensual sexual relationships with people they're closely related to.

So incest isn't bad because it's always a form of sexual assault, and when it is sexual assault, the "sexual assault" part is what makes it wrong. What else could we say makes incest morally wrong?

Incest carries a high risk of health problems for any children born from the relationship. This is true, but is that enough to condemn a sexual relationship as morally wrong? If you're willing to say so, then you also have to either a) be able to defend the claim that disabled people or others which genetic health problems aren't morally allowed to have kids OR b) draw a principled line between why the risk makes incest wrong without making other sex between people whose children would be likely to have health problems wrong. And on top of that, not all sex is procreative. If the risk of health problems were what made incest wrong, then you'd have to find something else that made incest between people who can't have children together wrong.

There's some kind of moral wrongness inherent to having sex with someone you're related to. It doesn't have another explanation. A lot of people will probably take this route, but I don't like it. It runs us down the same path as a myriad of other sexual puritanism, drawing arbitrary lines around what kinds of sex are morally acceptable. You'll still need to give me some explanation of why this is wrong.

Humans have an inborn predisposition against incest for evolutionary reasons. This is likely true. Because of the aforementioned health issues, a species is likely to do better on the whole if most of its members are sexually attracted to those outside their close relatives. But an inborn predisposition for or against something says nothing about its morality.

At the end of the day, it's actually pretty difficult to give a moral argument against incest other than: It's icky because my society has a huge taboo about it and I associate it with sexual assault. Which, hey, that's a legit feeling that a lot of people have about a lot of things surrounding sex. It's just not the same thing as a moral argument.

"having sex with your friends is basically incest" is a take of all time

[riseofthecommonwoodpile]

i reblogged a post a bit ago today about how assimilationist gays and tenderqueers (and the cis allies that side with them) are ultimately serving a right wing agenda because they are scared of being smeared with awful false identities (especially that of pedophile) by conservatives, and it made me think of something that happened this weekend when i was staying in Denver.

I was in the city to see friends at a kink convention, a convention that has been going strong for years, is one of the largest of its kind in the US, and is very serious about not making vanilla people (and their children) uncomfortable. Pretty much all of the outfits that people who are against kink at pride object to are not allowed until you are in a convention space, all of which are guarded by security and volunteers to make sure no one gets in that hasn't explicitly consented to viewing kink stuff. Most collars aren't even allowed outside those areas, including those that anyone not familiar with the lifestyle would just think of as jewelry / chokers. breaking those rules will get you a permanent ban from the convention. this event is private. and *still* there was a (thankfully unsuccessful) plan by some conservatives to sneak minors into the area and report the convention for allowing the minors in.

and look, despite the (very very high) proportion of the active kink community that is LGBT, i'm not saying they're equivalent social groups. but what i *am* saying is that even when a sexuality- / gender-related community self-restricts and acquiesces to conservative social demands, the battleground will move to private sexuality, as it was before supposed social progress took place. if you run scared of conservatives saying kink at pride is pedophilia, that naked trans women are inherent pedophiles, that your support of these things means you must be a pedophile too, you are going to end up not just with a culture that is externally puritan- you are moving that puritanism back into private identity and sexuality, and moving the conservative goalposts farther into people's personal lives. there is no acquiescence that cultural conservatism will consider sufficient. moral campaigns against "publicly indecent" expressions of sexuality will not stop once they win that round. Their aim is to regulate out and eliminate the action in private as well via harming the people who in private commit transgressions against the social norm.

it's pathetic that i have to say this, but i'm obviously not saying "oh actually people should be able to do kink scenes at Starbucks and gay sex should be forcibly placed in the line of sight of an 8 year old". What I am saying is that, if that's what you're trying to interpret this post to mean, why does your brain inherently take the bad faith reactionary argument? why have you come to default to the conservative cultural narrative? you very likely do not serve what and who you think you are serving.

[salsa-and-light]

"And yet it is frequently characterized as precisely such by pro-LGBT activists, including this comic."

That's incorrect.

This comic never identifies either party, let alone makes a blanket statement about a fight against straight people.

The only people saying anything like that, are the people I'm specifically criticizing in the comments underneath the comic.

"See, this is ironic, because I didn’t say or imply the former,"

You didn't imply infighting?

Then what was this meant to mean?

"Note the assumption that all LGBT people automatically support each other. Even though many TERFs/“Gender-critical feminists” are lesbians."

Because to me, I can see that you are specifically claiming that not all Queer people support one another, and it certainly sounds like you're trying to suggest that Queer people, in this case cis lesbians and trans people, are antagonistic to one another.

Meanwhile in reality Lesbians are the least transphobic demographic of cis people.

Or what about this phrase:

"Including some LGBT people who don’t want to get dragged down with the pervs."

Which seems to be implying that Queer people are somehow divided or conflicted about what to do with predtors.

We're not.

Queer people are in near-universal agreement that rape and abuse are bad.

"and there are idiots who will water-carry for dangerous criminals as long as they fly certain colorful flags in their pfp, so to speak."

There's always going to be idiots who do everything.

But you're arguing that this is a wide-spread problem, when there is no evidence of that.

"Not to mention the ongoing national controversy over whether sexually explicit books become okay for schools if they’re “queer”."

Case in point, apart from "sexually explicit" being an empty phrase..

This is not what's happening.

This wave of book-banning is more often than not a puritanical moral panic. Queer subjects only receiving the majority of the backlash.

I've seen books like It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health, Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human and This Book is Gay be banned over and over again.

The fact of the matter is that these books are sexually explicit, because they are sex-ed books. That is their purpose.

So while I don't pretend that there's never been a book that is inappropriate for teenagers or that there is no valid censorship, I'm not such a fool as to not notice who's talking and who they're talking about.

I've read this article: "Pornographic Materials Found"

Which among its many claims mentions that Julian at the Wedding and Middle School’s a Drag, two books about children playing dress up are being banned, The Big Questions Book of Sex & Consent is another sex-ed book that was banned and what really takes the cake is that Answers in the Pages was banned.

Answers in the Pages has no gay characters, the crux of the plot is that a town is attempting to ban a book which may or may not have two male characters fall in love.

The fact that it is being banned is beyond parody.

"Most prominently, the graphic novel “Gender Queer”, which has a depiction of a blowjob so graphic it can’t be shown on this website without censoring."

You mean a "blowjob" of a dildo?

You mean this image?

Why do people always say that something is "too graphic for Tumblr" I've been on this website since the porn ban, I seen plenty of things far more graphic.

Not to mention,

People have been performing sex techniques on dildos for years.

This video has been on YouTube for fifteen years.

This video has 8 million views and has been on YouTube since 2015.

You don't have to personally like it, but this is normal, I'm not in the mood to pretend like we live in a world where children can't open Netflix and see a real penis in full HD.

I don't even care that much about this particular book, I don't think it's inappropriate for older teenagers, healthy depictions of nudity and sexuality are good, but I'm not going to die on this hill.

Meanwhile most of the books being banned are text and may not even mention sex.

So to state or imply that this book is representative of what's being banned is nothing but a farce.

Most of what's going on is pearl-clutching.

"…Huh?"

Disappointing but perhaps not surprising.

Queer people are also the victims of rapists and pedophiles, this should be obvious.

The idea that Queer people are apathetic or even defensive about predators in our midst, apart from being massively prejudiced, ignores the blatant reality:

That we don't want to be the victims of predators any more than you do.

What possible motive would we have to defend a known predator?

"I have absolutely no reason to believe your entirely subjective opinion."

You don't need to believe me, just think it through.

Kink is broad category and not all of it is this way but a lot of what is involved can either include the subversion of your own will(bondage, domination etc.) or danger, sometimes both.

How could a community surrounding such a risky category of activities survive if they weren't incredibly careful about who they were letting tie them up or whip them?

For the Kink community to exist at all, they would have to have an above average ability to recognize and remove abusive or dangerous elements. Or else the community wouldn't exist in as widely as it does.

"And one could argue that being isolated from the mainstream and wanting to be part of A Community might make someone more vulnerable to abuse, not less."

You certainly could argue that, and that is the reality for some people.

But if we're speaking of averages, which I was, the baseline of the Queer experience is to be careful; careful about how you look, what you do and who you might reveal yourself to. For those of us, who are less subtle it becomes a question of avoiding dangers.

And obviously baby-gays are vulnerable, I did not and do not deny that; but by virtue of being in the closet they do have some advantage over the average person. At the same time, people do learn very quickly, ignorance does not survive close encounters with predators often.

"I’m also not sure why you think being LGBT gives someone special insight into whether murders have occurred."

I never said that, I was talking about sexual predators.

...

Whatever all this is.. it's lost the thread

This is a very simple comic.

And it's very simple that you were repeating Queer-phobic myths about sexual predation in Queer communities.

This is a lie, and it needs to end.

Note the assumption that all LGBT people automatically support each other.

Even though many TERFs/“Gender-critical feminists” are lesbians.

Also, many people specifically say that their issue is not with LGBT people, it’s with “degenerates” hiding behind a minority label.

Including some LGBT people who don’t want to get dragged down with the pervs.

Most of the people who talk about “degeneracy” will apply that label to straight, non-trans people too.

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

It is absolutely wrong for dark content to just be out there in the open with no warnings whatsoever, but the entire thing about ao3 is that you can tag your works. That you put the warnings there. That the content is clearly indicated to NOT be for minors. I'll agree with you that it should not be found when you're just looking up a character from a child-friendly show, but it's such a weird puritan mindset to say that it should absolutely not be allowed, cause "think of the kids!" That is the same excuse being made to push the EARN IT act through senate right now. I appreciate you for the owl posts and your very informed posts about why certain things about those birds are good/bad, but this is something you seem to have little actual knowledge about. So much research points towards the existence and harmless nature of rape kinks and the exploration of such through fictional content, and so much more research points towards the harm of valuing fictional lives over real ones by shaming and dehumanizing people for what they enjoy in fiction. Fiction does affect reality, but not on a 1:1 ratio and that is something antis never seem to understand.

“It’s a weird Puritan mindset to think its bad for people to write pedophilia in a pornographic context” Ok, random person justifying lolicon in my inbox. You can try to twist and turn this until you dislocate your wrists, but at the end of the day you are arguing that it’s fine to sexualize children. I will gladly shame anyone who looks at a cartoon toddler and is aroused by the idea of writing porn about them. I would opt for euthanasia.

[a-room-of-my-own]

sometimes it feels to me as if some radfems on here were just raised in such a liberal home that they don't even know how badly women and girls were being shamed for having multiple partners during their lifetime. not even 20 years ago, it was already "not done" to date around, and girls who did hook-ups were called names. but now we're supposed to pretend that the opposite is true- and that all of society affirms women having sex casually, and doing whatever they want?

so you get these insane ideas like pretending it's all progressive and feminist to tell women to keep their legs closed, or to just not have casual sex. did they forget what the point of birth control was? do they not realize that without that, "keep your legs closed" was literally the only option they had? the entire abortion debacle is about women being made equal to men in the way that they can control when they have children, and it can be an actual choice. but apparently that's been forgotten now! nah, instead let's just tell every single woman that she should go on a "sex strike". like that's gonna overturn the overturning or something? do they think the conservative judges are gonna get up, check twitter, and go "oh, wait, they're not having casual sex anymore! damn, my bad! guess we'll allow abortions again. we love women having casual sex so much."

For those who are younger than let's say, 25, it seems like a solution because they grew up in a hypersexualized society overloaded with pornography. But it's just like transactivism, it's maybe 10-12 years old. So it's recent, but it's their teenage and young adult years when they began their sex life. Many of them have an unhealthy relationship to sex because they educated themselves with pornography, and their vision of sex is for many of them entirely coming from porn, you can see it just with their choice if words.

I was wondering why they were using acronyms like "PIV" and acting like sexual intimacy is a to-do list of different sexual acts. To me that sounded like prostitution: how much for PIV, how much for anal etc... In fact it sounds like porn. It's categories, disconnected from one another, it's not a shared moment, it's a 10 min YouPorn vid, and instead of fellatio-PIV-anal you just "skip" the PIV part. No one has sex like this in real life.

Also the idea that they can't see why women would enjoy sex. Well of course, if you've only watched pornography you'll think sex between a man and a woman is demeaning and violent, that there's no way women would want this.

They're just like some "asexuals", porn-sick and inexperienced, afraid of sex and fascinated by its most violent expression. That's a recipe for puritan knee-jerk reactions.

[shadowmaat]

the spreading virus of puritanical "concerns"

AO3 has been under attack for years (decades) over its housing of "harmful" and "immoral" content. There's been an increasing amount of hand-wringing in recent years and more aggressive calls for the Archive to purge the "bad" content.

The Purity Brigade insists that they only have everyone's best interests in mind and simply seek to protect children from developing the "wrong" impressions from authors who are clearly a bunch of "pedos" seeking to "groom" them.

Meanwhile there's also been a surge in recent years from the alt.right about "harmful" and "immoral" content that needs to be purged from libraries and bookstores in order to protect children from developing the "wrong" impressions about gender and sexuality, which is something they say that the "pedos" on the Left are trying to defend.

It's... deeply concerning to me that this shit keeps spreading and that facts are being ignored in favor of scaremongering and a false stance of moral purity.

I remember seeing discussions in the past where the folks defending AO3 pointed out things like YA lit being written primarily by adults and how no one seemed to have a problem with it. Not long after that, suddenly there ARE discussions about "questionable" content in published books and if it should be allowed or removed. And now, of course, libraries are being stripped of content and bookstores are being sued for selling queer content to minors.

Oh sure, the folks waging war against AO3 would point out that they aren't objecting to queer content, just the "bad" stuff... which frequently happens to also be queer.

They don't see the role that they're playing in the larger story of oppression and censorship. They're too busy being "right" about everything and demonizing all those who dare to disagree. Which, y'know, is also what a lot of fascist senators and school boards are doing. It's all part of the same campaign of hate, and NONE of it is about "protecting the children." If anything, it's about killing them. Or forcing them to conform.