• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    It does have sentience and can consent though

    So can the 3000 year old vampire with the body of an 8 year old.

    • CarmineCatboy2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      nerd 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

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      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?

    • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

        • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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

          • Gay_Tomato [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

        • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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 (good-morning) can’t get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles (ancaptain) 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 (kelly) childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don’t realize how fucked up they are