So the generous and industrious people behind SizeCon have resolved to organize a one-day online event, called SizeCon Micro. This seems obvious in light of recent events, but I’m nevertheless delighted that this is happening. Not many details yet, but they’re targeting this Summer or Fall.
They’ve also composed a survey to track the changing contours of how we each personally experience size fantasy. It’s a bit complicated, but I appreciate the attempt to capture all of our perverted permutations. I highly recommend reading all the questions first and make notes prior to filling out the survey. I had to complete it twice to get at all the variations in my preferences.
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.
Inspired by this distracting tweet by Aborigen. The Y-axis describes your size relative to the primary character(s) you interact with. The X-axis describes the aggregate tone of the size interactions. The latter is subjective, but importantly so.
As Hessig says, one of the most striking things about Harukawa’s women is that they aren’t attending to the men they’re dominating. They just seem to regard their dominance as business-as-usual. This tiny man appreciates that.
As is often the case when I’m fantasizing about being giant or relatively large, I rely on my experiences as a shrunken man to help empathize. As a tiny guy, I’m afraid I would hate having to share a giantess with other tinies. I’d much rather share her with other giants, either in a gentle or a tormenting context, than have any competition as a pet or a toy. I’m quite aware that this “possessive tiny” attitude is a bit selfish, and that being giant means feeling unrestricted and unbeholden. If a giantess would have me as one tiny among many, I couldn’t complain, but I wouldn’t be happy, either.
I suspect this attitude is common among the tiny ladies who might fall into my grip, and I, for one, respect that. A one-on-one relationship is much simpler, and I genuinely enjoy overwhelming a tiny lady with all of my enormous attention and scrutiny. I am her entire world, and I don’t want her thinking that I would either let anything happen to her or allow her to escape. Frequent one-on-one encounters reinforce that.
There are those tiny ladies who, on a certain level, crave the neglect or even contempt of their giant captor. I would oblige this, keeping them in a jar or a desk drawer while I go about my business. If being one of many tiny captives makes the neglect more satisfying, I’d indulge that, too.
Sometimes I worry about little ladies not having anyone else to talk to. I can’t have them using the Internet, because eventually some nosy hacker or perv or ex-boyfriend will trace them back to me, but if their personalities are compatible I could easily see keeping a small harem of tiny gals for use either in sequence or in combination. I imagine they might try to gang up on me verbally, which I would tolerate but eventually reproach.
I don’t know if I’ll ever find anything attractive about being large enough to “encounter” an entire city or civilization. Nothing wrong with that at all; it’s just not for me.
ETA: I could definitely see myself as a 100-foot-tall giant rampaging across Themyscira. Those girls are always up for a fight.
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?
Actually, I’m gonna do it anyway.