and here we'll build a library

Some tags found in use here are:

#just aki things: Everything specifically mine - #aki art: Art of me -#akitxt: Personal ramblings -#sorentxt: System ramblings - #aki aesthetic: Anything fitting my aesthetic that's not others' fan art - #aki silliness: Memes, short texts posts, and anything that's more of a lighthearted quip than an aesthetic. - #thirty ways to build a fire: Our writing project, so named because it was originally conceived as a NaNoWriMo challenge, and once we have 30 completed pieces, we'd like to compile it into a physical form. At the time of writing this, we have 19 finished pieces and a total of 22 at some stage of creation.

"Goonslop" rhetoric is puritanism

It implies that sex for sex’s sake (as opposed to for some higher purpose), or art made primarily for sexual appeal, is filthy and shameful. It implies that if art appeals to sexual attraction in any noticeable way, then it no longer has any value, regardless of any other quality that the art possesses.

It stamps female nudity (or near-nudity) as inherently sexual, and looks down on fictional women's behaviors that are perceived to be sexually promiscuous (e.g. evocative dancing or performance).

This is exactly the view that has been weaponized against queer existence, and against women’s autonomy in relation to their own bodies and sexual decisions.

"Goonslop" rhetoric minimizes the existence of LGBTQ+ viewers

"Gooner" is used in a derogatory fashion for one who enjoys qualities in video games that appeal primarily to sexual attraction. Those employing this rhetoric typically envision a straight male viewer, who is designated as a perpetrator of sexism by the sole factor that he enjoys such video games. However, this rhetoric invokes shame indiscriminately in queer viewers (e.g. lesbians) who may enjoy the very same qualities that appeal to straight men. Solely for the purpose of expressing anger, it denies diversity in gender or orientation among viewers.

Among the other inherent problems of stereotyping, the demonizing of straight men implies that there is a solid distinction that can be made between "straight men" and "everyone else." The goal of LGBTQ+ expression and freedom is to eliminate the boxes we are forced into—not to draw new ones.

"Goonslop" plays into capitalism's lie that "male viewer" and "female viewer" are distinct heterosexual categories that can be marketed to individually with no overlap, and that the "male viewer" is the predominant consumer of video games. I do not deny that there are problems with sexism and diversity in video game industry as a whole—my point is that directing hate onto the games themselves and those who enjoy them is not the solution.

"Goonslop" rhetoric is bullying

It’s driven by shame and othering, rather than education and empathy. This is a punitive, conservative tactic, because it assumes that after one crosses a certain point, they can never again be redeemed or worthy of respect, regardless of the actions they take going forward, or unless they take action prescribed by the entity attempting to shame them. It therefore also echoes the conservative Christianity that is weaponized to oppress many minority populations.

The appeal of "goonslop" as a rhetoric also hinges on the fact that, like other forms of bullying, the actual source of rage (patriarchy and the injustices it causes) is an abstract concept that's not easy to combat. Working to dismantle patriarchy doesn't provide the same immediate gratification or release as picking an easy target (straight men who are attracted to certain things, or express fictional attraction in a certain way). And backers of "goonslop" rhetoric seek above all to unleash their righteous anger—they don't stop to examine the actual impact of their words or actions, as articulated here.

"Goonslop" rhetoric is fascism

Some of the notable qualities of fascist ideology are: the devaluing of art, especially sexual art, as "degenerate;" "moral panic"—a worry about some widespread wrongdoing, which is exaggerated and not rooted in actual demonstrated cause-and-effect problems about societal violence; and obsessive preoccupation with some sort of "community decline" that must be rectified to "save society."

There is no evidence for a causal relationship between those who see the sexual appeal of women in video games and those who enact violence (particularly sexual violence) on real-life women. Nor is there any causation in the reverse direction. The widespread existence of highly sexualized media featuring women is insidious because of the societal context of patriarchical exploitation and violence. If sexy women in video games did not exist, those with existing sexist tendencies would simply find other avenues to express them.

What about "goonslop" rhetoric we should take forward? What should we leave behind?

While misguided, the idea of "goonslop" is so popular because we value diversity and mourn the harm patriarchy enacts on women and marginalized identities. We do not need to eliminate these values entirely—we simply need to redirect them in a socially progressive way, rather than a regressive one.

"Goonslop" leverages the assertion that straight men are the enemy to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. On the contrary, straight men are not going anywhere, just as LGBTQ+ folk are not, and including them in such discussions and efforts is critical.

"Goonslop" is a red herring, acting purely on emotional response and making connections to accused "predators" that are not supported by any evidence. Focusing purely on fictional interests, rather than real-life attitudes and actions, allows truly harmful people to masquerade as benevolent simply by being interested in the "right" fiction, at the same time that it wrongfully ostracizes progressively-minded people, solely because they enjoy sexy women in video games and not because they have committed any material crimes. We should care more about how others treat real women, not fictional women.

Some viewers are psychologically triggered by female sexual appeal in video games. Some find affirmation in the beauty or aesthetic of the same imagery, and in the sexual freedom it embodies. Some feel attracted to said imagery. None of this is inherently wrong, and none should override another. We must recognize that the patriarchical context is the actual perpetrator of the trauma.

Self-discoveries surrounding sexual attraction are rife enough with shame. It is perfectly natural and healthy to feel attracted to fictional women, whether you're a straight man, or a lesbian for whom the shaming of your attraction to fictional women feels strangely familiar as the "predatory lesbian" trope. Shame is not the way forward, and we must not stoop to doing conservatives' dirty work for them.