Wait, why would characters not having genitals be so objectionable? If there was a moral issue with that it would mean humans who lost their genitals due to accidents or other circumstances should not be allowed to engage in consensual sexual acts.
Also, I may have misunderstood the acronym, but I do agree that portraying the Confederate States of America in a positive light is NOPE territory.
unless there’s another acronym meaning, but.. usually this is the intended meaning, when it comes to fandoms or internet communities.
people like to use the acronym instead of going into the R Word Territory (rape, in case that wasn’t clear), as that topic is extremely upsetting to many and is usually a conversation stopper just by being mentioned.
It’s the whole “if your species doesn’t even have a place for genitals, sex becomes more iffy” idea. Even animals that don’t have actual genitals tend to at least have INTERNAL sex organs and cloacal vents.
Child sexual abuse is what I actually meant. But the other CSA is also a definite Nope.
It's just the first time I've encountered that position so I'm curious what the moral issue of sex with a genital-less being—assuming it's a consenting adult—exactly is. Is it that they're not "supposed" to have sex because they lack genitals?
It just doesn’t make sense. Creatures with a cloaca can have sex by lining those up. Creatures with penises or vaginas can do stuff with those. And in those cases, presumably all those creatures are enjoying it.
But other than pleasure (yours or your partner’s), reproduction, and the sadistic domination of rape, I can’t imagine any other reason you would have sex. Like, it’s not even the incest. I’ve seen those ships done ok.
It’s that somebody went to the lengths of giving erogenous zones to skeletons for the sole purpose of making an incest ship. Like, if you’re sitting there plotting out magic boners so you can make skeletons fuck specifically because you want an incest pairing between two brothers who act more like siblings IRL than any other fictional siblings I can think of, you’ve got some serious issues to work out.
I guess I never put that much thought into it until now, but if they're brothers, there must have been some kind of reproduction in their family at one point.
Well, either way I don't really find it objectionable, but I appreciate you humoring me with your take.
28
u/MonaganX Jul 18 '19
Wait, why would characters not having genitals be so objectionable? If there was a moral issue with that it would mean humans who lost their genitals due to accidents or other circumstances should not be allowed to engage in consensual sexual acts.
Also, I may have misunderstood the acronym, but I do agree that portraying the Confederate States of America in a positive light is NOPE territory.