Fetishistic Language

[komorebi]

wait, what exactly is the slur here? “futa”?

i literally thought that was the japanese terminology for hermaphrodite? i think this is where a lot of confusion can come from. at least i’m confused.

It's not. To put it simply without a lot of cultural context. The term has its origins in Japanese as a slur there, and is used as a knowing pejorative in Japan, in specific spheres related intentionally to fetish material. Some Japanese people do still use it anyway, because they're not trying to be offensive, but are also into extreme fetish content.

For us in the EN speaking spheres, I'm sure we all have a different history with it, regardless of how it started its use here. But simply put, no, that's not even the word Japanese people would casually use if they didn't want to be insensitive.

Does that change how some people will use it here on the site? Because it seems like if some people started off saying that word is charged and offensive, people would care more about that use here than how it's used in Japanese?

 

[komorebi]

All OP is trying to do is start a dialogue. They pointed out that certain language is offensive due to XYZ reasons. They initiated a conversation that some people may not be ready to have. People are comfortable with their current language and resistant to change, which is fine. However, OP's goal was simply to open a discussion and inform others that this language is considered offensive by some.

Now that the dialogue has begun, it seems to be going in circles because people are strongly opposed to change. OP is not trying to alter the rules but is instead trying to highlight an issue they perceive. Ignoring the problem will only prevent any progress.

OP said stop ignoring this problem and all they're getting in return is 'don't you dare try to change my perfectly good website that objectifies people. It doesn't objectify me, so I don't see the problem here.'

If the problem is ignored nothing will ever change.

Let them speak without telling them to be quiet. Let them speak without telling them to ignore the problem. There's a few people I would add to my ignore list but then I can't have this dialogue with them. Do you see how that could be problematic? Ignoring people isn’t the issue and it isn’t going to fix anything.

We HAVE to start talking to people that have differing opinions. If we do not nothing will ever change. Nothing will ever get done.

I think this is a good point, and maybe there just needs to be a way to open to convo up to people who would be more willing to have a legitimate discussions without the folks who know they don't care coming in and trivializing the topic?

 

[Father Figure]

I was very clear about this as well:


Asking for cultural change is not policing. By definition policing requires enforcement. I have no power or authority on this website. I literally cannot enforce my will. That precludes me from doing any policing whatsoever.

I think that there is a lot of emotional interplay here which has me stepping out of this conversation, but I will say I do appreciate you bringing this up for conversation and attempting to have it, and you have been completely forthright and reasonable.

 

[raison detre]

All OP is trying to do is start a dialogue. They pointed out that certain language is offensive due to XYZ reasons. They initiated a conversation that some people may not be ready to have. People are comfortable with their current language and resistant to change, which is fine. However, OP's goal was simply to open a discussion and inform others that this language is considered offensive by some.

Now that the dialogue has begun, it seems to be going in circles because people are strongly opposed to change. OP is not trying to alter the rules but is instead trying to highlight an issue they perceive. Ignoring the problem will only prevent any progress.

OP said stop ignoring this problem and all they're getting in return is 'don't you dare try to change my perfectly good website that objectifies people. It doesn't objectify me, so I don't see the problem here.'

If the problem is ignored nothing will ever change.

Let them speak without telling them to be quiet. Let them speak without telling them to ignore the problem. There's a few people I would add to my ignore list but then I can't have this dialogue with them. Do you see how that could be problematic? Ignoring people isn’t the issue and it isn’t going to fix anything.

We HAVE to start talking to people that have differing opinions. If we do not nothing will ever change. Nothing will ever get done.

i'd say the majority of people who use this site (and other forums) don't engage in the topics outside their own roleplays, but hopefully they do read the threads anyway, and reading does make them reconsider the language they use moving forward, or at least be a bit more proactive about touching on other people's sensitivities and the such. it doesn't hurt anyone to be considerate of others.

some people are set in their ways and opinions though, and i'm afraid that sometimes engaging them does lead to talking in circles. and, usually, devolving into ad hominems. still, topics like this can hopefully stay productive, though i do think it'll eventually end up getting locked lol.

 

[Pretty.Poison]

I don't really use terms like "Futa" or any of the others mentioned here in my threads because I simply have no interest in any of it. My perception of the initial post was that it was pushing for policing of terminology used on the site that they found personally offensive. If this was not the case then so be it... But that is/was my perception... And let's face it, just saying that you're not asking for something doesn't mean you're not, just like adding 'no offense' doesn't mean you're not about to say something offensive.

My issue here is sort of a two part thing...

1. I feel like it's a dangerous precedent, as I stated before... And you can claim that it's s fallacy or whatever all you want, but it's happened in our everyday world. I as a woman am expected to modify that by adding "cis" or whatever. If I have a child I'm a "birthing person" rather than a mother, and I won't breast feed that child I'll "chest feed" him/her because it otherwise offends someone.

2. Like most others here, I roleplayed on other platforms. The platform where most of my RP experience comes from it was frowned upon and considered poor etiquette to mix OOC & IC, so seeing how much it is done here has been a bit of a shock to the system. Its not just this conversation, but others I've seen here, too. I just don't understand it, and I (mostly) try to avoid it.​

Now, as to the intent behind the link from Wikipedia regarding the term and it's usage... I was trying illustrate that most that use it (from what I have seen) is in regards to the anime/manga/hentai genre.. they're seeking fantasy/fictional versions and are not using it seeking real trans women. If you can't make that distinction in your mind... Well, I honestly don't know what to say.

it is [a term for hermaphrodite], but it's used more as a fetish term, and a lot of trans people find it offensive for the reasons we've already touched on: it feels dehumanising, like treating trans and intersex people as a porn category.

This as a point, like... Really? Because so is lesbian, gay, black, etc... as well as "bimbo" which usually consists of predominantly white women (usually blonde), but I guess because they're not minorities it's totally fine to objectify & dehumanize them? Or how about teen/barely legal sluts? Or cucks, which are almost always depicted as white men. You choose to be offended by a word. You choose to let that word objectify or dehumanize you. That's on you not the person using it in their thread title or post that has nothing to do with YOU.

 

[sevyn.]

This as a point, like... Really? Because so is lesbian, gay, black, etc... as well as "bimbo" which usually consists of predominantly white women (usually blonde), but I guess because they're not minorities it's totally fine to objectify & dehumanize them? Or how about teen/barely legal sluts? Or cucks, which are almost always depicted as white men. You choose to be offended by a word. You choose to let that word objectify or dehumanize you. That's on you not the person using it in their thread title or post that has nothing to do with YOU.​

i think it's hella weird for the 35, 40 year olds on here to be sexualising teens, yes! you believing BLONDE WHITE WOMEN are treated on the same level as trans or black people (even if you don't, using it as even an attempt at equivalency) tells me literally everything i need to know about your critical thinking skills, your total inability to think outside yourself and your very privileged position, oh wow 😭 it's a no from me. even giving this a serious response might genuinely be a disservice to myself and a waste of energy, cause there's no possible way you wrote this out and thought that it made any sense. i'm so baffled rn, this cannot be real.

@rhaenyratargaryens @lordescult look at this bruh i'm in real life AWE​

 

[sevyn.]

i'm not even trying to be combative, i am literally in shock that you thought that was a real Gotcha. please do not ever repeat that, for your sake 😭😭 oh my god???? this is not a real thing that was said, i'm choosing to forget this whole interaction​

 

[Sync]

This as a point, like... Really? Because so is lesbian, gay, black, etc... as well as "bimbo" which usually consists of predominantly white women (usually blonde), but I guess because they're not minorities it's totally fine to objectify & dehumanize them? Or how about teen/barely legal sluts? Or cucks, which are almost always depicted as white men. You choose to be offended by a word. You choose to let that word objectify or dehumanize you. That's on you not the person using it in their thread title or post that has nothing to do with YOU.

i think it's hella weird for the 35, 40 year olds on here to be sexualising teens, yes! you believing BLONDE WHITE WOMEN are treated on the same level as trans or black people (even if you don't, using it as even an attempt at equivalency) tells me literally everything i need to know about your critical thinking skills, your total inability to think outside yourself and your very privileged position, oh wow 😭 it's a no from me. even giving this a serious response might genuinely be a disservice to myself and a waste of energy, cause there's no possible way you wrote this out and thought that it made any sense. i'm so baffled rn, this cannot be real.

@rhaenyratargaryens @lordescult look at this bruh i'm in real life AWE​

Regardless of what you think of this attempt to demonstrate that ALL kinks here involve fetishised language, the point is valid: you cannot claim with 100% certainty that a person classified as a bimbo (for example) is not offended by the term or stigma associated.

By the way: you linking in others to gloat in what is clearly a non-friendly manner is very poor form.

 

[KittKatt]

This as a point, like... Really? Because so is lesbian, gay, black, etc... as well as "bimbo" which usually consists of predominantly white women (usually blonde), but I guess because they're not minorities it's totally fine to objectify & dehumanize them? Or how about teen/barely legal sluts? Or cucks, which are almost always depicted as white men. You choose to be offended by a word. You choose to let that word objectify or dehumanize you. That's on you not the person using it in their thread title or post that has nothing to do with YOU.

I'm sorry, but the take that minorities choose to be objectified or dehumanized by language intended to dehumanize and objectify them is not just a bad take, but one that is incredibly offensive on its own. Lesbian and gay are not used as porn terms, they originate as identities. Black did not originate as a porn term. I don't think bimbofication is a good thing either, and I think it's anti-feminist. I don't like "teen" porn or "barely legal" terms either. ALL OF THOSE DEHUMANIZE THE PEOPLE THEY TALK ABOUT. I have a problem with them all. However, this is the term that comes up regularly and frequently in this community, which impacts me.

I feel like it's a dangerous precedent, as I stated before... And you can claim that it's s fallacy or whatever all you want, but it's happened in our everyday world. I as a woman am expected to modify that by adding "cis" or whatever. If I have a child I'm a "birthing person" rather than a mother, and I won't breast feed that child I'll "chest feed" him/her because it otherwise offends someone.

I somehow knew this would come up. No one forces you to add "cis" as a modifier to your womanhood. In our world, it's assumed that you're cis. It is the default.

No one says you can't choose to identify as a mother.

No one says you can't choose to say you'll breast-feed.

The only time those terms are objectionable is when they're used to wrongly classify trans people. If a trans man gives birth, calling him a mother is objectionable. Calling him a "birthing person" kinda sucks too, IMO, but it's better. You aren't oppressed because people want you to use words that don't hurt them.

Further I'm not "claiming" it's a fallacy. It is a logical fallacy. That is the truth. Period. Specifically you're making a conceptual slippery slope argument.

I was trying illustrate that most that use it (from what I have seen) is in regards to the anime/manga/hentai genre.. they're seeking fantasy/fictional versions and are not using it seeking real trans women. If you can't make that distinction in your mind... Well, I honestly don't know what to say.

I've clearly described how what the wikipedia article is describing is different than what is being requested on BMR. There is no difference between what is commonly requested here as "futa" and a trans woman, unless I'm missing something. In which case, please, do share.

Ultimately, it sounds like you do not like to have to adjust your language to make people feel more comfortable. Fine. You don't have to change. You keep coming back to this thread and deciding I'm still fighting you on this. My point wasn't to make you do anything. But acting as if we, the minority who is actively discriminated against and objectified and fetishized are the enemy for asking to not be spoken about as sex objects is deeply, deeply unreasonable. Do you think it's unreasonable that I don't want to be called a groomer or associated with people charged with crimes against children too? If you're so concerned about your freedom to use whatever words you want, and damn the people who are hurt by them, then this is your reminder.

I'm allowed to use my words too. Just because you don't like that I'm speaking out against hurtful language, doesn't mean I'm going to stop. And if me saying something is hurtful to me makes you defensive, I suggest you take a good hard look at that.

Now, if you have something of substance to add to the conversation, I'll happily hear it and respond. But if not, please, feel free to do as you said you would and stop participating in a conversation you clearly do not care to learn from.

 

[sevyn.]

it's because that was the stupidest thing i've ever heard in my life, hope this helps 🙏 never in ur life tag me to say some ridiculous shit like that again, i would not have even responded otherwise 😭😭 i am literally never going to be "friendly" toward someone who believes "bimbo" or "cuck" is on the same level as anti black or anti trans slurs, you wanna be oppressed so bad bruh. call it poor form if you want, cause i'm not tryna debate her, i'm tryna tell her that she should not repeat that stupid shit ever in life 💀 she is NOT beating the blonde stereotypes​

Regardless of what you think of this attempt to demonstrate that ALL kinks here involve fetishised language, the point is valid: you cannot claim with 100% certainty that a person classified as a bimbo (for example) is not offended by the term or stigma associated.

By the way: you linking in others to gloat in what is clearly a non-friendly manner is very poor form.

 

[lordescult]

cuck is like the n-word for white men </3

(guys this is a joke)

 

[raison detre]

Oh it’s definitely getting locked. I give it…. No more than 36 hours.

i think 36 hours was a bit generous.

 

[Tassu]

I don't write 'minority' kinks nor do I belong to a minority, so I literally have no stake in this discussion. So why I am here. I think that some people are missing how depositing an ideal will always create a judge. Whenever we lift something 'above', i.e. we establish a norm or indeed, describe an ideal state of being, we always also create a judge. The idea that 'murder is bad' deposits the idea that people who kill should be judged. It's impossible to set up norms without asking for judgement for those who break them. That's how norms work.

 

[Sync]

I'd write 'minority' kinks nor I belong to a minority, so I literally have no stake in this discussion. So why I am here. I think that some people are missing how depositing an ideal will always create a judge. Whenever we lift something 'above', i.e. we establish a norm or indeed, describe an ideal state of being, we always also create a judge. The idea that 'murder is bad' deposits the idea that people who kill should be judged. It's impossible to set up norms without asking for judgement for those who break them. That's how norms work.

This.

Likewise, my only stake in this is the attempt to modify the use of language, if it was purely about the kink/fetish, I wouldn't be here because the fetish doesn't interest me.

It's happened before: "Please stop using that word" becomes "I'm offended" becomes "hate speech" becomes "compelled speech"... have a look at Canada's Bill C-16 to see how speech governance is enshrined into law:

Bill C-16 added the words "gender identity or expression" to three places.

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there's evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

THAT is what I am wary of - because "hatred" and "offence" are very subjective.

 

[BigWords]

I'm just here to watch the carnage.

 

[lordescult]

This.

Likewise, my only stake in this is the attempt to modify the use of language, if it was purely about the kink/fetish, I wouldn't be here because the fetish doesn't interest me.

It's happened before: "Please stop using that word" becomes "I'm offended" becomes "hate speech" becomes "compelled speech"... have a look at Canada's Bill C-16 to see how speech governance is enshrined into law:

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

THAT is what I am wary of - because "hatred" and "offence" are very subjective.

There is a lot of misinformation and fear mongering about Bill C-16, but basically all the bill does is provide consequences to hate crimes surrounding gender and identity, which is not a bad thing. Hate crimes are defined in Canadian laws and legislation, so it is not something that is vaguely thrown around when someone is just 'offended'. Canada does have censored free speech, because it does not protect hate speech. And they shouldn't. Hate speech is bad.

 

[rhaenyratargaryens]

cannot believe that people are defending this person when they are CLEARLY being anti-black or anti-trans. hate speech is HATE speech. no one is asking to be objectified or discriminated against. this whole convo is WILD. if someone says “ayo, that isn’t right” then maybe take a step back and realize why that could be the case? critical thinking, guys.

 

[sevyn.]

there is absolutely NOOO historical and current social context to tell us WHY people might be upset about these words. none at all! none at all! words become slurs just because people are too sensitive, not because these slurs were born with the intent of violence and dehumanisation, not because treating human beings as porn categories is a leading cause in sexual crime in the modern day! your words do exist in a void, of course, there is absolutely no reason to be mindful of them! there is absolutely no crossover between fiction and reality! when men engage in sexual relationships with trans women and violently attack, degrade or kill them after, or as a result of rejection, because they see them as a fetish and not a person, that is just something that spawned out of nowhere, there was absolutely no social conditioning, online or otherwise, that aided in this phenomenon! often times without a sexual component and purely out of hatred! there is absolutely nothing wrong with caricaturisation and thereby degradation of real human beings! you guys are so smart! words don't mean anything! you, as a cishet white person, are the perfect one to explain to us why it is okay and completely morally neutral to say slurs and fetishise whole communities of people!​

 

[sevyn.]

slurs are completely fine and it's the receiver's fault if they get mad or sad or hurt about them, but me openly laughing at that ridiculous statement about how Bimbo Is A Slur was too low? AHAHAHAHA​

 

[Sync]

Hate speech is bad.

Yup.

And who, exactly, decides what is "hate speech" and what is not? And once a definition is put in place for one group on what constitutes "hate speech" against that group, what's to say that definition won't later be expanded? Or that another group will ask to have their own definition of "hate speech" enshrined, on the grounds of equality?

Do you see how messy and slippery it can get?

 

[rhaenyratargaryens]

the issue of defining "hate speech" should not be dismissed as inherently problematic or prone to misuse. first, it's crucial to recognize that definitions of "hate speech" are typically rooted in established legal and ethical standards that aim to prevent harm rather than suppress legitimate discourse. these definitions are not arbitrary but are crafted through careful consideration of the balance between free speech and the need to protect individuals from incitement to violence, discrimination, and harassment. the idea that defining "hate speech" could lead to endless and arbitrary restrictions is a red herring.

 

[sevyn.]

Yup.

And who, exactly, decides what is "hate speech" and what is not? And once a definition is put in place for one group on what constitutes "hate speech" against that group, what's to say that definition won't later be expanded? Or that another group will ask to have their own definition of "hate speech" enshrined, on the grounds of equality?

Do you see how messy and slippery it can get?​

there are words legally recognised as hate speech in some places, but purely on a cultural level? the n word is bad because black people were severely abused and raped and enslaved and lynched for hundreds of years. the f word is bad because gay people have been repressed and also killed for their identity, for hundreds of years, same with the t word. the r word is bad because neurodivergent or otherwise disabled people have been disadvantaged, misunderstood and abused for all of time which only leads to the worsening of conditions and violence against these people. hate speech and slurs do not come out of nowhere, the meaning of hate speech does not come out of nowhere, it is not slippery, slurs are considered slurs through years and decades and centuries of repeated use alongside the abuse of these marginalised groups, please think with your dome piece. it is not messy at all, it is literally that simple. there may exist totally modern words that get to slur status because they're used in the exact same derogatory way as tranny or nigga or faggot. be serious.​

 

[komorebi]

Yup.

And who, exactly, decides what is "hate speech" and what is not? And once a definition is put in place for one group on what constitutes "hate speech" against that group, what's to say that definition won't later be expanded? Or that another group will ask to have their own definition of "hate speech" enshrined, on the grounds of equality?

Do you see how messy and slippery it can get?

Black people didn't ask to be called any number of slurs or terms. That goes for any marginalized group, whether it's a racial, gender/sex, sexuality, disabled group or anything. No one who is the victim of these terms just "decides" something is hate speech on their own. It's always someone deciding to be hurtful using or coining a term as so. And sometimes we're just blessed that society at large recognizes that and decides to protect said group from its use. (Within limits, obviously.)

When you get down to it? Bigots decide what hate speech is! Not victims, just to reiterate.

At the end of the day, what are some of you even here arguing for? No one is stopping you from using these words and that isn't going to change in BMR's rules as has been indicated. Are y'all just here to tell us that you don't see as human or something? You already made it clear you put your right to words above basic empathy, why even keep going??

 

[sevyn.]

Black people didn't ask to be called any number of slurs or terms. That goes for any marginalized group, whether it's a racial, gender/sex, sexuality, disabled group or anything. No one who is the victim of these terms just "decides" something is hate speech on their own. It's always someone deciding to be hurtful using or coining a term as so. And sometimes we're just blessed that society at large recognizes that and decides to protect said group from its use. (Within limits, obviously.)

When you get down to it? Bigots decide what hate speech is! Not victims, just to reiterate.

At the end of the day, what are some of you even here arguing for? No one is stopping you from using these words and that isn't going to change in BMR's rules as has been indicated. Are y'all just here to tell us that you don't see as human or something? You already made it clear you put your right to words above basic empathy, why even keep going??​

but god forbid THEY feel judged in any way shape or form, that's most important — an actual trans person saying "this is very uncomfortable and degrading to me and a lot of other people" is less important than them feeling kinkshamed or "policed" in their right to use offensive words. no one is surprised though, people like them are used to being the norm and so the idea that they may have to accommodate groups that they would otherwise never think of accommodating is very uncomfortable, even while no one is asking for a ban on these words. the site managers changing their official terminology re: "futanari" hurts absolutely no one, but it creates a "pressure" (no it doesn't) for them to acknowledge these people as... people! and not fetishes.​

 

[komorebi]

but god forbid THEY feel judged in any way shape or form, that's most important — an actual trans person saying "this is very uncomfortable and degrading to me" is less important than them feeling kinkshamed or "policed" in their right to use offensive words. no one is surprised though, people like them are used to being the norm and so the idea that they may have to accommodate groups that they would otherwise never think of accommodating is very uncomfortable, even while no one is asking for a ban on these words. the site managers changing their official terminology re: "futanari" hurts absolutely no one, but it creates a "pressure" (no it doesn't) for them to acknowledge these people as... people! and not fetishes.​

Like, wow, we're worried about being kinkshamed when people are feeling too uncomfortable to browse the forums!?? And what I don't get is, why it means so much! Is it the commitment to fetishizing people!?

This thread has been a fascinating reminder to how very entrenched in the default these spaces are. Which makes it skeevier that some of them are so hardcore into these fetishes. I don't get what's not clicking about how they sound to people!