Lately (and over the years) I have been noticing at deviantart that some of the arts depict fictional characters with horrified expressions upon viewing some type of inflation art, then some rants from the author about how much he/she despises inflation/wg art. Not that I am complaining, just a little curious about what is it that really bothers them. It is just extra curvy/balloony depictions of our favorite characters from video games or tv shows, and not just on girls. (Apologies if this has been previously discussed, show me where).
What do some people have against inflation art?
Tue, 09/03/2013 - 14:04
#1
What do some people have against inflation art?
Tue, 09/03/2013 - 16:43
#3
Inflate123
It's all just personal taste. Lots of people don't like everything they see, you and I included. There's a band or a movie or a game or an actor or a TV show that you and I just dislike and we fail to understand why other people love it so much. But we do what we should do -- we move on and focus on what makes us happy while letting them like what makes them happy. There's no real reason for the hate other than differing tastes and a sense of moral righteousness.
We've had several ugly scenes with folks at dA who have just decided that what we like should not be allowed. But...they can't stop it, they won't stop it, and we don't need to worry about what they think. We're making this content for us, not them. So in case you were considering offering them some education on the topic, I think Slayer is right -- let them be, there's truly nothing to be gained by trying to engage them or offering our points of view. We are never going to convert or even convince them that what we like is okay any more than we would expect them to listen to us if we said what they like is terrible.
tl;dr To each their own.
Fri, 09/06/2013 - 18:37
#4
Not every inflation fetishist is the same, and not every inflation hater is the same, so I don't think there is any one answer. However, there is a particular type of inflation hater that I believe is the most irrational, annoying, and hateful of all. They're the ones who, for example, if they saw a cartoonish drawing of an inflated woman who was smiling and appeared to be perfectly content with being inflated, the critic would say "if that happened in real life, her internal organs would explode and therefore you are a sicko who enjoys the idea of mutilating women and should be banned." I'm not exagerating. They see the inflation picture and in their own mind have a psychotic fantasy about it but then they think you're the crazy one because they assume you think like they do.
This type of behavior has puzzled me for many years. I couldn't understand how anyone could end up thinking with such a flawed and (in my opinion) frightening lack of logic. If you engage them in a conversation (which I discourage) and manage to call them out on their bullshit, they invariably start backtracking to what they think is a stronger position; general displeasure toward the very idea of men ogling pictures of women. So my theory is that this type of critic is basically a radical rabid frothing man-hater (of kind that most other women don't want to be associated with) going after inflation because they think it's an easy target.
In spite of the insanity, their approach is actually pretty clever: By drawing their own inflation picture and then ridiculing it, they 1) can't be accused of harassing any specific inflation artst, 2) by posting in their own gallery they'll get the support of watchers who of course think the same way they do, 3) if inflation fans want to disagree with them the critic can defend themselves on their own turf with the support of their own fans and 4) their number of views will skyrocket not only because of the controversy but because in spite of inflation being a fringe fetish it's more popular than whatever boring shit they normally post in their own gallery.
I agree with Inflate123 that these people's opinions don't really matter. Inflation fetish has been around longer than many of its critics have been alive. I first got on the internet in 1994 and inflation was already there.
Sat, 09/07/2013 - 16:23
#5
I think they see the worst of the stuff our community puts out and assume that all of us enjoy the same exact things, ignorant of the various nuances of this fetish. Honestly, I've found myself pretty disturbed by at least 60% of the inflation artwork I've found. Of course, I don't complain about it, but that's because I understand better than outsiders where these artists are coming from.
And I think there's also some circumstances where inflation work can be very objectifying, and that's obviously something feminist critics could balk at (I can't think of any specific examples, I'm just saying it's a possibility). I think that line between kink and dehumanization is something that we as a community need to be mindful of. I'm not saying we should necessarily police what other people do, but we should still have that concern in the backs of our minds.
Then there's the concern that we're encouraging obesity, but that of course is just plain wrong. Weight gain is a different fetish that happens to have a lot of intersection with inflation.
I imagine that the type of people who hate inflation are also the ones that hate other fetishes, so it's not like we're the only ones who get this type of treatment. I've noticed remarkably little in the way of criticism of our fetish on the Internet, mostly because it's pretty obscure. I think things could be way worse for us.
Sun, 09/08/2013 - 11:19
#6
From Wikipedia:
In social philosophy, objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity. According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:[1]
as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
as if owned by another (ownership);
as if interchangeable (fungibility);
as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity)
That last bit may be what torpedos the whole concept of objectification. The problem with terms like objectification is that they rely almost entirely on the subjective interpretation of the person claiming to be offended. That is why such terms are easily abused--because they are meaningless. For example, I could make up a noun that means "doing something that offends Wren." Let's call it "nerfing." So I could say, "your post offends me because it contains nerfing!" And you would say, "WTF is nerfing?! I had no intention of offending you!" And I could say, "It doesn't matter what you're intentions were! Your post contains nerfing! It completely disregards my feelings and experiences, and I demand you take it down, because it's offensive to me and all Wrens!" A reasonable and rational person can't defend against such an irrational argument, which is why I dislike the use of the term objectification--it's is basically just a slur designed to shame and insult, nothing more.
Another problem with objectification isn't just the subjective interpretation of it, it's also how it is applied to individuals, fictional or otherwise. For example, "treating someone as if they are acting as a tool for someone else's purpose" is pretty much the definition of work, whether it be paid, volunteer or a hobby. This is how critics get away with arguing that women working in particular jobs are being objectified, even though they're doing it voluntarily--because the definition of objectification includes the definition of work, anyone with a job they don't like can easily be lumped into the category of objectification.
The problem with objectification of fictional characters is that they are by definition, "objects." Can a fictional character do something that offends the majority of people? Yes, of course they can. But in the case of fictional characters, I think the offense originates either with the intent of the artist or with the reaction of the audience, not with the objectification of the character, because fictional characters can't exist without objectification. For example, how can you have the genres of drama or horror if you're never allowed to treat a fictional character in an undignified way? How can you have supporting characters in the background if you're not allowed to portray them as being interchangeable, lacking any back story or even a discernable personality?
One might argue that a rational and reasonable person can tell the difference between the "real" damaging type of objectification and the types of things that cross the line, but then you're basically agreeing that the term is completely up to the interpretation of the person using it, in which case the term is pretty much useless. And personally, I wouldn't even go so far as to try to replace it with a different term like "dehumanization" because that's just going to result in that term getting reduced to worthlessness as well. We already have a proper term for objectification and that is "offensive." Offensive is a better word because most people approach it with a bit of skepticism, understanding that sometimes people get offended for no good reason.
I know there are inflationists that are so creepy that even other inflationists think they're creepy. But even in those instances, most of them are probably no more deserving of contempt than a horror movie fan should be. To me, seeing something that I don't like or that I find offensive is not nearly as bad as having someone stalk me in private messages across multiple websites asking a lot of weird personal questions and professing their love for me. If I had to choose between that and accidentally seeing a picture I don't like, I'd choose the picture. Part of the objectification argument is that objectification is what causes that type of behavior. You can't make that argument without basically saying that people can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality--the word for such people is "insane" and/or "evil," and it's not objectification that makes them that way. If anyone fits the description of "not being able to tell fantasy from reality" it's usually the people who accuse others of objectification.
Sorry for the long post, but this is something that has irked me for a long time. I'm wholeheartedly against walking on egg shells in order to try not to offend these people. They will never be satisfied and there is no sense in trying. We only need to be concerned about them to the extent that some of them are militant and batshit crazy so it's best not to get in their cross hairs if you can avoid them.
Sun, 09/08/2013 - 19:57
#7
You made some very good points. I still think that I personally would try to be understanding if someone voiced a problem with something I wrote, but I respect your opinion on the matter.
Mon, 09/09/2013 - 01:10
#8
On haters; the internet tends to amplify negative responses through anonymity. When people feel there's no consequences for them to be horrible to other people, they may have no compunction about doing so. It doesn't matter if its homosexuality, religion, ethnicity, politic or sports etc. People can and will act out on the internet, writing things they often wouldn't dare to say even privately.
Expansion fetishism contradicts several on going themes in society. Because it contradicts these themes, individuals feel free to attack groups and individuals who profess to enjoy expansion, whether weight gain, inflation, growth or other types of expansion fetish.
1] Hyper sexualizing adults is a taboo art theme as judged by both religious conservatives and feminists. Depictions of huge breasts, tiny waists and massive buttocks are actively suppressed by both groups. Attacks on the Barbie doll by both groups are reasonable indicator of their obsession with de-sexualizing and de-gendering female imagery. Both groups use the government to block wide dissemination of such images. A Italian importer of wines had a particular stock of wine impounded and refused entry. When an image of a nude woman on the label was changed to have tiny breasts, suddenly the previously banned wine was allowed entry. Customs never gave a reason for the ban or the lifting of the ban.
2] Media glorifies women who could pass for 14 year old, adolescent boys. Movie stars, fashion models, singers and other media stars often have little or no adult figure. Women who are laughably called sex kittens often have bodies that wouldn't get a second look on a beach due to their lack of curves. These media stars are promoted because they don't offend a target audiences full of women. This influences the audience to actually believe a 14 year old boy's physique is normal and attractive for adult women. Further, these images set up the idea that the opposite, a curvy, obviously female figure, is somehow unattractive and actually to be distained for not being asexual and lacking gender cues.
3] Medical groups backed by the insurance industry strive to make everyone skinny for health's sake. Due to bad statistical studies in the 1950's, longevity was associated with low body mass to height ratios. This has lead to the assumption that any body fat is bad. Medical quacks jumped on this to sell billions of dollars of worthless, health destroying weight loss schemes while at the same time socially stigmatizing people for not being at a mythical, ideal weight.
Roll all the foregoing together and you have a social groundwork for people to feel free to attack anyone professing to like any expansion fetish. Add in that the USA is a sex negative culture that frowns on public admission of sexual preferences and particularly variation from the mythical norm, and you get the type of reaction like some of the anti-expansion/inflation/weight-gain stamps that are allowed under Deviant Art.
Why don't you ask them? Usually people are afraid of the unknown. And to them they don't understand why someone like this, since they don't have this fetish.
But why even bother with this? There will always be people who get offended no matter what the subject is.
My advice if you have a channel: Ignore them / block them. No point a arguing that "blue is better than red"
Hi my name is Tom. I run the inflatable chicks yahoo group