Pro para community is concerning
Ive stalked around this space on twitter for a while and I actually don’t like it much. Why you may ask?
1. Zeta. I don’t like zeta. I hate it. And as far as I know, it is a movement that is inherently pro-bestiality and seeks to legalise it. Yuck. Horrific. I see a lot of ‘anti-c’ zoos use their movement flag which is odd because why would you use and support using a flag for a movement that is openly abusive? It genuinely makes no sense to me. This isn’t some kind of silly lgbt flag discourse, this is in relation to real abusers. You really have to tread carefully around para spaces because you are much much closer to potentially being in contact with real abusers here. Treating para spaces like a fandom. This one is creepy. There’s a lot of teens in para spaces. And a lot of interaction between them and adults in these spaces. There was a large community and discord server that got deleted recently where kids and adults discussed paraphilias together. Ummm that’s not right. At all.
3. Contact stances. Ok this mind boggles me. I’m all for paras that are strictly anti-contact yet there are so so many people in the para community that say ‘well actually it’s more complicated than that!’ Or ‘please don’t involve me in contact stance discourse it is pointless!’
For example: no. Using real animals, sfw photo or not is still very close to pro-c sentiment. You wouldn’t jerk it to an innocent photo of a kid would you? I think jerking off to anyone who didn’t consent is weird. Like taking pics of strangers on the street just to beat to it later. It’s almost the same as voyeurism. Pro-c zoos constantly post and share around photos of animal genitals just because it's 'legal'. It's fetishist at its roots. Some say 'there's literally no harm done; the animal isn't smart enough to understand it's being jerked off to' ok well neither do kids.
Something that annoys me so much is people making up terms like ‘contact void or ‘contact complex’. The people that made these terms claim that the term is for people who are ‘tired of contact stance discourse’
Contact void for example: you're reading this you're probably just as 'WTF??' as I am. This is not a fandom. This is not a 'proship vs antiship' debate chamber. We are talking about pro-child and animal abuse vs anti-child and animal abuse here. Do people not realise how serious these topics are? I see people that have these kind of 'ambiguous' contact stances complain about anti-c paras being 'too pretentious' and 'hostile' towards them.
"You are against the harassment and discrimination of other folks based on contact label (not actual proof of abuse/harmful behaviours)"
What the fuck did I just read? Someone can be pro-c and non-practicing at the same time. Obviously?? The issue is they SUPPORT abuse. They will sit back and tell you to your face that they see nothing wrong with SA of minors, animals, and any other being that can't consent to sex. What are you smoking??
You know why they get harassed? Because it's a matter of abuse. Yet they treat this no differently than silly shipping drama. Anti-c paras are absolutely justified in being hostile to anyone who aligns with these stances, like any normal person would. There is nothing 'nuanced' about being against abuse. There shouldn't even be discourse about it in the first place. The only people complaining about anti-cs being hostile are pro-cs. There is no amount of so called 'research' or 'philosophy' that can justify that sort of stuff; anyone who aligns with void or complex contact is inherently pro contact. Kids and animals can't consent. Moving on.
Another thing that is annoying to hear is how paras (with those neutral contact stances) go through all this mental gymnastics just because they insist that they need sex or they will die. All of their 'well umm actually animal x human sex can be consensual!!' talk is made up because they desperately want to act on their urges. Trust me you won't fucking die from not having sex. Anyone who is neu-c is just as bad as a pro-c individual.