VantaJack

Welcome to the gallery in the woods | if you need media(social or otherwise) to be your moral teacher get off my blog | (ADULT, dark fiction)

[enba-and-luka]

[roycohn]

there's an old anne rice interview circulating on twitter rn that i remember reading ages ago where she makes a pretty salient point about how submissive men who have bdsm fantasies etc will go to a sex worker and basically order the ala carte version of their fantasy to be performed in real life but women don't really have that same option and certainly not at the same point of availability so they read her horny books instead. and honestly that argument has been in the back of my mind every time people get on their high horses about the popularity of booktok romantasy novels or heated rivalry or whatever the "women are horny and we're upset about that" cultural property du jour is ever since. women, especially straight women, have so few outlets for their sexual desires, especially if they have a partner who doesn't share them, and i will never understand why "someone ELSE'S private sexual fantasy makes me uncomfortable and therefore they should not be allowed to engage with it, even if i am in no way being affected by it or even aware of it at all" is such a popular party line among allegedly progressive young people.

[queeranarchism]

Let me settle the 'is it fetishism and is it bad?' debate once and for all:

Being attracted to any kind of body is normal. Fat bodies. Trans bodies. Disabled bodies. All normal. Being extra attracted to a specific kind of body is normal too. Totally normal to have a type.

Not unlearning the societal stigma attached to those kinds of bodies, the people who inhabit those bodies, and the people who fuck them, to the point where you do any of the following:

Only want to date/fuck the person in secret.

Reduce the person to the feature that you desire and ignore the rest of who they are as a person.

Expect the person to be a walking porn fantasy instead of a real person with their own sexual preferences and boundaries.

Would no longer love the person if the stigmatized aspect of their body changed.

Consider yourself superior to the person, think the person should be 'grateful' that you love their body, etc.

See the person as a temporary adventure while planning to eventually settle down with someone whose body isn't stigmatized.

Is bad and harmful and you shouldn't be dating anyone until you've worked on your shit, because this makes you a very terrible partner. This doesn't mean you are a bad person with bad-fetishist-desires who can only desire people badly, it means you need to unlearn societal stigma so you can be a better partner to the people you desire.

Thank you for coming to me ted talk.

[catgirlforeskin]

this might be the clearest distillation of how a politics of disgust detaches you from consequential reality.

When judging which of two things is worse, which is more harmful, and only one of the two has an actual victim that was materially harmed, that one has to be the worst of the two, regardless of how distasteful you find the other.

A belief otherwise is fundamentally incompatible with restorative justice, because in the case of "art I find distasteful" there is no harmed party with whom to make amends. Any "justice" sought here can only be retributive, can only push you into reactionary politics.

[littlemissragebait]

[omamervt]

Seen a few people point out (correctly, as I understand it) that the whole lolicon thing is literally an accusation without any real, sufficient proof to back it up.

While that's important to remember, because that's it's own whole thing to unpack (do you have any idea how many completely baseless accusations of pedophilia I see thrown around whenever I accidentally come across fandom, especially when labels like "pro" and "anti" are in the mix? and ESPECIALLY especially when queer/trans people are?) I think it's irrelevant to the original post.

The point is that even if you are objectively right and loli art is objectively bad for all the reasons you think it is, it's still, in and of itself, a victimless crime, and accusing people of taking it further with no real proof is both malicious and irresponsible.

Not paying someone for work they did for you with agreed-upon terms is not a victimless crime.

Trying to ruin someone's reputation to keep the public on your side on an issue where you are objectively in the wrong is not a victimless crime, whether the dirt in question is true or not.

There is an ACTUAL wronged party here, and the response has been to just hurt them again.

[creativespark]

Paul of Scotland, Destiny Is In Your Hands, 2020 pencil on white paper, 11.69"x16.54"

[captain-starskull]

DO NOT SCROLL AWAY. THIS IS NOT A PHOTO. THIS IS NOT OIL ON CANVAS. THIS ISN’T EVEN ACRYLIC ON CANVAS. THIS IS PENCIL ON WHITE PAPER!

[phynoma]

PENCIL?!?

[iamheavymeta-lll]

[eroticasensualis]

[shripscapi]

trapped forever

[shrips]

here is the inspiration. in case anyone finds that interesting

[mamafidjar]

in the fog, December 2025, shot by me

[when-we-were-forever-young]

[softlyrottingcorpse]

[valtsv]

taking off a mask to reveal what lies beneath as a romantic gesture is overdone, and besides i want to see the romantic or even platonic potential of protecting someone's identity beneath the mask, without any expectation of ever being allowed to see what's under it. picking it up and holding it gently to their face when it's knocked off and they're in danger of being exposed, without trying to catch a glimpse of what they "really" look like under there. throwing yourself in front of them to hide them from view while they put themselves back together without taking advantage or looking back to see what you're protecting. learning to read them by body language, tone of voice, and behaviour so well that you never need to see their face to feel like you know and understand them.

[valtsv]

and needless to say. the mask stays on during sex.

[redstonedust]

if vampires existed in real life i think there would be shady companies advertising "organic blood" sourced from "willing donors" who are coincidentally all poor people being paid like $5 per blood donation. and like haughty vegan vampires who only drink a synthetic blood drink thats brewed in a way thats actively worse for the enviroment. and radical traditionalist vampires who go on tiktok and claim that true alpha chads have to drain and kill people and anyone who leaves their victims alive is a liberal cuck. enter the world of hypothetical insufferable vampire politics with me.

[gun-fishen-deactivated20241222]

Really good looking broken laptop screen I saw at the store

[gun-fishen-deactivated20241222]

Some more because I really liked it

[gottastim]

wnomps on ig

[ms-demeanor]

Words mean things.

[ms-demeanor]

Getting an anon that says "someone should rape you to death" is neither a death nor a rape threat. It is harassment, and harassment is bad, but that's not a death threat and I feel like the scale of that is something that's important to consider.

[ms-demeanor]

Similarly, reading and documenting things that people have posted publicly is not stalking. Going through someone's entire instagram isn't stalking, and someone finding your old blog that you mentioned in a post two years ago isn't stalking.

There are definitely people who do use information collected from public posts as a part of stalking, but "stalking" means something and if you're uncomfortable with the idea that someone might be archiving every single thing you post in a place that you can't see or aren't aware of, you might need to reconsider what you're posting or if you're comfortable posting at all.

[ms-demeanor]

Also, someone reblogging or retweeting or responding to your post isn't harassment.

(If they're subverting a block or a ban, this might be harassment, but someone just being annoying in the replies isn't harassing you)

[ms-demeanor]

Is harassment: Someone setting up a coordinated campaign to mass report a user in an attempt to get them banned from a platform.

Is not harassment: Someone reblogging your post and saying that you're wrong.

Is harassment: Someone you've blocked screenshotting posts to direct their followers to bother you.

Is not harassment: people reblogging you critically because your post ended up getting reblogged by someone popular.

[ms-demeanor]

There are definitely also people who are subject to a kind of stochastic harassment - trans women receive a huge amount of vitriolic attention that is often uncoordinated and unjustifiable, for instance - but one of the uncomfortable things about certain kinds of freedoms is that they will always be weaponized by bad actors.

If Alice is starting a whisper campaign against Barbra and sends anons to Charlie, Dani, and Ellie with lies about Barbra, Charlie, Dani, and Ellie may be unwittingly participating in a harassment campaign by answering those anons (even if it's to refute the ask!) but it is Alice who is doing the harassing, not Ellie.

This is not the kind of harassment that it's easy to meaningfully police while still allowing people to communicate, and the policing can be directed right back at the targeted individuals by the harasser.

It's bad! It's frustrating! It's exhausting!

It's also better combatted by improving community norms (don't answer anon asks accusing people of wrongthink/crimes/abuse/whatever, don't reblog callout posts, question whether accusations you see online might be part of a harassment campaign) than it is by, say, banning callout posts (because then you can harass someone describing their abuse by mass flagging it as a callout post).

[ms-demeanor]

To be clear: Your dorm neighbor writing on your door "they should hang you in the quad so we can watch you twitch" is an actual death threat. Your coworker saying "wouldn't it be a shame if someone tackled you in the parking lot and fucked some humility into you" is an actual rape threat.

Someone in a forum saying that? An anon? A twitter egg? That's not a threat. That's harassment, and almost certainly a ToS violation that should be reported, and you should 100% block them. But "I hope you get raped" coming from some rando online is not actually a threat to rape you.

Part of the reason that it bothers me that people call these death/rape threats is because it means they might be processing them as an actual threat, which is WILDLY skewing their perception of the amount of danger they're experiencing, which makes them panicky and reactionary and untrusting and WAY more likely to lash out at people trying to build a coalition with them who they perceive as a threat.

[ms-demeanor]

There are a lot of people who have been conditioned to experience discomfort as danger, and who have been told to speak out about any danger they are in from their community in order to protect the community.

These people are ticking time bombs who pose a huge risk to people who might be perceived as dangerous due to an enormous amount of cultural of marginalization and demonization.

"I felt threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. "I was scared" is not the same thing as being in danger.

[ms-demeanor]

Also someone disagreeing with you is not a fight.

[cheesiestart-redux]

Birthright