#discussion of fetishization

[uncanny-tranny]

The whole "breasts shouldn't be politicized because the primary purpose of breasts is to feed babies!" can be a fine jumping-off point, but I really wish people thought deeper than that when we talk about the ways in which bodies are politicized and restricted.

Like, why's it that when we talk about breasts, they must have some Higher Purpose? It's true that breasts aren't inherently sexual, but they aren't valuable solely because they can potentially feed a baby. A human body doesn't have to serve a Higher Purpose in order for it to not be legislated against or policed, and I just wish people would remember it isn't always about babies, about other people, about anything else other than the people who have that body.

[psychiatricwarfare]

hey btw everyone- people with mental disabilities can and, very often do, experience sexual attraction, get horny, have kinks/fetishes/paraphilias, masturbate, have sex, etc. this includes people with intellectual disabilities and/or any kind of developmental disabilities.

please stop acting like mentally disabled people Never have Any sexual wants/needs when that is so unbelievably untrue that by saying that, youre just admitting that you have obviously never interacted with more than a handful of mentally disabled people, if any at all.

i see it all the time (particularly irl when i talk about my job) where people will try to say that mentally disabled people cant have sex because they're basically children or because they dont understand it or because they cant make their own choices or it would always be coercion or they never ever want it themselves and that just isnt fucking true????

mentally disabled people can make their own choices, they know what feels good to them and what doesnt, they understand when they want to do something and when they don't. mentally disabled adults are not "like children". mentally disabled people are capable of being sexual. sure, some mentally disabled ppl are asexual, just like some able minded people are asexual. because mentally disabled people are human beings, just like everyone else

[anti-terf-posts]

hot take but plus size/fat people shouldn't have to sexualize themselves for you to be accepting of them.

[bloomeng]

I feel like something a lot of people miss when discussing DC canon is context.

(Warning: Mentions of canon sexual assault scenes)

So today I saw a discussion about Alfred's fanon perception versus canon reality. I wouldn't say op was criticizing people for thinking of him as a sweet old man, merely just pointing out that he's canonly not so innocent and it goes unaddressed. He was the one who nudged Tim into the Robin mantle and he was the one who stripped it from him and gave it to Damian without asking. There's a whole plotline about how he had a daughter that he abandoned. He was the one who put up the "soldier" plaque memorial. All of these things are true, however, I don't think it was the writers' intentions to paint a lot (not all) of his actions as negative. In fact, the writing often goes out of its way to paint Alfred as a martyr. That doesn't make his actions right, nor does it mean that someone is wrong for being upset with him, but it also means that people aren't stupid or wrong for interpreting his character as this beacon of virtue. It's also notable that most people are probably more acquainted with his animated and film adaptations where he hasn't done any of the things I've listed.

Context is always important when analyzing media, but it is ESPECIALLY important when discussing DC because of the sheer volume of authors writing for a single character.

This is why there are so many arguements about whether or not Bruce is a bad father. When you have so many authors writing a character for close to a century, you're going to have inconsistencies and their takes on the character will contradict. We can go in circles bringing up issues that prove either side, but it's futile. Everyone is entitled to their feelings towards things that happen in canon, but I don't think it's fair to pass ultimate judgement based on something that was often written by one shitty writer.

Now disregarding DC canon is something the fandom is selectively good at, but the curtesy is not extended evenly. Going back to Alfred for a moment. A legit criticism of the writing is that he abandoned his daughter and that isn't really addressed outside of the issue that introduced it. And I think the reality is that DC often recognizes their mistakes after the fact and isn't equipped to handle the conversations they start so they quietly retcon. Which isn't great, but I also think it's a silent mercy. See not addressing something is bad, but putting out offensive media is more detrimental IN MY OPINION.

This is even more evident when it comes to DC's history with depicting sexual assault. They constantly back themselves into corners. I really appreciated that Gail Simone's Batgirl run retconned the Joker's sexual assault against Barbara. SA is something that is important to talk about but it's also something that needs to be treated with care. What happened to Barbara was not a productive conversation. There were so many gross undertones of the Joker specifically sexually assaulting her. Same with Talia sexually assaulting Bruce. There are very real racist undertones. There is a time and place to discuss male victims and the way male rape victims are written off, but the story is not concerned with having that conversation. So now we’re not only not having that conversation but we’re also stereotyping and villainizing POC women which also has real world consequences.

Now this next part might get me boos from the audience but to me this also extends to Dick and Tarantula. I know a lot of people want DC to acknowledge what happened, but to that I'm like why? Devin Grayson is a notably bad writer when it comes to Dick. There are racist undertones to having Tarantula sexually assault Dick. Devin is literally known for making Dick Roma for fetish reasons. Before this Dick Grayson was a white character, who was already written to be flirty and sexual. These are all important things to consider about the context of the writing. I think it would actually be best if DC did what Gail Simone did with Batgirl. I think it’s unfair to not give these WOC characters the same treatment of understanding when their actions are shitty because of shit authors.

Real world context is vital for understanding these fictional stories. Batman can't kill because that would mean they would have had to be constantly introducing new villains and it would be less child friendly. Robin was introduced to the story because they were trying to market to children. Batman continuing to recruit children is about marketing to kids. The hyper-focus on Dick's romantic life was in part an effort to fight gay allegations. These are all important factors to consider if you're discussing DC critically.

Like realistically yeah it sucks so bad that Alfred and Bruce allowed children to fight crime. But it's also notable to mention that Dick forced Bruce's hand, Bruce was really trying to stop this kid from murdering a man. It was a compromise. Alfred and Dick may have pushed Tim to become Robin but he was already one foot out the door. Damian and Cass were trained by assassins. None of these kids are realistic depictions of children, even if they are relatable. When you read a superhero comic you are suspending a certain level of disbelief and I don't think it's the hot take people think it is to criticize Batman for allowing kids to fight.

Like cool, then we don't have a story. Nothing about superheroes are realistic. Why is this the line we draw in the sand?

I didn't know when to bring this up, so I'm going to awkwardly tack it on at the end. So the "Nothing Butt Nightwing" webcomic... Yeah it looks not good, but a lot of people are calling it out for sexualizing Dick, which once again to me fails to understand the outside context. There is a difference between sexualizing and sexualization of an ethnicity. As I mentioned, for most of Dick's run he was a white character who was written to be flirty. Devin was fetishizing him, but allowing Dick to remain a flirty character is not an act of fetish based sexualization. Personally I think it’s more harmful to get rid of core aspects of his character now that he is canonly Romani. Not to mention that if we address the SA with his character we are now back in this place of stereotyping and bad undertones. So until DC is ready to tell a legitimate story about male SA victims I'd rather the Dick Grayson thing be left silently in the past. I'm so hyper aware that I'm in the minority though. I agree it could be really powerful to have one of those stories be told but consider how harmful it would be to continue to imply these things about WOC.

[sukibenders]

People who hate on female characters because they perceive them as getting in the way of their ship, especially if it's m/m, even when there's proof in the media that that isn't even true...I know what you are.

[momentomori24]

I don't believe liking immoral and downright evil characters says anything about you as a person, but I think acting like this definitely does.

"The HH fanbase will defend Valentinoto the moon and back" this and "Val is praised by a majority of the fandom" that, except said majority of the fandom fucking HATES that moth and fans have been harassed, had their art scribbled on to "fix" it, repeatedly called "rapist apologists" and "abuse romanticisers", get questioned or accused about condoning him irl, received graphic death/rape threats and are in general mistreated by the fandom. A Val cosplayer was mistreated and had a gun pulled on them IN REAL LIFE not even a year ago. Even the VA got repeatedly asked or assumed to be like the character he plays because "why else would he want to voice a rapist??" and told they deserve for choosing that role (fucking WILD btw). People that like Valentino as a character are the minority of the fandom, and even there NO ONE defends him. We all realise he's a disgusting individual whose actions shouldn't be defended in any capacity. What kinda bullshit lie is that?

I'm also in the Mouthwashing fandom, and it too has a bunch of issues. Infantilising Curly and minimising his actions, making Swansea to be better than he actually is and ignoring that he knew of the SA, people still debating or not realising that Jimmy raped Anya in the first place, shipping Jimmy and Curly (which isn't even a bad thing or a real problem but this person would see it that way), ect. But sure, conveniently don't bring that up. Anything for the Hazbin Hotel hate, right 💀

These next comments especially piss me off (nevermind how they're talking about an abuse survivor which is gross already). This might be a hot take and I don't care if that's the case, but I think people refusing to call Jimmy by name and excluding him from the cast is not show of a "good" fandom, actually. Jimmy has a lot more to him besides being a rapist. Rape culture, toxic masculinity, capitalistic exploitation, misogyny, male dominance-- there's sooo much more to explore and discuss about his character besides him being a rapist. And he's an incredibly disturbing character in a fucking horror game. If you can only refer to him by some stupid nickname (which takes away the seriousness of his character imo), ignore the significance of his role and themes in the story and the rest of his character and reduce him to a single trait that's BAD. That's not a good thing, and in fact, probably makes you worse than the people that do like his character because they can at least separate fiction and reality and not scrap well written disturbing characters for the sake of "comfort" or moral standing (again, in a horror game of all things). People shouldn't feel bad for liking Jimmy because he's a very good character, and ignoring that completely and acting like there aren't people who could like him... kinda sucks?

Moving over, Valentino is not and has NEVER been portrayed in a positive light in the show. I can't wrap my head around people that genuinely think that. Whenever I hear people say that the arguments I always see are "he shouldn't be attractive" and "he's just a cartoon villain" and "he acts silly and quirky even tho he's a rapist" among other things, and I don't think these people realise they're spouting eugenics bullshit and demonstrating that they don't know anything about his character simultaneously. No, Valentino isn't a "positive" portrayal of a rapist because he's attractive (way to tie morality to appearance btw). No, Valentino isn't a positive portrayal of a rapist because he acts goofy and funny and silly. Those traits are intentional and important to his character. Val is the Overlord of lust and depravity, hell's most famous pimp. His beauty is how he lures in unsuspecting sinners, and his personality is how he gains their trust and gets them to sell their souls for him to exploit (notice how Angel signed his soul away willingly). He's supposed to be appealing. He's supposed to be charming. He's entire persona is meant to be disarming. If he were like Jimmy or just a one-note unlikeable guy, his position in the show and his relationships with the characters wouldn't make sense, so he isn't. That doesn't make him a more positive portrayal or anything, it just means he's more fleshed out and written more complex than you want him to be. He's a very real depiction of an abuser, of their two-faced nature and how being attractive and charming to others doesn't make you less of an abusive monster to someone else. For context, I have been abused by someone extremely similar to Val, so his depiction feels very real to me and it's extremely tiring seeing a bunch of assholes who have probably not even seen the show or have been abused act like he's "romanticised" or "unrealistic" or "bad" simply because he was written by Vivziepop (who's ALSO an SA survivor like what is wrong with you 💀).

This is a broader point and not entirely related to this specific case, but we don't give people shit like this over people liking murderers and serial killers-- acting like all a sudden liking a rapist character says something negative about their writing or about the people that like them is INCREDIBLY stupid. People don't talk like this about Alastor and Vox-- who are both VERY despicable people. Both of them are also abusers among other horrible things, but they're not (or at least Alastor isn't) rapists so they're "not as bad". This is a sentiment I see all the time in both the fandom and hatedom whenever Valentino discourse comes back up, and this line of logic that rapists are a unique evil that can't be liked as characters in fiction but murderers and cannibals and serial killers are totally Ok is so dangerous and backwards. Liking evil characters says nothing about you as a person aside from the fact that you're a freak in the fun way. Liking evil characters but then going after others who do as well because you consider their character "too evil" and watering down the crimes of yours to justify liking them says a lot about you tho. Saying that the characters you like says something negative you in general does too.

We seriously need to stop bringing morality into fiction and saying that "normal" people wouldn't like certain immoral characters. We need to stop ostracising people for their "problematic" ships, proudly brag about ostracising them and justify it by calling them "weirdos". We need to stop saying villains are "badly written" because they're not written how YOU want them to be written, regardless of whether or not that opinion is valid (which in this case it isn't). We need to stop putting fandoms in some weird competition with each other about how characters are written and spit on people who actually enjoy them, are comforted by them or felt seen by them (gestures at the whole Angel dust situation barely a week ago). And honestly we need to stop giving attention to people like this, who spread a false narrative and kick others down for being fans of a media they don't like or know squat about for whatever reason. Who spread lies about the media or fandom in question in way that's blatantly in bad faith.

This crappy post is sitting a 17k while I'm typing this. The way people can just say ANYTHING about Hazbin Hotel and its fandom-- doesn't matter if it's valid or true or if they watched the show or know anything about the fandom at all, it just has to be negative-- and others will eat it up no questions asked needs to be studied at this point. We saw that in the months the show first aired. We saw that with the Angel Dust video. We're seeing this again here. I don't think we should be harassing anybody over fiction and in general (and needless to say don't harass any of these people) but calling out bad actors who pull shit like this more often and making it uncool to shittalk Hazbin Hotel and its fandom (and any fandom from unapologetically dark media where the people deal with enough bullshit already) for no reason and in bad faith is a change I'd be down with. Like, wash your mouth of its name and disappear into the shadow realm, goddamnit.

[fandom-blahs]

Despite my profile pic my comic book knowledge isn’t the strongest but what is up with people (at least on tiktok) performing mental gymnastics to defend Deathstroke?

I don’t care if you like problematic characters, I myself am an enjoyer of problematic cancel worthy characters. But what I don’t understand is the weird “Oh Deathstroke if only I were your writer!” “They ruined Slade!!” “Why couldn’t he be just a cool mercenary :(“ do you even like the character???

“Slade had potential but DC ruined it, that’s how we got deadpool” I’m tweaking wHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!

I always assumed it was throwing shade at at some unsatisfactory run or him getting characterised as a jobber

But no

The “bad writing” is him being a pedophile and using Tera Like That and overall being pathetic because he was created to be a villain for a team of sidekicks and teenagers.

It always leaves me so stumped and I’ve been seeing it more and more on tiktok…again do you even like the character or just his design?

This isn’t a case of a writer that didn’t do their research and freestyling or something that kind of stuck because the character doesn’t have much going on for them (*ahm Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne) no this is the character’s creator writing him Like That.

AGAIN I don’t care if you like Deathstroke or other problematic characters that’s not the point! But this sentiment that he was done “dirty” because of the Judas Contract is absurd and why is it so widespread?

[daenystheedreamer]

someone made a tiktok of rhaena drinking stream water while chasing sheep stealer with the audio from the audiobooks where in the last dany chapter she's drinking and shitting and shitting and drinking. grrm you have to release that damn book her legacy cannot be drinking and shitting

its so funny how quaithe warned dany about 'the pale mare' it sounds so ominous and very four horses of the apocalypse but its literally shitting out her doodoo ass. grrm please.

[shaydh]

But what if the secret fetish bsky is for a fetish I just don't know I have yet 😭

I trust my secret bsky will reach its intended audience naturally 😌 Otherwise you must unlock level 5 friendship with me and ask me specifically and I may tell you. if you pass the vibe check.

[landscape-suicide]

I do appreciate anyone whos sent me asks/messages about forcemasc stuff because it is a niche im curious about but I will not be responding or anything because I dont want to be The Forcemasc Guy. I want to be very clear that that essay only exists because I was procrastinating while on Adderall

[beepboop260]

I remember that for a while you were pretty against v0re, what made you decide to give it a shot and make Bazil?

I do know vore used to be on my “won’t draw” list but I can never remember being like completely against it as a kink people enjoy but my memory is shit so who knows lmao.

I’ve always enjoyed vore on certain levels. The idea of swallowing something whole and then it notably bulging out someone’s stomach is very hot to me (like my ideas of swallowing pastries whole) as while I love fat kink stuff my heart truly lies in stuffing kink where the person’s stomach is notably distended and disproportionate to the rest of their body and vore has a lot of this (so does preg stuff but there’s other aspects of preg that kinda turn me off to it)

Also part of me only delving into drawing it myself recently has to do with seeing other artists do it in a way that I can really get behind (there is a specific piece I saw on Twitter that comes to mind ngl).

I’ve seen so many cocky preds but I’ve learned the idea of a pathetic pred can be so fun. I do this with Bazil a bit in my head where I will change his height/size depending on my mood and when he’s smaller I image he has more trouble swallowing people and it throws him off balance way more and perhaps he even struggles to keep them down.

It’s also just not my main kink. Stuffing is definitely my top kink but vore can fill a similar role. It’s definitely a much more situational thing to me and I personally enjoy kink stuff much more when there’s some semblance of plot to it and making vore work in any kind of worldbuilding is difficult imo.

Lastly I’ve just relaxed about a lot of stuff recently and have been trying to broaden my horizons. There’s not a lot of fetishes out there that I can’t understand the appeal of them on some level. Like am I personally into them? Nah. Can I understand why someone would be into them? Yeah. And as I said in my initial lore post I have been drawing fat kink for almost 10 years now so like why not try spicing it up a lil (and vore is like, literally stuffing kink adjacent so I’m not even getting that crazy lmao).

TLDR: I’ve always found vore hot as it’s stuffing kink adjacent and I’ve recently seen some stuff of it I really like that made me want to try drawing it myself and Bazil just happens to be a character I think it works with.

[pet-shop-of-horror-fan]

I have a special hatred for people who fetishize disability.

Ableds often can't believe that someone would find any disabled person attractive without it being a fetish. And we can't exist in an erotic way without our disabilities being seen as a fetish. Hell, some of us can't even exist in general without it being fetishized.

How much it happens really depends on the disability in question. But I know of so many disabled people who have their photos, videos, and even just writing about their lives be used by fetishizers. Sometimes it is stolen by them, other times disabled people just get sexually harassed by their fuckers.

You can cry about kink-shaming all you want, but what your community is doing to disabled people is more harmful than kink-shaming could ever be.

[shebpaw]

Hey Warrior Cats twitter, how ya doing today?

Huh.