It Says It Loves

i've outlined in a past post my opinion on the concept of pedophilia (thanks to tumblr's useless search function I can't find the post) but regardless, I subscribe to the model of human sexuality that goes as follows: it is so obviously socially constructed and conditioned there is really no point in arguing it is innate, and innate/'biological' arguments feed directly into reactionary sentiment surrounding sexuality. probably preaching to the choir here but felt the need to clarify regardless.

patriarchal societies (and resulting "family units") have widespread issues with child sexual abuse and sexuality. it has been stated before that incestuous abuse is an inevitable result of patriarchal family structure--especially with the role of the father. at the same time, there exists this persistent sexual shame and repression that--especially when coupled with entitlement--is a breeding ground for depravity. these things seem contradictory on the surface: everyone knows of the nefarious pedophile, but victims of sexual abuse (especially children) (especially if the perpetrator is a family member) are so often failed by law enforcement and peers alike when they try to do everything 'correctly'. everyone insists they hate pedophiles and rapists but the second that shadowy cartoon villain image is shattered by reality, they refuse to accept it. the reality is simple: perpetrators of such crimes are more likely to be someone you know, someone you trust, even someone you love. there are also common misconceptions about csa that I do hold the "innate" model of pedophilia accountable for: not enough people are aware that an adult can sexually abuse both children and adults, and be "attracted" to both. while some offenders may have a preferred age, they are still opportunists, and not all are wealthy or respected enough to have preferences in victims like those in the epstein files. I put "attracted" in quotes earlier because the way people who commit sex crimes are approached in most related research is frankly stupid as hell and it's very hard to take any of it seriously. or "interviews with pedophiles". to me this is about as useful and insightful as true crime content. oh well, it'll still be taken far more seriously by society at large than anything i'm saying here will, because terms like "feminism" and "social construct" are scary buzzwords to many.

now this is where I may upset people. a lot of discourse surrounding incest and pedophilia is extremely online. like i'm going to be so completely honest, I do not give a fuck if someone watches an anime with incest in it, or engages in some sort of sexual roleplay with another adult. do I think lolicon and shotacon are particularly helpful additions to society? no. but these did not appear out of nowhere as some sort of conspiracy to make people abuse children. rather, they feed into already existing power structures. cart before the horse type of situation. anime in particular gets a lot of flack for its themes but the men making whatever media you find acceptable will form secret societies, blackmail each other, and even travel internationally for the opportunity to rape children so perhaps the reality is capitalism and patriarchy reward this behavior universally.

the current attitude towards victims of csa/incest is hostile and far removed from reality and my recommendation is reading about how average people and the legal system actually react to these cases in real life. about how there are entire organizations whose purpose is defending child abusers. it's ironic, isn't it? how the fuck do you get to such a point, where "pedophile" is such a horrible thing to be, but the money and legal power sure seems to paint a very different picture? this is again where I mention the 'very online' phenomenon. a lot of outrage you see online is performative. I feel like as social media use becomes more common, this will be more and more of an issue. we have a unique ability today to hear from and communicate with more people than ever before. with that comes consequences if you do take internet algorithms driven by engagement as accurate portrayals of wider communities offline. remember outrage drives engagement. you are more likely to see something online that pisses you off. maybe it'll even be this post today.

father-daughter incest is the most commonly reported. this is only as "natural" as the concept of the nuclear family.

So are we noticing a pattern yet

So are we noticing a pattern yet

So are we noticing a pattern yet

By 'low-impact' do you mean impact on the material reality of people's lives, of politics, of marxism? Do you think that someone can make art that is effective propaganda without meaning to?

I agree that people especially on the 'art appreciation' website will have strong reactions to that statement as did I when reading it, I think it would be silly to expect otherwise, but I think it's something worth thinking about. I'm not super well-read even though I'm trying to fix that and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter if you have a moment.

i mean, like, any individual media object just has an extremely low impact on the world, materially and politically. when art or even specifically directed propaganda has influence on the world, it is in aggregate, as the manifestation of a cultural trend or the characteristics of mass media production--for instance, i don't think gears of war or top gun are individually very influential on the world in a vacuum, they are simply individual examples of the very influential billion-dollar mass culture imperialist propaganda industry.

and like, in case where a particular work or piece of propaganda can be singlehandedly influential, the properties of the work itself are secondary to the material factors propagating it and the political factions adopting and appropriating it. like, to take a very extreme example, the protocols of the elders of zion became a hugely important pillar of global antisemitism because of its usage by the black hundreds and later by white russian emigres, not because of some remarkably convincing element of its own rhetoric