The way people equate lolicons to real child abusers and yet champion furries as a liberating kink is something that really bugs me lately.
And as a leftist, it also bothers me that leftists and alleged lefties like Vaush, smart people with good takes and comprehension of society, feel the need to lie and hide their fetish when it gets accidentally exposed.
I know CP is a poison and being called pedophile is a plague that just terminates all thought and why the person would want to avoid that, but in his position, he really should have taken a stand for his personal fetish; could have been a watershed moment.
You mean people who think and hate anime and making comparison to IRL stuff (loli like you said) but is actually a closet pedophile.
The way people equate lolicons to real child abusers and yet champion furries as a liberating kink is something that really bugs me lately.
So, I agree with the frustration at equating enjoyers of fictional content to real life criminals, it's highly detrimental to the discussion and prevention of child abuse. But what do furries have to do with this? Furry as a kink is no less harmless than loli/shota.
And as a leftist, it also bothers me that leftists and alleged lefties like Vaush, smart people with good takes and comprehension of society, feel the need to lie and hide their fetish when it gets accidentally exposed.
I know CP is a poison and being called pedophile is a plague that just terminates all thought and why the person would want to avoid that, but in his position, he really should have taken a stand for his personal fetish; could have been a watershed moment.
The problem is that Vaush has demonized loli content for years (while defending real life CP, bizarrely enough). He was well known for having really stupid takes about some popular anime, claiming them to cater to lolicons, no matter how little sense that claim actually made, and criticizing them for this.
The accidental reveal of his loli porn folder revealed him as a hypocrite. Owning the fetish would not have helped his position at all, though he would have at least looked less like an idiot.
So, I agree with the frustration at equating enjoyers of fictional content to real life criminals, it's highly detrimental to the discussion and prevention of child abuse. But what do furries have to do with this? Furry as a kink is no less harmless than loli/shota.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
Sadly, and as they say, misery sells. The information of a few degenerates doing sick things is more interesting than the hundreds (Maybe thousands) of functional people with those aforementioned kinks living a normal life and being normal human beings. And sometimes, being even better persons than whose name themselves as the guardians of moral and justice. You know what I'm talking about.
Of course, it doesn't help the people's obsession to polarize topics. Everything must be black and white, everything must be 100% negative, or 100% positive, there's no other way it seems. In the attempt of simplifying things they get ironically more complicated, because trying to be objective about a topic implies leaving your preconception and biases about the matter behind, and let's be honest: Not everyone is willing to do that.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
That's really not how their comment reads to me. It reads like they're saying that furry content should be criticized, and it's hypocritical that they criticize loli/shota but glorify furry.
But that point doesn't make any sense if both kinks are harmless. If furry is harmless, then why use it as an example of hypocrisy? It's not a double standard if there's nothing wrong with the kink.
That's really not how their comment reads to me. It reads like they're saying that furry content should be criticized, and it's hypocritical that they criticize loli/shota but glorify furry.
But that point doesn't make any sense if both kinks are harmless. If furry is harmless, then why use it as an example of hypocrisy? It's not a double standard if there's nothing wrong with the kink.
Maybe it was about the fact neither kids nor animals can give consent in real life? They may be conflating furries with zoophiles.
Clorinde looks good with hair down and considering I preferred tied hair and such is surprising that think that. It’s just a shame there isn’t full image of this version of clorinde, unlike the one without a towel