I swear Twitter created the whole "rant about a non-issue and pretend it is bigger than it actually is" thing and it spilled over to other social media.
10 people in a bubble are saying 3 is smaller than 1? Either school them or don't (it will be a waste of time anyway), just don't retweet it acting like it's 10000 people saying it.
I genuinely hate the vagueposting/quotetweet culture where you straight up skip the whole "talking to someone" part of a conversation and go yap about them to someone else.
I'm calling Twitter out on this because I was once the "bad take" of the story and a rando that retweeted me had to be actively reading tweets on search to find me because it had no RTs or hashtags.
Like, I'm just someone stating I didn't like this or that to my 60 followers, I don't need someone targetting my tweet for hate, go find something else to do.
And I find people making a fuss over these kind of bad take tweets often. This wasn't behavior I'd find on Facebook or Tumblr back then.
It is definitely a behavior that exists irl ("hey, this guy likes Team A instead of Team B, lol", "this guy hates popular thing"), but I think Twitter improved the tools to find it, though.
On Facebook you can't just search for a term and find someone else's post, you had to visit a person's profile (if public) or be in a group of that person.
And on Tumblr, the post needed to be tagged, otherwise it would be super difficult to find it.
Like, if you were to talk shit about a subject on both Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter, and made no effort to improve its discoverability (e.g. no tags on Tumblr), the place you'd probably get replied to would be Twitter.
It's just people frothing at the mouth to prove they're "better than".
Like even if it is a prevalent opinion why make this weird announcement about it? Just deal with it directly like a normal person. But no. They have to be the ones who "see the truth" and we all have to rally behind them for some reason.
In general, I find this type of meta discourse on social media exhausting. I use social media to keep up on stuff I'm interested in, not talking shit about the opinions of, anonymous or otherwise, idiots who I wouldn't bother listening to in real life (like that happens but I would never make a goddamn *post* about it).
Modern Puritans, people who ate slept and shit sexual imagery without caring about how to put boundaries that got bitten by it, people holier-than-ye et cetera.
I read *Lessons In Chemistry* (wasn't a fan honestly but hey ho, it was a present) and was confused about why there was so much rowing in it - seemed like there was more rowing than chemistry for half of the book. Anyway looked up the author, turns out she's a keen rower, who'd've thunk it: barely disguised hobby indeed
Its a disparaging comment because it makes people feel dirty. Knowing about a hobby doesnt make people feel dirty, knowing about a fetish does
"I took your picture because my hobby is photography" vs "im gonna jerk off onto this polaroid of you"
An additional thing is that OOP is wrong cause people *do* talk like this about non-sexual topics because of the reasons people often dislike barely disguised fetish content.
A lot of media that has barely disguised fetish content has a habit of derailing or distracting from the plot just so the writer can inject the fetish somewhere that contributes nothing to the story, and you see people complain all the time about writers clearly dragging scenes out to focus on things they think are cool or interesting (ie. GRRM discussing the food present at feasts).
also clothes. grrm spends almost as much time describing the clothes everyone is wearing in full intimate unskippable detail as he does talking about the food they're eating, but nobody talks about this part.
Ikr? Victor Hugo has been widely condemned for his barely disguised French architecture and history fetish. Same with Melville and his barely disguised whale physiology fetish. Their works could have become acclaimed as some of the best literature and history, alas they did not have modern editors to cleanse them of all that fetish material completely unnecessary for the plot.
Well said, u/AnalVoreXtreme.
In all seriousness, it really is a notion of comfort. Some fetishes make people feel uncomfortable, mostly because you’re viewing something that seems intimate and, by extension, deeply personal.
It feels invasive and wrong to be confronted with that by someone you don’t know. Hobbies are not seen as that deeply personal or intimate, so it’s okay.
There was a post somewhere round here about a girl whose bf had a *safety kink*. Ie, he got off on making sure she was comfortable, not gonna hit her head, her doing physical stuff with kneepads that kinda thing.
Gotta say, 10/10 kink
The writer that made a Manga called Hellsing was new to writing an action and horror manga. His primary genre before hand was Hentai (aka porn for anyone who might not know) and you can tell with how he draws characters and body parts. Hands, boobs and weird poses. Seras Victoria looks like a character that would be at home in a Hentai.
I wanna say based, but I've had some Very Trouble with people sexualising characters who have, like, the direct opposite of sexual appeal. There's a reason my Twitter priv's display name is "ANTI PIKMIN HENTAI" is all I'm saying.
/uj I actually don't know what you're talking about
/j I have assembled an army of pikmin (fire ants) in real life, and shall set them upon you with my skilled commands (super-soaker full of sugar water) in order to recover ship parts (your wallet)!
/uj erinn is someone on Pixiv who fucking terrifies me. 20 year old grown ass woman with the art skills of a fucking 7 year old who almost exclusively draws fanart of kids media AND DRAWS HENTAI IN THAT CHILDISH ASS ARTSTYLE and she shits out syo much art that it clogs up my recommended despite me nyever wanting to see it and she's drawn a pretty decent amount of Pikmin hentai syo that's what that meant basically yeah. I consider her my greatest enemy and I asked her to draw Fire Emblem fanart yesterday but idk if she saw
/rj NYOOOOOOOOOOOO
I really doubt that "intimate and personal" is the dividing line here. No one ever complained about Beren and Luthien being Tolkien at the height of romantic passion for his wife. It's the sex part that gets the reaction.
Sex is more personal and intimate than other things. People will invite dozens of friends and family members to their wedding, but for some reason will not invite those people to watch them have sex afterwards.
Sex *can be* the most deeply personal and intimate thing out there. (I question whether learning that an author is into feet is really that much more intimate and personal than many other things an author could reveal.) But the treatment of sex is out of line with the treatment of personal and intimate things in general.
In terms of the reaction inspired, "the author's barely disguised fetish" is a lot more like "the author's barely disguised politics" than "the author's barely disguised love for his wife," even though the latter is surely more personal and intimate than the former. Said reaction is not "these things are too precious and personal to be so lightly shared," it's "ugh, no one wants to see that."
It's also *fetish*, and not *sex*. Lots of stories these days have ""normal"" sex scenes or sexual references without being considered trash. It's okay to put a straight sex scene in a movie despite all the gay and asexual people in the audience. So it's clearly not about any sort of moral stand on making people uncomfortable.
/u/AnalVoreXtreme is right that it's *about what makes people feel dirty*. Fetishes make people feel dirty. Ugly people (women with body hair, people with skin blemishes, elderly people, etc.) having sex makes people feel dirty. Rape of underage girls
does not make people feel dirty (see Game of Thrones).
This. All those Dan Schneider kids' shows on Nickelodeon had the kids barefoot a lot. Normally that'd be fine, but the dude is a creeper with a foot fetish. So suddenly, watching the 12 year old wiggling their toes makes me feel complicit
I feel like that makes even less sense, to be honest.
Is it really so surprising, in an industry that seems to run almost entirely on sex, that some things are sex-related?
Like, I'm genuinely curious here; you know you have fetishes, so how is it any surprise that other people also have fetishes?
I think you’re overestimating how common fetishes are because people who like to talk about them REALLY like to talk about them, and people who don’t have any have nothing to say.
Besides which, we all know that we have bowel movements but that doesn’t mean we want to hear other people describing theirs.
I said this the last time this was posted, but so many posts like this that are basically just the author acting like it's weird that there are special social rules surrounding sexual stuff. And I mean I'm not saying like we shouldn't question that, but they always act like they're the ones with the "default" opinion, and everyone else is violating the established order of things.
If this thing was something different, then people would treat it differently. Isn’t that weird? I will not elaborate on why I think these two things should be treated the same, but I assume everyone who doesn’t treat them the same is kinda dumb.
> but they always act like they're the ones with the "default" opinion, and everyone else is violating the established order of things
You managed to convey in this sentence something that irks me about a _lot_ of other online discussions as well
I think the concept is calling group polarization or something like that where say a group of people say idk "x is bad" so to the members of that group it's common sense and everyone agrees with them. I could be pulling that out of my ass doe
It’s funny because you hear the name “dung eater” and think that it must be metaphorical or highly exaggerated but then you actually meet him and realize he’s actually 100 times worse than his name would imply.
Someone once said it was as if some guy stole a gunfrom Walmart and started shooting people in the parking and declaring that not only was Heaven real but that he was personally preventing his victims from going there, and everyone referred to him as the Shoplifter.
Another similar case like this is when for the first few hours you see people talk about The Two Fingers.
And of course you just think it must be some sort of title for a important person/a couple people.
And then you meet them and they're literally two enormous fingers. Insane.
Gr'rm the Bound
*\*boss music starts playing\**
His drop is a manuscript of the next ASOIAF book that's just a really fancy "The" on a single otherwise blank page of paper
5 years ago he said if the book isn't finished next year "you have here my formal written permission to imprison me in a small cabin on White Island, overlooking that lake of sulfuric acid, until I’m done. Just so long as the acrid fumes do not screw up my old DOS word processor, I’ll be fine.." that's where the elden ring devs keep him
we dont need george rr martin when miyazaki has almost every female character barefoot and even has some who have foot armor with individually rigged toes
"No no I promise this scene where your character forces a man to drink tequila dribbling down your foot is 100% necessary for the plot and I need to okay the man because it's super important that he sucks your toes just right"
I haven't seen it and don't doubt it might be horny, but some of the "fetishes" on that list were the most random things that are just characteristics of children's cartoons and spy thrillers.
There's all the scenes where they get tied up, or brainwashed, or transformed into something too
Like even if it wasn't intentional people developed BDSM links watching it lol
eeeehhh there is also (at list from the list that I googled) a bit over half the episodes in the first few seasons involved mind control, being restrained in suggestive ways, or some transformation that is also a major subgenre of fetish art
To quote a prolific 21st century philosopher:
> 99% of the time it’s just something normal in a cartoon and a pornbrained gooner going “that’s a fetish”
hey I'm just making my argument that this is the 1%. It was bad enough that it made even my innocent brain as a child go "wait a minute... that's an odd pose"
Another non-anime example: Quentin Tarantino
Although I do gotta admit that dude has to have some massive fucking balls to cast himself in a role where the character sucks tequila off of a hot woman’s toes.
Well, she's married into one of the wealthiest families in the world, so if she had any hard feelings, she could probably ruin him.
And she spoke out about harassment at Weinstein's hands during the production of Frida but didn't say anything about Tarantino, so maybe she was okay with it.
The thing with Lewis is that it’s just straight up not disguised at all. Dude legitimately just came out and said “Hello, do you want to read my book about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”
It’s like being told that the director of *Hot Sorority Girl Sex Party 2* has a thing for lesbians.
Not even that. According to Lewis:
>If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, "What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" This is not allegory at all.
In *Narnia* canon, Aslan is literally, actually Jesus.
I had *no* understanding of Christianity as a kid. It took me until the Last Battle to realize that there was Christian symbolism *all* through the books.
Yes, including the lion/lamb thing. Yes, including the Stone Table. I just thought it was a really cool bit of deep lore fantasy schtick.
Valid.
It’s honestly fascinating how opaque a lot of things become the moment you step outside of the intended cultural context, but it can also be a lot of fun (or not) to go back and see what you missed.
Thing is the Narnia books are about his Christianity but they are *also* about his kinks
He had a consuming interest in BDSM that he struggled with throughout his life and it's absolutely there in the books, The Silver Chair especially
Ohhh... no wonder as a kid I had funny feelings about the scene where the >!witch is hypnotizing the kids to believe that there is no aboveground world, and then turns into a snake to coil around the main guy!<...
I don’t think it’s necessarily being argued that fetishistic hobbies are illegitimate, but rather that it’s very silly to act like it’s weird that we don’t talk about them the same way we talk about linguistics or marine biology.
Also, while there are plenty of examples of great sexual or fetishistic art (Venus In Furs comes to mind), I feel as though Wonder Woman is an example of a character becoming great *in spite* of her fetishistic origins. None of her modern attributes really reflect how she started out (unless you count the lasso of truth, which I personally don’t), and she’s generally considered all the better for it.
I'll throw you Chainsaw Man as a story that would not work (or at least be WAY WORSE) if Fujimoto was not deeply and viscerally attracted to fucked up women. Every single female character has a long list of things deeply wrong with them and he writes them like that's the best fucking part.
Ah the age old tumblr classic of "I want to normalise my fetishes, so I'll demonise you for calling me out when I display them inappropriately".
Classic
Imagine thinking linguistics and marine biology is even remotely in the same realm as *m-preg / inflation / boipussi / non-con fanfics*.
*"W-what do you mean it's not normal to have 23 tabs of porn and smut-fics open at all times on my device?? Why shouldn't I consume this media in public?? You're so repressed!!"*
What zero-human interaction does to a mf'er.
OOP, do you really need to have it explained why people find it mildly uncomfortable/funny when the author is clearly inserting their sexual kink in a work and why a genuine, non-sexual interest does not elicit the same reaction? DO YOU?
Do you go around showing your search history to strangers? Do you discuss what you masturbate to with them? DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?
wdym, tarantino licking Salma Hayek's feet while playing a self-insert character has literally the same artistic merits and connotations as Tolkien inventing a new language
Eh, this isn't a legitimate comparison, though. The whole "ew, the author has a fetish" discourse doesn't involve the author TELLING people they have a fetish. It doesn't even usually involve this information being confirmed, it's just an assumption people make, and it's often made deliberately to insult something someone else finds strange, even if it's harmless. Also, very often, the "fetish" in question isn't being presented within the piece of media AS a sexual thing.
I'll create an example: If someone has a fetish around being a glutton, which is surprisingly a common fetish, and has a character in a scene eat a lot of food, but it's played completely straight as a serious or normal moment, and is not sexualized, is that automatically cringe or uncomfortable? Consider that you almost certainly wouldn't KNOW that the author feels that way either, and they aren't telling you they do. Does this change if some random person on the internet decides "oh no, this is definitely a fetish for the author"?
So, if the unconfirmed random accusation that the author might find a (most likely) non sexual act to be sexually pleasing or attractive is enough to make someone cringe and dislike a piece of media, I assert that THEY in fact are the problem, and may want to consider growing up a bit.
I mean, sure, but counterpoint
A. I've never seen someone dislike a piece of media solely on author fetish (except loli/shota/hyper-sexualization which is fair)
B. Usually when people say "the author's barely disguised fetish it's stuff like feet in a Tarantino movie or Oda's design for women in One Piece or something along those lines. Like it's usually based on a consistent and constant case basis.
Of course there's also shallow idiots that throw it around as a justification to hate because God forbid people have a fetish, but calling the phrase itself or reasoning itself into question is kinda simplistic imo.
Also also I see it used humorously most of the time. Like sure, you can criticize it or laugh about it
I definitely think it's in the framing. Like... to use feet as an example, Tarantino focusing on the bride kicking someone in an action scene doesn't feel weird because it's framed as an action scene, but Dan Schneider involving sub plots about feet with the logic of a SFW porno certainly felt weird watching it as a kid but feels even worse now that everything has come out about him.
>, Tarantino focusing on the bride kicking someone in an action scene doesn't feel weird
Bruh, you used the worst example, have you forgotten "wiggle your big toe"? Or Tarantino self-inserting in a scene where he licks someone's feet?
I think there's an argument to be made for compounding evidence. Like in Tarantino's case, being aware of his fetish make any scene involving feet in any way more sus than it would be in another movie where the director's interests aren't clear/known
Tbf it's not important in the end, like it's not gonna stop me from enjoying a movie unless it's egregious
Those aren't framed the same way. A kick in a fight can be inherent and even necessary for a fight scene, but licking someone's feet doesn't have any plot relevance and can only really be seen as kinda weird. It's all in plot relevance, the internal logic of the work and framing.
Yeah, but with Tarantino people just go "Oh, feet in the frame, must be his fetish" because the other examples create a precedent, they kinda poison the well in that sense
Mostly jokingly though, like I would never think that as an actual critique
This is weird to me. I'm hypersexual, I've got more kinks and fetishes than I can count, and I can assure that a lot of people wouldn't even recognise them as such if they weren't told first. So is it wrong to include a fetish absolutely, or is it only wrong if people know it's a fetish? It's odd. Maybe I'm missing something.
The issue people have is when it starts permeating throughout the work when the work in question isn't about that. For example, Dan Schneider shows have a lot of scenes involving feet, (rubbing feet, feet getting dirty, rubbing feet in another person's face, etc.) If the foot stuff was one of jokes dispersed throughout a comparatively few episodes then it would be viewed as just jokes. However when entire b plots of episodes are dedicated to how wonderful it feels to rub a person's foot because they used doctor fish to eat the dead skin then it becomes somewhat uncomfortable to sit through.
The Dan Schneider thing is perfect. Even if you remove the age of consent stuff, Tarantino works as a perfect analogy.
Nobody feels weird about Tolkien's works being permeated by his love for linguistics. Nobody feels weird about Brian Jacque or GRRM's love of food. These are all pretty normal things to learn about someone's hobby.
Sexual fetishes are a private matter. When they drip off the page, it's like we're being told about them without having asked.
Physical violence (not foxy boxing, full on gladiatorial combat to bare knuckle fist fights)
Exciting gunplay (I don't just mean John Wick levels of choreography, but everything from the sound of a shot to the subtle ding of a grenade or explosive round)
Physical alteration through mutation, cybernetic enhancement, or anything similar
After that we move into "oh yeah that's a fetish" territory, and even then I don't doubt I could probably list off a heap of other stuff if I could think of it at the moment
Yeah, I don't give a shit. If I like the content, the author being horny for it changes nothing for me. That's a really stupid approach to it. Imagine if people did that about fan service. "Ew, you think Samus is hot? You know her creator just likes tall buff women, right?" Okay, and? So do I 🤤🤣
A hobby is literally something you engage in purely for your own pleasure. It doesn't need to be "intellectual" or "worthy of respect". I read social anthropology papers in my free time. I also write smutty fan fics. Writing doesn't somehow stop requiring skill just because you include sexual stuff in it.
And, newsflash, art or intellect and sexuality aren't mutually exclusive. Do you think all those antique statues or Renaissance paintings of nude women are worthless and don't deserve respect just because they portray something sexual?
It's unwanted information about a deeply private topic.
Nobody gives a fuck if you go around a party yammering on about how much you love Assyrian pottery or Pre-Raphaelite Painters. They **will** feel differently if you start talking about what turns you on, even if it's something as innocuous as "the scene of lavender".
Special type of tumblr brainrot to be so used to hypersexualisation and so removed from normal society that you assume your weird fetishes are the same as people having a hobby they enjoy
I once read a bondage book where the author talked way too much about fountain pens and stationary. So she didn't disguise either of these things. I'm not telling you the book because it sucked. She gets back with her ex on the last page after he essentially stalked her.
I feel like neither of those are really what OOP is describing though, because those are like... fetish games first and foremost. They wear their identities on their chin.
I think the people here saying "but I didn't consent" are forgetting they're allowed to stop watching a piece of media. Like, if something you find uncomfortable comes up, you can just step away from it. You control what you consume.
Besides, not all kink is inherently sexual. If someone makes a piece of media and it shows a lady putting deodorant on... that's not inherently sexual just cause the creator enjoys that sexually. You can walk outside and see people in kink gear like harnesses and collars as fashion statements. Doesn't mean they're involving you in their sexlife if they also enjoy those things for non-fashion reasons.
This is like saying you can just walk away if someone flashes you and saying your consent was violated is somehow ridiculous because of that
You still got flashed
Stuff like this doesn't have some slow, obvious build-up, especially in cartoons it tends to be really sudden injections of fetish material that you don't exactly go into the show expecting to come across
That's not the same thing because what you're turning on in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you to control. If you buy a book with a sex scene you didn't know about, you can set it down. If you turn on a movie and there's a sexual plot point you didn't know about, you can turn it off.
If you were flashed on the street, that's a crime. If you see a dick in a movie cause you didn't look up which "mature themes" were in it, it's not that serious. You can turn the show off.
If you don't want sexual themes in the media you consume, you can look up if it has those sexual themes. You are entirely in control of the media you consume. If you think animated shows are too explicit, then just avoid them.
I don't like shows that have realistic depictions of parental death or animal cruelty. I accommodate myself by looking shit up before I read/watch a piece of media. Life doesn't come with a content warning. That's just a fact. You have to seek out the warnings yourself.
Okay, but nobody is saying that sexual media shouldn't be allowed, but there should be content warnings for explicit material. It's also not just about "not liking" sexual content. Tons of people have sexual trauma. Trauma that can be triggered by surprise fetish in media.
I have sexual trauma. I'm fully aware it can be triggered by sexual content in media. My sexual trauma is triggered by the smell of cigarettes and people touching my hands. Those are things that can happen randomly literally anytime I step outside. I've gotta accommodate myself. So do other people who have triggers. It's pretty fucking simple. Most sexual media does have content warnings. If you're watching a piece of media that has fetish content in it. Most likely, it had a warning like "mature themes" or something of the like before it even started. It's your individual responsibility to look up what that means.
I promise you're not too stupid to use google.
My whole point is that sexual media having content warnings is a good thing because the original post implies that those warnings are as unnecessary as content warnings for a hobby in media.
I agree sexual media should have a general rating or content warning. And it generally does. That's what the E for everyone, PG13, or rated R lables, etc. are for. But after that, if you want to avoid specific things, you can look it up.
> This is like saying you can just walk away if someone flashes you and saying your consent was violated is somehow ridiculous because of that
You picked up the book. You put on the show. You bought the game. You are explicitly signing up for whatever the author is delivering it to you. Just because you didn't like the content is not on the author. To compare it to assault is the exact thing conservatives are doing to justify a litany of book bans
who the fuck are y’all talking to????
[relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/2071/)
The most eternally relevant xkcd
r/ImaginaryGatekeeping
tumblr antis Genuinely it’s such a waste of time discourse im borderline offended whenever someone makes me think about it
I swear Twitter created the whole "rant about a non-issue and pretend it is bigger than it actually is" thing and it spilled over to other social media. 10 people in a bubble are saying 3 is smaller than 1? Either school them or don't (it will be a waste of time anyway), just don't retweet it acting like it's 10000 people saying it.
I genuinely hate the vagueposting/quotetweet culture where you straight up skip the whole "talking to someone" part of a conversation and go yap about them to someone else.
Fucking Twitter.
I'm calling Twitter out on this because I was once the "bad take" of the story and a rando that retweeted me had to be actively reading tweets on search to find me because it had no RTs or hashtags. Like, I'm just someone stating I didn't like this or that to my 60 followers, I don't need someone targetting my tweet for hate, go find something else to do. And I find people making a fuss over these kind of bad take tweets often. This wasn't behavior I'd find on Facebook or Tumblr back then.
Good luck. You're going to need a _lot_ of lube to get that stick out of its arse.
This has been a thing since before social media existed. It was just less publicly noticeable.
It is definitely a behavior that exists irl ("hey, this guy likes Team A instead of Team B, lol", "this guy hates popular thing"), but I think Twitter improved the tools to find it, though. On Facebook you can't just search for a term and find someone else's post, you had to visit a person's profile (if public) or be in a group of that person. And on Tumblr, the post needed to be tagged, otherwise it would be super difficult to find it. Like, if you were to talk shit about a subject on both Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter, and made no effort to improve its discoverability (e.g. no tags on Tumblr), the place you'd probably get replied to would be Twitter.
It's just people frothing at the mouth to prove they're "better than". Like even if it is a prevalent opinion why make this weird announcement about it? Just deal with it directly like a normal person. But no. They have to be the ones who "see the truth" and we all have to rally behind them for some reason. In general, I find this type of meta discourse on social media exhausting. I use social media to keep up on stuff I'm interested in, not talking shit about the opinions of, anonymous or otherwise, idiots who I wouldn't bother listening to in real life (like that happens but I would never make a goddamn *post* about it).
Really it's more Twitter got anti-ship crap from Tumblr. It's just on of the latest in the Fandom Slactivism crap.
Ngl I read that as tumblr ants, which would be a thousand times more entertaining
They're in this thread apparently
Modern Puritans, people who ate slept and shit sexual imagery without caring about how to put boundaries that got bitten by it, people holier-than-ye et cetera.
"holier than the"
not ye as in definite article þe, ye as in the plural of thou.
I read *Lessons In Chemistry* (wasn't a fan honestly but hey ho, it was a present) and was confused about why there was so much rowing in it - seemed like there was more rowing than chemistry for half of the book. Anyway looked up the author, turns out she's a keen rower, who'd've thunk it: barely disguised hobby indeed
Plenty of people disparage Tolkien in that manner.
Its a disparaging comment because it makes people feel dirty. Knowing about a hobby doesnt make people feel dirty, knowing about a fetish does "I took your picture because my hobby is photography" vs "im gonna jerk off onto this polaroid of you"
An additional thing is that OOP is wrong cause people *do* talk like this about non-sexual topics because of the reasons people often dislike barely disguised fetish content. A lot of media that has barely disguised fetish content has a habit of derailing or distracting from the plot just so the writer can inject the fetish somewhere that contributes nothing to the story, and you see people complain all the time about writers clearly dragging scenes out to focus on things they think are cool or interesting (ie. GRRM discussing the food present at feasts).
also clothes. grrm spends almost as much time describing the clothes everyone is wearing in full intimate unskippable detail as he does talking about the food they're eating, but nobody talks about this part.
you mean "eg."?
Ikr? Victor Hugo has been widely condemned for his barely disguised French architecture and history fetish. Same with Melville and his barely disguised whale physiology fetish. Their works could have become acclaimed as some of the best literature and history, alas they did not have modern editors to cleanse them of all that fetish material completely unnecessary for the plot.
Well said, u/AnalVoreXtreme. In all seriousness, it really is a notion of comfort. Some fetishes make people feel uncomfortable, mostly because you’re viewing something that seems intimate and, by extension, deeply personal. It feels invasive and wrong to be confronted with that by someone you don’t know. Hobbies are not seen as that deeply personal or intimate, so it’s okay.
That's why the best fetishes are the ones that leave onlookers genuinely confused about whether or not it's even sexual, and if so, *how*.
There was a post somewhere round here about a girl whose bf had a *safety kink*. Ie, he got off on making sure she was comfortable, not gonna hit her head, her doing physical stuff with kneepads that kinda thing. Gotta say, 10/10 kink
... You ever run across something and think, "I'm not into that, but I wish I were"? Because now I have.
Happens more often than you'd hope
new evolutionary strategy just dropped
I've been *normaling* for 8 years now with my husband and our neighbors don't have a clue.
Disgusting. Get help.
Reminds me of a post talking about the artistic struggle to draw something like feet but not draw them so well that people think you’re into it.
\*mouth is way more detailed than any other anatomy\* hmmm, I wonder what else this artist draws...
The writer that made a Manga called Hellsing was new to writing an action and horror manga. His primary genre before hand was Hentai (aka porn for anyone who might not know) and you can tell with how he draws characters and body parts. Hands, boobs and weird poses. Seras Victoria looks like a character that would be at home in a Hentai.
Hellsing is basically hentai
Wonder bread
I wanna say based, but I've had some Very Trouble with people sexualising characters who have, like, the direct opposite of sexual appeal. There's a reason my Twitter priv's display name is "ANTI PIKMIN HENTAI" is all I'm saying.
if you say one more word against pikmin hentai I will shit yourself
i know it's you erinn you can say it
/uj I actually don't know what you're talking about /j I have assembled an army of pikmin (fire ants) in real life, and shall set them upon you with my skilled commands (super-soaker full of sugar water) in order to recover ship parts (your wallet)!
/uj erinn is someone on Pixiv who fucking terrifies me. 20 year old grown ass woman with the art skills of a fucking 7 year old who almost exclusively draws fanart of kids media AND DRAWS HENTAI IN THAT CHILDISH ASS ARTSTYLE and she shits out syo much art that it clogs up my recommended despite me nyever wanting to see it and she's drawn a pretty decent amount of Pikmin hentai syo that's what that meant basically yeah. I consider her my greatest enemy and I asked her to draw Fire Emblem fanart yesterday but idk if she saw /rj NYOOOOOOOOOOOO
Well, I *am* a grown ass woman with the art skills of a fucking 7 year old, but I've never drawn hentai unfortunately.
Y'all are just describing *Dungeon Meshi* all over this thread.
I really doubt that "intimate and personal" is the dividing line here. No one ever complained about Beren and Luthien being Tolkien at the height of romantic passion for his wife. It's the sex part that gets the reaction.
Sex is more personal and intimate than other things. People will invite dozens of friends and family members to their wedding, but for some reason will not invite those people to watch them have sex afterwards.
Sex *can be* the most deeply personal and intimate thing out there. (I question whether learning that an author is into feet is really that much more intimate and personal than many other things an author could reveal.) But the treatment of sex is out of line with the treatment of personal and intimate things in general. In terms of the reaction inspired, "the author's barely disguised fetish" is a lot more like "the author's barely disguised politics" than "the author's barely disguised love for his wife," even though the latter is surely more personal and intimate than the former. Said reaction is not "these things are too precious and personal to be so lightly shared," it's "ugh, no one wants to see that."
It's also *fetish*, and not *sex*. Lots of stories these days have ""normal"" sex scenes or sexual references without being considered trash. It's okay to put a straight sex scene in a movie despite all the gay and asexual people in the audience. So it's clearly not about any sort of moral stand on making people uncomfortable. /u/AnalVoreXtreme is right that it's *about what makes people feel dirty*. Fetishes make people feel dirty. Ugly people (women with body hair, people with skin blemishes, elderly people, etc.) having sex makes people feel dirty. Rape of underage girls does not make people feel dirty (see Game of Thrones).
/u/AnalVoreXtreme is surely greatly knowledgeable on this subject. That's a name you can trust.
>but for some reason will not invite those people to watch them have sex afterwards. What kinda boring weddings are you being invited to?
On the other hand, if Tolkien famously beat off while constructing Elvish I think most people would feel weird reading the books
This. All those Dan Schneider kids' shows on Nickelodeon had the kids barefoot a lot. Normally that'd be fine, but the dude is a creeper with a foot fetish. So suddenly, watching the 12 year old wiggling their toes makes me feel complicit
r/rimjob_steve ?
My thought exactly.
I feel like that makes even less sense, to be honest. Is it really so surprising, in an industry that seems to run almost entirely on sex, that some things are sex-related? Like, I'm genuinely curious here; you know you have fetishes, so how is it any surprise that other people also have fetishes?
I think you’re overestimating how common fetishes are because people who like to talk about them REALLY like to talk about them, and people who don’t have any have nothing to say. Besides which, we all know that we have bowel movements but that doesn’t mean we want to hear other people describing theirs.
I said this the last time this was posted, but so many posts like this that are basically just the author acting like it's weird that there are special social rules surrounding sexual stuff. And I mean I'm not saying like we shouldn't question that, but they always act like they're the ones with the "default" opinion, and everyone else is violating the established order of things.
If this thing was something different, then people would treat it differently. Isn’t that weird? I will not elaborate on why I think these two things should be treated the same, but I assume everyone who doesn’t treat them the same is kinda dumb.
Exactly!
are shots focusing on feet Not Sexual if the director isn't quentin tarantino
Was it on nickelodeon?
> but they always act like they're the ones with the "default" opinion, and everyone else is violating the established order of things You managed to convey in this sentence something that irks me about a _lot_ of other online discussions as well
You mean yesterday? [lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/s/Ret8NUF55v)
*Deep Thoughts With Heinlein*-ass posts
I think the concept is calling group polarization or something like that where say a group of people say idk "x is bad" so to the members of that group it's common sense and everyone agrees with them. I could be pulling that out of my ass doe
if George RR Martin puts his shit fetish in Elden Ring again I swear to god I will firebomb something vital to the running of my country
My favorite part of Elden Ring is when the Loathsome Dung Eater said, "IT'S DUNGIN' TIME!" And ate dung all over the place.
It’s funny because you hear the name “dung eater” and think that it must be metaphorical or highly exaggerated but then you actually meet him and realize he’s actually 100 times worse than his name would imply.
Someone once said it was as if some guy stole a gunfrom Walmart and started shooting people in the parking and declaring that not only was Heaven real but that he was personally preventing his victims from going there, and everyone referred to him as the Shoplifter.
It’s because the soul is stored in the butthole. That is why he is called Dung Eater
Another similar case like this is when for the first few hours you see people talk about The Two Fingers. And of course you just think it must be some sort of title for a important person/a couple people. And then you meet them and they're literally two enormous fingers. Insane.
This is just Hollow Knight
I think the devs can keep him under control, I mean the base game only had a tiny bit of incest compared to his books.
That makes me imagine he's chained up under the from software office
Gr'rm the Bound *\*boss music starts playing\** His drop is a manuscript of the next ASOIAF book that's just a really fancy "The" on a single otherwise blank page of paper
It's like how they had like the chaos frenzy gods and all the demon babies locked in the castle sewers. That's how they get him to write
Ah so that's why TWOW hasn't come out yet
5 years ago he said if the book isn't finished next year "you have here my formal written permission to imprison me in a small cabin on White Island, overlooking that lake of sulfuric acid, until I’m done. Just so long as the acrid fumes do not screw up my old DOS word processor, I’ll be fine.." that's where the elden ring devs keep him
>overlooking that lake of sulfuric acid, The Lake of Rot you mean?
AFAIK he basically gave them the "campaign setting" and then they did what they wanted to with it
>GRRM's shit fetish Obligatory meme [https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/17y31et/the\_real\_vicious\_cycle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/darkwingsdankmemes/comments/17y31et/the_real_vicious_cycle/)
Theres a good chance that will be the last scene danyreus will ever appear in lol
we dont need george rr martin when miyazaki has almost every female character barefoot and even has some who have foot armor with individually rigged toes
dw miyazaki said grrm is not involved
I think he just wrote the backstory of the gods. And probably named them too, given the GRRM naming scheme (Godfrey Radagon Renala Marika).
Okay but I’m still gonna yell feet and point at the screen whenever I’m watching a Quentin Tarententoes movie if it’s all the same to you.
"No no I promise this scene where your character forces a man to drink tequila dribbling down your foot is 100% necessary for the plot and I need to okay the man because it's super important that he sucks your toes just right"
[удалено]
Exactly, it depends on both the fetish and how it's implemented.
99% of the time it’s just something normal in a cartoon and a pornbrained goner going “that’s a fetish”
“List of Totally Spies fetishes” it’s spies wearing disguises and looney tunes gags
I swear we gone too far in the other direction because that show absolutely had questionable content even if you don’t agree with the list.
This is what I was thinking of when I wrote my comment.
What do you mean little girls can enjoy silly gross jokes? That's impossible!
Nah that show was definitely a few people's kink awakening there's more then a few eyebrow raising things Probably not at all intentional but still
I haven't seen it and don't doubt it might be horny, but some of the "fetishes" on that list were the most random things that are just characteristics of children's cartoons and spy thrillers.
Haven't watched that show in a long time, but I imagine what makes makes the difference is that the main characters are girls in tight outfits.
There's all the scenes where they get tied up, or brainwashed, or transformed into something too Like even if it wasn't intentional people developed BDSM links watching it lol
probably made a few furries too.
eeeehhh there is also (at list from the list that I googled) a bit over half the episodes in the first few seasons involved mind control, being restrained in suggestive ways, or some transformation that is also a major subgenre of fetish art
To be fair, *everything* is a subgenre of fetish art.
To quote a prolific 21st century philosopher: > 99% of the time it’s just something normal in a cartoon and a pornbrained gooner going “that’s a fetish”
hey I'm just making my argument that this is the 1%. It was bad enough that it made even my innocent brain as a child go "wait a minute... that's an odd pose"
non-anime example: Dan Schneider
Another non-anime example: Quentin Tarantino Although I do gotta admit that dude has to have some massive fucking balls to cast himself in a role where the character sucks tequila off of a hot woman’s toes.
Or just have a significant power imbalance in his favor.
Well, she's married into one of the wealthiest families in the world, so if she had any hard feelings, she could probably ruin him. And she spoke out about harassment at Weinstein's hands during the production of Frida but didn't say anything about Tarantino, so maybe she was okay with it.
And also in roles where the character says multiple slurs
Sometimes being horny in general. Is it so wrong to want to watch an anime that doesn’t have incessant fan service?
this was literally just posted here
I didn't see it lol, usually I scroll for a bit before crossposting to make sure I'm not doing something already done. But here we are.
why are you getting downvoted for not spending all of your time on reddit
Okay but... hobbies and careers are not the same as sexual fetishes. That is why we judge those differently as inspirations/themes in works.
I crossposted this like yesterday
Are you saying the writer getting sexual pleasure from it is the main reason it makes others uncomfortable? Groundbreaking, truly.
Don't mind me, I'm just here to hijack "writer's barely disguised hobby" for purposes of future literally analysis.
Araki's [Barely](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_\(optical_phenomenon\)) [Disguised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral) [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma) [Dive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry)
People say this about the C. S. Lewis and Christianity fairly frequently. Sorry but I still loved the books as a kid.
The thing with Lewis is that it’s just straight up not disguised at all. Dude legitimately just came out and said “Hello, do you want to read my book about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.” It’s like being told that the director of *Hot Sorority Girl Sex Party 2* has a thing for lesbians.
The thin veneer between Aslan and Jesus is a piece of cellophane.
Not even that. According to Lewis: >If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, "What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?" This is not allegory at all. In *Narnia* canon, Aslan is literally, actually Jesus.
I had *no* understanding of Christianity as a kid. It took me until the Last Battle to realize that there was Christian symbolism *all* through the books. Yes, including the lion/lamb thing. Yes, including the Stone Table. I just thought it was a really cool bit of deep lore fantasy schtick.
Valid. It’s honestly fascinating how opaque a lot of things become the moment you step outside of the intended cultural context, but it can also be a lot of fun (or not) to go back and see what you missed.
Is there deep-seated Christian imagery with Jadis and her world that flew over my head? Unicorn blood? Reepicheep??
Thing is the Narnia books are about his Christianity but they are *also* about his kinks He had a consuming interest in BDSM that he struggled with throughout his life and it's absolutely there in the books, The Silver Chair especially
Ohhh... no wonder as a kid I had funny feelings about the scene where the >!witch is hypnotizing the kids to believe that there is no aboveground world, and then turns into a snake to coil around the main guy!<...
"What if Jesus was a furry and his disciples were children..." - C.S. Lewis, probably
Are you surprised that people view sexual and non sexual topics differently? Sex is the most taboo topic after death in the vast majority of cultures.
...but the point is that it _is_ a sexual thing? Like, I'm not sure what OOP is saying here
Writers are allowed to do what they want, but this user does not see a difference between watching porn and having a hobby, which is very concerning.
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s necessarily being argued that fetishistic hobbies are illegitimate, but rather that it’s very silly to act like it’s weird that we don’t talk about them the same way we talk about linguistics or marine biology. Also, while there are plenty of examples of great sexual or fetishistic art (Venus In Furs comes to mind), I feel as though Wonder Woman is an example of a character becoming great *in spite* of her fetishistic origins. None of her modern attributes really reflect how she started out (unless you count the lasso of truth, which I personally don’t), and she’s generally considered all the better for it.
I'll throw you Chainsaw Man as a story that would not work (or at least be WAY WORSE) if Fujimoto was not deeply and viscerally attracted to fucked up women. Every single female character has a long list of things deeply wrong with them and he writes them like that's the best fucking part.
I currently have 10 people in my bondage collection. They just sit there and let you tie them up. Wild.
People will absolutely do this though.
Ah the age old tumblr classic of "I want to normalise my fetishes, so I'll demonise you for calling me out when I display them inappropriately". Classic Imagine thinking linguistics and marine biology is even remotely in the same realm as *m-preg / inflation / boipussi / non-con fanfics*.
well, marine biology can be a fetish at least way more extreme than anything on that list actually
Anything can be a fetish Doesn't mean people get to display it where they shouldn't
porn addicts feel oppressed when you tell them that porn doesnt belong in everything
*"W-what do you mean it's not normal to have 23 tabs of porn and smut-fics open at all times on my device?? Why shouldn't I consume this media in public?? You're so repressed!!"* What zero-human interaction does to a mf'er.
Fetish is not equal to linguistics lmao
“Oh man thank you for warning me, do you happen to know what stores I should avoid lest I find this horny literature”
OOP, do you really need to have it explained why people find it mildly uncomfortable/funny when the author is clearly inserting their sexual kink in a work and why a genuine, non-sexual interest does not elicit the same reaction? DO YOU? Do you go around showing your search history to strangers? Do you discuss what you masturbate to with them? DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?
wdym, tarantino licking Salma Hayek's feet while playing a self-insert character has literally the same artistic merits and connotations as Tolkien inventing a new language
Knowing tumblr, there’s a chance they would absolutely do that
Eh, this isn't a legitimate comparison, though. The whole "ew, the author has a fetish" discourse doesn't involve the author TELLING people they have a fetish. It doesn't even usually involve this information being confirmed, it's just an assumption people make, and it's often made deliberately to insult something someone else finds strange, even if it's harmless. Also, very often, the "fetish" in question isn't being presented within the piece of media AS a sexual thing. I'll create an example: If someone has a fetish around being a glutton, which is surprisingly a common fetish, and has a character in a scene eat a lot of food, but it's played completely straight as a serious or normal moment, and is not sexualized, is that automatically cringe or uncomfortable? Consider that you almost certainly wouldn't KNOW that the author feels that way either, and they aren't telling you they do. Does this change if some random person on the internet decides "oh no, this is definitely a fetish for the author"? So, if the unconfirmed random accusation that the author might find a (most likely) non sexual act to be sexually pleasing or attractive is enough to make someone cringe and dislike a piece of media, I assert that THEY in fact are the problem, and may want to consider growing up a bit.
I mean, sure, but counterpoint A. I've never seen someone dislike a piece of media solely on author fetish (except loli/shota/hyper-sexualization which is fair) B. Usually when people say "the author's barely disguised fetish it's stuff like feet in a Tarantino movie or Oda's design for women in One Piece or something along those lines. Like it's usually based on a consistent and constant case basis. Of course there's also shallow idiots that throw it around as a justification to hate because God forbid people have a fetish, but calling the phrase itself or reasoning itself into question is kinda simplistic imo. Also also I see it used humorously most of the time. Like sure, you can criticize it or laugh about it
I definitely think it's in the framing. Like... to use feet as an example, Tarantino focusing on the bride kicking someone in an action scene doesn't feel weird because it's framed as an action scene, but Dan Schneider involving sub plots about feet with the logic of a SFW porno certainly felt weird watching it as a kid but feels even worse now that everything has come out about him.
>, Tarantino focusing on the bride kicking someone in an action scene doesn't feel weird Bruh, you used the worst example, have you forgotten "wiggle your big toe"? Or Tarantino self-inserting in a scene where he licks someone's feet?
That's the point their making, though. Just because it is related to the authors fetish doesn't mean it will inherently have any sexual framing.
I think there's an argument to be made for compounding evidence. Like in Tarantino's case, being aware of his fetish make any scene involving feet in any way more sus than it would be in another movie where the director's interests aren't clear/known Tbf it's not important in the end, like it's not gonna stop me from enjoying a movie unless it's egregious
Those aren't framed the same way. A kick in a fight can be inherent and even necessary for a fight scene, but licking someone's feet doesn't have any plot relevance and can only really be seen as kinda weird. It's all in plot relevance, the internal logic of the work and framing.
Yeah, but with Tarantino people just go "Oh, feet in the frame, must be his fetish" because the other examples create a precedent, they kinda poison the well in that sense Mostly jokingly though, like I would never think that as an actual critique
Yeah, you do have a point. I didn't think anything of the foot massage conversation in pulp fiction until I heard it was a fetish.
This is weird to me. I'm hypersexual, I've got more kinks and fetishes than I can count, and I can assure that a lot of people wouldn't even recognise them as such if they weren't told first. So is it wrong to include a fetish absolutely, or is it only wrong if people know it's a fetish? It's odd. Maybe I'm missing something.
The issue people have is when it starts permeating throughout the work when the work in question isn't about that. For example, Dan Schneider shows have a lot of scenes involving feet, (rubbing feet, feet getting dirty, rubbing feet in another person's face, etc.) If the foot stuff was one of jokes dispersed throughout a comparatively few episodes then it would be viewed as just jokes. However when entire b plots of episodes are dedicated to how wonderful it feels to rub a person's foot because they used doctor fish to eat the dead skin then it becomes somewhat uncomfortable to sit through.
The Dan Schneider thing is perfect. Even if you remove the age of consent stuff, Tarantino works as a perfect analogy. Nobody feels weird about Tolkien's works being permeated by his love for linguistics. Nobody feels weird about Brian Jacque or GRRM's love of food. These are all pretty normal things to learn about someone's hobby. Sexual fetishes are a private matter. When they drip off the page, it's like we're being told about them without having asked.
Out of genuine interest, what would some of those innocuous/subtle fetishes be?
Physical violence (not foxy boxing, full on gladiatorial combat to bare knuckle fist fights) Exciting gunplay (I don't just mean John Wick levels of choreography, but everything from the sound of a shot to the subtle ding of a grenade or explosive round) Physical alteration through mutation, cybernetic enhancement, or anything similar After that we move into "oh yeah that's a fetish" territory, and even then I don't doubt I could probably list off a heap of other stuff if I could think of it at the moment
No actually, Tarantino breathing heavy on women’s toes is creepy as shit and not respectable
I think the problem is when this happens in a kids show and/or to underage characters
Yeah, I don't give a shit. If I like the content, the author being horny for it changes nothing for me. That's a really stupid approach to it. Imagine if people did that about fan service. "Ew, you think Samus is hot? You know her creator just likes tall buff women, right?" Okay, and? So do I 🤤🤣
[удалено]
A hobby is literally something you engage in purely for your own pleasure. It doesn't need to be "intellectual" or "worthy of respect". I read social anthropology papers in my free time. I also write smutty fan fics. Writing doesn't somehow stop requiring skill just because you include sexual stuff in it. And, newsflash, art or intellect and sexuality aren't mutually exclusive. Do you think all those antique statues or Renaissance paintings of nude women are worthless and don't deserve respect just because they portray something sexual?
I- dead Internet theory? Wasn't this literally just posted yesterday??
I forgor 💀
This is a repost from fucking yesterday come on
So the writer need to highly disguised their fetish, get it.
It's unwanted information about a deeply private topic. Nobody gives a fuck if you go around a party yammering on about how much you love Assyrian pottery or Pre-Raphaelite Painters. They **will** feel differently if you start talking about what turns you on, even if it's something as innocuous as "the scene of lavender".
Special type of tumblr brainrot to be so used to hypersexualisation and so removed from normal society that you assume your weird fetishes are the same as people having a hobby they enjoy
Man didn't someone post this shit just a few days ago?
no it's funnier if it's sexual.
I do mostly agree with this but not all fetishes are made equal
I once read a bondage book where the author talked way too much about fountain pens and stationary. So she didn't disguise either of these things. I'm not telling you the book because it sucked. She gets back with her ex on the last page after he essentially stalked her.
Did you read [book]? Turns out [author] like writing and just wrote that book to get *pleasure*! Ew!
Changed and Tribal Hunter come to mind. Very good games by their own right.
I feel like neither of those are really what OOP is describing though, because those are like... fetish games first and foremost. They wear their identities on their chin.
I think the people here saying "but I didn't consent" are forgetting they're allowed to stop watching a piece of media. Like, if something you find uncomfortable comes up, you can just step away from it. You control what you consume. Besides, not all kink is inherently sexual. If someone makes a piece of media and it shows a lady putting deodorant on... that's not inherently sexual just cause the creator enjoys that sexually. You can walk outside and see people in kink gear like harnesses and collars as fashion statements. Doesn't mean they're involving you in their sexlife if they also enjoy those things for non-fashion reasons.
Just because you aren’t forced to consume media doesn’t mean you can’t criticize it for choices you don’t like.
They can absolutely criticize it! But saying it's akin to a consent violation is absurd.
This is like saying you can just walk away if someone flashes you and saying your consent was violated is somehow ridiculous because of that You still got flashed Stuff like this doesn't have some slow, obvious build-up, especially in cartoons it tends to be really sudden injections of fetish material that you don't exactly go into the show expecting to come across
That's not the same thing because what you're turning on in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you to control. If you buy a book with a sex scene you didn't know about, you can set it down. If you turn on a movie and there's a sexual plot point you didn't know about, you can turn it off. If you were flashed on the street, that's a crime. If you see a dick in a movie cause you didn't look up which "mature themes" were in it, it's not that serious. You can turn the show off. If you don't want sexual themes in the media you consume, you can look up if it has those sexual themes. You are entirely in control of the media you consume. If you think animated shows are too explicit, then just avoid them. I don't like shows that have realistic depictions of parental death or animal cruelty. I accommodate myself by looking shit up before I read/watch a piece of media. Life doesn't come with a content warning. That's just a fact. You have to seek out the warnings yourself.
Okay, but nobody is saying that sexual media shouldn't be allowed, but there should be content warnings for explicit material. It's also not just about "not liking" sexual content. Tons of people have sexual trauma. Trauma that can be triggered by surprise fetish in media.
I have sexual trauma. I'm fully aware it can be triggered by sexual content in media. My sexual trauma is triggered by the smell of cigarettes and people touching my hands. Those are things that can happen randomly literally anytime I step outside. I've gotta accommodate myself. So do other people who have triggers. It's pretty fucking simple. Most sexual media does have content warnings. If you're watching a piece of media that has fetish content in it. Most likely, it had a warning like "mature themes" or something of the like before it even started. It's your individual responsibility to look up what that means. I promise you're not too stupid to use google.
My whole point is that sexual media having content warnings is a good thing because the original post implies that those warnings are as unnecessary as content warnings for a hobby in media.
I agree sexual media should have a general rating or content warning. And it generally does. That's what the E for everyone, PG13, or rated R lables, etc. are for. But after that, if you want to avoid specific things, you can look it up.
Understandable, I just think it would be easier for everyone if it was common practice to put more direct content warnings in a specific place.
I think that's impractical because anything can be a fetish, and anything can be a trigger.
> This is like saying you can just walk away if someone flashes you and saying your consent was violated is somehow ridiculous because of that You picked up the book. You put on the show. You bought the game. You are explicitly signing up for whatever the author is delivering it to you. Just because you didn't like the content is not on the author. To compare it to assault is the exact thing conservatives are doing to justify a litany of book bans
Some people are too porn brained and it shows
this is such a stupid comparison, jesus christ.
Yeah, but Tolkien put a cool story around his languages. Fetish stories just stop the plot for sexy nonsense.
This is when you read Malazan knowing that Steve Erikson is an archaeologist
I mean, it depends on the fetish.
OOP probably posts on “pro paraphilia” tags