THIS IS A LONG POST. The subject in question demands detailed explanation, and I'm not afraid of this.
I am deleting this tweet. Here is why. (I have attached an image of it, because I'm not hiding it.)
1. It's oversimplified, and doesn't really convey my message properly.
2. After much thought, I have decided I am -technically wrong- about the definitions in this post.
3. A video will much better explain this.
4. It's just attracting hate.
I am preserving it in this tweet and explaining it because while I accept that the raw definition of pedophile means attraction to children (technically pedophile means attraction to prepubescent children if we want to get down to the nitty gritty of the English Language, and ephebophiles are attracted to individuals aged puberty to adulthood, and teliophiles are attracted to adults), I do not accept that people who only like cub art and not real children should be labeled as such. We should have a better term for people who understand the difference between fictional characters and real people.
The term pedophile should be reserved for people who actively seek out real children - those are the people you should be going after. And only to get them separated from society for seeking to violate the consent of real people. Those who actively seek out violation of informed consent are a danger, and must be separated. If you define yourself as a pedophile, get help. Now. Immediately.
Let's shift to a different kink for a moment to explain. Tentacle hentai with adult women or men involved. You know, the whole "Oh no! A tentacle monster is on the loose and it's got a new victim!" - and suddenly there's a cartoon person getting absolutely destroyed, and they are trying to fight back.
Are people who are into tentacle noncon stuff bad people too? Technically it's nonconsensual, right? And that's illegal, because it violates consent. (It's in the name.) - But I don't see people going after those who get off on that. Why? Because it doesn't evoke the same emotional response. In the end, as long as someone doesn't think actual nonconsensual sex is okay, they can get off on that specific kind of tentacle porn.
For now understand that this has only inspired me more to educate the public on the difference between reality and fantasy - real victims and imagined ones.
I started my channel to express myself in a way I wasn't able to at home because I was in a relationship that stifled me for 10 years since I was 21. I quickly came to understand how uneducated people are on the subjects of sex, and consent, and kink, and it evolved into a mission to help people be more comfortable in their own bodies.
The things we are aroused by are rooted pretty deep. Whether it's because that person was a sexual assault survivor themselves (yes, me), or it's as simple as you played cops and robbers as a kid and kinda liked when you got pinned down by your friend - and so when you're 18 suddenly you've decided you like getting tied up. You build these neural, biochemical connections in your brain. Arousal is a biochemical process based around neurons firing next to each other. People are into so many things, people get horny towards so many things. Have you seen the sheer number of tags on e621?
And then there are those 'taboo' tags that are blacklisted if you're not logged in to it. Those are the following. "gore, scat, watersports, young -rating:s, loli, shota)
BUT. They exist. They're on the site, and if you make an account, you can see them.
Should they be blacklisted by default? Yeah, they make many people uncomfortable. But, your discomfort does not equal real harm. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it harmful. Also, just because something represents something harmful doesn't make that thing harmful. That's the point of art - it depicts reality, but the depiction isn't a real situation.
We could talk logical fallacies about that - such as the non-sequitur fallacy that if someone likes cub, they'll go after real kids (those are two separate things, because we're human beings who make rational, decent decisions to respect the consent of other people) - there's also the "begging the question" fallacy, where so many people aren't providing actual reasons to why cub art in itself, by itself, is genuinely harmful. They're just saying it is, and repeating that line. They're not giving a reason, they're just recycling the same premise.
But the biggest fallacy is the Guilt by Association fallacy, where you're labeling people as predators when they're not pursuing real people (The word predator implies the existence of prey - but who is the prey in porn drawn by adults?)
Now it falls to why. Why are people so quick to attack? It's because they're afraid of those who do decide it's okay to violate consent. That is a reasonable FEAR, but it is not REASON to go on the offensive towards people who like a certain art style. Would the world be easier if nobody did or liked anything you didn't like? Yeah. But, pretty little sunflower, the world doesn't work like that. It's the same argument fundamentalist Christians take, where they say "Some gay people are pedophiles, therefore all gay people are wrong." or "Some trans people are pedophiles, therefore all trans people are wrong." - These are also logical fallacies that are used to hurt people every day because someone doesn't agree with how another lives their life, even though they don't harm anyone and have no desire to harm anyone.
Let's steer away from sex. Let's move into the realm of murder, and violence. Let's talk about GTA online, where people are roleplaying out literal serial killers because it's fun. Should they be labeled as a murderer because they enjoy simulating it? No. Obviously not. The two are not the same, because one is fantasy, the other is reality.
Does the youtube video which has 1.9 MILLION views represent something that if it happened in real life would be horrifying? Absolutely.
Does cub art represent something that if it happened in real life would be horrifying? Absolutely.
But we're wasting our time, chasing after people because they're getting off to drawings. We as a people DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS. There are far FAR worse demons to fight - between the broken education system, broken healthcare system, homelessness problem, famine, and many other real issues, we have real problems to deal with.
I will say this, to be clear. Cub art is not allowed in my Discord server - not because it's objectively wrong and needs to not see the light of day, but because it makes many people uncomfortable, and should be kept in its own spaces. Same thing with other extreme kinks like scat - not welcome, because it makes people uncomfortable.
ALSO. If I catch you approaching and flirting with minors in my server and I see evidence that you know they're underage, you will be banned, full stop, no appeal. And if I catch you going after minors sexually, the police will get involved. This line is based upon the legal definition of minor.
Because that's the line. Reality defines where real harm happens.
For a legal argument, see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), which states in its conclusion the following. "If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statues that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed is unconstitutional."
Cub art is not child pornography. Child pornography has a legal definition, which you can find at "https://justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography…" - which states - "Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor."
The key in this legal definition is that child pornography is a depiction or a simulated depiction of an individual. Not an underage thing, but a specific, real individual. An identifiable, actual minor. See those last four words? That's what matters. That's who we protect.
THAT'S WHO WE PROTECT.
We protect real people. We prosecute real predators. Beyond that? If there's no real people being harmed? Now you're the ones doing the harming.
There. That's my piece. You wanna hate me for it? Come at me. Have a real, logical conversation. Otherwise, if you can't do that? Well, then, I pity you. Say what you want, it's a free world (mostly, some places need to catch up), but understand that if, after reading all of the above (good job on making it this far), you're still just "No cub art is wrong period because cub art is wrong" then you're being deliberately ignorant and stupid, and I'm tired of it. I'm exhausted of people being ripped apart and destroyed. Good people, who wouldn't DARE to lay a finger on a real person in a way that would harm them - are being attacked because people are reactive, emotional wrecks who don't seem to have grasped the difference between reality and fantasy, which is a key developmental step that many of you seem to have missed. You have officially pissed me off. Congratulations, you got a reaction - but the sentiment of this particular paragraph remains.
I have said my piece. I am sure that there are parts of my argument you can pick apart - because I'm not perfect. But the key, core thing is this. Let's focus on challenging people who desire to inflict real harm, rather than chasing people for jerking off to drawings.
Archive
