Little Pisster
@omo-imouto.pub.moe
Weird pervert. My boobs are flat and my illness is mental. Disabled. Aging past 12 was my biggest mistake (I'm an adult). Surprisingly not a fetish account. My handle is my website (it's unfinished) Ethically opposed to DNIs (they don't work anyway)
A lot of the time I see people talking about how being queer "isn't a choice", I end up reflecting on how I feel about it myself. As far as I'm concerned, being queer was a choice, as much as it could be. To me, it's more about buying into or opting out of the way society frames it all.
Viewing my posts is like finding the last freeze-dried strawberry in the bottom of the white mom cereal box.
I probably don't need to say it explicitly, but there's no harm in doing so, IMO: If you're under 18 and you feel like reading my posts, go ahead. Firstly, I can't stop you anyway, and secondly, I think you have good taste. Feel free to ask questions, too. I know a useful thing or two.
I almost exclusively see queer people doing the whole "minors DNI" thing, and one has to ask if we really want to shove away all the youth from queer community.
People will insist that lolicon is used to groom children, but this is not some sort of unique property of lolicon media. An opportunist will use whatever works, be that lolicon, Eddsworld porn, TADC fanfics, some random twitter microfics, or whatever else draws their target in.
If anything it obfuscates this point that pretty much any innocuous media can be used as a tool to lure in lonely and vulnerable individuals, and leaves people more likely to overlook instances of social manipulation and abuse because they don't meet a caricaturesque picture of abuse.
Banning lolicon would not solve child abuse. It would not significantly reduce rates of child abuse. We've got evidence of that, already. The only thing you're doing is killing a scapegoat and taking out people's harmless artistic interests at the same time.
Considering leaving the public internet again. I'm just not getting much out of it, and spending time around people I'm only vaguely acquainted with is incredibly alienating. I felt less lonely when I spent 5 years doing nothing but playing singleplayer games and talking to a maximum of two people.
I don't understand why people hate the concept of clearsky so much, but fortunately that thinking doesn't seem to apply to PDSls, probably because all of those people don't know how to navigate it.
They're trying to kill us and are proceeding quite apace at doing so.
US Medicaid requirements are changing on a federal level to require 80 hours of work or other eligible activity (community service, self-employment, education, substance abuse recovery programs) each month. There is a disability exemption, but it is narrow and difficult to qualify for.
Send questions and I will answer them Eventually™. revospring.net/@omo_imouto
omo_imouto
revospring.net
I think if you get hung up on the idea that a certain category of people can't consent because they are the category you have deemed can't consent, without asking *why* they can't consent, you're missing out on an important analysis of the structures and systems of agency and autonomy.
This is kind of the legalist equivalent of a "because I said so" argument, and it irks me to no end. We could be having an insightful discussion about what conditions we can materially affect to empower people, give them agency, safety, and autonomy, but instead we're just forgoing that.
How we can keep people safe and provide them with the means to do things they want without being subject to preventable harm should not be a conversation we refuse to have in favor of restricting their agency so that they, legally, can't do anything.
This applies to a lot more than sex, of course, despite people seeming to almost exclusively associate the concept of consent with sex (frankly a concerning implication there); access to medical care, freedom of movement, bodily autonomy, personal expression, and so on and so forth.
When we simply accept the idea that inherently, youths cannot consent, and then decide additionally to offload the capacity to consent to their legal guardians, we set them up for an incredibly unbalanced power dynamic where one or two people can make sweeping decisions about their lives and bodies.
This ranges from anything so mundane as them being unable to get ear piercings if they want, all the way to being denied access to rape kits after incidents of sexual abuse, because their parents (who may be the culprits!) don't consent to them accessing that medical care.
Some people take the approach of trying to deal with accusations of pedophilia by meticulously and painstakingly cultivating an air of respectability, distancing themselves from anything "weird" or "problematic", and pushing away everyone under the age of 18 (and even older, sometimes).
"…the crime of pedophilia" I see we're back on thought crime bullshit again.
@xan.lol when is witchsky going to get a corner mascot in desktop layout?
Whenever I see people show off their very obviously cub SFW fursona and the ref sheet has them in their 30's, it's like… come on, don't pull your punches, let your fictional self be 5 years old, they don't have to do diegetic ageplay. They can just be a kid.
