In re needs-more-pony and dragondicks on Cartoon Porn/Rule 34 [Link]

http://needs-more-pony.tumblr.com/post/78581567906/dragondicks-needs-more-pony-dragondicks

(Original thread removed for length. Follow it through the link.)

I really have to agree with Ambris/needs-more-pony on this. I’ll respond to dragondicks’s last post.

there’s a difference between crushing on a character and redrawing them into an idealised body for the sake of sexual titillation. Guess which one my post was about :Y also guess which one the brony fandom does a hella lot of
I take it this is related to what I’ll call “altered-form” (anthropomorphic or humanized) ponies. The question that must be asked about these depictions is: Why would people bother with redrawing an existing character, rather than draw other porn with these bodies? Answer: I don’t think this is purely for sexual purposes. Rather, I think some people just can’t get off to a four-legged creature, regardless of their interest in the character, so they have to remedy it somehow.

like it doesn’t matter what your intent is if it’s “genuine affection” or what, when you draw porn of a character or person you are making them a sexual object. And we live in a society where women as a gender are constantly dehumanised and made into sexual objects, so I get irritated that even characters made to teach little girls that they don’t have to put up with that shit are reduced to it.
What? Ambris was right: This basically contradicts his whole previous post. I suppose the point should be repeated from there:
Crushing on fictional characters, in moderation, is plenty healthy too. Lots of people do it, men and women. And often, people achieve that sense of intimacy with a fiction character they desire through masturbation. This isn’t inherently a demeaning act. No more than a couple having sex is. Indeed, that’s exactly the feeling that people are striving for. It’s not a objectification, it’s just the opposite. They’re masturbating to a character because they want a wholesome complete relationship with that, but can’t, as the character is fictional. So they do the next best thing.

the porn industry is built on a foundation of abusing and dis-empowering women. Women in the industry are commonly sexually, physically and mentally abused and it is regarded as “just part of the job”. Porn is not a happy sparkly medium of gender equality. As I said in my original post, I think that drawn porn is good because there are no living actors in it to be abused like in live action porn. But a lot of the fucked up themes from live action porn carry over into drawn stuff, like control over women and women’s bodies.
Another logic lesson: This seems to be a genetic fallacy, which, in general, means something is discredited (or credited) because of its origins alone. Here the argument seems to be: Pornography is based on dis-empowering women, therefore it is inherently wrong/disempowering. There is a good point brought up, that “a lot of the fucked up themes from live action [sic] porn carry over into drawn stuff”; I presume these themes involve the dis-empowerment of women. But Ambris already addresses this:
Now, I can admit, not all guys who are into MLP are like what I just outlined. Some really are just into dis-empowering girls for their own titillation. But that is an issue with the person, not with the media or characters they do it do—because they’ll do it no matter what characters are involved.

sexual attraction may be natural, but you have control over what media you support when it comes to wank material. and I don’t want anything to do with media that takes characters intended to empower young girls, redraws them into more sexually appealing bodies and uses them as objects for gratification. I have higher standards than that.
This presumes that such redrawings are intended to turn these characters into objects. Granted, they are more sexually appealing to some (probably many) people, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the only reason. (See above.)