920: Pro-attraction
PT: 920: Pro-attraction /end PT
DEFINITION ⦂⠀A stance that is in favour of attraction. This is an inherently pro-recovery term, that is intended to separate from the section of malicious pro-para blogs. This term holds a firm stance against "contact stances", and believes that harmless engagement in fetish, kink, and/or paraphilia, should not be lumped in with harmful, non-consensual actions, nor romanticised under the easier-to-pallet term of "contact", when what it is is harmful and non-consensual; abuse and assault.
PT: Definition: A stance that is in favour of attraction. This is an inherently pro-recovery term, that is intended to separate from the section of malicious pro-para blogs. This term holds a firm stance against "contact stances", and believes that harmless engagement in fetish, kink, and/or paraphilia, should not be lumped in with harmful, non-consensual actions, nor romanticised under the easier-to-pallet term of "contact", when what it is is harmful and non-consensual; abuse and assault. /end PT
I coined this because there is so much focus on contact stances, so much of the discourse around non-conventional attraction is repeating similar arguments of what queerphobes would say about gay, bi, lesbian, etc. orientations, where they talk about the semantics of "you can't feel x, or else you'll hurt vulnerable groups", particularly toward children.
The focus should be the attraction. Contact discourse is stupid, when "contact" is a way of packaging harmful and non-consensual activity into something more palatable, which I know, as an ex-radqueer, is intended to normalise harmful and non-consensual activity. The ethics of making harm and non-consent palatable in real-life discourse should be of large concern. It is a tool for radicalisation, that cannot be allowed to survive.
Not only that, but it lumps in harmless actions, like drawing, roleplay, writing, etc., in with this. If you are utilising any of those tools or others as harm reduction for significant paraphilias like necrophilia, pedophilia, or zoophilia: this would be frustrating, to know "contact" stances group you in with corpse desecration, child molestation, and beastiality. It's unacceptable.
Summary: someone's attractions, or lack of, are fine. The argument doesn't need to go any further than that, especially if one is practising harm reduction. The subject of HOW someone should engage with certain attractions is wholly separate from the validity in its existence, as a feeling.
ADDITIONAL ⦂⠀Coined on the 9th of March, 2026. This is coined out of frustration of what I believe to be a clear tool that has been made by radicals, that is being entertained by those who are supposedly against the radical group. I want to think that it's only so clear to Me BECAUSE of My time as a radicalist, so I do not blame you if this is what makes you reconsider your stances.
PT: Additional: Coined on the 9th of March, 2026. This is coined out of frustration of what I believe to be a clear tool that has been made by radicals, that is being entertained by those who are supposedly against the radical group. I want to think that it's only so clear to Me BECAUSE of My time as a radicalist, so I do not blame you if this is what makes you reconsider your stances. /end PT
TAGGING ⦂⠀@c1rcus-of-silliness @dearestchild @goregender @radiomogai
