ETA: Jitensha has posted a status update on DA that discusses, among other things, being traumatized by the toxic entitlement that some people in the size community have.
EATA: Can’t help thinking this is related:
Daily Dot has a brief article up about “giantess vore,” and they cite Spitty and Arctic Giantess, two size creators I’m very happy to see get wider mention. A dozen other creators get linked, as well. Despite the headline, the (very short) article emphasizes that size kinksters come in all genders and orientations.
This thread on Aborigen‘s Twitter conflates a number of issues that have been concerning me off and on ever since I started writing size smut for publication. I’m going to lay out my current thinking on these and related topics, and as always, I am speaking only for myself, and I invite comments, questions, rebuttals, and other opinions in the replies.
The most immediate concern is that of objectification, which is not of course restricted to size smut (although there is a size-related pitfall, more on this later). The reason why objectification is, well, objectionable is that it treats the object of desire as just that, an object rather than a whole person with a history, desires, and agency of their own. This does not mean—as I believed in my misspent youth—that attraction to someone’s appearance is inherently objectifying or degrading.
A related phenomenon is fetishization, an intense attraction to or obsession with a specific characteristic or activity that assumes a greater importance than respecting the person possessing that characteristic or engaging in that activity. Indulging a fetish is to constantly risk losing sight of everything and everyone else. Being on the receiving end of fetishistic attention is a hollow experience at best.
These are examples of harmful conduct between real people in real life. Is art that invokes such conduct involving fictional people also harmful? Does porn have a greater or lesser responsibility than art to minimize harm?