#cw anti para

[ghosting-plural-userboxes]

saw self proclaimed “anti paraphile” in desirdae community

while we can’t force anyone out we want to say that we are

FULLY PRO PARAPHILE and FULLY ANTI CONTACT FOR HARMFUL STUFF. (If your pro c / neu c fuck off please )

We have many members with paraphilias and collectively have Teleiophilia ( the attraction to 18+ as a minor )

>.>,, -Link

Evidence under cut of them being purposefully ableist .

( @desirtips thought you may want to see this !)

. Litteraly called all paraphilias disgusting. Didn’t even listen to us. Gross behavior.

also them saying “paraphiles DNI” is like ,,, pretty much more than half of most queer related communities.

( we had made a comment listing why being anti paraphilia is ableist. And how it’s being very much bigoted twords trauma survivors and how all paras aren’t “gross” and how paraphilias INVOLUNTARY. And yet they litteraly said “I know” and continued to be fuckinh ableist as hell.)

[mogai-reblog]

omfg i can't believe i just saw an "ED ppl DNI this term is only for fat people" type shit.. like.. not even "ED blog dni" like... this is how I know you don't know shit about EDs and just want an excuse to be ableist (as if you aren't already with being ableist/bigoted towards people with paraphilias (regardless of whether or not its a paraphiliac disorder or if acting on the paraphiliac disorder is harmful to others) seriously, being anti-para isn't what you think it is)

Anyway- as someone with Ana (in recovery but with EDs, they never actually go away. Even if you haven't acted on your ED/doesn't have the urges for years, it's still sadly there) and is not skinny (and actually wants to become fat), fuck you ^^

[weirdnerdygoat]

ughh i didn't realise how anti-para a lot of beings in progressive spaces were. I understand that if you conflate pedophilia and zoophilia with abusers you might be aggressive towards them (disagree with that though), but come on, objectophilia isn't harming anyone ever XD

[muttship]

> “this person is bad for thinking that an act where no child gets hurt is better than a crime being committed against a child!!!”

what do antis mean by this

PRO-C DNI ⁉️⁉️idk why my “fucking kids is BAD, antis” post is in that side of tumblr but this is clearly not abt u

[thedigitalwave]

Seeing that bitchy crosstagger saying "hey antis 🥺 dont worry those filtht radqueers will never be accepted into society!!" Is just. Well. Telling, raw and gross.

You know, it's really really fucking strange to me that people genuinely say out loud that a group majorly composed by minorities trying to be themselves will never be accepted into normal society. What is normal society? Your everyone-stays-the-same, divide-all-into-distinct-groups, never-let-mental-illness-be-normal society? Cause that's not normal to me. That's fascist.

I know I'm saying a big word there. I don't mean it in the "all antis are secretly alt-right" way. I mean "all antis are explicitly conservative in some way", though.

How can you propose us the idea that everything needs to stay the same, never progress, that minorities need to stay minorities and privileged people need to stay privileged, that certain people should stay in the shadows, and not be conservative?

By saying transid-identifying people should never transition, you're saying that. By saying paraphiles should never be accepted, you're saying that.

I hope you realize what you're doing now. This isn't protecting anyone. This is maintaining the status quo.

[warithalshaytan]

Anti recovery somnophilia

The flag that I based this off of is here.

Flag templates here.

[starsmeatcafe]

I want to tear you apart, part by part, fiber by fiber, you're mine to destroy. It's my destiny.

[a-para-doxical-situation]

⋤Parart ahead⋥

canniball..istic..missingo....

[squidfreak]

hi keep in mind that a lot of radqueers are paraphiles but not all paraphiles are radqueers

[parasol-culture-is]

Being a CSA survivor with paraphilia themed OCDs with no genuine bad attractions irl but having intrusive thoughts and fears and at worst sometimes using fiction to cope is being afraid of being an anti contact (bad 4) paraphile in denial even though you’re almost only attracted to cute cartoon characters and barely find real people attractive, and you’re freaked out and disgusted by those actual paraphiles attracted to irl animals, children or corpses who want to be abusers especially. Yet still part of you wishing actual anti contact paraphiles weren’t getting abused, threatened and lumped in with predators, wishing more antis were pro recovery, and wishing antis weren’t treating survivors that aren’t “the pure and perfect survivor” like shit or parajacketing them, and wishing antis cared a lot more about CO/CSA and ASA prevention than just revenge and hate, and that antis actually didn’t make anti spaces unsafe for CSA survivors that aren’t even bad four paraphiles but aren’t “extreme enough” for other violent and genocidal antis. And eventually becoming an ex anti cause of other antis not caring about survivors or prevention, and finding out other antis have been outed as closet proCs/rapists and groomers themselves sometimes and being hypocrites.

para culture is

[thelemmallama]

I guess my contention with one of your arguments is that

I generally think it is ok to restrict other peoples ability to act if they otherwise would harm someone unjustly (In this case the person lying)

I don’t think it would be sexual assault to say you fantasize about that, especially in response to that question.

I don’t see how evil/lesser evil situations imply someone acted wrongly in the past. I guess the idea in this particular case is that they brought about a situation in which they would have to lie to protect themselves but (1. I just don’t feel that an action which you have to conceal is necessarily wrong, see homosexuality, (2. You couldn’t in this case reasonably predict you would have to explicitly deny those fantasies, instead of just never mentioning them.

i don’t quite understand the other arguments, though, and to be honest I’m not sure moral arguments have much effect on my behavior if they don’t emotionally appeal to me, or that morality is even a coherent concept. Anyway, sorry for rambling.

No need for apologies; I have nothing against rambling, and do it quite a bit myself! :]

First off, as you said you don't quite understand the other arguments so I'm not sure if you may have missed this part, I feel the need to clarify that sexual arousal =/= pleasure. When I talk about "fantasizing", I explicitly mean "deliberate (i.e. non-intrusive, controllable) sexual thoughts that you enjoy (i.e. experience positively, not mere 'get aroused by').

I'm not entirely sure what scenario you're referring to here; who is the person doing the restricting and who is the person who would otherwise harm someone unjustly? Is the lying person the former or the latter, and what are they lying about?

2. Okay, we'll first consider a scenario where you're not disclosing it in response to that question:

Would you say it's sexual harassment to go up to an adult and say "I think about having sex with you" or "I jerk off to the thought of your naked body"?

Okay, but what if they did ask "do you fantasize sexually about me?" I would agree that isn't harassment. Still, they're an adult.

Now, if a child asks "do you fantasize sexually about me?", I would consider it sexual abuse to answer in the positive, for the same reason it would be abuse to have sex with a child who approaches you for it.

Okay, but this is about a particular child, not children in general. If someone (esp. an adult) asks you if you fantasize about children in general, why would it be abusive to answer in the positive?

Let's go back to an adult case. Many people have reported that it feels violating to hear people fetishizing their race, or their disability. The person doing the fetishizing isn't talking about them in particular, but it still feels violating. Of course, an adult can consent to hearing people talk about their race/disability fetishes, so I would not consider it abusive to do so in a private space where everyone consents to hearing that stuff.

Similarly, I don't consider it abusive to answer the question "do you fantasize about children" in the positive, in a private space where everyone consents to hearing that stuff. However, if we read the situation I illustrated as a child asking "do you fantasize about children", or an adult asking "do you fantasize about children" in a public space where nonconsenting parties can see/hear your answer, I consider it abusive to answer in the positive.

(I'd be curious about exactly which point(s) of that argument you fall off from. Did you disagree from the very beginning? From the difference between children vs adults wrt consenting to hearing things? From the step from fantasizing about a particular person to fantasizing about a particular group?)

3. Just for a moment, assume my claim in (2) that it would be abusive to answer in the positive (*when children/nonconsenting parties can see/hear your answer; in future every time I say "it would be abusive to answer in the positive", just imagine this asterisk next to it ^^;) is correct. (You don't have to actually agree with it, but the rest of (3) wouldn't make much sense without assuming that premise.)

Then the idea in this particular case is not that they brought about a situation in which they would have to lie to protect themselves, but to protect others.

Thus (1) is not a valid comparison; disclosing your homosexuality is not harmful to others. It may be harmful to you, but there exists a scenario where disclosing it wouldn't be harmful to you either (i.e. when society is accepting). Hence the initial evil would be society being unaccepting; it can't be your gay thoughts because having gay thoughts doesn't inherently lead to a situation where you either lie or cause harm to yourself

Whereas fantasizing sexually about children does inherently lead to a situation where you either lie or cause harm to the child.

... Well, technically not. As you have observed, there does exist a world where you fantasizing sexually about children does not lead to a situation where you either lie or cause harm to the child: if no-one asks.

(2) Then the initial evil could either be you fantasizing about children, or it could be the person asking you if you fantasize about children.

I claim the former is the initial evil, because

- I reject paraphilia theory (that desire-for-children(/animals/etc) is an innate, biologically-rooted, unchangeable inclination to not only be sexually aroused by children(etc), but to regard that arousal with positive valence)

- I like a world where we're free to ask questions

______________________

to be honest I’m not sure moral arguments have much effect on my behavior if they don’t emotionally appeal to me, or that morality is even a coherent concept.

Here's how I define morality:

"You ought value X" = "You will value X as you think about it infinitely"

In math jargon, it's the limit of your values as time approaches infinity. Now no-one has confirmed there's exactly one universal attractor in the space of values so we can't say for sure right now, but most random systems have one.

On a more practical level, there are game-theoretic strategies that emerge when agents exist in the world with one another. What we call good or bad ways to behave is far from arbitrary, or an artefact of culture, or anything like that:

If you're not a fan of moral arguments though, I'm kind of curious as to why you've been talking about harm, assault, wrongness etc in your ask to being with? ^^;

[gender-mailman]

I need tô say it again só my intrusive thoughts leave me alone:

I FUCKING HATE RADQUEERS AND ALL THET THEY REPRESENT

[starsmeatcafe]

|don't own this picture was taken from pinterest |

[shxtaloid]

Hey I’m a bit confused by the few asks you’ve gotten about Heartqueer as a term. The coining post I personally have seems to imply that it’s supportive of radqueer folks (from https://archive.md/SPRVg), with “(heartqueer is) A queer identity in which one is wholly and entirely accepting every individual’s differences. This includes but is not limited to: paraphilia, transID identities, gender, and so forth.” But other people have said the coiner is anti-para and I see from here that the coiner doesn’t want to interact with radqueer folks. Do you have info on what might have changed? Feel free to privately respond instead of publicly if that’s better

from mour understanding, as of late it has been repurposed into a term that's against radqueers, transids, etc. it still remains pro-paraphilia as the coiner does as well...

the 'anti-para' claim may have started since in the definition it says it's focused on uplifting 'survivors' those from the aam/map movement... while it also specifically states it's pro-paraphilia, just anti-contact for 'nonconsensual paras' 🤷

the original coiner says it expresses distress at its usage by radqueers, and prefers not to have any interaction with radqueers unless the original coiner interacts first. [wi might've gotten it wrong the last post, but wi didn't know it exactly then.]

wi're also aware on the original blog, the creator mentioned no longer being a part of the transid/radqueer community while also stating it's fine for radqueers to use the term.... but obviously that was then and not now.

wi'm not quite sure what else to add since that's all wi got, but hopefully this helps.

[shainethecanine]

Something I've been thinking about

People who claim to believe in harm reduction cannot be anti-para and still expect their beliefs to hold up. The ("harmful") paraphile community is founded on the idea that people should be able to express their taboo and/or unlawful sexual identities and desires in ways that do the least harm to beings around them. Looking at/making fictitious NSFW art of non-legal beings does significantly less harm than someone committing a felony and traumatizing another living thing. Allowing <18 people to access information about their sexuality in an environment that reflects them and educates them is much less dangerous than an oblivious and desperate kid getting themself hurt, contracting an illness, getting/someone else pregnant, etc. If you believe that people have the right to self-harm as a coping mechanism, then you should be able to accept the fact that paraphiles have a right to pursue non-contact expressions of their sexuality if it keeps them and/or others out of danger.

[xenogemini]

How I feel after i realised that the majority of a sver is pro-hassrasment and anti-recovery to those with harmful paras (I'm anti-contact btw)

DNI IF YOU COME FROM THE UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA DISCORD SEVER!!!