Aborigen

Something about the new year has brought the breeze of original thought. Within Size Fantasy, there have always been deep thinkers: people who want to understand why we’re into this, analyzing what it represents, how to fully embrace ourselves and our interests while gainfully interacting with society. Many people don’t care to think too hard about it, they just want to rub one out, and that’s fine, but there have been those of us who want to think too hard about it, and we feel the want for someone to talk about it with.

Earlier this month, someone I only know as Bug in a Cage wrote a profoundly thoughtful essay, “On Giantess Kink and False Empowerment.” I don’t know them, I’ve only seen their intriguing posts float by in the timeline, before I withdrew from Bluesky.

If you’re reading my blog, likely you’re not the kind of consumer scraping around for free porn. Read Bug’s essay, give it some serious thought, sleep on it. Listen to what they’re saying.

Because their comments are closed, I’ll respond in my own space.

On Giantess Kink and False Empowerment

Quite rightly, Bug highlights how the giantess kink scene suffers the male gaze. It’s built for men seeking to submit to a powerful woman, and yet it does not empower these women. Think about how many supreme storytellers you’ve seen, women who identify as giantesses, who had to pack up and disappear because of belligerence, harassment, and sexual assault. These are not forms of worship, in a community that pretends to idolize women. When a tiny man comes sniffing around at a giantess’s feet, claiming to desire to “worship” her, that worship comes in the form of him pursuing his erotic satiation without any regard for her agency, least of all what she considers meaningful worship.

Bug brings up the example of “Ann,” a woman performing as a giantess for financial gain. She does not necessarily resonate with the kink, only knows there’s an audience for it, and fair play to her. From a certain perspective, however, she has agreed to play the men’s game by the men’s rules—to her profit, to be sure, but is she really in control? How much liberty does she have to explore the full dimensionality of being a giantess, if she wants payment from a guy with his hand around his cock?

My Response

Before I weigh in, it must be understood that I’m not a typical consumer or participant. At one time, I was: I searched feverishly through the internet, looking for crappy pre-Photoshop collages of badly angled giantesses in grainy BMP files. My own writing started out as unchained, frenzied sexual fantasies, after twenty years of repression and sublimation. Eventually, as I pushed my craft, I realized it would be more interesting if the giant women had their own agency; some people agreed with me. Right-wingers complained, lamenting that I’d “brought politics” into Size Erotica. No, friend, the politics were already there: I’m just a leftist shining a light on it.

And now, I’m a giantess-worshipper. Not a paypig: this is my spirituality. I’m studying the Eddas and other Icelandic/Norse literature and analysis to read between the lines and understand the giantess-cults that existed before they got appropriated into Oðinn and Þorr’s adventures. They have shown themselves to me, as they showed themselves to Scandinavian heathens over four millennia ago, so … I have an extremely unusual working premise.

The first thing I must aver is that the Giantess is an ancient force, the steward of natural spaces. She has very little to do with how the Size scene consumes her. I would suggest, then, that the actual false empowerment isn’t in women portraying the role of a giantess, whether in RP or as a paid domme, but in the shameful idea that men dare to define what a giantess is. Take away all the horny little subs, and the Giantess stands completely fine on her own.

One of the ills of social media, one which has compelled me to divest myself from it time and again, is that it creates the illusion of national trends or predominant thought. There is no dearth of horny little men claiming their “worship” of giant women somehow makes them a breed of feminist, a bizarre and slightly insulting claim to be sure. However, I’m unwilling to say even half of the total population could be so indicted. What the Size kink shares with some of the most popular sexual fantasies in Western culture is that it appeals to men who truly do want to surrender their control and agency to a woman’s domination. They want to shed the crushing responsibility, they want to give up the struggle of being forced to be strong and decisive in a chaotic environment where no path is clear. They want to lose their cognition to the sensate experience of a woman in control of what they think and do. One could rightly argue that power is never truly handed over, only wrested, but male submission isn’t the problem. The problem is the entitlement of men who believe that giantesses owe them something: attention, gratification, de facto submission to their sexual demands.

The example of “Ann” is useful, but again, I wouldn’t be so audacious as to suggest most women are an “Ann,” taking up the giantess role solely for male consumption. I know several real giantesses, women for whom the Giantess is deeply resonant and nurturing. They are giantesses outside of the male gaze; their identity as gigantic women has nothing to do with men at all, independent of feminist critiques. It’s their relationship to the world. They believe in their own power and they embody their dominance. And if they exist, there must be others who haven’t spoken up, who haven’t moved into the Size scene.

Bug’s essay focuses, for good reasons, on the giantess figure represented in pop culture and feminist iconography, but it doesn’t approach the the ancient power of giantess myths in any culture. I can’t fault anyone for being restricted to believing the giantess is nothing more than a fictional construct, but my path has illuminated the Giantess as an archetypal force, a universal truth. That is strictly my personal take on the matter, I’m well aware.

Misogyny within the Size scene is rampant. Of this there is no doubt. Creators who insist they’re “into” women and “worship” giantesses still reduce gigantic women to exaggerated body parts and a sequence of holes; the fact that they’re women is almost tangential. Within the context of the online communities one has access to, I understand the claim that the giantess is primarily something men consume. It is my lived experience, however, that the Giantess is also something women become.

Can There Be Ethical Vore Under Capitalism?

And now we have Minifriend’s wonderful rejoinder, “Can There Be Ethical Vore Under Capitalism?” Again, treat yourself and take the time to read this. I’m thrilled to see more people really kneading the topic, examining themselves and the online experience to voice some challenging thoughts.

Minifriend challenges Bug’s conclusion that the giantess is little more than a transactional vehicle, but is a commodity unto itself. Creators within online Size communities often complain they feel invisible unless they’re constantly creating, remaining within the public imagination. This results in a frenzied rotation of giantess erotica constantly being produced, consumed, and discarded, solely to stay relevant rather than to meaningfully explore what it means to be a Giantess.

Once again we see the harm that social media has wrought, as creators vie for status within the algorithm rather than a substantial relationship with the community. This does nothing to discourage the entitlement with which many men engage with giantess performers, contributing to their dehumanization and devaluation within sex work. More, social media not only dictates the type of giantess content that succeeds, but it then influences how people construct their identities within the fetish. This shackles the individual to the algorithm and habits of consumption rather than enabling a deeper, more meaningful connection to the fantasy.

Minifriend also turns the light toward the presumption that kink communities are inherently radical. There are many historical examples of queer and kink subcultures fomenting resistance against conservative oppression, but the mere fact of them being queer does not necessarily make them progressive. In particular, Size kink spaces readily align with the transactional structure of capitalism, regardless of the illusion of empowerment.

Minifriend calls for more ethical, social-forward ways of engaging with the giantess fetish, and gods know I can only support this.

My Response

Once again, I have to point out that the Giantess has existed for millennia and is not a generation of postmodern sexual consumption. Without question, capitalism exploits everything it can get its hands on, but it doesn’t define the Giantess and we shouldn’t permit that. We should acknowledge and support those people for whom the Giantess is a nurturing, supportive archetype.

While social media algorithms have done no favors to the Size kink, I ask people to remember a time before Facebook and Twitter, when one lone man drove his station wagon, laden with hard drives, from city to city, uploading and downloading content with Size fetishists who had to work hard even to be aware of each other. Even now, genuine connection is still possible in the Size community, as are artistic innovation and personal revelation. I’ve written seven books and 300 stories about giant women and tiny men, not because I expect to live off the side-hustle, but because I was compelled to scream my fetish to the skies. The Giantess herself inspired me to write out my dreams, encouraged me to refine my themes, dared me to take on audacious challenges. And for what? To assert my existence, to create worlds other people could visit, and to testify on her behalf. It’s right to condemn the capitalist taint and the cancerous algorithm in Size, but it’s important to remember that something deeper is going on, too.

I have to reiterate that I know several giantesses. One who was born in the wrong body. One who has hunted for tiny people since she was a child. One who has condescended to take on a human body for this incarnation. They’re not selling anything, and they don’t do this for approval from men. The Giantess has existed throughout the world, throughout history, and if we limit ourselves to approaching her as a consumer, we’re never going to fully appreciate her. If the Giantess were nothing more than a capitalist construct, where did the legends come from? Why do we dream about her? How is it that so many of us, from an early age, saw ourselves as gigantic or tiny, well before we had any awareness of capitalist commodification? We’re dealing with something primal that capitalism seeks to exploit but, again, cannot create.

Capitalism and social media definitely flatten the Size experience, reducing it to desperately churning out shallow product, discouraging insight and consideration. It’s our individual responsibility to explore the Giantess beyond this limited framework, both to understand where she came from and truly apprehend what she means to us, not how she’s defined in digital economy. Condemn capitalism, absolutely, but also reclaim these fantasies. Own them. Discover yourself in them.

And then talk amongst yourselves.