actually some vampire lore states that a vampire turned that young would retain the impulsiveness and the mind of a child and therefore they cannot consent
impulsiveness does not correlate to being unable to consent. children can’t consent because they have less understanding about the world and because their brains arent even formed well enough to understand it to that degree and are easily manipulatable. impulsive adhd people can still understand everything, unlike a kid, we just are also impulsive.
Sure, okay. So let’s be consequentialists here. 3000 year old with the body of an 8 year old as a fetish generally would mean that if acted on the victims would be fairly defenseless. Someone plays bg3 and genuinely wants to fuck a bear, if acted on the perpetrator would die a horrific death and the would be victim would carry on its day. There is no realistic scenario where someone is gonna fuck a bear, so who cares if they want to?
no that “3000 year old vampire” can’t consent because it’s still a child despite the writer inflating their age so they can excuse their pedophilia. in a similar way we can tell if the baldurs gate bear is beastiality or not by seeing if it looks and acts like a bear or looks and acts like a person who is a bear.
if it didn’t act like a child AND didn’t look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn’t look like a bear and didn’t act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a “bear-but-not-a-bear”, you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn’t sound too weird. I’m not really defending the Baldur’s gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers () can’t get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles () because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing () childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don’t realize how fucked up they are
should I delete my comments? I really don’t want to defend libertarian shit even if it’s an accidental defense. I don’t think it was defending it but I’m worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don’t think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn’t) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn’t the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
More of a “The Pokemon Ditto can breed with a dead tree, an electric rat, a set of keys, a whale, an ice cream cone, a meteorite, a bear trap and a kangaroo” excuse
I’m not excusing anything. If people want to fuck their magically transmogrified druid situationship then more power to them. Have fun. Definitely don’t tell your bearfriend to sit on your face a bear weighs 800 lbs.
Even if it was just a bear, the bear can consent. He can easily mail you and eat you, so you asume if it’s going along with you it’s consenting, same argument mc afee used to justify his afair with that whale
you better keep this as an anti-zoophile only stance. if this morphs into trying to morally condemn furry porn than i’m going to call the furry hit squad on you
personally i think the main problem is that the bear is just so realistic. like why doesn’t it talk or have more human mannerisms or anything? if it just acts like a bear straight-up than that’s extremely sus. if it’s a talking bear that tries to make human facial expressions and acts like it’s bipedal but it’s biology doesn’t support it than i would support the bear fucking
like why doesn’t it talk or have more human mannerisms or anything?
from now on all druids must choose between winnie the poo and bugs bunny for their wildshape forms, expanding to allow the choice of the tasmanian devil at level 8
diegetically anyone having sex with a Druid in any form is ok. however due to the interface between fiction and the world depicting said act is deeply questionable due to the only real life act it could be mirroring is, in fact, deeply immoral.
It’s weird roleplay as some form of escapism. If it’s consenting adults I put it alongside abuse and rape roleplay fantasies common in the bdsm community. It CAN be problematic the way some people engage with it, just like bdsm, but probably is not when it’s approached by people engaging in it properly? I put the question mark there because I can’t really say with complete certainty without deeper investigation and experience that I simply do not have.
How is a person, pretending to be a species that can’t consent, less suspect than a person pretending to be a child that can’t consent?
I see the bear roleplay as “weird but not wrong”, but I have no experience with speciesplay. I do however have experience of being asked to do ageplay but not having that in myself.
Not trying to struggle session or anything, just trying to philosophize. I suppose a guiding value here is “the mind is prevalent over the body”.
One is titillating content for consumption where sex with an animal is made “ok” by creating a scenario in which it’s not just an animal but actually a 3000 year old vampire, you get me.
The other is not fiction at all, it is two adult human beings in a private bedroom doing consenting roleplay with one another.
I generally agree with others pointing out that the perspective on this changes because bears could rip a person in half. If you substituted it for a dog though with no other changes…
“This little girl is actually a 3000 year old vampire” excuse
Not really the same, simply because there’s not a mass contingent of real life bear fuckers that this would be encouraging and supporting.
You are on Hexbear
I mean do we know that tho
Yes. There would be corpses.
There’s not a mass contingent of real life bear fuckers yet.
It does have sentience and can consent though because it’s actually an adult(better be) hooman that can shapeshift. So I get it, but it IS different.
But idk how quickly you could explain that to someone who caught you jerking it to the cutscene, who’s trying to leave ASAP.
So can the 3000 year old vampire with the body of an 8 year old.
As an adult with ADHD, does that mean I can’t consent? My gf will be very upset to learn she’s been taking advantage of me
seems like the more important part
impulsiveness does not correlate to being unable to consent. children can’t consent because they have less understanding about the world and because their brains arent even formed well enough to understand it to that degree and are easily manipulatable. impulsive adhd people can still understand everything, unlike a kid, we just are also impulsive.
This is a very reasonable response to what I thought was an obvious joke
do not underestimate a thread started by the nerd emoji
You can say it’s furry porn? The other is probably gonna get you elected president?
someone who tries to pass off literal beastiality as furry porn is a really horrific idea Jesus Christ
He can also wildshape into a badger, but Hexbear isn’t ready for that conversation
“feral” will never beat the allegations
death to feral
Sure, okay. So let’s be consequentialists here. 3000 year old with the body of an 8 year old as a fetish generally would mean that if acted on the victims would be fairly defenseless. Someone plays bg3 and genuinely wants to fuck a bear, if acted on the perpetrator would die a horrific death and the would be victim would carry on its day. There is no realistic scenario where someone is gonna fuck a bear, so who cares if they want to?
no that “3000 year old vampire” can’t consent because it’s still a child despite the writer inflating their age so they can excuse their pedophilia. in a similar way we can tell if the baldurs gate bear is beastiality or not by seeing if it looks and acts like a bear or looks and acts like a person who is a bear.
So in your mind if the three thousand year old child didn’t act like a child…
if it didn’t act like a child AND didn’t look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn’t look like a bear and didn’t act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a “bear-but-not-a-bear”, you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn’t sound too weird. I’m not really defending the Baldur’s gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers (
) can’t get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles (
) because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing (
) childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don’t realize how fucked up they are
should I delete my comments? I really don’t want to defend libertarian shit even if it’s an accidental defense. I don’t think it was defending it but I’m worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don’t think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn’t) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn’t the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
https://youtu.be/oLveqRDZ9gs. About that…
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
More of a “The Pokemon Ditto can breed with a dead tree, an electric rat, a set of keys, a whale, an ice cream cone, a meteorite, a bear trap and a kangaroo” excuse
I’m not excusing anything. If people want to fuck their magically transmogrified druid situationship then more power to them. Have fun. Definitely don’t tell your bearfriend to sit on your face a bear weighs 800 lbs.
Even if it was just a bear, the bear can consent. He can easily mail you and eat you, so you asume if it’s going along with you it’s consenting, same argument mc afee used to justify his afair with that whale
wot
Heh https://x.com/officialmcafee/status/1079863420458074112?lang=en
John McAfee the gift that keeps on giving.
Thanks
You shouldn’t be thanking me
Well that certainly is a thread
you better keep this as an anti-zoophile only stance. if this morphs into trying to morally condemn furry porn than i’m going to call the furry hit squad on you
personally i think the main problem is that the bear is just so realistic. like why doesn’t it talk or have more human mannerisms or anything? if it just acts like a bear straight-up than that’s extremely sus. if it’s a talking bear that tries to make human facial expressions and acts like it’s bipedal but it’s biology doesn’t support it than i would support the bear fucking
from now on all druids must choose between winnie the poo and bugs bunny for their wildshape forms, expanding to allow the choice of the tasmanian devil at level 8
Looks at character sheet
Oh, bother.
diegetically anyone having sex with a Druid in any form is ok. however due to the interface between fiction and the world depicting said act is deeply questionable due to the only real life act it could be mirroring is, in fact, deeply immoral.
riveting discourse happening on hexbear dot net
Would you say ageplay is problematic?
I’m actually quite interested in an answer.
It’s weird roleplay as some form of escapism. If it’s consenting adults I put it alongside abuse and rape roleplay fantasies common in the bdsm community. It CAN be problematic the way some people engage with it, just like bdsm, but probably is not when it’s approached by people engaging in it properly? I put the question mark there because I can’t really say with complete certainty without deeper investigation and experience that I simply do not have.
How is a person, pretending to be a species that can’t consent, less suspect than a person pretending to be a child that can’t consent?
I see the bear roleplay as “weird but not wrong”, but I have no experience with speciesplay. I do however have experience of being asked to do ageplay but not having that in myself.
Not trying to struggle session or anything, just trying to philosophize. I suppose a guiding value here is “the mind is prevalent over the body”.
Two different things.
One is titillating content for consumption where sex with an animal is made “ok” by creating a scenario in which it’s not just an animal but actually a
3000 year old vampire, you get me.The other is not fiction at all, it is two adult human beings in a private bedroom doing consenting roleplay with one another.
I generally agree with others pointing out that the perspective on this changes because bears could rip a person in half. If you substituted it for a dog though with no other changes…
