Gentian's Lexical Tomfoolery

[Gentian]

A Pony-Waifuist's Perspective
or
Love, in Any Form

Introduction

Waifuism is a subject rife with misunderstanding. Even more so is the form of it enjoyed by those of us who have fallen in love with a pony. One has only to peruse the numerous sites and posts scattered throughout the internet to realize either of these things – waifuism, and pony love – are each on their own enough to leave most people bewildered, and even mildly hostile. Put together, they seem to send the muggles in to a frothing, hypocritical rage.

Of course, like all others, the straight's perception of the world is filtered through their own experiences, emotions, and expectations, i.e. their prejudices, but because theirs is the view through the lens of what society currently deems normal, it is often excused and accepted without comment, when it is even noticed at all.

It is my goal to call attention to the ways in which the thoughtless acceptance of the arbitrary restrictions of society are unfairly targeting waifuists, and pony-waifuists in particular. This is not a treatise about bronies, or My Little Pony in general, but a defense of a most particular form of love, which is all to often ridiculed, and unjustly maligned.


Objections

Pervert. Manchild. Loser. These are only some of the terms bandied about when discussing waifuists. Unfortunately, these are also some of the kindest terms used when discussing those who have found 2D love; frequently they are much, much harsher.

But why? Why do so many feel the need to heap calumny on those who harm no one? Why is such castigation not only accepted, but encouraged? Occasionally, the normies ask themselves that question, so it isn't all that difficult to find the reasons they give themselves to excuse their sadism. These excuses tend to take the following three forms: Social Objections, Material Objections, and Visceral Objections.

Social Objections are the most common, and also the most inane. Sexuality, employment, and mental state are the most common targets, and the forms these attacks most often take are textbook examples of the ad hominem, and red herring fallacies. “Virgin status: perma,” “weapons-grade autism,” “how's your mom's basement,” and other things of that nature.

In actuality, these often serve less as criticisms against the putative target, and more as a way for the speaker to elevate his own status. “Troll shielding” is the derogatory term used when it's attempted by someone of low social standing, while the same behavior tends to be lauded when it comes from an individual of higher station.

In such cases it functions as a bonding experience for the group; a way of saying “See? We ostracize and ridicule the same people; we share the same values, so we're on the same side!” It's nothing more than the socially acceptable equivalent of gay bashing: aligning oneself with a group by casting out the “other,” often times as violently and with as much prejudice as that particular group will allow.

If these objections were turned in to a syllogism, they would look like this:

I. These people are different
II. ???
III. ∴ These people should be ostracized.

When stated so bluntly the root of this form of objection becomes clear: what is different is bad for the group. While it is not necessarily fallacious, as diversity for diversity's sake, contrary to the modern narrative, does in fact have a pernicious effect on social cohesion, it would certainly be socially unacceptable if turned against almost any other target. Watch:

I. Gays are different
II. What is different is bad for the group
III. ∴ Gays should be ostracized.

And just like that, the spotlight shifts from the scapegoat waifuist, to the heinousness of the objector's behavior. He chooses to cast stones at someone for violating social norms, and in so doing violates those very same standards of behavior. It is only due to the lens of normalcy that such hypocrisy is not immediately recognized for what it is. People employing this manner of objection are typically nothing more than a circle ravenous crows, cawing and pecking at a vulnerable target. Vicious bullies, with nothing to say that is more substantive than “stop liking what I don't like,” and can therefore be comfortably ignored.

Material Objections focus on the supposed unreality of a waifu. They come in various forms which more or less boil down to “She isn't real.” Maybe you've seen them? “How can you have a relationship with someone who can't talk back?” “What do you mean she wouldn't do that? She's just a character; she does whatever the writers want her to do.”

These objections can be swatted away quite easily in a number of ways. The easiest, is to point out that the statement “She's not real” is a statement of opinion, not fact. No, this particular tactic doesn't trade on the ambiguity of the term “real,” although in this particular case, that too is a perfectly valid method of refutation. Instead, this argument recognizes that the speaker literally does not know. He can not know.

Has the speaker traveled to every inhabited body throughout the universe? Every planet, every boat, every space ship, and station, every building, every closet, every cave, every hovel, etc. and checked for himself? What about the literal infinity of the multiverse? Unless you are conversing with an immortal alien, or some kind of divinity, then the answer is unequivocally no. Because of this, no matter how likely the statement “She's not real” may be, it is still a statement made from faith, not from knowledge, and is therefore an opinion.

Another very easy way is to simply not care. Whether she is real or not, so what? Religious devotion most clearly illustrates my point here. If you are religious, then while considering this, it might be easier to look at the followers of another religion to avoid having your emotions cloud your reason. You believe their god is false, yet they still love him. In extreme cases, such as monks, they even devote their entire lives to him, though they have never spoken a word with him, or interacted with him in any physical way.

The point here isn't to argue their belief in him, it is to show that his actual existence or lack thereof is immaterial to the stark reality of their devotion to him. A waifuist could easily take the same point of view; that it is in fact his dedication which matters. The emotions and purpose inspired within the waifuist by that fidelity are what is important, but not the reality, or unreality of it's object.

This also serves to illustrate, yet again how the lens of normalcy obscures the hypocrisy of the normies. Many of them wouldn't ridicule a religious person for loving their god, in fact those who did would likely find themselves given the cold-shoulder by their peers. Yet strangely, a waifuist's love is somehow considered fair game. Fortunately, the gaucheness of waifuism is as irrelevant to it as I have shown this class of objections to be.

Visceral Objections can be adequately explained with 2 little words: “eww, gross.” They are simply the rejection of that which is unpleasant to the objector. They most commonly takes 2 forms: that directed against the waifuist, and that against the waifuist's actions, most particularly those of the pony-waifuist.

When targeting the waifuist himself, it is because of the perception that the individual embodies traits which are deemed unfavorable by the objector. Obesity, body odor, unkempt hair, etc. these are the most commonly thrown stones. This is quite similar to the Social Objections mentioned above, but is based more on the target's perceived repulsiveness, than his inability to fulfill social roles.

This is one subset of objection which I attribute just as much to human laziness, as to sadism. Thinking takes work, you see, and it's so much easier to form a mental box for a concept. Once that's done, traits are assigned to that concept, and when something else is discovered which shares even one of those traits, it is shoved in the same box and thought of as the same concept, unless it has some glaringly obvious difference.

Let's take homosexuality, again. It's something which until relatively recently was seen as one of the worst things someone could be, especially if they were a man. On YouTube, for example, it is easy to find old training films for law enforcement, or old education films for schools. If one cares to watch the videos dealing with homosexuals, one would see they are not just considered to be people who like others of the same sex. They are portrayed as pedophiles, murderers, rapists et al. Every negative trait could be, and was attributed to them.

Nowadays, it is a grievous faux pas to assume someone is a rapist just because they are gay. In fact, even the most cursory thought would show such an assertion to be utterly ridiculous, so why was it so common, and so widely believed?

Because it was against social norms to be gay at the time. Being gay was “bad,” so in the minds of people of those times, the “bad” of being gay was linked to everything else which was also “bad.” It made perfect sense that “bad” people would do “bad” things. Of course all gays are pedophile-murder-rapists, and if you disagree, then maybe you're one of them, too! Or so the moral fashions of the time, guided by the seductive ease of the mental-box fallacy, as I've dubbed it, would say.

While gays are rightfully no longer looked at in such a manner, the mental-box fallacy is still very much in vogue. But now, instead of gays, “manchildren,” or “neckbeards” are the socially-acceptable targets. When a normie hears “brony,” their mind hears “manchild,” which due to the mental-box fallacy also means “bad,” and therefore all the other things which that normie's social circle says are ok to associate with “bad” become attributed to bronies in general, and that brony in particular, barring some obvious, and drastic difference.

Again, I currently believe this is done because thinking can be difficult, and tedious, not out of malice. Most people just want to be congratulated for thinking the “right” thing, so whenever a particular topic comes up, they reach in to the mental-box which seems most relevant and fish around until they find the appropriate piece of conventional wisdom to regurgitate. That doesn't make the consequences of this laziness any less damning, though. Neither does it make it a valid criticism of waifuism.

For the second target of visceral objections, the waifuist's actions, we will focus on pony-waifuists, because we are the most apparently obvious violators. I am speaking here of apparent bestiality. Bestiality is defined as sex between humans and animals. At first glance, a pony-waifuist does indeed appear to partake, or desire to partake in just such an activity. To demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case I will attempt to break down the relevant concepts, and show how they apply here.

1. Humans are animals.

Everyone can agree on this, I think. We are a form of animal life, therefore a literal application of the above definition would say that yes, human-only sex is still bestiality, but we all know it is not. Why? What sets humans sufficiently apart from other animals?

Let's look at our name: Homo sapiens. The answer is right there: we think. We are not merely sentient – self aware – but also sapient. We can think abstractedly, understand concepts, communicate, interact with one another as equals, etc. Because of this, we consider ourselves to be people, not “merely” animals. Therefore:

2. Humans are people.

Uncontroversial enough, wouldn't you say? I posit, that ponies, as they are depicted on the show are also people. They are sentient and sapient. They can learn, and reason. They can communicate consent, or lack thereof, and therefore, must be considered people, by our own standards. Therefore:

3. Ponies are people.

But what about their shape? Aren't they horses? Well, no, they are equines, but share significant physical differences from what we know as horses. Humans, for example, are primates, but that doesn't mean we are gorillas. Additionally, is the physical form even relevant to whether or not an entity can be considered sapient?

Would a human brain placed in a jar, yet kept alive and conscious by medical means cease to be human? I think not, therefore the fact that a sapient entity dwells within an equine form rather than a primate form is also inconsequential.

Now, I shall lay out my congeries:

I. Humans are animals
II. Humans are people
III. ∴Humans are both animals and people


I. Humans are animals and people
II. Bestiality is defined as sex between humans and animals
III. ∴Human-human sex should be bestiality

I. Humans are both animals and people
II. Sex between humans is not bestiality
III. ∴”Peopleness” is enough to invalidate bestiality


I. Ponies are people
II. “Peopleness” is enough to invalidate bestiality
III. ∴Sex between ponies and humans is not bestiality

There you have it: proof that sex between humans, and ponies, as they are depicted on the My Little Pony show, is not, in fact, bestiality.

There are of course a plethora of objections which combine elements from all of the above classifications, fortunately, combining them together doesn't make them any more valid.

Now that we have destroyed the most common criticisms leveled against waifuism, I wish to briefly touch on the benefits associated with it. Waifu-relationships, like those shared among more conventional couples, are as varied as the ones who have them, and thusly can not be reduced to a few paragraphs, but each one has the potential to be all you want it to be.

Love, devotion, companionship, and even sexual fulfillment can all be achieved; 3D has no monopoly on any of these things. You, dear reader, have only to find the courage within yourself to seize the opportunity, and embrace your love.