Bloated egos
Okay, so.
A friend of mine turned me on to this rant on inflation. Er... the sexual fetish of inflation. As in, people being filled with air...? Sorry, I dunno. I just felt the need to clarify, and it's not like I know about the US dollar enough to talk about THAT kind of inflation... MOVING ON!
Anyway... it's a doozy. So much so that I'm going to respond to it now with a rant of my own. But first, some background.
I see this sort of thing way too often. It's an unfortunate tendency of people to confuse terms and use vaguely-defined standards to make their arguments. Some rants, like the above, are so terrible in this that they read like a case study in logical fallacy. The specific argument I'm referring to is one that often boils down to a particular kink being "bad" because "NORMAL PEOPLE don't like that sort of thing!"
So, here we have both, a failure to understand kinks and a failure to understand normalcy.
I may as well start with the latter. Too often in a rant like this, the speaker defines "normal" as "myself and people I've decided are like me" and thus "abnormal" as "people whom I've decided are not like me." This... Isn't really how it works. It's not only a cognitive failure, but it ignores decades of respected psychological research in its refusal to properly define "normal."
So let's define it. Sparing you the boring (and often confusing) details of psychological study, we can give "normal" an impartial definition in "anyone who can function at least marginally in daily life." That is to say, if you can regularly get out of bed, get dressed, go to work/school, pay your taxes and so on, you are effectively "normal," regardless of what you do when the lights go out. I'd like to think this is pretty fair, and it gives us a good working definition of "normal," as that term is going to come up a lot below.
And now for the real wall banger: "Fetish." What people are doing here, first of all, is combining two different terns: Fetish, and paraphilia. If you don't want to read those, I'll sum up briefly: Both refer to being aroused by acts, situations, body parts and so on, outside of the normative sexual encounter. In the case of paraphilia, the subject can expierence arousal without the unique situation present, and is merely aroused by it, whereas, in the case of a sexual fetish, the subject generally CANNOT become aroused without the situation present. This is a vital disction, and as such, I will not use the term "fetish" in this rant, except when I am actually referring to one. Instead, I shall use the term "kink" to refer to both, and each term to refer to either.
Now, since sexual fetishes and paraphilia are seperated by only one key aspect, I will further define paraphilia, as this will be vital to analyzing the rant I linked.
In a single sentance: Paraphilia can be just about ANYTHING. To give you a basic idea, being aroused by a woman's breasts is paraphilia. So, being a leg man, or an ass man, or a foot man, these are also all paraphilia. Liking a girl in glasses is paraphilia. Finding a specific outfit or role arousing is paraphilia. And yes, inflation/weight gain is also paraphilia. Often, a paraphile is aroused by something that is not necessairly possible or feasable in reality. As such, the paraphile's interest is expressed almost exclusively in fantasy. Other people generally aren't getting involved, and as such, no one is getting hurt.
But people use the term "fetish" to infer something horrible and sick, and thus make it an automatic assumption that anyone who likes "that sort of thing" is also horrible and sick. In response to that, I will make a statement of my own: Based on the evidence I have already presented, the conlcusion I am going to be working from is simple.
NORMAL PEOPLE IN FACT DO LIKE "THAT SORT OF THING."
And now let us get to the rant itself. I will quote selected portions for analysys and my general amusmenet.
"Listen, I know you guys take a lot of shit. And I don’t want to step on anyone’s likes or dislikes."
Already, we're off to a righteously bad start: Anyone familliar with these sorts of rants knows in advance that he DOES want to step on people's likes and dislikes, or, at least, even if he doesn't intend to do it, he's going to anyway.Oh, this isn't my paranoia speaking, he actually contradicts himself on this point a few times during the rant.
"If you don’t like people bashing Inflation or Weight Gain or Blueberry people or whatever the Hell, I suggest you leave, because you probably won’t like what I’m about to say."
... see what I mean?
"1. “The concept.” "
This is just to show where I'm looking right now. Not going to quote that whole block of text. The gist of it, however, is that he's listing the various inflation/weight gain methods, but he's using them based on a real world outlook. If the situations common to inflation were possible in real life, I imagine they would be horrible, but, as I said above, much of the time, it's fantasy, and inflation fans more than likely know this. Making you wonder what this guy's problem is.
I will quote two statements from this block, though...
"And then there’s Blueberry people, which is pretty much just the act of jerking off to people sharing the same fate Violet Beauregard did on the classic children’s movie “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”. I’d call Pedophilia, but that’s a rant for another day."
First we have the further demonization of the inflation/weight gain kinks, as this person is saying "This is what these people find sexy!" And, truth to tell, a GREAT DEAL of people find that particular scene arousing. So many that it sometimes amazes even me. Not so much that someone is turned on by something, but because so many are fixated on THAT ONE SCENE. It's truly amazing, and ties into what I said above: Nearly anything can be paraphilia.
... oh and... the "classic childen's movie?" You do realize it was a book first, right? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? And that the blueberry scene WAS in the book, too? Is Roald Dahl sick too? Also, we have the pedophilia crack. Meh. Pedophilia IS a form of paraphilia, yes, but as long as it's merely fantasies of underage people in sexual situations, nobody's getting hurt, and so, it's not sick. Nor is it a "gateway fetish," liking the thought of it is not at all the same beast as wanting to do it, and people don't randomly turn into pedophiles. Something I should have mentioned above, but when a person is releaved as being sick, generally the sickness was present for much longer than the fantasy. That is, the fantasy DID not make the person sick. It doesn't work like that.
"The processes are rather disturbing in and of themselves. And don’t think I don’t know what the Hell I’m talking about. I have had to thoroughly look through this stuff to get a good understanding of it"
I've no doubt that his understanding is keen, indeed, it's one of the few things in this rant I can't poke holes in. But the question I have to ask myself is... Why would you do such a thing? I don't like guro or scat, but neither do I actively seek them out to understand them better! I might poke around now and then, to remind myself what it is I dislike, but I don't fucking sit down and study it. This statement above borders on obsession, and do keep it in mind, as it becomes a "people who live in glass houses" sort of thing further on down...
"I really hate to tell you this folks: The human body does not work like a balloon. Sorry. It just doesn’t."
It's a good thing that this is just fantasy then, isn't it?
"2. “Isn’t this just rape?” - Now, call me crazy, but isn’t the idea of changing one’s physical body through unusual means against someone’s will just for the sake of sexual pleasure and arousal fall under…rape? Last time I checked…it did."
Another statement I can't actually scuttle. He does properly define rape for this proceeding, proving that it's not the concept, it's the execution. For, behold...
"And that’s where it starts getting FUCKED UP. They alter what’s happening to make it seem like the poor girl getting inflated…likes it."
... he assumes the situations are a perversion of fact. Now, again, if this were happening in real life, it probably would be a bad thing, it probably WOULD be akin to rape. Unless, of course- assuming it wouldn't kill the person it's happening to- the "victim" wanted it. And while this is highly unlikely in reality, in fantasy, anything is possible.
Ergo, no alteration is happening: In the fantasy, the "poor girl" DOES like it. Again, he's using real world standards and applying them to things that ARE NOT HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD. I forget which logical fallacy this is, but I know that I just call it "asshattery."
"Also, take this into consideration, inflation/WG in real life would look positively creepy in real life. Don’t believe me? Take a look at these screenshots from the movie “Slither”:"
"What you just saw was the aftermath of a woman being filled with alien sperm and being inflated to the size of a gigantic balloon. It’s not a pretty image by any means, but it’s pretty accurate as to what inflation in real life would look like. :shudder:"
He admits that the events herein are impossible (alien sperm, etc etc) and then uses the "Oh, it'd be horrible!" whine AGAIN. Mind that it was only horrible in the context of the movie. Also, mind that he, not to much earlier, insisted that the human body does not inflate like a balloon.
"3. “This was once just a joke.” - Back in the old days of cartoons such as “Tom & Jerry”, the idea of something getting inflated was just used purely as a visual joke and nothing else, since it didn’t last long and was purely comical. Now, since it’s the goal of a sexual fetish, it’s rather creepy."
The problem with paraphilia is that, you don't know what's going to turn into a fantasy. ANYTHING is going to be a fantasy at some point (The internet has a colloqualism for this; they call it "Rule 36," and while it too confuses fetishes with paraphilia, it otherwise hits the nail on the head, as anythng can be a fantasy, and anything likely will). To wit, it was once a joke, and it still is, but likely became a sexual fantasy from the moment it was created, more or less. In the Wikipedia article for sexual fetishes, the image used at the time of this post was a foot worship drawing... dating back to the year 1926. No paraphilia is truly "new," as there's always a chance that someone will be aroused by SOMETHING. Do you have any idea how many young people discovered breasts thanks to Jessica Rabbit? She was intended as a joke, too. Is SHE creepy now?
"And by “rather” creepy, I mean “I’m gonna go kill myself, I can’t believe this exists” creepy."
Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?
"4. “It’s fiction.” - People who go out against inflation/weight gain/expansion of any kind/etc. or even simply criticize it run into this shit all the time. “It’s fiction. It’s not actually hurting them.”
Folks, trust me when I say this: Even fiction has lines it shouldn’t cross. I can make a 40 page story of Nazis burning and decapitating an entire city and its population. Doesn’t make it a good thing.
Oh yeah, I went there."
Into the deepest, darkest reaches of logical fallacy? Oh yes. Yes, you certainly did. First, if it were a good, well-written story (Anything's possible!), then it would, arguably, be a good thing. Also, almost completely indipendent of if it was well crafted or not, it WOULD be a good thing, to the kind of person who likes that sort of thing. Which is kind of the point of this counter-rant, I guess...
"5. “Popping”
Good God, why?
How anyone can get off on this is beyond me. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick."
It's beyond me, too, but that's because it isn't a paraphilia either of us posess. It would make perfect sense to someone with a popping fantasy, and I'm sorry if that word, FANTASY, is getting old, but again, most of this is fantasy; nobody is getting hurt.
"6. “Inflation Fanart” - People, I have to say this. Taking characters that from other franchises that don’t belong to you, and making them HUGE, is a bit much."
Again, useage of vague terms to support flimsy, one-sided arguments."A bit much," how?
"You can make your own characters and inflate the flying fuck out of them. As long as I don’t find them, I don’t mind. Doesn’t affect me."
Such a tolerant, accepting man he is.
"However, I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to type one of my favorite characters names from one of my favorite video games/movies/anime/tv show/etc. and find hordes of unwanted fetish smut of them."
As opposed to the hordes of wanted fetish smut of them?
"And with DA’s search engine, that’s damn near impossible. In fact, let’s have a little experiment: Go to the search engine right now and type in “Rouge.” I am of course talking about Rouge the Bat from the Sonic the Hedgehog video game series. You won’t go 2 pages without finding something fetish related. Wanna up the ante? Go the search bar again and type in “Haruko.” Obviously, Haruko from the FLCL anime. FIRST FRIGGIN’ RESULT."
Showed another friend of mine this rant. He tried the experiment, and, indeed, found fat growth art of Rouge the Bat. ... And then added the word "thin" to the search, and the FG images vanished... Experiment FAILED.
"7. “durrhurr, what’s a mature mark?” - This isn’t particularly exclusive towards inflationists or WG lovers, or whatever. This kinda goes out to anyone who makes anything sexual, really. If you’re making a piece of fetish art, MARK IT MATURE. Just for the people’s sake. I may not see some well done pieces of art, but as long as it keeps me from seeing gigantic, redundant pieces of protoplasm that people wank off too, I think it’s a small price to pay."
Except for the wanking comment, this is another one I can't actually argue with. Mind, it doesn't affect me, between the fact that I am used to the bizarre paraphilic art on DA, and the fact that, if I'm on DA, I probably want smut anyway...
"8. “It’s not art. Deal with it.” - I reeeeeeeeeally hate to break it to you guys, but Inflation/Weight Gain/Fat/Blueberry/Vore/ExtremeBE/Pregnancy/etc. is not art. itspr0n, lol. But seriously though, it’s only purpose is to fulfill a sexual fetish and hold no other real relevance than that. Rather simple. I’m pretty sure *Mangapunksai addressed this before in this piece:
And stop pretending that it is art. It’s not."
Same friend as above, my good, good internet correspondent Colin, has told me many times of the difference between "art" and "pornography."
Fifty years.
No, I'm serious, a lot of pieces we consider "art" today were, in fact, comissioned for apprecation of another sort. Also, many consider the classic Marlyin Monroe photo spead in Playboy to be "art," that does not change the fact that it was made so people could be aroused and excited by it.
"9. “I don’t hate fat people.”"
Yeah, this bit has nothing to do with the rest of the rant, save that it's a futile attempt to make himself look impartial. Unfortunately, nothing else in his rant supports this claim...
"I often see that most inflation artists just dedicate all their time and energy to this site and upload nothing more than Inflation/WG smut. For God’s sake people, do something else. I’m also tired of the fact that most fetishists upload nothing more than work that fulfills their fetish and it only gets praise from its fans with empty comments that mean nothing."
Remember what I said above? The sound you just heard is a rather large rock crashing through a glass wall: He spends a goodly deal of time, actively researching inflation/WG, and then admonishes people who look the stuff up because they like it? Also, this assumes that the people doing the searching/posting don't have lives outside of DA. Very likely, they do, pursuant to what I said above about being "normal."
"However, if your stuff is involved in a fetish, do me a favor, would you please? Keep it off DA. Go somewhere else with it. Somewhere where inflation/WG/vore/whatever is welcomed and in fact, encouraged. If you want to find a place where other people draw/post/talk about pictures that share the same mental disease you do, by all means, be my guest. I got no problems with that."
Here, again, he attemps to use his personal views as a filter for the rest of the world, bringing me back to my earlier statement: That "normal" is the speaker, and "not normal" is people who are not the speaker.
"I’m sure many of you inflationists are good guys/girls."
... as evidenced by the fact that you just called their interests a disease, right...?
Yeah, wow. I can't believe I did this. But, I guess I wanted to get the real straight dope out there. And in case you missed it, in case you skipped over this, or in case it wasn't clear enough in the first place; Fetishes are actually (usually) paraphilia, but neither paraphilia nor fetishes make one sick. A fantasy does not make someone sick, nor does it make them abnormal. If you can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, then you are normal. If you don't hurt yourself or others for your own pleasure or amusement, then you most likely aren't sick.
I suppose the question I want answered is... What's this guy's fantasy, really...?
Have a nice day, and enjoy your maids. ... Maids are paraphilia too, come to think of it...
A friend of mine turned me on to this rant on inflation. Er... the sexual fetish of inflation. As in, people being filled with air...? Sorry, I dunno. I just felt the need to clarify, and it's not like I know about the US dollar enough to talk about THAT kind of inflation... MOVING ON!
Anyway... it's a doozy. So much so that I'm going to respond to it now with a rant of my own. But first, some background.
I see this sort of thing way too often. It's an unfortunate tendency of people to confuse terms and use vaguely-defined standards to make their arguments. Some rants, like the above, are so terrible in this that they read like a case study in logical fallacy. The specific argument I'm referring to is one that often boils down to a particular kink being "bad" because "NORMAL PEOPLE don't like that sort of thing!"
So, here we have both, a failure to understand kinks and a failure to understand normalcy.
I may as well start with the latter. Too often in a rant like this, the speaker defines "normal" as "myself and people I've decided are like me" and thus "abnormal" as "people whom I've decided are not like me." This... Isn't really how it works. It's not only a cognitive failure, but it ignores decades of respected psychological research in its refusal to properly define "normal."
So let's define it. Sparing you the boring (and often confusing) details of psychological study, we can give "normal" an impartial definition in "anyone who can function at least marginally in daily life." That is to say, if you can regularly get out of bed, get dressed, go to work/school, pay your taxes and so on, you are effectively "normal," regardless of what you do when the lights go out. I'd like to think this is pretty fair, and it gives us a good working definition of "normal," as that term is going to come up a lot below.
And now for the real wall banger: "Fetish." What people are doing here, first of all, is combining two different terns: Fetish, and paraphilia. If you don't want to read those, I'll sum up briefly: Both refer to being aroused by acts, situations, body parts and so on, outside of the normative sexual encounter. In the case of paraphilia, the subject can expierence arousal without the unique situation present, and is merely aroused by it, whereas, in the case of a sexual fetish, the subject generally CANNOT become aroused without the situation present. This is a vital disction, and as such, I will not use the term "fetish" in this rant, except when I am actually referring to one. Instead, I shall use the term "kink" to refer to both, and each term to refer to either.
Now, since sexual fetishes and paraphilia are seperated by only one key aspect, I will further define paraphilia, as this will be vital to analyzing the rant I linked.
In a single sentance: Paraphilia can be just about ANYTHING. To give you a basic idea, being aroused by a woman's breasts is paraphilia. So, being a leg man, or an ass man, or a foot man, these are also all paraphilia. Liking a girl in glasses is paraphilia. Finding a specific outfit or role arousing is paraphilia. And yes, inflation/weight gain is also paraphilia. Often, a paraphile is aroused by something that is not necessairly possible or feasable in reality. As such, the paraphile's interest is expressed almost exclusively in fantasy. Other people generally aren't getting involved, and as such, no one is getting hurt.
But people use the term "fetish" to infer something horrible and sick, and thus make it an automatic assumption that anyone who likes "that sort of thing" is also horrible and sick. In response to that, I will make a statement of my own: Based on the evidence I have already presented, the conlcusion I am going to be working from is simple.
NORMAL PEOPLE IN FACT DO LIKE "THAT SORT OF THING."
And now let us get to the rant itself. I will quote selected portions for analysys and my general amusmenet.
"Listen, I know you guys take a lot of shit. And I don’t want to step on anyone’s likes or dislikes."
Already, we're off to a righteously bad start: Anyone familliar with these sorts of rants knows in advance that he DOES want to step on people's likes and dislikes, or, at least, even if he doesn't intend to do it, he's going to anyway.Oh, this isn't my paranoia speaking, he actually contradicts himself on this point a few times during the rant.
"If you don’t like people bashing Inflation or Weight Gain or Blueberry people or whatever the Hell, I suggest you leave, because you probably won’t like what I’m about to say."
... see what I mean?
"1. “The concept.” "
This is just to show where I'm looking right now. Not going to quote that whole block of text. The gist of it, however, is that he's listing the various inflation/weight gain methods, but he's using them based on a real world outlook. If the situations common to inflation were possible in real life, I imagine they would be horrible, but, as I said above, much of the time, it's fantasy, and inflation fans more than likely know this. Making you wonder what this guy's problem is.
I will quote two statements from this block, though...
"And then there’s Blueberry people, which is pretty much just the act of jerking off to people sharing the same fate Violet Beauregard did on the classic children’s movie “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”. I’d call Pedophilia, but that’s a rant for another day."
First we have the further demonization of the inflation/weight gain kinks, as this person is saying "This is what these people find sexy!" And, truth to tell, a GREAT DEAL of people find that particular scene arousing. So many that it sometimes amazes even me. Not so much that someone is turned on by something, but because so many are fixated on THAT ONE SCENE. It's truly amazing, and ties into what I said above: Nearly anything can be paraphilia.
... oh and... the "classic childen's movie?" You do realize it was a book first, right? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? And that the blueberry scene WAS in the book, too? Is Roald Dahl sick too? Also, we have the pedophilia crack. Meh. Pedophilia IS a form of paraphilia, yes, but as long as it's merely fantasies of underage people in sexual situations, nobody's getting hurt, and so, it's not sick. Nor is it a "gateway fetish," liking the thought of it is not at all the same beast as wanting to do it, and people don't randomly turn into pedophiles. Something I should have mentioned above, but when a person is releaved as being sick, generally the sickness was present for much longer than the fantasy. That is, the fantasy DID not make the person sick. It doesn't work like that.
"The processes are rather disturbing in and of themselves. And don’t think I don’t know what the Hell I’m talking about. I have had to thoroughly look through this stuff to get a good understanding of it"
I've no doubt that his understanding is keen, indeed, it's one of the few things in this rant I can't poke holes in. But the question I have to ask myself is... Why would you do such a thing? I don't like guro or scat, but neither do I actively seek them out to understand them better! I might poke around now and then, to remind myself what it is I dislike, but I don't fucking sit down and study it. This statement above borders on obsession, and do keep it in mind, as it becomes a "people who live in glass houses" sort of thing further on down...
"I really hate to tell you this folks: The human body does not work like a balloon. Sorry. It just doesn’t."
It's a good thing that this is just fantasy then, isn't it?
"2. “Isn’t this just rape?” - Now, call me crazy, but isn’t the idea of changing one’s physical body through unusual means against someone’s will just for the sake of sexual pleasure and arousal fall under…rape? Last time I checked…it did."
Another statement I can't actually scuttle. He does properly define rape for this proceeding, proving that it's not the concept, it's the execution. For, behold...
"And that’s where it starts getting FUCKED UP. They alter what’s happening to make it seem like the poor girl getting inflated…likes it."
... he assumes the situations are a perversion of fact. Now, again, if this were happening in real life, it probably would be a bad thing, it probably WOULD be akin to rape. Unless, of course- assuming it wouldn't kill the person it's happening to- the "victim" wanted it. And while this is highly unlikely in reality, in fantasy, anything is possible.
Ergo, no alteration is happening: In the fantasy, the "poor girl" DOES like it. Again, he's using real world standards and applying them to things that ARE NOT HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD. I forget which logical fallacy this is, but I know that I just call it "asshattery."
"Also, take this into consideration, inflation/WG in real life would look positively creepy in real life. Don’t believe me? Take a look at these screenshots from the movie “Slither”:"
"What you just saw was the aftermath of a woman being filled with alien sperm and being inflated to the size of a gigantic balloon. It’s not a pretty image by any means, but it’s pretty accurate as to what inflation in real life would look like. :shudder:"
He admits that the events herein are impossible (alien sperm, etc etc) and then uses the "Oh, it'd be horrible!" whine AGAIN. Mind that it was only horrible in the context of the movie. Also, mind that he, not to much earlier, insisted that the human body does not inflate like a balloon.
"3. “This was once just a joke.” - Back in the old days of cartoons such as “Tom & Jerry”, the idea of something getting inflated was just used purely as a visual joke and nothing else, since it didn’t last long and was purely comical. Now, since it’s the goal of a sexual fetish, it’s rather creepy."
The problem with paraphilia is that, you don't know what's going to turn into a fantasy. ANYTHING is going to be a fantasy at some point (The internet has a colloqualism for this; they call it "Rule 36," and while it too confuses fetishes with paraphilia, it otherwise hits the nail on the head, as anythng can be a fantasy, and anything likely will). To wit, it was once a joke, and it still is, but likely became a sexual fantasy from the moment it was created, more or less. In the Wikipedia article for sexual fetishes, the image used at the time of this post was a foot worship drawing... dating back to the year 1926. No paraphilia is truly "new," as there's always a chance that someone will be aroused by SOMETHING. Do you have any idea how many young people discovered breasts thanks to Jessica Rabbit? She was intended as a joke, too. Is SHE creepy now?
"And by “rather” creepy, I mean “I’m gonna go kill myself, I can’t believe this exists” creepy."
Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?
"4. “It’s fiction.” - People who go out against inflation/weight gain/expansion of any kind/etc. or even simply criticize it run into this shit all the time. “It’s fiction. It’s not actually hurting them.”
Folks, trust me when I say this: Even fiction has lines it shouldn’t cross. I can make a 40 page story of Nazis burning and decapitating an entire city and its population. Doesn’t make it a good thing.
Oh yeah, I went there."
Into the deepest, darkest reaches of logical fallacy? Oh yes. Yes, you certainly did. First, if it were a good, well-written story (Anything's possible!), then it would, arguably, be a good thing. Also, almost completely indipendent of if it was well crafted or not, it WOULD be a good thing, to the kind of person who likes that sort of thing. Which is kind of the point of this counter-rant, I guess...
"5. “Popping”
Good God, why?
How anyone can get off on this is beyond me. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick."
It's beyond me, too, but that's because it isn't a paraphilia either of us posess. It would make perfect sense to someone with a popping fantasy, and I'm sorry if that word, FANTASY, is getting old, but again, most of this is fantasy; nobody is getting hurt.
"6. “Inflation Fanart” - People, I have to say this. Taking characters that from other franchises that don’t belong to you, and making them HUGE, is a bit much."
Again, useage of vague terms to support flimsy, one-sided arguments."A bit much," how?
"You can make your own characters and inflate the flying fuck out of them. As long as I don’t find them, I don’t mind. Doesn’t affect me."
Such a tolerant, accepting man he is.
"However, I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to type one of my favorite characters names from one of my favorite video games/movies/anime/tv show/etc. and find hordes of unwanted fetish smut of them."
As opposed to the hordes of wanted fetish smut of them?
"And with DA’s search engine, that’s damn near impossible. In fact, let’s have a little experiment: Go to the search engine right now and type in “Rouge.” I am of course talking about Rouge the Bat from the Sonic the Hedgehog video game series. You won’t go 2 pages without finding something fetish related. Wanna up the ante? Go the search bar again and type in “Haruko.” Obviously, Haruko from the FLCL anime. FIRST FRIGGIN’ RESULT."
Showed another friend of mine this rant. He tried the experiment, and, indeed, found fat growth art of Rouge the Bat. ... And then added the word "thin" to the search, and the FG images vanished... Experiment FAILED.
"7. “durrhurr, what’s a mature mark?” - This isn’t particularly exclusive towards inflationists or WG lovers, or whatever. This kinda goes out to anyone who makes anything sexual, really. If you’re making a piece of fetish art, MARK IT MATURE. Just for the people’s sake. I may not see some well done pieces of art, but as long as it keeps me from seeing gigantic, redundant pieces of protoplasm that people wank off too, I think it’s a small price to pay."
Except for the wanking comment, this is another one I can't actually argue with. Mind, it doesn't affect me, between the fact that I am used to the bizarre paraphilic art on DA, and the fact that, if I'm on DA, I probably want smut anyway...
"8. “It’s not art. Deal with it.” - I reeeeeeeeeally hate to break it to you guys, but Inflation/Weight Gain/Fat/Blueberry/Vore/ExtremeBE/Pregnancy/etc. is not art. itspr0n, lol. But seriously though, it’s only purpose is to fulfill a sexual fetish and hold no other real relevance than that. Rather simple. I’m pretty sure *Mangapunksai addressed this before in this piece:
And stop pretending that it is art. It’s not."
Same friend as above, my good, good internet correspondent Colin, has told me many times of the difference between "art" and "pornography."
Fifty years.
No, I'm serious, a lot of pieces we consider "art" today were, in fact, comissioned for apprecation of another sort. Also, many consider the classic Marlyin Monroe photo spead in Playboy to be "art," that does not change the fact that it was made so people could be aroused and excited by it.
"9. “I don’t hate fat people.”"
Yeah, this bit has nothing to do with the rest of the rant, save that it's a futile attempt to make himself look impartial. Unfortunately, nothing else in his rant supports this claim...
"I often see that most inflation artists just dedicate all their time and energy to this site and upload nothing more than Inflation/WG smut. For God’s sake people, do something else. I’m also tired of the fact that most fetishists upload nothing more than work that fulfills their fetish and it only gets praise from its fans with empty comments that mean nothing."
Remember what I said above? The sound you just heard is a rather large rock crashing through a glass wall: He spends a goodly deal of time, actively researching inflation/WG, and then admonishes people who look the stuff up because they like it? Also, this assumes that the people doing the searching/posting don't have lives outside of DA. Very likely, they do, pursuant to what I said above about being "normal."
"However, if your stuff is involved in a fetish, do me a favor, would you please? Keep it off DA. Go somewhere else with it. Somewhere where inflation/WG/vore/whatever is welcomed and in fact, encouraged. If you want to find a place where other people draw/post/talk about pictures that share the same mental disease you do, by all means, be my guest. I got no problems with that."
Here, again, he attemps to use his personal views as a filter for the rest of the world, bringing me back to my earlier statement: That "normal" is the speaker, and "not normal" is people who are not the speaker.
"I’m sure many of you inflationists are good guys/girls."
... as evidenced by the fact that you just called their interests a disease, right...?
Yeah, wow. I can't believe I did this. But, I guess I wanted to get the real straight dope out there. And in case you missed it, in case you skipped over this, or in case it wasn't clear enough in the first place; Fetishes are actually (usually) paraphilia, but neither paraphilia nor fetishes make one sick. A fantasy does not make someone sick, nor does it make them abnormal. If you can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, then you are normal. If you don't hurt yourself or others for your own pleasure or amusement, then you most likely aren't sick.
I suppose the question I want answered is... What's this guy's fantasy, really...?
Have a nice day, and enjoy your maids. ... Maids are paraphilia too, come to think of it...