“It Is Not So Much For Its Beauty That The Forest Makes A Claim Upon Men’s Hearts, As For That Subtle

May I ask how is Daddy's Little Toy missunderstod? It's not like Genderqueer where people wanted it to be banned because of transphobia. It's not like that. Daddy's Little Toy is not missunderstod. It's just a book where you supposed to be happy when a girl get's together with her groomer.

It's not a another Lolita. Lolita is not a romanc, and the writer of it did everything ín his power to make shure people know that. He himself was a surviver of CSA. And was a psychologist who showed in the book how awfull people justafy themself, but it's still veary clear that the main character is in the wrong when you read between the lines. Main whaile Daddy's Little Toy is a romance book, that the writer dedicated to her 3 years old dauther. The writer is niether a surviver of CSA, or a psychologist (probably doasn't know anything about it), and you are supposed to like the guy.

Wow 😑

Where the actual fuck did you get your information? 🤨

Let's start with Lolita:

Lolita was written by the Vladimir Nabokov. His life has been extensively documented by biographers and in his own memoirs, and there has never once been any suggestion that he was a victim of CSA

Nabokov was not a psychologist. Indeed, he was known for his strong and complex opinions about psychology. Most notably he openly mocked and rejected Freudian psychoanalysis

Lolita was very specifically modeled after the romance genre

Lolita is indeed written from the perspective of the abuser, but one element you may be missing is that the narrator Humbert does such a good job endearing himself and excusing, minimizing, and justifying his actions, that readers constantly fall into the trap of sympathizing, and even agreeing with him. The very term "Lolita" nowadays is used to mean a sort of precocious seductress because of this.

Continuing on to Genderqueer:

Regardless of their real reasons behind it, critics of Genderqueer always point to one or two panels that depict sexual activity. Taken out of context, they appear shocking and inappropriate. This is exactly what the critics of Daddy's Little Toy are doing. The biggest difference is that the critics actually managed to succeed this time.

And finally, as for Daddy's Little Toy:

Most people would undoubtedly consider Lolita to be the better book, but so what? Are we only allowed to read books about shocking or offensive subject matter if they are well-written? Who decides this? Why does it matter?

You have not read this book. I know that for a fact. You personally have no idea what the book is like. No one does, because the book cannot be found anywhere. You are simply parroting the incendiary claims from TikToks.

I don't fucking care if the book is one long, graphic description of a kindergarten bukkake party. It is fiction. It is not real. No one is harmed by it. It is the easiest thing in the world to avoid reading it. In fact there is no way that you can read it! So why does anyone even care?

I hope that clears things up for you.

It's so telling that the 3 main arguments against consanguinamory are birth defects, assault, and personal disgust.

"What if the babies are born disabled?!"

What if they don't want kids? Hm? What then? Also, even if they did want kids, that's also fine because it's take generations for a debilitating disability to form, and the chances of that only increase by 3% and since I'm gonna wager most people aren't consanguinamorous, I don't see why that matters. Non-relatives give birth to disabled kids all the time. Being disabled isn't a bad thing. Being inbred doesn't mean you're automatically going to be born disabled. They use the whole think of the children bullshit to shut down the conversation.

"But my relative assaulted me/there are relatives out there who assualt their family, therefore consanguinamory is bad!"

If it isn't consensual, it's not consanguinamory, it's abuse. This is like if someone said, "Gay men are bad because some gay men have assaulted other men." Oh, wait, they do say this, don't they? And y'all keep reinforcing it with this kind of thinking.

"I just think it's icky."

That's fine, but your personal disgust shouldn't dictate how others should or can live their lives. No one is forcing you to date your relative(s). Not everything is for or about you. If people are happy and aren't harming anyone, then it's fine. It's fine, y'all.

i think that the limited contact stance of “to consent to sex you must understand sex” is like. a little bit ableist? there are a lot of people like me, who are disabled, and want, like, or consent to sex, for whatever reason. but some of us dont have the mental capability TO understand sex, even when we are adults. that doesnt mean we arent able to not understand the possible effects of sex, it doesnt mean we cant say no or yes, it just means we dont understand it to the same level an able bodied person would.

As you said, understanding sex doesn't mean the same for everyone. Disabled people can understand sex, even if it is slightly different to the understanding of an abled bodied person.

"guys we're so cooked" "it's wraps" "the end is near" shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up. i say that with love because you are probably saying it out of distress and hopelessness, but for your own well-being and for everyone else's, please stop saying this shit.

no we are not "cooked." and by saying that, by the way, you are giving more power to the neo-nazi oligarchy in charge.

they want you to abandon all hope of a better life. they want you to believe "oh well, it's over, we might as well stop trying to fight back and just resign ourselves to despair forever."

every time you get on tiktok and comment "guys we're so cooked haha it's over," you are feeding into the mindset of hopeless compliance. you are, unknowingly, spreading this infectious idea that just because we've lost one battle, we've lost the entire war.

your words matter. i am saying this out of love and concern for our future, but please stop choosing words of defeat.

It's punk to compost, in a world filled with trash.

It's punk to be fat, in a world that wants you to keep getting smaller.

It's punk to ride an old bike, drive an old car, patch your old clothes with different colored thread, cut up old sheets for rags instead of using paper towels, and make stuffed animals out of scrap fabric, in a world that wants you to just "order it off amazon".

It's punk to tend a messy, overgrown, weed-filled garden. Tomatoes grow right next to dandelions.

It's punk to can the veggies from your messy garden and give your neighbors delicious tomato soup in the depths of winter.

It's punk to make a bird feeder and look out the window to take a break from your screen.

It's punk to wear your "Let Trans Kids Play" shirt to a college basketball game where there are no trans players, because a trans kid in the crowd will see it and maybe (this year) decide to join the team.

It's punk to have wrinkles, when the world wants you to stop aging at 23.

It's punk to go to your local library.

It's punk to take your kids to your local library.

It's punk to take your kids to a pride parade, a sit-in, a land-back ceremony, an accessible trunk-or-treat, a soup kitchen.

It's punk to plant trees. It's punk to PROTECT trees.

It's punk save for solar panels, someday.

It's punk to hope, whenever you can.

IF YOU ARE HUNGRY, I WILL OFFER FOOD.

IF YOU ARE THIRSTY, I WILL OFFER WATER.

IF YOU ARE COLD, I WILL OFFER WARMTH.

IF YOU ARE IN NEED, ASK AND I WILL GIVE.

IF YOU ARE IN TROUBLE, ASK AND I WILL HELP.

I DO NOT DO THESE THINGS WITH THE HOPE OF BEING REWARDED.

I DO NOT DO THESE THINGS OUT OF FEAR OF PUNISHMENT.

I DO THESE THINGS BECAUSE I KNOW THEM TO BE RIGHT.

I SET MY OWN STANDARDS AND I ALONE ENFORCE THEM.

I AM AN ANARCHIST.