bootlicking doesnt look good on your blog

heres the quick translation for people who only ever interact with others online

And here's my second piece for @rivalszine, a collaboration with @malevolentmango. I had the pleasure of making an illustration for their beautiful fic, all the words i couldn't say.

It's a beautiful read! Make sure to check it out!

wish

HEYYYYY here are the comics i drew for @rivalszine !!! i love messing with akechi 🫶

making porn and doing sex work is cool and good and benefits society and are valid ways to make a living. and if you can't say that then your anti censorship activism suks.

fr!!! like YES conservatives will say any queer content is pornography and try to oppress us. but also even if they only banned actual real undeniable porn that would suck too!! because porn is good and being able to make and watch porn is a vital part of living in a free society!!!

i mean really the tumblr anti-kink people arent the reason for gumroad and patreon banning porn but we did tell you that this is where things are heading lmao. there is no "our good queer feminist pure uwu porn" and "their degenerate freak problematic cnc incest porn", to them its all degenerate lol

^

I've made this into a new post because OP instantly blocked me after getting caught out for defending p3dos. That means it won't show up in the notes, and people will continue to reblog the post innocently thinking that it's about anything else. He attempted to hide that he is defending p3dos

Please reblog to help get circulation that this is a talking point for p3dos to secretly defend their consumption of cp

Point of order, I blocked you to stop any of my followers from tearing you to pieces in the notes.

But if you'd prefer to duke it out, sure, be my guest.

You're a media illiterate pro-censorship conservative who is is contributing to the sheltering of child molesters by normalizing baseless accusations of pedophila.

Much like Christian conservatives do the same thing by baselessly accusing trans people of being pedophiles.

Rant incoming:

I'm just so fucking tired of the "except for this group of people that is definitely unequivocally evil!" Argument.

This has been gone over and over and over again, but I'll rant a bit about it now, sure. There is no group of people that are definitely unequivocally evil. Any argument otherwise is simply an excuse to dehumanize the "out" group. Once you've made it okay to dehumanize the out group, because those evil nasty monsters deserve it right?, you have made it okay to dehumanize anyone you want. Anyone you think should be punished or treated as lesser for any reason can be because all you have to do is label them as part of the definitely unequivocally evil out group. It only takes convincing a few other people really. I can tell you from experience that two or three people earnestly believing you're definitely unequivocally evil no matter what you say or do can be absolutely devastating, can silence someone or worse. So you say "this person is part of the out group" and you convince a few others and now you get to dehumanize that person too, because look, they obviously deserve it.

Politicians use the same tacticts on the scale of things like "all queer people are pedophiles". Short story: once upon a time I was 15, in a high school dance group, and going to the next competition. It was rumored that one of the judges was a lesbian. That was followed by whispers "ew what if that's why she does this? To watch little girls?" I remember the way those words stung as someone who was beginning to think I might not be totally straight. End story. These tactics are used to convince large swaths of people that anyone they label as the out group or connected to the out group should be feared, punished, and avoided. No one wants to associate with evil people. With the people that are treated as less than people by virtue of how evil they are.

It's obviously incredibly effective, given how many people are convinced still that pedophiles are definitely unequivocally evil and deserve to be punished for merely existing. It's also bullshit to the core. No group of people are acceptable to dehumanize. No person is acceptable to strip of their humanity, no matter how evil you think they are. Dehumanization is always wrong, no matter what, no exceptions. Everyone deserves to be treated like a human. Period. End of. There is no acceptable out group that deserves to be treated as lesser and there never has been and there never will be.

Everyone should strive to do as little harm as possible, to make amends when they have done harm, and to step in when they see harm being done when possible. Engaging in fiction is harmless. I'm not going to go in too much depth here, it's a simple fact. Things that are not real can not and do not cause harm. Thoughts can not and do not cause harm. Your [OP] fake moral outrage to these harmless situations you use as canon fodder to add someone to the out group are laughably ignorant. Why wouldn't this apply to pedophiles? Them being pedophiles doesn't make their engaging in whatever fiction literally any different than anyone else engaging in the same fiction because engaging in fiction is harmless.

If you gave a single fuck about preventing CSA, there's a ton of things you could point that outrage at that would actually make a difference. But you don't. It's all just a stupid little charade to add another person to your list of people that it's now okay to dehumanize. It's been done a million times before and will be done a million more. You could at least try for a little originality.

Also. I strongly urge you to retire "cp" from your vocabulary. There is no such thing. The proper terminology are CSEM/CSAM. These terms are about the abuse of real children and not to be applied to fictional content. Underage fiction is not something people need to secretly defend their consumption of either, because, as stated above, engaging in fiction is harmless.

Mirror Stage

Part 3 of Liminality, a NG+ AU with a twist.

After the nightmare of the first Liminal, Akira is physically, emotionally, and mentally drained. With a newfound understanding of the true danger he faces on his mission, he finds himself regretting his past decision to get Akechi involved, terrified of losing him again. Meanwhile, life goes on, the gossip surrounding Akira is still rampant, and his friend group is steadily growing, leaving Akira with no choice but to try to keep up, all while haunted by his Shade’s final, ominous words.

Determined to avoid Akechi for his own safety and desperate to do everything right this time, Akira struggles against a combination of new and old threats; however, Akechi isn’t the type to just stand aside, and when Akira gets in way over his head, they’ll have to learn to trust each other or face an abrupt and premature end to this entire story.

Updates Saturdays.

Chapter 1

(art by @tratatdragonlord)

way too many of you fuckers keep misconstruing what I'm saying because you all lack reading comprehension.

i give ZERO fucks what ANYONE does with fiction or fictional characters (and I mean of cartoons, comic book, etc).

People can't read minds, what ever you think about an actual person, no one is ever gonna know if you keep it in your head or to yourself.

its no longer a thought in your head when people make posts about their very real feelings toward those that can't give consent. And these people use the whole "thought crimes isn't real" to make those kinds of post. And then tag it in places that are only meant for fiction. DO YALL FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT IM SAYING!!??

people can make those posts, it's not illegal to admit it, but at least keep them in the appropriate tags.

The goalposts keep shifting just a bit in your posts, but let's break this down a bit. Your original post says specifically "fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals." The key word here is fantasy.

A fantasy, even if the object of said fantasy is real, is still fictional. Posting about said fantasy is still fiction.

If I write a fanfic about me going on a hot date with Tom Hanks, it's still fiction. The Tom Hanks in my fic is a fictionalized version of a real person. He is not affected by my thoughts or my fantasy, or indeed my fanfic. As long as I stay far away from the real Tom Hanks, my fantasy doesn't harm him in any way.

Now, extend this to an animal or child. Again, as long as the person with the fantasy keeps far away from the real person or animal, no harm is being done. The fantasy is fiction.

You're free to think it's gross. You're free to find it deplorable and disgusting. Your feelings are valid. But they aren't an objective measure of harm being done. Curate your space by blocking those people.

Thought crimes, even if written down and shared, still aren't real. They are still thoughts, they are still fiction. A fantasy that will never become real is still fiction. I said before to think of them like self-insert fanfic and I think that's a good start. Remember those "I sold myself to One Direction" fics? In those fics, both the reader and object of the fantasy were real people, but the story was fiction.

Your second goalpost seems to be about the tagging. I personally have seen very little fantasies of this type in the proship tag and I follow it, so I'm not sure why it's such a big problem, but again--block. Someone posts something you don't like, block it, or block the other related tags. Politely ask them to tag it with something you can mute, perhaps. But this hangup you have about this particular type of fantasy not falling under the proship umbrella is peculiar, and based more on reactionary feelings than an objective metric.

(Sorry to Mr Hanks for bringing him into this stupid discourse but he was the first celebrity I thought of lmao)

You made the post and I’m sure you were aware people were going to disagree. You’ve let your disgust guide your morals on this one and that’s incredibly disappointing.

You should know better than to demonize people for their thoughts and feelings, especially when they have zero control over them. You should know better than anyone what it’s like to be demonized despite not actually hurting anyone.

You’re not helping anyone here. If you actually want to help, help to de-stigmatize paraphiles and spread factual information about them.

Damn, good thing fictional children, animals, and deceased aren't real children, animals, and deceased that can be victimized.

OP sounds a wee bit confused.

you're confused.. I'm talking about people posting about their sexual attractions to real life beings and yall are here talking about fiction.

But the thing is. Creating fictional content about these corpses, children, or animals is still just fiction.

None of the REAL figures will see it or get affected.

And unless they're specifying the body, child, or animal they want to diddle. It's just fiction. It's getting those urges out of the way in a way that ultimately is harmless. And even then...so long as the acknowledge that they won't act on the attraction and know that doing so would be wrong...its still a thought and thought crimes aren't real, nor should they be victimized.

I can guarantee that almost everyone has, at least once, had some sort of deplorable intrusive thought whether they wish to admit that or not. Should the entirety of humanity be shamed, then, for something that they cannot control?

And to be honest, I salute anyone who uses literally anything harmless as an outlet instead of actually diddling a living/ex-living thing that cannot consent and thus shouldn't be diddled.

yall are creating spaces for these individuals to just out right talk about their desires and urges in places meant only for fiction and not real life attractions

You realize most people write their fiction based on attractions they have, yes?

You're essentially saying that, 'well, people shouldn't write this smutty fanfic with bondage because they're into bondage and they should keep their attraction out of it.'

'The gays shouldn't post M/M fics because they're into that.'

you're literally gonna compare pedo/zoo/necro to kink and lgbt?

You realize kink = paraphilia, yes?

kink is about consent between all parties involved, pedo/zoo/necro is the opposite

You are going to fly over backwards when you learn just how many people have rape fantasies and roleplay them with a partner.

Or how common somno is.

Also sadism, masochism.

Petplay. Ageplay.

Teacher-Student.

And wouldn't ya know...ask any person and they'll tell you those are all kinks. AND they're still based around an idea of nonconsent.

apparently you can't seem to understand that I'm pro kink, anti para

You cannot be prokink without being at least para neutral, because paraphilias ARE kinks.

And we can go about it all day. But I think you need to take some time, think, research instead of both of us wasting our time running in circles. So I'm going to eat lunch, and let's maybe get back to this once you research out what kinks and paraphilias are, alright?

I support consent between those that can give consent. being pro para is about supporting those that have attractions toward those that can't give consent. wild that yall can't understand that. I use to be neutral til people attempted to force me into their ideals forjust saying to keep certain posts out of fandom tags. proship is suppose to be for fiction ONLY, it's not about supporting real life attractions but yall are bluring the lines

An attraction is a neutral element. People have attractions to various things for various reasons. There is nothing inherently positive or negative about them. It's all about how one acts on that attraction that matters.

Using fiction--fantasies--to explore that attraction is healthy and safe. Consent is given, between the writer of the fiction and those who read it, and it can be revoked at any time by closing the post, blocking the person, etc.

Someone writing a fantasy about their paraphilia is still fiction. No one here is supporting any real life actions. We're supporting using a healthy outlet to explore what can otherwise be dangerous and stressful for the person involved.

Telling people they can't create fantasies about their thoughts and that they should hide them away because it's "promoting" or "normalizing" something is 1-for-1 anti rhetoric. You're hung up on the idea that it stems from a real-life attraction, but tons of fiction stems from that. As long as their actions stay within the realm of fantasy and fiction, it's fine.

"thought crimes aren't real" is only meant for fiction, not something for pedos/zoos/necros to use as an excuse for their fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals.

dumbasses in the comments bringing up fiction. I fully support fiction. I don't care what happens in fiction. I'm talking about gross people bringing up and tagging their fucked fantasies into a space meant for fandom/fiction and using certain phrases as a way to excuse their fantasies. yall talk about antis not having reading comprehension.

Fantasies are still fiction. Unless there is a clear intent to actually do something, it still qualifies as fiction. People cannot do harm with their thoughts or fantasies. Only actions matter.

You're free to not want to interact with those kind of posts, of course, and you should curate your space accordingly. But no, "thought crime isn't real" applies to all thoughts, even fucked up ones.

they can and should keep their fucked up fantasies and thoughts out of fandom spaces. we're talking about real people here, not fictional characters. it shouldn't be normalized for people to post about their sick fantasies like this.

We're still talking about fiction, though. It's still fake, it never happened, and it never will happen. If any of those things are false, then yes there's a problem. But if it's simply a thought, then it's still. Fiction.

You have found a personal boundary for yourself and it obviously bothers you a lot. You should block people posting those things. But that doesn't mean there's anything anomalous about those kinds of fantasies. This kind of fiction, just like any other kind of fiction, doesn't "normalize" anything. People posting fantasies--basically self-insert fanfiction--on their personal blog and sharing it is fine.

If someone does have a paraphilia, especially a dangerous one, exploring it in fiction with writing or drawing is a healthy outlet for it. Shaming and stigmatizing doesn't help anyone.

so you believe it's fine for people to post about their sexual affection for kids/animals/deceased because it's "just fiction"???

I don't believe in thought crime and I believe anyone can write anything in fiction. Again, if there is intent to act, that's a problem and it should be addressed, but if it's someone venting, if it's someone who has trauma posting their intrusive thoughts, if it's someone who struggles with a paraphilia and wants a safe outlet - then yes, I believe they should have it.

I don't know these people personally, I don't know what they've been through, why they have those thoughts. I'm not here to judge them. As long as they keep their fantasies in the realm of fiction, in the realm of fantasy, then real people are safe, and that's what matters.

I only care about actions. I only care when real people are affected.

if thought crime isn't real, then it's okay for antis to make up violent content about prpshippers. so long as real people aren't affected, right?

...Yes? I don't know what ever gave the impression I had exceptions, but yes, it's fine for people to post their violent fantasies too. I personally don't like that, and I will block them, but I won't say they're not allowed to make it.

If they plan to hurt people irl or there's a credible threat of real violence, then that's not acceptable. But I am anti-censorship even of things I don't like or things that make me uncomfortable, so I will defend anyone's--even antis'-- rights to make "distasteful" fiction.

wow, okay.. you fully support violence and even sexual violence about real living beings, got it 👍

I support people's freedom to write fantasy material of whatever they want, including fictional violence and fictional sexual violence. Don't misrepresent my words because you disagree with me. It's immature.

"thought crimes aren't real" is only meant for fiction, not something for pedos/zoos/necros to use as an excuse for their fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals.

dumbasses in the comments bringing up fiction. I fully support fiction. I don't care what happens in fiction. I'm talking about gross people bringing up and tagging their fucked fantasies into a space meant for fandom/fiction and using certain phrases as a way to excuse their fantasies. yall talk about antis not having reading comprehension.

Fantasies are still fiction. Unless there is a clear intent to actually do something, it still qualifies as fiction. People cannot do harm with their thoughts or fantasies. Only actions matter.

You're free to not want to interact with those kind of posts, of course, and you should curate your space accordingly. But no, "thought crime isn't real" applies to all thoughts, even fucked up ones.

they can and should keep their fucked up fantasies and thoughts out of fandom spaces. we're talking about real people here, not fictional characters. it shouldn't be normalized for people to post about their sick fantasies like this.

We're still talking about fiction, though. It's still fake, it never happened, and it never will happen. If any of those things are false, then yes there's a problem. But if it's simply a thought, then it's still. Fiction.

You have found a personal boundary for yourself and it obviously bothers you a lot. You should block people posting those things. But that doesn't mean there's anything anomalous about those kinds of fantasies. This kind of fiction, just like any other kind of fiction, doesn't "normalize" anything. People posting fantasies--basically self-insert fanfiction--on their personal blog and sharing it is fine.

If someone does have a paraphilia, especially a dangerous one, exploring it in fiction with writing or drawing is a healthy outlet for it. Shaming and stigmatizing doesn't help anyone.

so you believe it's fine for people to post about their sexual affection for kids/animals/deceased because it's "just fiction"???

I don't believe in thought crime and I believe anyone can write anything in fiction. Again, if there is intent to act, that's a problem and it should be addressed, but if it's someone venting, if it's someone who has trauma posting their intrusive thoughts, if it's someone who struggles with a paraphilia and wants a safe outlet - then yes, I believe they should have it.

I don't know these people personally, I don't know what they've been through, why they have those thoughts. I'm not here to judge them. As long as they keep their fantasies in the realm of fiction, in the realm of fantasy, then real people are safe, and that's what matters.

I only care about actions. I only care when real people are affected.

if thought crime isn't real, then it's okay for antis to make up violent content about prpshippers. so long as real people aren't affected, right?

...Yes? I don't know what ever gave the impression I had exceptions, but yes, it's fine for people to post their violent fantasies too. I personally don't like that, and I will block them, but I won't say they're not allowed to make it.

If they plan to hurt people irl or there's a credible threat of real violence, then that's not acceptable. But I am anti-censorship even of things I don't like or things that make me uncomfortable, so I will defend anyone's--even antis'-- rights to make "distasteful" fiction.

"thought crimes aren't real" is only meant for fiction, not something for pedos/zoos/necros to use as an excuse for their fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals.

dumbasses in the comments bringing up fiction. I fully support fiction. I don't care what happens in fiction. I'm talking about gross people bringing up and tagging their fucked fantasies into a space meant for fandom/fiction and using certain phrases as a way to excuse their fantasies. yall talk about antis not having reading comprehension.

Fantasies are still fiction. Unless there is a clear intent to actually do something, it still qualifies as fiction. People cannot do harm with their thoughts or fantasies. Only actions matter.

You're free to not want to interact with those kind of posts, of course, and you should curate your space accordingly. But no, "thought crime isn't real" applies to all thoughts, even fucked up ones.

they can and should keep their fucked up fantasies and thoughts out of fandom spaces. we're talking about real people here, not fictional characters. it shouldn't be normalized for people to post about their sick fantasies like this.

We're still talking about fiction, though. It's still fake, it never happened, and it never will happen. If any of those things are false, then yes there's a problem. But if it's simply a thought, then it's still. Fiction.

You have found a personal boundary for yourself and it obviously bothers you a lot. You should block people posting those things. But that doesn't mean there's anything anomalous about those kinds of fantasies. This kind of fiction, just like any other kind of fiction, doesn't "normalize" anything. People posting fantasies--basically self-insert fanfiction--on their personal blog and sharing it is fine.

If someone does have a paraphilia, especially a dangerous one, exploring it in fiction with writing or drawing is a healthy outlet for it. Shaming and stigmatizing doesn't help anyone.

so you believe it's fine for people to post about their sexual affection for kids/animals/deceased because it's "just fiction"???

I don't believe in thought crime and I believe anyone can write anything in fiction. Again, if there is intent to act, that's a problem and it should be addressed, but if it's someone venting, if it's someone who has trauma posting their intrusive thoughts, if it's someone who struggles with a paraphilia and wants a safe outlet - then yes, I believe they should have it.

I don't know these people personally, I don't know what they've been through, why they have those thoughts. I'm not here to judge them. As long as they keep their fantasies in the realm of fiction, in the realm of fantasy, then real people are safe, and that's what matters.

I only care about actions. I only care when real people are affected.

"thought crimes aren't real" is only meant for fiction, not something for pedos/zoos/necros to use as an excuse for their fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals.

dumbasses in the comments bringing up fiction. I fully support fiction. I don't care what happens in fiction. I'm talking about gross people bringing up and tagging their fucked fantasies into a space meant for fandom/fiction and using certain phrases as a way to excuse their fantasies. yall talk about antis not having reading comprehension.

Fantasies are still fiction. Unless there is a clear intent to actually do something, it still qualifies as fiction. People cannot do harm with their thoughts or fantasies. Only actions matter.

You're free to not want to interact with those kind of posts, of course, and you should curate your space accordingly. But no, "thought crime isn't real" applies to all thoughts, even fucked up ones.

they can and should keep their fucked up fantasies and thoughts out of fandom spaces. we're talking about real people here, not fictional characters. it shouldn't be normalized for people to post about their sick fantasies like this.

We're still talking about fiction, though. It's still fake, it never happened, and it never will happen. If any of those things are false, then yes there's a problem. But if it's simply a thought, then it's still. Fiction.

You have found a personal boundary for yourself and it obviously bothers you a lot. You should block people posting those things. But that doesn't mean there's anything anomalous about those kinds of fantasies. This kind of fiction, just like any other kind of fiction, doesn't "normalize" anything. People posting fantasies--basically self-insert fanfiction--on their personal blog and sharing it is fine.

If someone does have a paraphilia, especially a dangerous one, exploring it in fiction with writing or drawing is a healthy outlet for it. Shaming and stigmatizing doesn't help anyone.

"thought crimes aren't real" is only meant for fiction, not something for pedos/zoos/necros to use as an excuse for their fucked up fantasies involving real people/animals.

dumbasses in the comments bringing up fiction. I fully support fiction. I don't care what happens in fiction. I'm talking about gross people bringing up and tagging their fucked fantasies into a space meant for fandom/fiction and using certain phrases as a way to excuse their fantasies. yall talk about antis not having reading comprehension.

Fantasies are still fiction. Unless there is a clear intent to actually do something, it still qualifies as fiction. People cannot do harm with their thoughts or fantasies. Only actions matter.

You're free to not want to interact with those kind of posts, of course, and you should curate your space accordingly. But no, "thought crime isn't real" applies to all thoughts, even fucked up ones.

A general frustration I have with the assumption fiction, especially erotica, reflects the authors morals is that it relies on a very literal interpretation of a text.

A movie monster isn't just a scary creature and an obsessive stalker love interest isn't just a direct translation of the real thing.

Characters are objects in a narrative, characters are often symbolic. They mean more than "here is a guy doing a thing" and it's poor media analysis skills to treat character actions like the actions of a real person.

recently i wrote art post where i said this (see attached screenshot). this has caused a few buckaroos to interpret this as supporting 'death of the author' idea, but i would like to clarify i do not believe in death of the author. i think it is literally impossible to separate artist from art

dang basic thought is this. your experience will inform your take on an artists work, sometimes in big ways and sometimes in impossibly small ways. art is not static. if you enjoyed book and then the writer did something bad your feelings about that art will change whether you want them to or not

one way it could change is you could feel bad when you see their books and stop buying them, another way it could change is you could remember what they did and still buy, but BOTH THOSE THINGS are a new experience of the art. even art with an unknown creator is FRAMED by you not knowing them

in other words the absence of information effects your perception just as much as information. there is no escaping that we do not trot in a vacuum and art will always be framed by what you ate that day or where you stand while looking at it or what the creator did or did not do 

so i do not believe in art vs artist separation because i dont believe it is possible. when i say 'just because i made a piece of art does not mean i know it better than you do' i mean exactly that, we are BOTH connected to the art and there is no GREATER ART AUTHORITY saying correct way to connect

when i say ‘i am not the expert on my art just because i made it' that does not mean ‘the author is dead’. it means ‘we are both the author’

GOTTA ADD THIS because i just realized i posted the wrong screenshot on original. but i will add something because honestly this is very complex and a buckaroo asked on other site and i think this addition makes it clearer.

buckaroo said:

Hey Chuck! Long time fan, first time replyer. I always interpret "Death of the author" to mean exactly what you said in your screenshot. That when you release something, it's just as much the fan's as it is the artist's.

here is my reply:

lets see if i can parse subtle difference in this trot because it is complex. i believe 'death of the author' is actually to say that the art is in the fan and not the artist. what i say in my post is that it is the fan AND the artist simultaneously. i believe it is both. here is original essay text

so i believe with whole heart very strongly that reader is part of the art, but 'death of the author' (at least original writing) suggests that it is reader NOT author. i believe it is reader AND author. i think this is important difference