Content note: briefly mentions abuse of minors, grooming culture, bdsm, and hypothetical sex with fictitious animals, allusion to pedophilia and bestiality

Queer spaces are awash with people having a huge moral panic about a new (and mostly imaginary) generation of puritans.

I have to be honest, in my line of work calling people uptight, puritanical or similar is generally a sign the accuser has done some boundary-crossing (or wants to) and doesn’t want to be called out for it. It’s one of the foundations of grooming culture. Sometimes done deliberately, sometimes unconsciously.

Let’s give a random example that crossed my dash again today:

Another post came across my dash within an hour of this that invites us to interrogate our disgust. I like this notion – not disregard it or follow it without thinking, but interrogate. So the question is – why might we feel uncomfortable about the idea of someone fucking Scooby Doo?

Well, here’s the thing: it’s implied in the show that Scooby Doo is owned by Shaggy and Shaggy can make Scooby Doo’s choices for him. That’s the usual dynamic between a human and his pet dog. Scoob can speak, sure, at a stretch we might think him intelligent and mature enough to have capacity, but there isn’t any indication that he’s anything other than a talking pet dog, as far as I’m aware. He even has a collar.

If so, no Scoob cannot freely consent, because Scoob is not a free being. If Scoob lives in a world where talking dogs are fully emancipated and on equal footing to humans, then that’s different. Scoob would need to have the means to feed and house himself, live independently of Shaggy and be fully autonomous.

This is also why minors cannot consent – because of the power adults have over them – essentially, until they reach majority we rule over them. Whether or not we agree with that, it gives us undue power in the world as it is.

Equally, animals can’t consent to sex with humans even if there’s good non-verbal communication and they seem to be into it – because the world is structured such that humans have dominion over animals from which animals cannot escape. Especially pets.

Anyone who’s practiced around kink and consent will know that even in 24/7 D/s and Master/slave relationships it’s essential that at any time the sub/slave is able to leave and choose to be a free, emancipated person, and has the means to do so, otherwise it’s not consensual kink it’s actual slavery/abuse.

So: Han can rail Chewbacca into next week if he wants it, and Smaug the dragon can be the object of your kinkiest fantasies and that’s totally okay, but… no, Scooby Doo does not pass the Harkness Test.

Ergo, you’re not a puritan for being uncomfortable with the idea of fucking Scooby Doo. You just needed to interrogate your discomfort.

Let’s just watch out for people throwing terms like puritan and purity culture around without clear detail on what they’re whipping up a moral panic about. They might, unwittingly or not, be contributing to grooming culture, overriding people’s boundaries and normalising acceptance of things that we should have a clear “no” for.

Here’s a reality people not in the know may be unaware of: Child abusers have been trying to bludgeon their way into kink, queer and sex pos spaces since the 60s, claiming they’re just another marginalised sexuality. They’re not. It’s concerning that some folks, and not just on the religious right, seem to have a problem telling the difference between consenting adult kink, queerness and child or animal molestation.

These are not lines that should be blurred. Part of what makes kink a safer place to play is we think about power imbalance very deeply, and are especially careful not to shame people’s disgust and resistance or try and push people to move past discomfort that could be telling them something important.

Yes, we absolutely do play with and challenge taboos in kink, but we do it mindfully, safely and consensually.