Questionable Inquiry

A place to make good faith questions and discussion, not here to harass anyone

[interro-bangin]

You can call me interrobang or any shortened version of it

He/him

22

Not going to reblog 18+ images but 18+ content may be discussed bc of the inherent nature of discourse, so proceed at your own risk

No DNI, I'll block if you come just to insult / argue to be a dick

Profic / proship / etc. is how I lean, so if that bothers you there is your warning

Anyone is welcome to ask questions / reblog for discussion / so on and so forth

Despite being inspired by ship discourse this blog is meant to include most topics, so feel free to interact in regards to things that ARENT abt shipping / fiction

Common tags: #Reality vs fiction - conversations pertaining to the affects these two have on each other

#Violent vs sexual - usually conversations in regard to how online spaces treat the two differently

#continued convos - reblogs where i continue discussions on previous posts

#Lgbt discourse, shipping discourse / shipcourse, [xyz]phobia, etc. - Filter / reach tags on specific topics

[humphul-deactivated20241215]

"READ MY DNI" no. use your block button like an adult. i'm not scrolling through the many-paragraphs-long pinned posts of every blog i reblog something from. if you insist certain types of people aren't welcome in the notes of your posts then it's your responsibility to curate that. or choose a closed social media platform like facebook or instagram. or go and live in a barn away from humanity if you really don't like sharing the world with people who are different from you

[voyageviolet]

I think that DNIs are a really clear example of the backwards understanding of boundaries that a lot of people have. Some people think it works like: "My boundary is that YOU can't do this thing I don't like"

When really it's more like: "My boundary is that if you do this thing that I've told you I don't like then I will remove myself from the situation"

The former does not work. The latter is more effective, it takes responsibility for yourself, and also it puts the power over your wellbeing into your hands and not in the hands of strangers who may or may not be malicious.

[interro-bangin]

I get that people want to help and report content that they view as dangerous, especially content that includes underage, but i feel like overall people are VERY quick to jump the gun on whats actually considered CSEM.

I do not use the term CP, it is not the correct way to reference such material, so i will exclusively use CSEM / CSAM, just for reference throughout the rest of this post. I would also like to specify that i am American, and my understanding of the law purely applies to the USA, so your laws may vary! Make sure to do appropriate research for whatever country you may be in, but also keep in mind your laws will not apply to everyone you meet online.

As unsettling as the concept of fictional underage can be to some, and i do not judge you for your discomfort for such depictions, choosing to report it is a waste of resources that could be put to use helping real life children. I am not saying this to insult you or put you down, but if you are using government report forms for depictions of things such as lolisho or drawings of bnha characters, you are misusing these forms, as the government does not care about these depictions. This has nothing to do with morality, or what i think is okay vs what you think is okay, this is purely based in what the law declares CSEM.

Pulled directly from Justice.gov:

Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

What does this mean, exactly? How does it separate fictional minors from real ones? The use of "Indistinguishable" is one of the important phrasing details. Yes, a drawing can count as CSEM, but the depiction must be nearly to entirely photo-realistic. When using the phrasing indistinguishable from an actual minor, they are not referring to 'you can tell the drawing is supposed to be of a child', they are saying that the image needs to look like a real life photo of a child even though it was created by a person or a machine. If you can tell that it was hand drawn, it does not fall under the CSEM umbrella.

"Appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor" is the other important phrase here. More or less, this just references that you need to be able to point at a real life person who exists and go "yeah this is the kid in the image", even if said photo is edited to some degree or was drawn by hand. This is what separates things like lolisho from someone who is actively drawing real minors that they know in sexual situations.

These distinctions, while seeming small or like i'm purposefully cherry-picking meanings and phrasing, are very significant when it comes to the law. Law is picky, whether we like it or not, and phrasing can and will be nitpicked to the very last little detail. That's why it can be so important to make sure we fully understand what laws we're looking at and interacting with when we do things like make these reports or sling around serious accusations. Regardless of your stance on the matter, you must be educated if you're going to involve the legal system in your arguments.

[amygdalae]

i think “video games aren’t really the violent child-corrupting threat some parents worry they are” and “certain circles of gamer culture are incredibly toxic and can lead people down dangerous/hateful ideological rabbit holes” are ideas that can absolutely coexist

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Artificial violence is not actually a corrupting influence but hanging out with assholes sure is.

[roach-works]

the real corruption was the friends we made along the way

[interro-bangin]

Every year as pride approaches we must prepare for the kink at pride discourse, stay strong brothers we will weather the storm /lh

[interro-bangin]

Me when people are having actual constructive discussions in the notes on a post

[interro-bangin]

I think my most controversial xenogender / neopronoun take is that you absolutely have every right to use neopronouns and emoji pronouns and any manner of things like that but you also need to be understanding of people who might not understand it even after an explanation or might default to they / them.

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic. Especially when you get into the more confusing ones that involve nouns or emojis, like pup / pupself. People who aren't familiar with neos, people who struggle with English to begin with, people who might not have English as their first language, etc.

You can explain it if you desire, but they may or may not understand even after that, and I think people need to learn to distinguish malicious intent from genuine confusion, wariness of doing it wrong / being offensive, or even just plain neutrality.

[brettdoesdiscourse]

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic.

Hey, OP. What?

I agree that there's a major difference between misgendering someone by accident and doing it intentionally, but there's no "willing to meet you halfway." Either you're correctly gendering someone or you're misgendering them. There's no meeting somebody halfway and trans people are completely allowed to be upset that they're being repeatedly misgendered.

[interro-bangin]

I'm not really saying they can't be upset, but I feel like too many people are willing to put "active transphobia" and "they're trying, even if they aren't quite hitting what they should be" on the same level. It's wildly more fucked up, in my eyes, if they're actively using gendered pronouns, but they / them is more neutral ground to me and shows that while they may be struggling with the concept at least they're putting effort in?

This is especially a problem in folks who already struggle with English to begin with, and I do feel like seeing it as "it's either this or that" with no in between overlooks a LOT of grey areas. English might not be their first language, they may have a learning deficiency, etc. At least they/them is wildly used and a relatively safe territory

[brettdoesdiscourse]

I understand the difference between active transphobia and accidentally misgendering, but a lot of the finer details here are incorrect.

At least they/them is wildly used and a relatively safe territory

Not when you know someone's pronouns and know they are not they/them. Using they/them for a person who does not use those pronouns is still misgendering.

[curiousitycollective]

I feel like this is one of those issues where conflicting access needs come into play.

Its true that using they/them for someone whose pronouns you know is misgendering; its also true that someone with memory or language troubles*, whether due to disability or learning a new language may genuinely not be able to consistently use a new set of pronouns right away.

Someone isn't necessarily transphobic for struggling with a disability or second language, and no one is obligated to be around if its upsetting to them nor are they ableist or xenophobic for peacing out

*We are actually in that group sometimes. We legitimate memory and language issues due to schizophrenia and autism that causes us to have trouble remembering and processing names/pronouns and faces.

We're open with people about this and let them know they can correct us if they're comfortable and we do try but our memory is a seive and we have legitimately forgotten our own name so if it's really upsetting we understand if they don't want to be around us

[optimisticgalaxynightmare]

I'd like to point out that it used to be pretty common practice for folks who use neopronouns to offer "auxillary pronouns" – pronouns that those who struggle with (the) language a lot can use. But from what I've seen, so many people (who openly and clearly did not have any issues with language – we're not talking about those with invisible disabilities, just regular transphobes) just used those auxiliary pronouns as an excuse to misgender the person that it fell out of common practice, leaving a bitter feeling among many neopronouns users that has led to strong boundary enforcement; "either use my actual pronouns or show yourself as one of the many transphobes who want to erase me".

However, this practice of auxillary pronouns does not mean that using they/them for everyone who uses exclusively neos has no problems. We have auxiliary pronouns for those who need them, and those pronouns are he/him. Defaulting to they/them just because you have language issues is still misgendering because you can ask what the person would prefer in the event that you cannot use their neopronouns, and it reflects common transphobia that neopronoun users have to deal with, which is people refusing to use their actual pronouns just out of bigotry and misgendering them with "they/them" all the time. While I do think serious language issues can and should be accommodated, that doesn't mean just using they/them in place of all neopronouns is a neutral act. You should always ask first and continue to make an effort where you can. I'm going to be much more annoyed by the person who is indistinguishable from a regular transphobe than the person who I know is doing their best to be polite.

I consider memory issues an entirely different ballpark, so I won't go into that

[interro-bangin]

I've mostly been using they them as an example for folks who exclusively use neos with no 'common' alternatives, but I absolutely agree! If you're aware that they use he or she as well, then that should be your default and not they, THAT is active misgendering in those cases.

I do understand the frustration with neos being exclusively ignored, I think my biggest gripe is simply with people who will assume the worst when someone defaults to more familiar territories. "I do not understand neos, I'll default to they/them [or she/he]" tends to get convoluted with "I am a transphobe and I don't respect you"

But I do think you make very good points, I absolutely agree that assumptions SHOULDNT be made if it can be helped. Some people simply aren't GIVEN those options, and at that point they're just trying to accommodate in the only way they feel is least insulting

[interro-bangin]

I think my most controversial xenogender / neopronoun take is that you absolutely have every right to use neopronouns and emoji pronouns and any manner of things like that but you also need to be understanding of people who might not understand it even after an explanation or might default to they / them.

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic. Especially when you get into the more confusing ones that involve nouns or emojis, like pup / pupself. People who aren't familiar with neos, people who struggle with English to begin with, people who might not have English as their first language, etc.

You can explain it if you desire, but they may or may not understand even after that, and I think people need to learn to distinguish malicious intent from genuine confusion, wariness of doing it wrong / being offensive, or even just plain neutrality.

[human-rodent-king]

hey so thats like. a very weird thing to say and also how people used to act about they/them.

"well its just confusing, you gotta understand that people don't get it! they're not malicious or anything they're just confused"

[interro-bangin]

I just feel like there's a wild difference between hiding behind ignorance [ex. "I'm not going to use the / them that's not how grammar works!"] And genuinely not being able to wrap your head around it, especially bc there's a LOT of neos and some are similar but Not Quite The Same

Like I said, there is a difference between being malicious and at least trying to accommodate, at least to me, though I'm aware I'm a very "idgaf" person and most things don't exactly bother me unless they're done for the sake of being an asshole. I'm not saying that it can't be frustrating, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily an attack and also if you're going to use more obscure pronouns you really should be prepared for some people to not be able to for various reasons or to default to at least a universally neutral one. If they default to he or she and you don't use those I think that's a bigger problem more related to Actually Being Transphobic, but i think too many people jump the gun on assuming someone is actually just as much of an asshole even if they're trying but not quite hitting the mark in the way that's desired.

They/them IS also wildly common and it's very stupid for transphobes to claim it isnt, but things like vae/vaer, kit/kitself, etc. ARE far less common, I don't feel like they're quite comparable, especially when brought into contexts like "this person has trouble with English to being with" for whatever reason

[human-rodent-king]

Why do you believe there's a difference between defaulting to she or he, and defaulting to they/them? If someone uses none of them then using those on them is misgendering either way.

I think it's fair to not understand at first, but when you don't understand something, you ASK. If I meet someone who uses neopronouns that I don't understand, I ask how to use them. I don't default to something they don't use.

Also, you bring up the example of someone who's first language isn't English as a "valid" reason not to use someone's pronouns – my first language is Norwegian. I've only been speaking English for about eight years. I understand neopronouns just fine. It's less about not understanding the language, and more about not being willing to even try.

[interro-bangin]

They / them is universally accepted as a neutral, ungendered pronoun, that is the difference I see between it and she / he.

I'm genuinely glad you've come to understand neopronouns! Though eight years is a long time to practice and get comfortable with English, some folks are newer and might default out of a sense of "I don't feel comfortable in my skills yet", and are genuinely trying to learn neos.

Some people, even after YEARS, are never fully comfortable with their English, especially if they've had difficulties being properly taught. I'm not saying every person ever is allowed to misgender people as they see fit, I'm saying that some people do, and always will, have trouble with neopronouns. If you've been keeping track of other reblogs I'm sure you saw the learning deficiency example, and I stand by the language barrier. Some people will simply ALWAYS struggle with the concept even if they try their hardest to understand.

I feel like we just won't see eye to eye on this particular topic, and that's perfectly fine! I understand where you're coming from, I really do, I just feel like there are times when there's more nuance to it than black and white "you are right or you are wrong".

[interro-bangin]

I think my most controversial xenogender / neopronoun take is that you absolutely have every right to use neopronouns and emoji pronouns and any manner of things like that but you also need to be understanding of people who might not understand it even after an explanation or might default to they / them.

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic. Especially when you get into the more confusing ones that involve nouns or emojis, like pup / pupself. People who aren't familiar with neos, people who struggle with English to begin with, people who might not have English as their first language, etc.

You can explain it if you desire, but they may or may not understand even after that, and I think people need to learn to distinguish malicious intent from genuine confusion, wariness of doing it wrong / being offensive, or even just plain neutrality.

[brettdoesdiscourse]

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic.

Hey, OP. What?

I agree that there's a major difference between misgendering someone by accident and doing it intentionally, but there's no "willing to meet you halfway." Either you're correctly gendering someone or you're misgendering them. There's no meeting somebody halfway and trans people are completely allowed to be upset that they're being repeatedly misgendered.

[interro-bangin]

I'm not really saying they can't be upset, but I feel like too many people are willing to put "active transphobia" and "they're trying, even if they aren't quite hitting what they should be" on the same level. It's wildly more fucked up, in my eyes, if they're actively using gendered pronouns, but they / them is more neutral ground to me and shows that while they may be struggling with the concept at least they're putting effort in?

This is especially a problem in folks who already struggle with English to begin with, and I do feel like seeing it as "it's either this or that" with no in between overlooks a LOT of grey areas. English might not be their first language, they may have a learning deficiency, etc. At least they/them is wildly used and a relatively safe territory

[interro-bangin]

I think my most controversial xenogender / neopronoun take is that you absolutely have every right to use neopronouns and emoji pronouns and any manner of things like that but you also need to be understanding of people who might not understand it even after an explanation or might default to they / them.

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic. Especially when you get into the more confusing ones that involve nouns or emojis, like pup / pupself. People who aren't familiar with neos, people who struggle with English to begin with, people who might not have English as their first language, etc.

You can explain it if you desire, but they may or may not understand even after that, and I think people need to learn to distinguish malicious intent from genuine confusion, wariness of doing it wrong / being offensive, or even just plain neutrality.

[human-rodent-king]

hey so thats like. a very weird thing to say and also how people used to act about they/them.

"well its just confusing, you gotta understand that people don't get it! they're not malicious or anything they're just confused"

[interro-bangin]

I just feel like there's a wild difference between hiding behind ignorance [ex. "I'm not going to use the / them that's not how grammar works!"] And genuinely not being able to wrap your head around it, especially bc there's a LOT of neos and some are similar but Not Quite The Same

Like I said, there is a difference between being malicious and at least trying to accommodate, at least to me, though I'm aware I'm a very "idgaf" person and most things don't exactly bother me unless they're done for the sake of being an asshole. I'm not saying that it can't be frustrating, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily an attack and also if you're going to use more obscure pronouns you really should be prepared for some people to not be able to for various reasons or to default to at least a universally neutral one. If they default to he or she and you don't use those I think that's a bigger problem more related to Actually Being Transphobic, but i think too many people jump the gun on assuming someone is actually just as much of an asshole even if they're trying but not quite hitting the mark in the way that's desired.

They/them IS also wildly common and it's very stupid for transphobes to claim it isnt, but things like vae/vaer, kit/kitself, etc. ARE far less common, I don't feel like they're quite comparable, especially when brought into contexts like "this person has trouble with English to being with" for whatever reason

[interro-bangin]

I think my most controversial xenogender / neopronoun take is that you absolutely have every right to use neopronouns and emoji pronouns and any manner of things like that but you also need to be understanding of people who might not understand it even after an explanation or might default to they / them.

If you exclusively use neos but they're willing to meet you half way and use they, I genuinely don't believe it's transphobic. Especially when you get into the more confusing ones that involve nouns or emojis, like pup / pupself. People who aren't familiar with neos, people who struggle with English to begin with, people who might not have English as their first language, etc.

You can explain it if you desire, but they may or may not understand even after that, and I think people need to learn to distinguish malicious intent from genuine confusion, wariness of doing it wrong / being offensive, or even just plain neutrality.

[hearts4ayame]

shoutout to my auntie for smacking the shit out of my cousin when she found their darkship and loli art 💜

[interro-bangin]

This isn't an accusation or anything but I'm genuinely curious as to why specifically the hitting part makes you happy? I absolutely agree that a minor should not be engaging in that sort of media, but I feel like a sit down discussion about why this is bad / dangerous would be more beneficial for them, especially since most folks against problematic content want to protect abuse victims and this is a genuine case of physical abuse.

Physical harm also makes them more likely to simply hide the content they consume, as opposed to a conversation about why it might be dangerous.

Again, not trying to argue, I'm just genuinely curious about your logic / reasoning

[interro-bangin]

Blocklists are something i have never been able to get behind. I feel like even with the best of intentions theyre just used to harrass and attack people, because it doesnt matter if YOU wont do that, fucked up people will. Putting WHOLE groups on blast is dangerous territory. Its one thing to privately share stuff like that with your friends, but when i see someone publicly sharing stuff like that i tend to block them.

Callout posts fall under this category too, unless its someone whos actively going out of their way to harm people. if its just someone minding their business but making content you dont agree with i think sharing it around causes more problems than anything.

[interro-bangin]

NGL i feel like people need to realize sometimes ppl they dont agree with will like or reblog their stuff. I don't think its fair to expect people to dig on your blog or carrd or patreon or whatever it is you use to see if they arent allowed to look at it. ESPECIALLY with stuff like 'basic dni criteria', thats wildly vague. Like, if theyre going to actively chat with you i think its more important to keep in mind your boundaries? but if you see you get a like and go to their blog and you see something you dont enjoy, thats really just on you to block at that point and it really isnt something to get particularly upset over.

[superchat]

there was a great study a few years that went into the whole "ppl online are bigger jerks than irl cuz theres a virtual wall and no repercussions" and the researchers were expecting to see that be the case but it turns out that people who were really angry or argumentative online were also found to just be assholes in person and people who were pretty patient and nice online were found to be patient and nice in real person as well

and it just debunked that whole cynical idea that people will naturally be mean if theres no punishment for it

[superchat]

source another source

the researchers found that being online didnt make people more hostile, but that being online allowed already hostile people to dominate forum conversations, and the less aggressive people were much less likely to reply or engage, ending in just the aggressive people bickering at eachother

[punkishtoxtricity]

alright i’m getting jumped on reddit for this so i’m gonna ask for other opinions. proshippers, why don’t you just write your own characters if you want to write things such as incest. especially when it comes to characters from children’s media. also does it actually help process trauma because most people i’ve heard use that excuse were doing it for unrelated trauma. keep discussion respectful and i’ll keep it respectful.

[interro-bangin]

For some people they use pre-existing characters for simple reasons, they like their designs or it's easier. There's established relationships and worldbuilding you can use as a base. For others it might be they have an attachment to the character. Some people find it interesting to explore how taboo dynamics will affect their faves. Some people just think the characters are hot and should fuck about it.

Children's media remains wildly popular even to older audiences, it's no different from using an adult media imo as long as you remain respectful and tag appropriately / actively warn kids away from your content. You can't really control if a kid seeks it out regardless, that's on them and the parents.

As for trauma, that varies HEAVILY from person to person. What helps one person might heavily trigger another. Personally I enjoy noncon or heavy violence in fics from a consumption and a writing it myself standpoint because when I read what others write, I can choose to stop, or I can make less negative associations with trauma. From a writing standpoint I get to DECIDE how the scene goes, it gives me control over something I otherwise had no control over in my original experience with it :]

[punkishtoxtricity]

my main question is why publish it? i’ve been told if something is for trauma purposes to just keep it for yourself and show it to those close to you. my other question is (not you personally) but a lot of people said they should be able to look at what turns them on. i was curious as to if this applies to situations like rpf or actual illegal content, because it seems like that could apply to real illegal stuff

thanks for your answers!

[interro-bangin]

Publishing it has several reasons! People like finding others who are like-minded, so a sense of community or finding friends who might be able to understand your preferences or even your trauma can be one reason. Someone publishing their works might not even be looking to directly interact with others, but might hope they resonate with their work and feel seen. Another, less in depth reason is simply approval. Some people create fan works because they like to get a response, be it a work that came from a place of trauma or a work from a place of 'i just want to get off on this'. Some people just like sharing what they create with no intention of getting feedback, they want to write or draw something and just put it out into the world for people to view and then they don't really think about it again! It really just depends on the person.

Myself as an example again, I tend to post taboo works because I want people to know they have a right to create and share them, and also because I just want people to enjoy and possibly engage with it! I don't feel the need to hide that I make these works because I don't find them shameful, regardless of if I'm venting my own issues or writing/drawing them for purely sexual reasons.

RPF is a tricky issue in my opinion, personally I don't enjoy it but as long as it is contained within it's tags, isn't shown to the people it depicts without their consent, and the actual people it's about werent mistreated to create said work [ex. Actual pedophilia hidden behind the guise of RPF], then it at the very least has the right to exist within those spaces, like AO3 having designated tags for it. It really just boils down to "did a real person get hurt to create this work?", and if the answer is no I mostly ignore it in regards to RPF

When it crosses the threshold of a fictional scenario into reality [ex. Actual CSEM or snuff], it no longer becomes a discussion of fandom spaces or fiction vs reality or even whether it's coping or not, as real people are hurt, at that point it's just abuse and exploitation

Also ocf! I don't mind discussing things like this :]

[punkishtoxtricity]

alright i’m getting jumped on reddit for this so i’m gonna ask for other opinions. proshippers, why don’t you just write your own characters if you want to write things such as incest. especially when it comes to characters from children’s media. also does it actually help process trauma because most people i’ve heard use that excuse were doing it for unrelated trauma. keep discussion respectful and i’ll keep it respectful.

[interro-bangin]

For some people they use pre-existing characters for simple reasons, they like their designs or it's easier. There's established relationships and worldbuilding you can use as a base. For others it might be they have an attachment to the character. Some people find it interesting to explore how taboo dynamics will affect their faves. Some people just think the characters are hot and should fuck about it.

Children's media remains wildly popular even to older audiences, it's no different from using an adult media imo as long as you remain respectful and tag appropriately / actively warn kids away from your content. You can't really control if a kid seeks it out regardless, that's on them and the parents.

As for trauma, that varies HEAVILY from person to person. What helps one person might heavily trigger another. Personally I enjoy noncon or heavy violence in fics from a consumption and a writing it myself standpoint because when I read what others write, I can choose to stop, or I can make less negative associations with trauma. From a writing standpoint I get to DECIDE how the scene goes, it gives me control over something I otherwise had no control over in my original experience with it :]