>>1209607
Reading your comment has prompted some thoughts.
The sense of being wronged while reading Naylor has several sources. But not everyone that is responding with such vitriol and anger at Naylor feel wronged by him, but only feel moral indignation. I shall explain the latter group in this post.
It’s simple why the latter group of people feel moral indignation, and that’s because they find certain fetishes and kinks bad. And I mean something more specific with the term “bad†than simply a kink you are turned off by, or one you find disgusting. I may be turned off by inflation, disgusted by fat porn, but I don’t find those kinks bad and thus don’t feel a moral indignation when reading them. Conversely, I may be turned on by certain elements in violently coerced, forced pleasure/orgasm porn, where the victim is actively resisting or fighting the sensation of pleasure but is forced against their will to experience it, but I find that kink to be bad and thus do feel morally tainted when reading it. I have yet to figure out what the fuck is going on there.
There’s an element of moral evaluation that people who find a certain kink to be bad are performing, but they aren’t going so far as to say that people who have that kink have done something bad or wrong or immoral or whatever negative ethical descriptor of your choice. Most people find the idea of a thought crime absurd and believe that the only way to do bad is to act upon things in the external world, but the same people will still accept and use the concept of “bad or immoral thoughtsâ€Â, so how to explain this tension?
I think the way people resolve the cognitive dissonance of having these two contrary beliefs, that one can have bad thoughts or fetishes and that it is not an immoral act to have a thought or fetish by itself, is to imagine what would happen if one made their fetish a reality, if they could act out their fetish in the real world. For example, if one had a kink for riding horse cock, they’d ride horse cock in reality; if they had a kink for cuckolding their boyfriends, they’d cuckold their boyfriends; if they had a kink for vore, they’d start swallowing people whole in reality. After imagining the consequences of acting out that particular kink, one then asks if the resulting act is immoral, and if the answer is yes, then that’s what they believe is a bad thought or kink.
The moral element of judging a kink to be bad comes from realizing that those with a bad kink have a desire, a motivation, to commit the immoral act they fetishize and that they must keep it actively suppressed by other desires: for instance, the desire to avoid social ostracization or legal punishment, or the desire to not act immorally. If you’re cynical enough, you’d think there is no such thing as the latter, that there is no such thing as a conscience or a sense of justice or morality people are motivated by, and they are all just Machiavelli's who would act out whatever desire if they believed they could get away with it. At best, those with bad kinks are tortured souls who must suppress their desire to act out their kink because of an internal morality, at worst, the only thing keeping them from committing crimes is the threat of punishment. So another way to describe bad kinks are morally dangerous or corrupting kinks, and the people who have them are viewed as more immoral because they are believed to be more prone to committing wrong deeds.
So even though explaining the concept of a morally dangerous kink took some words, it’s the simplest explanation for why people get so mad reading Naylor. Naylor has a sizable body of work containing quite a lot of kinks people find morally dangerous: malicious, malevolent, sadistic degradation, humiliation, cuckolding, brainwashing, slave training, rape, all done with no concern paid at all for the receiving submissive partner, no consent, nothing that would characterize safe, sane, consensual, healthy BDSM relationships or play.
And that sense of moral outrage is only further stoked when Naylor not only doesn’t seem apologetic for having these morally dangerous kinks, doesn’t say “of course it would be wrong to do this in real life, but what can I do? A man doesn’t choose what he’s turned on byâ€Â, but will defend and justify the immoral acts he fetishizes, justifying them, and even go so far as to say that the acts are not only not wrong and immoral, but good and just and moral, arguing from a LOLbertarian, absurd egoism and a belief in a warped form of individualism where the only individual who matters, thus the only one who has rights, is Naylor, and everyone else can get fucked. This sense of outrage people display in the threads of Naylor comics is of a lesser magnitude than the outrage someone would display if they spoke to a fervent Nazi, that is, not a Holocaust denier, but someone who accepts the reality of it and then says “you ought to be thanking Hitler for it. He did the world a favorâ€Â. (inb4 anyone invokes Godwin’s Law. I have not compared Naylor to Hitler, I did not say that Naylor was like Hitler. What I said was that the sense of outrage when feels reading Naylor is LIKE the sense of outrage one feels talking to a fanatical Nazi.)
So people should take solace in the fact that there’s so much vitriol against Naylor, because it’s an expression of a conscience that rightly deems the sort of acts Naylor fetishizes, justifies, and glorifies abhorrent. And people say that everyone on imageboards is a nihilistic sociopath.
|
