#discussion of fetishization

[caffeine-n-words]

Enjoying Queer Content Is Not Fetishizing Queer People

So, lately on Twitter there's been a lot of drama surrounding a VA who has made a lot of inflammatory comments in an effort to promote his own book.

"How A Cookie Tried to Sell a Book" sums it up pretty well. The article mentions that his best-known voice acting role is as Cream Unicorn Cookie in Cookie Run, and the only other known role (as per behindthevoiceactors.com) is in Given, a BL game. I've seen people here claim he also had a role in Genshin Impact, but that's not listed; however, JD Riley's article mentions that a Genshin Impact VA did come to King's defense.

(Also, yes, we're all reeling from the irony that one of his roles was in a BL game, and he's trying to tear down BL to promote himself. Gross.)

I'm sure this is all well known, but I wanted to provide context for this next statement: People who enjoy queer content, including fujoshi and women who do not identify as fujoshi, are not fetishizing queer people. They literally cannot be, because the people they're reading about aren't real.

Why is that important? Let's look at the definition of fetishize:

make (something) the object of a sexual fetish (women's bodies are so intensely fetishized) and

have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something) (an author who fetishizes privacy)

Typically when people talk about cishet women fetishizing gay men by reading BL or MlM, they're talking about the first definition.

Fetishizing would be objectifying real gay men. Reading about fictional gay men in a relationship isn't objectifying real gay men. Reading about fictional gay men having sex isn't objectifying real gay men. Enjoying a fictional relationship between fictional gay men is not objectifying real gay men.

This also applies to other queer content.

In fact, continuing to insist that cishet people, women in particular, aren't allowed to read/view/enjoy queer content encourages the idea that somehow our content is dirty or needs to be hidden away from "the straights." This actively discourages having our communities accepted and normalized.

For example, queer romance should be just as available on bookshelves as cishet romance. If we put say, ten mlm romance books and ten cishet romance books on a table, people are going to see and buy them, including people who aren't in the target audience. If we keep insisting that people who aren't the target audience (in this case, fujoshi and other cishet women) aren't allowed to read the mlm romance books, fewer will be sold. If fewer sell, the store won't buy as many to put out, or just stop stocking it altogether. This encourages the idea that that content is gross, unsuitable for sale or view (even though that's not why it was pulled), and feeds into existing homophobic propaganda.

If someone actually fetishizes a real queer person, by all means, call out their behavior. It's harmful; it actually negatively affects a real person.

But let's stop it with "cishet women aren't allowed to read/watch this fictional content because it's fetishizing real gay people!" It's a false statement and getting tiresome.

[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.

[skadream]

i just straight up dont think that yaoi or slashfic is about girls fetishizing gay men like it wouldnt be such a Thing that exists if thats ENTIRELY what it was.

i feel like there was an article about yaoi as a way for women to explore darker tropes in romance which i dont agree with because women have been writing straight romance with dark tropes since forever but the reason that article was torn apart was just to immediately dismiss the entire concept of BL as women fetishizing gay men. am i making sense lmao.

i dont DISAGREE that there were and are a lot of people whose only/earliest/most prominent exposure to queerness has been through slashfic / fandom shipping / BL and that can have an unfortunate side effect of not knowing how to handle queerness in real life but thats usually just the case for young people who learn and grow out of it AND!!!!! we live in current year where people are just more open about queerness and theres more real life stories out there and more representation out there

i guess maybe there IS something to be said about women using the lens of a queer male relationship in order to explore darker tropes being kinda weirdly heteronormative but also maybe a way to fantasize about such things without having it involve any dark tropes toward women, and we can talk about THAT cuz i think THAT could be an interesting path to explore and discuss, but it always just kinda ends at "fujos bad women who fetishize gay men are bad" etc without any further nuance

or we could talk about the fact that male writers just dont know how to write women so the closest relationships ALWAYS end up being between men even when the male lead has a female love interest, so those male relationships tend to be what people gravitate toward

or we could talk about how a lot of the women who write M/M are queer themselves! many are even lesbians! but theyre still just women who fetishize gay men so i guess thats all there is to it

its almost like its misogyny all the way down or something idk

[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.

[footballffbarbiex]

He’s here and he��s perfect

[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.

[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.

[rollercoasterwords]

obviously there is. a lot of nuance lost in so much of the egregiously oversimplified discourse about "fetishization" in this fandom but something that seems so obvious to me and yet i do not think gets said enough is that once u begin to police the boundaries around what types of sex people are allowed to write based on things like sexuality or gender identity you are just. inevitably going to return to gender essentialism at some point. like....is this a controversial thing to say. it feels. so obvious to me.

[shebpaw]

Hey Warrior Cats twitter, how ya doing today?

Huh.

[plaquerat]

"The way you talk about fat people is fetishy" buddy the way I talk about fat people is cool and we love it. You don't even know what's it's gonna be like when I post the actual fetish stuff.

[harbingerofwhump]

I'm begging people who talk about the whole ace Kaz thing --- regardless of what your stance on it is --- to remember that Kaz is physically disabled, too. In a very much visible way, at that. Remember the way we're treated when it comes to these kinds of things

Yes, his touch aversion and ptsd are incredibly important to keep in mind, and I understand the inclination to fixate on this --- it's the more obviously/directly connected matter. I don't think it's a bad thing to make it the primary focus

But there is more at play, with regard to potential implications of making him asexual, than that and it would be! Really great if y'all could keep that in mind and be willing to actually consider/bring it up in your discussions as well

[batemanofficial]

hello upper middle class northern usamerican tumblr user. i want to play a game. you will notice that you are in a super america convenience store in rural kentucky - you have three minutes to purchase a snack and drink of your choice and make normal small talk with the cashier. however, if you use the word "cryptid" or generally make reference to appalachia and its inhabitants as "wild", uncivilized, or lacking restraint around alcoholic beverages during your time here, i will personally tie you to the chassis of a four wheeler and tip it into the river. live or die. make your choice

[rebellum]

Gently sitting down white trans people and explaining to them that no matter their gender most white trans people can and do use the "white woman's tears" tactic