Obsesseive, Not Possessive

A/N: I went as far as I was comfortable with, I hope that’s good enough. Huge thanks to @teratopup for helping me out with this one. Enjoy!

Pleasure. Pleasure. Pleasure.

Mimic x transmasc!reader || overstimulation, breeding kink, tentacles, dubcon, (light) masochism, sexpollen, double penetration (implied), anal sex (implied)

When you walk into the treasure cave, you don’t expect to find anything. It’s just an old tale, there’s no way there’s really a treasure so good it made people go mad over it multiple times. There’s simply no way. That’s why you let out a gasp of surprise when you see the big chest in the middle of the room, unopened and surrounded by gold coins that are shiny enough to reflect your face. You rush through the cave, your footsteps echoing in the ceilings as you kneel in front of the chest, hands fumbling to open it.

Your scream is deafening when the chest opens and there’s a mouth inside. Big mouth surrounded by tentacles and sharp teeth that look threatening enough for you to run away. But you don’t get far, tentacles catching your middle and bringing you close to the chest. You know you should be scared, but a part of you feels a rush of arousal so deep it knocks you off your feet. You lowkey want this. You want to be dominated like this, by this… this… this creature. So when you feel a pin-prick in the back of your neck, and suddenly everything feels different, you don’t fight against it. You embrace it. You embrace the way the tentacles feel against your skin, the harsh grip turning pleasurable as your brain mixes pain and pleasure.

You can see your skin getting red, you can understand that he’s inflicting some kind of pain, but the fact that you can’t feel it, not really, is sending you into an uncanny valley vibe that makes your body shiver with something not quite like fear, but close. Your body rocks against his tentacles, shivering in pleasure as it bites and touches all over, some light bruises already forming, but instead of pain, you can only feel pleasure.

You need to do this for children's sake, to give them the agency they need to traverse life, otherwise you will end up being abusive to the children around you.

This is something you must understand. The inability to consent cannot exist without its natural conclusion, the inability to revoke consent. They are both part of the same system, because they both stem from the same root, of the child as something unable to decide for itself.

Consent is not just about sex! I hope we all recognize this, but consent is about the ability to choose what happens with our own body — with the clothes we wear and how we are dressed, with the food we eat and who chooses it, with the medical care we receive and who practices it, and countless more moments of personal freedom.

If you cannot ask a child, for example, if they're okay with having the doctor touch them for their medical checkup, you will either Never be able to touch the child (something that, in practice, is never the case) or you will end up violating their boundaries.

Beyond that, the idea of children as unable to consent is foundational to the removal of agency and boundaries from children. Because a child cannot consent, and because there are cases where that child must be touched (for a very stark example, grabbing a child about to walk on a car-filled road, or otherwise, the needs of medical examination), we create a world where that child's boundaries are managed by the adults around them. Where and how the child can be touched is up to their family, or any authority figure present.

This is altogether bad! Children need to be understood as able to say when they do not want to be touched, for this reason. Because children are understood as unable to say yes, they are not listened when they say no. This goes from silly things, like the food they eat, the things they choose to wear, to important things.

Furthermore, then, in the realm of sexuality, it is plainly obvious that this framework of children as unable to consent is abusive by design. A child, because it, as it's parent's property, is unable to say yes, because that consent is offloaded to their authority figures, cannot be allowed to say no. This framework then does not prevent CSA, but is rather the thing that creates it!

Think about the way spanking (something understood as a form of CSA) is so common, so acceptable. This is because the boundaries of a child are treated as secondary to the parent's authority. In the same way, the way parents do not ask before stripping their kid, before touching them.

The class of child is vague and vast, but we need to let them express their ability to consent, to say whether they want things or not, or we WILL enable and create abuse.