a blog for general paraphilia support and discussion
chrono-adult, chrono-minors please do not follow.
NO-ACT supporter, blog banner is the paraqueer flag
i am a system host and may refer to my other alters. we are pro endo
cherry valley forever
untitled

tannertan36
Fai_Ryy

roma★
trying on a metaphor

@theartofmadeline

titsay

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
official daine visual archive
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵

Discoholic 🪩
todays bird

gracie abrams
Claire Keane

pixel skylines
macklin celebrini has autism
$LAYYYTER

if i look back, i am lost
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China

seen from Poland
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Mexico

seen from United States

seen from Bolivia
seen from Argentina
seen from Argentina

seen from Ukraine
seen from Mexico
seen from Ukraine

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@paraparaphernalia
a blog for general paraphilia support and discussion
chrono-adult, chrono-minors please do not follow.
NO-ACT supporter, blog banner is the paraqueer flag
i am a system host and may refer to my other alters. we are pro endo
the antiship idea that your fictional tastes must equal your IRL tastes is incredibly aphobic and queerphobic.
that person who enjoys lolisho content must be attracted to real children? okay, then that asexual who enjoys smut must be lying about being asexual. that aromantic who enjoys romance stories must be lying about being aromantic. that lesbian who's attracted to a male fictional character must be attracted to real men. that gay man who's attracted to a female fictional character must be attracted to real women. wdym "it's different"? no, no, your fictional tastes definitely equal your IRL tastes, because the antiship community says so!
many of you just. genuinely don’t believe that people can grow and change.
this is about the death penalty and its also about call out posts about people who have already apologized for things they did a long time ago and it’s also about using ‘toxic’ or ‘abuser’ as if its an immutable class of person, and its also about any other circumstance with permanent consequences or wherein you assume someone is still the same person they were.
again. bodily autonomy, fundamental bodily autonomy HAS to have room for people doing things with their own bodies that you do not and will not approve of. if it doesnt, it is not bodily autonomy
yknow i think from how some of y’all talk about how paraphiles should go to therapy it kinda seems like your end goal is “stop being a paraphile” and not “learn to manage the paraphilia that is inconveniencing your life”
yeah i’m gonna REALLY swing for the fences here and say some of you are basically encouraging conversion therapy
I genuinely do think people wanting to murder/torture/correctively rape paraphiles is a paraphilia in and of itself. I know this because I think about it all the time and at least I have the decency to admit it's self-masturbatory and not indicative of any moral highground
A few bonus ones
Postfurry flag critters
Do you think tumblr will ever learn the difference between “I’m defending this person because I agree with them wholeheartedly and I am also like this person” and “I’m defending this person because your behavior is dangerous and you need to stop”
IMO, blurring the lines between “I’m defending them because they’re right” and “I’m defending them because you’re taking this too far” is step numero uno to cutting down the very existence of fair trial and democracy–even in places where saying that might seem a little dramatic.
Mob mentality is extremely strong in humans and it’s also extremely dangerous. Mobs don’t think things through. Mobs kill and they destroy and they can’t be reasoned with. Someone trying to calm a mob down isn’t someone defending the ~problematic party~ It’s time we re-learn that.
"what does the NO-ACT movement even do? you have no plans."
we hold hands and frolic together so we dont all kill ourselves
antis don't want you to know this but thoughtcrime isn't real and you can do whatever you want in headspace.
let your littles have sex and masturbate if they want to. if you're in an adult body and mind, it's more than likely they can understand consent like an adult can. of course it depends on the little, but i've met little hosts and littles who do everything the big alters do. the same thing can apply to animal alters.
i am an age slider. i've been as young as five in headspace before. my mind is still that of a grown adult and i can consent no matter how old i feel i am internally. i'm not harmed by having sex while little, our permanently little alters aren't harmed by it either.
of course this will vary from system to system but in our experience, and the experiences of several system friends, internal age and species don't always matter when it comes to headspace relations.
I would like say, the first line applies to headspace consang too.
Kiss your syster (sister) Kiss your brainther (brother) Kiss whoever. (I ran out of puns.)
antis don't want you to know this but thoughtcrime isn't real and you can do whatever you want in headspace.
let your littles have sex and masturbate if they want to. if you're in an adult body and mind, it's more than likely they can understand consent like an adult can. of course it depends on the little, but i've met little hosts and littles who do everything the big alters do. the same thing can apply to animal alters.
i am an age slider. i've been as young as five in headspace before. my mind is still that of a grown adult and i can consent no matter how old i feel i am internally. i'm not harmed by having sex while little, our permanently little alters aren't harmed by it either.
of course this will vary from system to system but in our experience, and the experiences of several system friends, internal age and species don't always matter when it comes to headspace relations.
this was on the reblog of the last post but i'll put it here, too. because people need this reminder
contact stances have NEVER meant anything anti roleplay or anti-kink . anti contact is not against zoo4therian. anti contact is not against insys relationships . anti c doesnt include innerworld, spiritual, or psychological identity . anti contact is not against acting on any sexual contact that wouldn't be harmful to act upon (plushophilia, podophilia, etc)
these rules were made up for safety reasons, and its not good to be changing the meaning of them.
https://pache-definitions.carrd.co/
Alright kids say it with me
My thoughts don’t make me a bad person
My feelings don’t make me a bad person
My thoughts, feelings, and impulses only exist inside my head, and none of it matters unless I act on it
Nobody can see my thoughts or emotions
The only things anyone can see and judge me on are my actions
There’s no such thing as a thought crime
thank u
this is absolutely going to cause me to lose every single follower i have but i Do Not Care so anyways, i have something id like to say.
incest is not inherently damaging whatsoever as long as its consensual. there is zero scientific evidence that consensual incest is damaging. NONE. of course, incestuous abuse absolutely exists and is extremely damaging to the victims of it, but what i am talking about is consensual relationships between adults.
before you call me insane, here:
in an article by clare kasemset from stanford university, she states that one of the main (and only) scientific reasons that incest is illegal is that "the offspring of partners with a high level of consanguinity are more likely to have birth defects". however, this is eugenics: disabled people's children are also very likely to have children with birth defects, and anyone really could potentially have children with birth defects. this argument is simply that incestuous relationships should be illegal so that birth defects cease to exist. keep in mind, the definition of eugenics is "to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"; in essence, make sure that the only people born are "desirable", which would include being able-bodied. kasemset goes on to explain that "the act of incestuous sexual intercourse does not cause harm". incest does not inherently cause harm. the only reasons people give for the illegalization of incestuous relationships are eugenics and the potentially offensiveness of it due to the fact that "the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral".
article source: https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/137/35/615
in an article by maria campo redondo and gabriel andrade, they state that "incest represents a risk, but this is not reason enough to illegalize incest". this is because "other circumstances of sexual intercourse may lead to similar risks, and yet, such practices are not illegal". think of how AIDs is used to say that homosexuality should be illegal, how the possibility of miscarriage is used to say that people should only be getting pregnant at young ages, how the possibility of disabled children is used to say that disabled people shouldnt be having children: all of these are arguments that rely on nothing but "disability should be eradicated". ableism is so extremely ingrained in our society that people constantly search for the cure to every disability so that they wont have to deal with disabled people existing. i have had friends who have been told "your children will be disabled though!!!!! 😥" for being disabled just like those who are in incestuous relationships have. you should be allowed to have a child as long as you or someone else is capable of taking care of them, no matter if that child is disabled or not - a child potentially being disabled is not a morally wrong thing. as the authors of this article say, the reasons why incest is illegal "do not relate to public health and genetic risks".
article source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phil.12332
in a paper by jeff sebo, he states that "incest increases the incidence of inherited genetic diseases by about three percent". three percent. that is only three out of every hundred children born out of incestuous relationships. the argument of incest increasing disabilities is not only founded on eugenics, but founded on a very small statistic - especially compared to the fact that the probability of an autistic person have an autistic child is, on average, 3.45%. it is no different from any genetically disabled person having a child. advocating for incest to be illegal based on the possibility of disabled children is no different from advocating for disabled people to be sterilized.
he also explains that family is not dramatically different from any other relationship, and that there "are numerous important relationships in our lives—some of which are based on blood, others of which are not—and it is ridiculous to assume that our family members, whoever they may be, are necessarily our emotional centers". for many, many people, friends can even more important than family, or family can seem much more similar to friendly dynamics than typical family dynamics. the argument of families is also very often used against queer people by saying that it ruins the inherent family dynamics that are supposedly present, when in reality, families all function very differently and many people see their siblings or cousins as more like friends than how families are typically portrayed. as the author says: "no relevant moral distinction neatly separates our family relations from the other relationships in our lives".
he also explains that many people claim that incest "turn[s] out badly frequently enough to warrant a categorical ban". incestuous relationships are often abusive ones, this is very evident. however, "the outcome of our test will depend largely on how we run it". if we only ask abuse victims what their experience was (as many, many articles do), we will come to the conclusion that it is all abusive. only looking at people who were children abused by adult family members is not looking at the effects of incest, but looking at the effects of child abuse. yes, there may be a lack of scientific evidence for incest being good - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there are many, many person experiences from people. on top of that, "those who breach the taboo are branded as outsiders, they suffer the effects of social ostracism, and since others misinterpret this suffering as caused by the act and not the label, they are used as evidence in support of the taboo". if someone is in an incestuous relationship, they will be hated by everyone, which will lead to them being depressed and possibly suicidal - not because of the incest itself, but because of how its treated.
source (PLEASE go read this its very well-done): https://jeffsebo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/the-ethics-of-incest1.pdf
PERVERTED CRIPPLES‼️‼️❤️🔥💥💥🎉✨️‼️