they are coming to prefer the non-human simulacra over humans, at least for their sex objects.
hello! don’t act like this is some sort of inherently bad thing. kinks about like, weird shit that aren’t just human bodies are normal and fine actually
no the problem is that these chuddites are retroactively applying what is effectively a kink about a non-human character design and assuming it’s the standard for actual human bodies. it would be like getting angry over your latex fetish not being the standard for human dress
the line between the simulcra and the actual thing has become blurred such that they believe the former is the latter while it also isn’t in reality.
to be clear, if they were attracted to real human bodies it would be the same issue, which is what you see with less weebish but still terminally online chuds. they are committing derivatization and would regardless of whatever they’re attracted to because they think that’s normal.
the distinction is important because, the argument made with the lack of the distinction both doesn’t solve the problem and is pretty problematic with the other people it affects. it isn’t a moral failing to have forms of attraction that aren’t just vanilla body preferences. so-called “paraphilias” are a deeply weird white-patriarch thing, made by people who seem to think that having a stiletto kink or getting off to music is somehow morally insidious in the same way that pedophilia or beastiality is, probably because the people writing the “paraphilia” diagnosis originally were pedophiles and zoophiles themselves knowing how gross so-called “professionals” can be in that field.
the actual issue is the expectation for both real human forms and depictions of human forms to always fit a specific narrative or to contort themselves to your attractions in general. human beings are incredibly varied and even within the extremely narrow purview of “normal human bodies”, derivitization can rear it’s ugly head and create deeply twisted beliefs
overall, it’s not about the fact that people like these unrealistic simulcra or fake people (other than the fact that the fake people always seem suspiciously young… ), it’s that they have a distaste for real people. Not a lack of attraction, no, it is still possible to be a normal and good person with a complete lack of attraction to anyone (ace people exist ). But an outright hatred of actual living human beings, born entirely out of a genuine expectation and entitlement for them to bend themselves to one’s every desire.
as an aside, most people can be attracted to deeply unrealistic and fantastical things while also being attracted to completely normal and grounded things. the idea we can’t is almost definitely grounded in the same derivitization. We don’t expect people to immediately stop liking tacos the moment they eat a bowl of soup and like it, but the equivalent of that from a sexual perspective seems to be touted as a genuine belief constantly. If someone can only be attracted to ONE THING at a time, than we wouldn’t even have… the majority of sexual culture that exists
hello! don’t act like this is some sort of inherently bad thing. kinks about like, weird shit that aren’t just human bodies are normal and fine actually
no the problem is that these chuddites are retroactively applying what is effectively a kink about a non-human character design and assuming it’s the standard for actual human bodies. it would be like getting angry over your latex fetish not being the standard for human dress
the line between the simulcra and the actual thing has become blurred such that they believe the former is the latter while it also isn’t in reality. to be clear, if they were attracted to real human bodies it would be the same issue, which is what you see with less weebish but still terminally online chuds. they are committing derivatization and would regardless of whatever they’re attracted to because they think that’s normal.
the distinction is important because, the argument made with the lack of the distinction both doesn’t solve the problem and is pretty problematic with the other people it affects. it isn’t a moral failing to have forms of attraction that aren’t just vanilla body preferences. so-called “paraphilias” are a deeply weird white-patriarch thing, made by people who seem to think that having a stiletto kink or getting off to music is somehow morally insidious in the same way that pedophilia or beastiality is, probably because the people writing the “paraphilia” diagnosis originally were pedophiles and zoophiles themselves knowing how gross so-called “professionals” can be in that field.
the actual issue is the expectation for both real human forms and depictions of human forms to always fit a specific narrative or to contort themselves to your attractions in general. human beings are incredibly varied and even within the extremely narrow purview of “normal human bodies”, derivitization can rear it’s ugly head and create deeply twisted beliefs
overall, it’s not about the fact that people like these unrealistic simulcra or fake people (other than the fact that the fake people always seem suspiciously young…
), it’s that they have a distaste for real people. Not a lack of attraction, no, it is still possible to be a normal and good person with a complete lack of attraction to anyone (ace people exist 
). But an outright hatred of actual living human beings, born entirely out of a genuine expectation and entitlement for them to bend themselves to one’s every desire.
as an aside, most people can be attracted to deeply unrealistic and fantastical things while also being attracted to completely normal and grounded things. the idea we can’t is almost definitely grounded in the same derivitization. We don’t expect people to immediately stop liking tacos the moment they eat a bowl of soup and like it, but the equivalent of that from a sexual perspective seems to be touted as a genuine belief constantly. If someone can only be attracted to ONE THING at a time, than we wouldn’t even have… the majority of sexual culture that exists