⚔Para confession. ⚔
I'm so tired of myself, i hate the big 3 and having one sometimes its so frustrating and i can't stand it it makes me sick when i think about it. i crave so much to be with something i shouldn't, for somthing thats not of this world, skin barely attached to the bones, the corpse. I feel so gross about it though, i know due to my culture- My personal veiw on religion, and my morals, i shouldn't. I CANT. but its so SO tempting, the way i crave it. the way i want it. i want a corpse. to myself, it can be fresh or few months old i dont care. I want my corpse perserved and used i CRAVE and Fantasize about it so often i get red and melty at the idea of a barely attached jaw, rotten tounge, all of it. But its wrong. I know i never could, my culture religion and morals seeing the dead as sacred and that would be the ultimate disrespect. But also my own phobias, fears of hospitals and having tk explain how i got it at all... i dont know this was a ramble..
8 notes
·
View notes
Intro Post
Hello!! My name is Santi, and this is my rq, para, transid blog!
I'm new to the community and hope to make all the friends!!! Pls be nice, I'm just a baby 🐶
Cis ids ☆
Chrono 20's, Mixed, AuDHD, BPD, Disabled, PTSD/C-PTSD, Traumatised, System
Trans ids ☆
TransFostered, TransSeverity, TransFaunaPupil, TransVoice, TransHeight, TransWeight, TransLingual (Spanish), Transrace (Native American & Cuban), TransAge (oty) Agefluid (4-10 & 16-18), ChestFlux, FeralFluid, and more
☆Check out my site for more info ☆
Userboxes by rq-boxes
1 note
·
View note
I'm former pro-para turned anti-para these days, but not because I've been convinced by existing anti-para arguments, but because I discovered new ones for myself. 99% of existing/visible anti-para arguments are fucking stupid; that sadly has not changed. (For one, most anti-paras don't even reject the premise of "paraphilia" as a scientifically valid condition in the first place)
I'm tired of just everyone being dumb in para-related discourse and completely failing to describe the differences they've observed and carve reality at the joints. So I felt compelled to clear things up (also partly because of personal stuff happening to me recently), and made these infographics(?) in the process:
also the explanation itself; here's some very messy notes under the cut that I don't have energy to edit
an actually consistent argument against MAPs, including non-offenders (from a former supporter)
(1: diagram?)(if you encounter a 'necessary evil' situation; someone probably screwed up earlier down the line)(trolley, pull, don't pull - real evil: someone tied these people to the tracks)(admit, deny - real evil: you've been fantasizing about children)
why it's harmful to think about children sexually
'what would be destroyed by the truth, should be'
{- pro-maps would call this thoughtcrime, and literally no-one addresses it}
related: sa survivors don't disclose not bc 'feeling like bad person' shame, but bc of "doesn't want ppl to think of them being sa'd" shame
{- even in a perfectly accepting world, there is the tradeoff of getting it off your chest vs }
if you look at things through agency-maximizing consequentialism (which solves/avoids the horrifying edge cases of happiness-maximizing consequentialism like powering a utopia witha forsaked child or sacrificing us all to the utility monster), thoughts do indeed cause harm
(3?)
arousal is not pleasure
sa survivors experience arousal when sa'd; they did NOT enjoy it
[
('pleasure' or 'gratification' being used to describe sex (e.g. sexual assault, one's body 'betraying' you for feeling pleasure), and compare substituting 'pleasure' or 'gratification' in descriptions of being itchy/etc)
no no no no, you're still trapped in the 'arousal = pleasure' framework. by saying that negative experiences of arousal are ego-dystonic, you're still assuming arousal is intrinsically pleasureable and it's a negative experience because the person doesn't want to feel pleasure in this situation, not because the arousal itself is the exact opposite of pleasurable.
an example of how arousal can be a negative yet ego-syntonic experience could be if a person is sexually assaulted, but they have extremely low self-worth, despises themself and believe they deserve to suffer. then the profoundly painful experience of sexual assault could be ego-syntonic, as they feel like it's their rightful punishment. however just because the arousal was ego-syntonic does not at all imply it was pleasurable or that they 'enjoyed it', any more than a self-harmer 'enjoyed' hurting themself because they chose to do so.
]
mere stimulation: aroused
pleasure: enjoy/gratification/desire
idk: erotic/titilating/excitement/horny/get off on
every word for being sexually aroused or something causing sexual arousal carries with it the implication that it's a positive experience. sexual excitement? titilation? horny? get off on? even 'sexual arousal' itself!
(2?)
"pedophilia" not biologically based
most are men: gender essentialist implications
child marriage was widespread
children/innocence/vulnerability to violation/don't think of pink elephants
currently most people not attracted to children bc we correctly recognize it's harmful to sexually interact with children. it's like eating a sandwich vs eating a sandwich after knowing the cucumber had been used as a dildo. physical sensation same
(thing that first clued me in) on ao3, there are barely any fics about non-offending pedophiles, while there are tons of underage fics. given how prevalent proship discourse is and how much it overlaps with map discourse, wouldn't there be more stories about non-offending pedophiles? instead, even among the sympathetically-depicted pedophiles a majority is offending. it just seems really sus that that narrative seems to resonate more with people than that of the non-offending pedophile.
(4)(diagram?)
'arousal wrt children' on two axes: positive/negative valence, deliberate/instinctive
pocd
self-harm/catharsis
wants to change
map who push for (no)map acceptance
then when i said 'it's harmful to think about children sexually', i mean positive valence thought.
what about deliberate?
i'm not feeling convicted on this and am open to arguments why it's wrong, but i believe deliberately thinking about csa in a negative way is like deliberately thinking about other atricites in a negative way.
the 'fiction is not reality' thing applies specifically to this quadrant. and yes, it's worrying there's no clear line between mere depiction and endorsement, but that can be applied to fascist genocides as well, and i don't see many people arguing against all depictions of fascist genocides in fiction because of this.
people still manage to identify and condemn positive depictions/endorsements of fascism, and the same should be applied to csa and desire-for-children.
what about the 'is it okay to tell' test? it's clearly abusive to talk about deliberately dwelling on the abuse of a specific real child that exists or has existed (other than your past self), so i believe that's harmful to do, even if you attribute negative valence to the abuse.
but if the valence is negative - you're rightfully thinking of it as something horrific rather than something enjoyable - i believe it's morally neutral to dwell on the abuse of a random child you imagined, or yourself from the past. (fictional children are a grey area imo; if the child is from a story that depicts csa in the source material for catharsis/coping, that's different from if the child is from nonsexual children's media
1 note
·
View note
👉 There's nothing wrong with enjoying any type of fiction for kink or self-pleasuring reasons.
👉 There's nothing wrong in writing or drawing media blatantly portraying sexuality.
👉 Creating art simply for kink or self-pleasure doesn't make the fiction any less valid or "less off".
👉 You don't need to constantly pair kink with other more "refined themes" to make it "acceptable" in your writing/drawing.
👉 "PWP", aka "Porn Without Plot" or "Plot? What Plot?", is still just as valid as other types of writing.
👉 To think that only "safe" and "unproblematic" kinks are allowed to be written or drawn is extremely kink negative and conservative.
👉 Taboo kinks and paraphilias should have the right to be explored in fiction the same way that "non-problematic" kinks are. Yes, even if it's only for self-pleasure.
👉 There's nothing wrong in posting writings or drawings containing nothing but kink on the Internet. You don't need to keep it to yourself. If it's tagged, there should be no issue if people want to avoid it.
578 notes
·
View notes
Paraphilia Education Time!
Just seen a blog spreading just a tiny bit of misinformation and I’m going to correct it.
When paraphiles say that they are proud of their attraction(s) most of what the community is talking about being proud of themselves for surviving in a world that hates us.
Paraphilias are sexualities (or sexual orientation) and not illnesses because if there’s no distress, guilty feelings towards it, shameful of it or anxious about it then it’s not an illness. Proof? The DSM-5 on page 697 (there’s more proof but that’s the biggest one to this point)
The term MAP was actually coined by B4U-ACT since there’s 4 different minor attractions.
Paraphilia therapists will advise that paraphiles find a community that spreads positivity and is anti contact and non offending.
Professionals say that it’s important for paraphiles to feel neutral about their attraction(s) because feeling negative about it will actually put them more at risk to offend so feeling neutral is the best thing for us.
346 notes
·
View notes
I think you nasty little critters have just entirely forgotten that Proship is JUST anti-harassment and anti-censorship. It doesn't mean you support everything people create, it doesn't mean you like everything people create, you could absolutely fucking DESPISE a specific kind of fiction and think the people writing it are nasty disgusting degenerates who don't really deserve to be creating anything, but still just.. block the person or tag and move on.
-📺
206 notes
·
View notes