C.W: Pedophilia, Child Rape, Cub Porn, Assigned Male Comics, Sophie Labelle

So I just want to preface this thread by noting three key facts.

1. I'm genderfluid trans (She/Her & They/Them)
2. I'm anti-assimilationist.
3. I'm a survivor of chilhood rape and later sexual assault.

It has been brought to my attention that Sophie Labelle, the creator behind Assigned Male Comics has been called out for drawing cub-porn under the username Waffles. She's admitted such, only to declare said criticism as people looking for an excuse to attack a trans woman.

Now whilst I do not doubt that a number of her critics are transphobes waiting for an excuse, sadly that does not in any way impact the merit of their points in this instance. There are in my opinion a number of reasons to be genuinely concerned about the content she posted.

So let's start here, with the image that kicked the whole thing off. Now at a distance I didn't see any issue with this, it's just an art piece of a child climbing into a pool. It's only when I tracked down the original that I began to notice a couple of things.

The first being

the precarious nature of the diaper that seems to barely be hanging on in there. Then (as was pointed out to me by @CalledLevi ), there's the position of the tail as being outside rather than through a hole, as is common in furry art.

Then I noticed the child had butt-clevage.

That is surprising to me, since, in the original, that is not the case. The diaper is held firmly in place.

So this is not a case of drawing what the reference material showed (in relation to clothing), this is editing the reference to accentuate certain features. Upon noticing

these things, I could very quickly see where the issue rests. This is not an innocent image, this is sexualsation of the subject.

Whilst not full-blown nudity, this image is meant to titalise and arouse in the same vein as strippers and exotic dancers by straddling the line

between what you see and what's suggested beneath what's hidden.

Now I just want to pause here to distinguish myself slightly from some of the criticism I've seen: An artist using a photo of a child online as reference material is not the issue. The issue is an artist drawing

soft-core child porn, something only exacerbated by the fact that there's a real child which the image is based off of.

If this had been an innocent image, I would not have cared. If anyone is responsible for their children's image making it online, it is the parents/guardians.

Back to Sophie, and sadly the trail does not end there. We also have this monster.

Now I don't have time to get into Erving Goffman and the ritualization of subordination, but the short version is, this sort of pose (most often applied to women in patriarchal society) is

chosen by the artist to signal submission, powerlessness and sexual availability.

Re-read the last bit again please.

That, along with the same notion of suggestibility in the open state of the diaper, makes all too clear what the image here is trying to convey. This is not an

innocent portrayal, this is more child porn.

The last item we come to is this, with the arms-behind-head-pose and visible camel toe through the diaper. This pose is actually less gendered, still incredibly sexual, especially since it's the easiest way to conjure the image

of laying down whilst standing. As for the suggestion of what's underneath, again, diaper camel toe.

So, Labelle has admitted to doing this, they're sexualising young bodies, but let's say you're unsure as to why you should care? After all, they're cartoons, not real children.

The reason you should care is multifaceted.

For a start, this grooms younger people on the platform into thinking this sort of behaviour is okay. One of the ways Shane Dawson groomed his audience was through the creation of a fictional girl puppet who he acted sexually

inappropriate with. This constant exposure to such content is a method of normalising it, eliminating social taboo, and increasing accessibility. It breaks down young people's defenses, preparing them for sexual activity.

Sadly, in the age of the internet, parasocial

relationships allow for entire audiences to be groomed simultaneously rather than on a one by one basis. Something touched upon by Korviday in his video on Dawson.

Second, such images harm survivors of CSA. Whenever I see someone depicting children in a

hypersexualised manner, that triggers me. It makes my clest clamp up and my throat tighten, something I've actually been hospitalised for in the past because someone called me in as having either a heart attack/stroke. This is not a joke, any more than epilepsy and seizures,

which is why we need warnings on posts like this one. But there's nothing you can do to ever make such art alright.

Third, it desensitises the public to the issue and minimises harm. The people a victim of CSA (or any assault for that matter) should be able to turn to, is the

rest of society, yet sadly we fail in that regard. There has been a history of downplaying the harms of CSA, often to protect celebrities or religious institutions, and that status quo is only maintained through art like this. Yes, people will revel in what they'll apparently

do if they ever meet a child predator, but not one will actually lift a damn finger to stop things from reaching that point in the first place. This is a symptom of a culture where people care more about their sick revenge fantasies than the wellbeing of actual children.

Fourth,

it gives predators a place to hide. If we tolerate this sort of art, art form communities, it forms cultures, hell it even forms entire languages! And we have seen how things go, time and time again, when one of these artists or consumers actually goes ahead and assaults a child.

The entire community forms rank, and all criticism is portrayed as an attempt to silence artistic freedom. I cannot stress this enough, you do not let these people form a support structure. If you do, it will be used against real life victims.

Fifth, such art could potentially

reinforce viewer's inappropriate feelings. If someone is genuinely struggling with such urges, normalising said behaviour in this manner has the potential to result in disaster.

Fact is, returning to point 1, how such content grooms minors, and here's the really terrifying bit.

Sophie Labelle works with and around minors. She has access, and as shown above, she also has the means.

This is not a game.

This is not something we can just dismiss.

Sophie Labelle cannot be trusted around children.

Copy on Google Docs, with links to the three posts shown (archived). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZI7gwF2jbjuRKovVIL7TbOu2g5Wa3OCCa9NefI0eq7Q/edit?usp=sharing

https://twitter.com/EssenceOfTweet/status/1365944737811730433