![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via https://ift.tt/2Njxp5F
freedom-of-fanfic:
freedom-of-fanfic:
[tw for discussions of pedophilia, csa, cp, abuse, and rape.]
after spending a while picking at the question of why people who subscribe to purity culture are so much more concerned with wiping out fictional content of questionable morality & policing what people think about rather than smoking out actual abusers and helping support the recovery of their victims, I had a small (though possibly obvious to others!) epiphany.
this helps me understand why fandom anti-shippers are so unrepentant about trampling all over survivors who don’t recover in socially acceptable ways or minors who dissent with anti-shippers, despite fandom anti-shipping usually being set up as ‘protecting children’. Survivors are only cautionary tales, and if you misstep, you basically opened the door on abuse yourself. (and all the while encouraging minors to interact with (or exposing minors to) the very people/content they’re supposedly protecting them from.)
[TW: cp discussion.]
someone replied:
I can’t believe you’re using this argument to defend sim cp
i’m going to take the opportunity presented by this reply to nip this in the bud.
what I wrote was (with emphasis added):
the problem with cp is less the fact that a minor is being sexually exploited & more that it’s an image of innocence being violated / fetishizes innocence. (this is why cp-like artwork is ‘just as bad’ as rl cp.)
So here’s the deal.
‘sim cp’ (which, let’s be real, is drawn, cartoon cp-like images, not actually simulated cp), if defined as ‘unrealistic artwork of prepubescent-looking cartoon characters drawn in explicit sexual situations & designed to titillate’* - is something I have serious reservations about. Mostly because childlike cartoon characters drawn in explicit or implied sexual situations are images of fetishized innocence. I don’t think they’re the reason innocence is fetishized**, but I think they’re a product of cultural fetishization of (violation of) innocence. they make that fetish explicit & are created to be titillating, and thus is not value-neutral artwork.
however: creating real cp involves harming a real person. actual simulated cp - which requires that the simulated image be indistinguishable from a real, identifiable child - also involves harming a real person. and though I personally find drawn cp disgusting, drawn cp will never be ‘just as bad’ as real cp because no real, actual people are harmed to create that drawing. the drawing also doesn’t have feelings or consciousness to be repeatedly wounded by ongoing distribution thereafter, unlike a real victim of real CP creation.
let me put it this way (going under a cut b/c it’s a little more explicit about cp):
Keep reading
(Your picture was not posted)
freedom-of-fanfic:
freedom-of-fanfic:
[tw for discussions of pedophilia, csa, cp, abuse, and rape.]
after spending a while picking at the question of why people who subscribe to purity culture are so much more concerned with wiping out fictional content of questionable morality & policing what people think about rather than smoking out actual abusers and helping support the recovery of their victims, I had a small (though possibly obvious to others!) epiphany.
this helps me understand why fandom anti-shippers are so unrepentant about trampling all over survivors who don’t recover in socially acceptable ways or minors who dissent with anti-shippers, despite fandom anti-shipping usually being set up as ‘protecting children’. Survivors are only cautionary tales, and if you misstep, you basically opened the door on abuse yourself. (and all the while encouraging minors to interact with (or exposing minors to) the very people/content they’re supposedly protecting them from.)
[TW: cp discussion.]
someone replied:
I can’t believe you’re using this argument to defend sim cp
i’m going to take the opportunity presented by this reply to nip this in the bud.
what I wrote was (with emphasis added):
the problem with cp is less the fact that a minor is being sexually exploited & more that it’s an image of innocence being violated / fetishizes innocence. (this is why cp-like artwork is ‘just as bad’ as rl cp.)
So here’s the deal.
‘sim cp’ (which, let’s be real, is drawn, cartoon cp-like images, not actually simulated cp), if defined as ‘unrealistic artwork of prepubescent-looking cartoon characters drawn in explicit sexual situations & designed to titillate’* - is something I have serious reservations about. Mostly because childlike cartoon characters drawn in explicit or implied sexual situations are images of fetishized innocence. I don’t think they’re the reason innocence is fetishized**, but I think they’re a product of cultural fetishization of (violation of) innocence. they make that fetish explicit & are created to be titillating, and thus is not value-neutral artwork.
however: creating real cp involves harming a real person. actual simulated cp - which requires that the simulated image be indistinguishable from a real, identifiable child - also involves harming a real person. and though I personally find drawn cp disgusting, drawn cp will never be ‘just as bad’ as real cp because no real, actual people are harmed to create that drawing. the drawing also doesn’t have feelings or consciousness to be repeatedly wounded by ongoing distribution thereafter, unlike a real victim of real CP creation.
let me put it this way (going under a cut b/c it’s a little more explicit about cp):
Keep reading
(Your picture was not posted)
