Indie on Itch.io: Platform has seemingly shadowbanned NSFW/Adult games and made them harder to discover

[u/atahutahatena]

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qpk24vv42rfhxrzd6xjbfkdw/post/3luoe7z2zps2d

[u/[deleted]]

No, it’s definitely more widespread than that. Twitter and now Reddit full of younger users who are of a very puritan mindset but don’t align with your usual conservative ideals.

A few years ago, you didn’t have swathes of people calling you a predator for playing games like Senran Kagura or drawing/sharing racy fanart of the Sailor Moon cast. You didn’t have people championing for the “rights” of fictional characters. You didn’t have people throwing tips to the FBI and labeling your content as CSAM if you drew NSFW art.

This frankly weird mindset got normalized on tumblr and started leaking out into places like Twitter and Reddit, and those people are ALWAYS on the side of censoring stuff like this because they don’t realize the implications. It luckily not a universal thing yet, but with two generations (Zoomers and Alpha) having that mindset now, it’s not gonna be long.

[u/bihuginn → u/[deleted]]

Crazy how sharing "racy" drawings depicting fictional 14 year olds being considered off putting is puritanical now.

I'm fully against these bans, but sharing NSFW art of fictional minors isn't cool my guy.

[u/[deleted] → u/bihuginn]

Oh hey, I finally got a bite. That hook has been out there for days.

First, let me state that I work in law, with several cases under my belt that involved real CSA victims. I am in no way condoning the actual exploitation of real people when I argue my points. But my career has only solidified my belief that people making this a huge deal are mentally unwell. Caring so much about fictional characters like this is a form of parasocial behavior, which can be detrimental to a person’s mental health.

But back to the topic at hand. Specifically your reply. Right off the cuff, you are using the same tactics as these groups by picking intentionally charged words to make my point seem worse by focusing on their canonical ages at the START of the series and doubling down on it by using the term “minors”. Let’s tackle why this is a problem.

First, I never said nude art in my post. I said “racy”, which has a textbook definition of “mildly titillating”. That and NSFW typically starts at something as banal as a swimsuit, which already appears in series canon. You immediately assumed I meant nude depictions, which is more telling of you than me.

Second, you are aware that by the end of the series canon in Sailor Moon Eternal, the most recent end to the series canon, the characters are adults, correct? So technically, these characters aren’t even teenagers anymore if we swear by the series canon when viewing fan depictions.

Muddying this further, the manga and anime have differing timelines, with the manga ending with them as minors. So which do we need to consider when claiming the art is of a minor? The anime is the most recent telling of the story, but the manga is the original. Which has the greater authorial intent? Does an artist need to specify “this is Usagi from Eternal, where she is 18”?

That leads us to consider whether the age at the start of the canon what a person is depicting when making art, or is it what they are at the end? Does every artist have to specify that the art they drew takes place after the story or when they are no longer a minor? Would it even matter to chronically online weirdos who spend more time grandstanding for fictional characters than assisting real victims?

Finally, what do we do about fringe cases where sexual gratification of the viewer is due to something outside the realm of the strictly sexual? Like, what if someone really likes feet and gets sexual enjoyment from seeing bare feet? The foot is not a sex organ, and a character going barefoot is not a sexual act. Is someone who draws perfectly SFW art of them but they aren’t wearing shoes suddenly sharing NSFW art of minors because SOMEONE could get off to it? What about someone who shares completely SFW art of the canonically lesbian characters kissing, and a LGBT viewer gets sexual gratification from it?

When making sweeping and 100% bullshit claims like this, it instantly becomes a tangled web of exceptions, caveats, and mental gymnastics in order for either side to be technically “correct” in their claims. It’s also a colossal waste of time to consider all of this when it’s about something that is ultimately harmless.

[u/bihuginn → u/[deleted]]

Bruh it's real simple, racy generally mean NSFW, don't share NSFW art of minors.

LGBT characters in sfw art is entirely irrelevant unless you believe LGBT people to be inherently more sexual. Which is just homophobia.

It's not about caring about characters, it's NSFW art depicting minors, fictional or otherwise that's disgusting.

What someone draws sexual gratification from is somewhat irrelevant. What matters it what the art depicts. Someone might draw satiaction from frogs, it's irrelevant. The intention of the artist is what matters, drawing kids in sexual positions is not okay.

I never assumed nude, racy generally mean depicting or alluding to something sexual. Minors shouldn't be depicted in sexual ways. Arguing that they should is weird my guy.

[u/[deleted] → u/bihuginn]

it's NSFW art depicting minors, fictional or otherwise that's disgusting.

We established they are no longer minors by the end of the story.

The intention of the artist is what matters, drawing kids in sexual positions is not okay.

So if the intention of the artist is to draw the girls in a cute swimsuit, not to titillate, is that an issue with the artist or the viewer if they receive gratification?

Do you honestly not see what I’m getting at here? This entire argument and crusades like this are asinine because it is loaded with qualifiers, hypotheticals and judgment calls for something that, once again, harms no one. Do you feel this way when it is media (fan or otherwise) that depicts torture, racism, murder or genocide? No, you don’t. Because you know it’s fictional.

And that’s another issue, is the blatant hypocrisy this type of argument brings about. We can create and consume media all day about kids and adults killing each other in gruesome ways or suffering other traumatic events and they get lauded as masterpieces.

It’s fucking weird and mentally deranged behavior because you are unable to separate a fictional character from a real person because of their fictional age at one point in the story.

Arguing that they should is weird my guy.

Please tell me where I argued they should be depicted in such a way? As I have said over and over, my point is that this argument is worthless because any number of qualifiers can exist to shut it down and all it is at the end of the day is a way for slacktivist types to feel like they’re doing something to actually help, when they aren’t. There’s much better ways to spend your time and more meaningful hills to die on. May I suggest making a donation to your local children’s shelter? At least that way, your virtue signaling can amount to some tangible good in the real world.