#I don't care if you rewrite it so that the victim is abusive or it's not abusive or whatever but could you at least admit to it.

[fvckw4d]

I do not have anything against people just having a good time or shipping stuff I don't like or that is fucked up in the story or whatever, but sometimes I see people's read on the situation and go "I don't think this is a matter of morals or taste, I think you just need to get better critical thinking skills."

[bougiebutchbinch]

I do appreciate 'softer' interpretations of canon where everything is happy and nothing hurts. I think these headcanons and rewrites of characters have a huge and important place within fandom. This is not to say anything against people who prefer this sort of content.

But.

When I love a fucked-up character, I love the whole character, warts and all.

So.... a massive grateful shout out to the writers and creators who acknowledge that Ed was abused by his father, but don't shy away from the fact that Ed struggles to care for his crew. Thanks to the writers who acknowledge that he made terrible abusive choices towards his crew that there would realistically be consequences of, but this doesn't mean he's beyond changing - he can still choose to do better and can confront his own actions & his fear of becoming his father. He is worthy of love and support throughout this journey (though this absolutely shouldn't be expected to come from his victims).

Thanks to the writers who acknowledge that Stede survived his father's abuse and some truly atrocious childhood bullying - but also remember that he is a cis white ablebodied man born to extreme privilege, who needs to be reminded on occasion that piracy is not a game and that his crew are the lives he is gambling with when his plans veer even more dangerous than normal. That he started off as a class tourist, and is still very much learning what life is like outside of his circle of the landed gentry, even if he's throwing himself into piracy with adorable enthusiasm.

And thanks to the writers who portray Izzy as a victim of Ed's abuse, as he is in canon, and who also continue to depict him in all his twisted, messy, bitter glory: a man inured to violence, who warped himself to fit a crueller world of piracy than the one we see in the show, who enabled many of Ed's darker choices in S1 and pre-canon (although... he didn't make him do shit. 'I fed your darkness' =/= 'I made you abuse your crew, myself included', holy crap). Who is still learning to accept the kindness of others without biting every outstretched hand. Who was an imperfect man and is an imperfect survivor, but is a survivor nevertheless.

In short: Gimme all your flawed 'unloveable' characters, and watch me love them anyway.

[stick-ball]

saw a hc about jean moreau being hyper sexual especially post-ravens. thoughts? feelings?

thoughts AND feelings! Oh the joy of being given a chance for a hot second to discuss this. You came to the right place my love. ❤️

Trigger and age warning : rape, sex connected trauma, dissociation, psychological abuse, controlling relationships, discussion of sexual acts.

Okay so, being hyper sexual. You know who does that in the books? Andrew actually. I know some might look at me weirdly rn like, 'what the hell are you talking about, he doesn't let anyone touch him'. Yeah, that's true! But that doesnt take away from the knee jerk reaction. (I'm sorry I know this isn't exactly what you asked but I need to discuss andrew first, and that has a lot to do with jean, bear with me).

Andrew finds a partner that he can to some limit trust (leverage, deals, careful observation, "training" them to behave how he tells them) to follow his instructions, which gives him a sense of control. They can fuck, but it's him who's doing it. It's him who's touching, kissing ect. The other person, of course if they consent, get to partake but not create the experience. It's one of the very, very valid scenarios of hyper sexuality as a responce to rape. He is rewriting every poisoned nerve ending in his body. He doesn't actually get off from the sex. For his own release he needs privacy, as shown in the books. Andrew's problem can be, that due to his truly inhumane trauma he can fall into the mindset of defining his sense of self through sex. It's an action and he's a tool in this scenario. Then again, We circle back to control, which is also a key feature of his decisions and protectiveness. Taking total control of the situation which used to be utterly outside of it, with no way out of it. Rewriting it, giving the traumatic experience a positive ending, hell an ending - when, and as suddenly as he might want it to end, is the motivator here. I think what he finds satisfying in terms of sex, not control, is giving sexual consent to his partners and, which he finds just as important, them giving it to him. Because it wasn't given to him. It's a way of building trust.

The motivations sound pretty nice, even if heartbreaking, don't they? Seem uplifting? The problem is, even if in good faith, this process can be very harmful, trauma surviviors mention that (at least ones I discussed it with personally) it feels good, but in the long run it does what this type of coping mechanism always does to your brain (similiar reactions can be seen for different traumas), which is hurt it. It's a form of desensitisation that limits your brain's ability to percieve the situation. It's hard to rewrite and leads to hot and cold kind of reactions, so yeah, having a relationship with a capital R is, difficult. That's what I always understood as Nora saying they are never actually okay (andrew and neil). Or at least partly understood it as.

Okay, so this cleared a couple things up. Now JEAN. Jean and Andrew share some factors of their trauma. While not treated as such, Jean was technically fostered by the Moriyamas, and well, Andrew's experiences with being fostered are faaaaar from what it's supposed to be as well. The difference is in Andrew's situation everyone tried to pretend the horror is not happening, there must have been a lot of manipulation and coercion and just plain fucking gaslighting in these houses. Its hard to talk about but I can imagine some of these monsters wanted him to act like he is enjoying it, and thats just out if the emotional range of dealing with for anyone. Jean knew he's in a trap from day one. Moreover, when it comes to the rape's he was victim of it was ordered by Riko to be done by others. That's a different level of fucked up. What's even more important as distinction here is he stopped, when Jean stopped reacting and fighting it. Because what Riko wanted wasn't violation, that was the tool. He wanted to psychologically break him. When the fish stops flailing on the cat stops pushing it around.

And Riko was constant, his modus operandi was regular, and the psychological torture was the motivator behind most of his "conditioning" of Jean. This is a situation where the abuse has a cause for the victim. It sounds sick and I don't agree with it, but it's a game in their mind. In the books we can see that he learned how to limit the amount of attention Riko gave him and as we know he is not confrontational like Andrew with his problems. And yeah I don't mention Neil as confrontational here bcs he has conditioned himself to run from everything and say he's fine to everything so..., sometimes it erupts frk mit but that's not exactly the same, its a last resort.

Circling back, I think Jean is more likely to be sex repulsed. For him sex, which was a form of punishment, is a cause of anxiety. Sexual tension is easy to mix up with nervous tension because of a feeling of losing control of the situation. That's why if we do get romance in the new book, I am putting my money on it being very messy from his pov. The magical thing about trauma responces though, is that they're not black and white, and someone who is sex repulsed might also seek an ending to their anxieties through it. Yet, it's ts a bit of an opposite motivation to the one Andrew has. When Andrew thinks of himself as a tool, Jean is more likely to think of himself as an object. There's a difference. While Andrew wants to take control, Jean is more likely to use it as either a way to retraumatise himself - so his version of hypersexuality would include less control and more roughness and violence, actually trying to rile the partner up. It might stemm for him from low self worth or be a way of letting out his angers and frustrations. It's not that he is used to being hurt, it's that he doesn't expect anything different. I also think he is more likely to have problems with opening up in therapy. Where Andrew is active Jean is passive, and the opposite. The upside is he might actually be more likely to communicate emotionally than through rules and laws, it will take longer, but be a smoother transition, because more people understand it than Andrew's way of building relationships.

Hope this anwser satisfies you, I'm sorry if I got a bit carried away. 😅

[bigskydreaming]

There are few ripple effects from "people refusing to acknowledge the events of NTT #55 because of how it makes Bruce look" that I hate more than "people feeling comfortable portraying Dick's distance from Bruce when Tim first became Robin as due to Dick being a selfish, ungrateful child who simply didn't care about his father's emotional well-being enough to try and be there for him after Jason's death and had to be SHAMED into it by a twelve year old."

Like I've always said, I get and sympathize with people not wanting to see a hero they personally relate to or emotionally invest in portrayed as an abuser. But that said, uh....as an abuse survivor who doesn't want to see a hero I personally relate to and emotionally invest in DUE to instances of him being a survivor reframed as "the real problem all along" in ways that are all too familiar to how people in the real world flip the script on abuse victims 'in defense' of people they're unwilling to accept could ever be guilty of something as heinous as abuse.....

Mmmm yeah, still don't love that and never will.

Anyway, handle this discrepancy or rewrite canon or recontextualize it however you need to in order to make this work for you, but as a reminder here: ACTUAL CANON is that Dick very much DID go see his father to try and support him and mutually grieve Jason with him the literal day he first learned of Jason's death, and Bruce's response to this was to blame Jason's death on him, accuse him of always resenting Jason for being the one Bruce adopted, punch him in the face and tell him to go and leave his keys to the manor with Alfred on his way out.

And THAT is the canon context of their existing dynamic as of the time Tim came into their lives, so again, with all due respect for whatever one's personal reasons might be for not wanting to see, reference, acknowledge or accept any characterization of Bruce as abusive, please do at least try and keep an awareness of what that might mean or tend to result in.....

Such as the first son he canonically was abusive to being commonly accepted by a waaaaaay too large subset of fandom as being a self-centered, ungrateful asshole who needed a pre-teen to shame him into understanding his dad wasn't doing okay after his other son's death and thus clearly never deserved ANY of these three characters.

Its one thing to hate NTT #55 because you feel it throws Bruce under the bus for the sake of Dick's storylines or characterization, but if that's truly your issue there, your fix should probably not just be doing the exact same thing in reverse.

...as it tends to come across as less 'an issue with characters being sabotaged for the sake of someone else's fave' and more 'an issue with Bruce, my fave, being sabotaged for the sake of anyone else.'

Just throwing that out there for your consideration.

[petitprincess1]

Do you feel like Jaz was rewriting in ep 2

I'm assuming you meant Jax from TADC, but no. This is the same exact shit that happened with Stella from Helluva and even Alastor from Hazbin. Ppl seen to get really shocked when assholes turn out to be assholes. The whole thing is stupid.

"Alastor was so silly in the Pilot!" Damn, I didn't know that being a silly goose absolved you from murder x3c The dude is a serial killer and radio personnel. Obviously, he is going to be incredibly charismatic, but don't forget that he is in Hell for a reason. Besides, Al still has silly moments in the show, but he never hid his true intentions. He is proud to be piece of shit.

"Stella was a victim of abuse!" You can really tell who has the power in an argument. The first time we see Stella, she's the one going apeshit and throwing things (people) at Stolas. Not only that but she doesn't even care for Via's presence, while Stolas noticed immediately. Hell, she's frowning in the Loo Loo Land portrait. Even Via knows that they argue a lot, considering she asked Stolas "are you two done yelling for today?" The one-time Stolas defends himself is at the end S2 EP1 and it was to catch Stella's hand, which she was shocked by. Her being able to strike him shows that this isn't the first time she has hit him, while knowing that he doesn't defend himself.

"Jax is a psychopath!" Yeah, Goose admitted this a while back, saying that the fandom will be divided when they see his true character. It's not their fault that you thought your headcanon was going to be true. Most shows already have a few episodes written before they launch production. Never forget that a Pilot is a proof of concept and not everything within it will remain canon. Not that that pertains to this, however. Jax was still an asshole in the Pilot. Literally mocking Pomni as she spiraled and constantly harming the characters, nor caring for their feelings.

TL;DR: Ppl need to realize that their headcanons are not actually canon and not to get lobotomies when these jerk characters are first introduced. Just bc you didn't view the character as a terrible person does not mean the writing is bad or retconned. You just stayed in your head a bit too long and now are throwing a tantrum when things didn't go your way.

[docholligay]

A relevant question was asked by @tallangrycockatiel about my love of Interview With the Vampire: "Um, why are you into something that is all about dudes, all the time? Is this us not being a bitch's bitch?" Only, she is English so she said it in a more polite, suggested sort of way.

A very fair question! It is extremely true that, by and large, a thing with men only is less interesting to me by far and it takes a lot more for me to get into it. But she was not put off by this, for she had developed a theory:

My two initial theories are that either it hit you early enough that that hadn't become such a strong preference, or that it has something to do with the fact that despite being 95% men the entire cast seems to be having what I can only describe as dyke drama the entire time.

She both knows me and is smart, so there we are. The answer is basically: YES.

I started reading the Vampire Chronicles when I was something around 13, and so I didn't really have an idea that it was kind of fucked up that men we treated as the only default interesting people on earth. I pretty much took it as an implicit truth, where I never would have SAID that, but, I was very much in what can only be described as a 'masculinity k-hole' where of course I wanted to be a 'tomboy' and the only way for a girl to be tough and cool was if she was 'just like a boy' and this whole idea that men and masculinity were superior vomit vomit vomit whatever I am perfectly capable of beating someone's ass in red lipstick but that line of thinking did not occur to me at the time.

So I had NO sensitivity to the idea that stories whose ENTIRE UNIVERSES centered around men might be even, annoying. Anne Rice straight up does not care about or like women, and it is absolutely reflected in the way she writes her female characters. I cannot IMAGINE someone reading these as a fully grown adult who thinks women are neat, actually, and not coming away going, "My god, what is happening in these books?" But when you grow up with something, it changes with you, and the ways you think of it aren't COMING from adult you, they are, at least in part, coming from YOUNG you. And, in much the same way A Song of Ice and Fire, which I read at a similar time, gave me what I wanted from fantasy and wasn't getting, this did as well. I did not know that it would have been what is now called urban fantasy, and I didn't know that was a thing I liked (I very much know that now) all I knew was, I liked it. It was batshit and felt dangerous and it was unhinged and very gothic, though, again, not a way I could have expressed it.

So I'm carrying all that --I'll say baggage even though that has a negative connotation--when I come to the work. I already pre-like it.

This can of course backfire, but it didn't, so, I'm not gonna get into that.

NUMBER TWO: The 'all dudes' thing is not insurmountable. It's a quality issue. I love Dan Simmons' work and his women are basically nonexistent. There are plenty of things I like that don't center women. But, the bar to entry is MUCH higher. I would never in my life willingly watch something like "sailor moon but boys though."

What Interview has, that I love, is a very rare thing: Well written, EXPLICITLY gay, and everyone is fucking terrible. It is an adult show for grown-ass adults where people fuck and murder and abuse each other. Armand is the physical manifestation of gaslight gatekeep girlboss. Louis rewrites an entire personal history to make himself look better and emotionally manipulates everyone he comes into contact with. Lestat is a hot tempered, vain dilettante who does shit without thinking and then has the audacity to go, "Oh no, the quencies!" Everyone sucks, everyone is abusive in one way or another, all the fucking exes overlap, and I LOVE IT. Anyone looking for a hero or victim is watching the wrong fucking show and I am SO HAPPY ABOUT IT.

I'll close with my response when we were talking about how fucking great Sarah Waters is, in relation to the above:

it took me forever to realize that I didn't actually want recommendations for lesbian fic, what I was actually asking is: So who is doing it like Sarah Waters? Which unfortunately is no one. The woman is my own personal oasis in the desert.

And God, it has taken me YEARS to convince people that I care so much less about whether or not something is gay than if it is GOOD. Does it say something TRUE, you know? Is it messy? Is it sometimes uncomfortable? I would fucking LOVE if it could be gay on top of these things, but I'll real here:

l'll read a good straight thing versus a bad and especially a fluffy gay thing

I LOVE that shit like REd, White and Royal Blue or coffee shop Aus or whatever exist for people who want them, but I am out for blood ahaha

I have a happy, boring, domestic gay life, i do not need to imagine what a life where your biggest argument is about the quantity and variety of fucking breakfast cereal (We have EIGHT. BOXES.)

[stevesbipanic]

Billy was not racist. He was trying to protect Max and Lucas both from his father, who would have harmed both of them plus Billy if he knew they were even hanging out let alone romantically involved. Billy was a victim of abuse at the hands of his father, and his mother abandoned him to his father despite knowing what cruelties he would suffer just to save her own ass. Was Billy an asshole? Yes. Was the shitty way he treated people especially Max okay? No, never. Nothing excuses it. But you try living with the sorts of abuses his father heaped on him, and on his mother before she left, and the abuses he would have been heaping on Max's mom too. I have zero doubt that Billy's father r-worded both Billy's mom and later Max's mom because "wifely duties" or some other misogynistic garbage. Billy would have overheard the sounds from it pretty much any time it happened while he was home. You try living with all that and see how YOU turn out. Billy did deserve a redemption arc. He got one of a sort when he sacrificed himself despite "the mindflayer's" control over him, all to save El, Max, Max's mom, and even people he hated. Because he knew what "the mindflayer" had planned. Did you not see Billy's tears when "the mindflayer" was speaking through him? Did you not notice Billy told Karen to stay away from him rather than give in to "the mindflayer" and kill her? Did you not notice Billy flat out lied to his father when his father demanded to know where Max had run off to? There's no way Billy didn't have some kind of clue where to find her. But he lied to his father, to shield her and to shield Lucas, from whatever harm would absolutely have come to them at the hands of Neil Hargrove. Billy is not the embodiment of evil you clearly think he is.

Did Billy somewhat sometimes care about his stepsister? Yes. Did he get abused by his dad? Also yes. These facts don't excuse him from his actions in both seasons 2 and 3.

In our early meetings of Billy he highly threatens to run over the party while they're on their bikes. A normal same human being wouldn't do that. He also beat Steve to the point the kids thought he might be dead. He continued beating Steve even once Steve had been thoroughly knocked out, and likely would've killed Steve if Max hadn't knocked him out.

Also YES HE WAS RACIST WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???? Did you know that Billy's line "certain type of people" in regards to Lucas, was originally a black slur? He was a racist character picking up the trait from yes his abusive dad. Just because his dad was abusive doesn't mean Billy didn't become racist because of his upbringing with him.

You can definitely say that line is to protect Max from abuse from her stepdad if he found out she was talking to a black boy. But it certainly wasn't protecting Lucas, billy couldn't care less about Lucas' safety (SEE TRYING TO RUN HIM OFF THE ROAD).

His character was written to be a bad person, accept this. Characters aren't always written to have redemption arcs or all be good people. He was a racist bully from the 80s with an abusive dad. Just because you think he's hot doesn't change these facts.

Also, abuse doesn't inherently make your character grow up to be a bully. Lonnie Byers is heavily written as an abusive father, even going so far as it was suggested he killed Will in season 1. But neither of the Byers grow up to be bullies. Eleven is brought up in an abusive environment and moves past these traits. Steve's parents are seen as hard on him and in some ways absent and neglectful and besides Jonathan we never see him fight anyone that wasn't for protection.

Billy is the only older character that shows complete disregard for the kids safety. And him dying in st3 doesn't forgive these actions nor rewrite his racist abusive character.

You're allowed to hate characters that are written to be the bad guys. No one attacks anyone for hating Dr Brenner because he's the villain. Many people including myself didn't like Steve in season 1 because he was written to be the popular asshole. Characters are written certain ways for reasons. So go enjoy your self insert fanfiction where you really just want Billy to be a hot ooc. But for the rest of us it's totally fair to hate on one of the villains of the series.

[sammylbir]

Rewriting The Most Hated Danganronpa Character (Haiji Towa)

No need for an introduction, eh? We know Haiji Towa. Mr Pedro Phillips, the guy who made Monaca, into who she is today and the guy most fans loathed. In my life, I only met 3 people who liked him as a character and even they don't like his infamous "Like em Younger" shtick. Thankfully.

Now, I made a poll and asked, if I should make a rewrite post for this POS. And all of you said Yes. Which does give me more faith in humanity. Even though I really don't want to do this post.

Welp. How about we remove the "I like em younger" line and leave it at that. Okay?

.....No, you want more? Okay fine. Let me do my best then. As always this is my personal opinion and you can feel free to disagree with me.

Appearance:

Honestly, in canon, this is probably the best part of his character. He has a very cool design and I do think that there should almost nothing be changed about it. Emphasis on "Almost".

What I would add is that the fact that his injured arm, is not actually injured at all. It's hiding a cybernetic prosthesis with a chainsaw attached to it that he can activate, in order to take down Monokumas. Said prosthetic was actually a result of an accident he had in the Towa factory as a kid. He uses his false injury, in order to lure his victims into a false sense of security.

The idea is taken from his concept art, back when he was gonna be the Deutagonist of UDG and not Toko. Good thing that didn't happen.

Personality:

Okay then, time for this part. Haiji is still unpleasant and is a huge jerk, hiding his true persona behind a brotherly and chill demeanor. He has a huge temper and can be quite authoritative. But he also cares deeply for his group members and is traumatized over the fact that he lost so many comrades over the years. He has survivors guilt and suffers from PTSD, to the point where any sight of a child sets his alarm off and makes him even more aggressive.

He did abuse Monaca like in canon, but for different reasons which will be explained later. Even so, he does regret what he did to her deep down, hating himself for the fact that he pushed her into Junko's arms. And he also misses his dad, feeling guilty that he survived over him.

Past:

Okay first of, he is not a pedophile. He is not attracted to kids.

Like in canon, Haiji was not a good brother figure to his sister Monaca. But the reason why he hated her, was due to the fact that his mother neglected him and was disappointed when he was born. She expected a girl and thanks to that, she treated him with contempt. His dad also belittled him and often verbally abused him, while praising Monaca's intelligence. This made him feel frustrated towards his younger sister and he hurt her a lot, in order to feel better about his lack of talent. Of course, Mr. Towa also was not nice to Monica and mocked her for being a woman and for trying to act like "a man".

His mother eventually left the family, thanks to the mob chasing her for unpaid debts. This made Haiji and his dad even more frustrated, treating Monaca even worse. Haiji only stopped, when he thought that he paralyzed her, something he deeply regrets to this day.

When Junko hired Haijis dad to make Monokuma Robots, Haiji spoke out against it and was therefore disowned by his dad. The rest happened like in canon and Haiji became the leaders of the adults. He is willing to kill every child, if it meant to stop the war in Towa City once and for all. Haiji did start out as more heroic, but the more the war went on, the more jaded and extreme he became, until at the end of the game, he'd turn into nothing more than a vengeful murderer, driven by the death of his comrades, friends and father.

This version of Haiji is more like A Fallen Anti-Hero/Knight Templar. He believes that what he is doing will help everyone, but deep down all he wants is revenge.

I can imagine him eventually becoming a boss in UDG, the moment Komaru refuses to break the controller, before being knocked out by Big Bang Monokuma. Whether he'd die in the process or not, remains to be seen.

And that's it. I am sure that this version of Haiji is much, much better than the original one and if ya liked this post, feel free to LIKE and REBLOG. It really helps a lot.

See ya!

[ryuichirou]

Jade gaslighting anon here, sorry if I sounded offended. Gaslighting is a very specific type of abuse that I went through for a very long time and while Jade is very toxic and problematic, he is not a gaslighter so it bothers me when people slap that on as a catch-all for all manipulative characters. Again, sorry if I sounded angry or offended.

Anon, I heard you. And I am sincerely sorry that you went through some very bad stuff in your life.

However. I want to say something and I am not going to mince my words this time because I need to make one thing clear.

Here is TLDR if you don’t want to read the whole post: No offence, but I can’t keep in mind everyone’s trauma, I don’t think Rook is a gaslighter, we will continue to post content about Jade being one.

I disagree with you on Jade not being a gaslighter and Rook being one. I don't think that this is the case, in fact, I think the opposite is true. But we are not going to have a character discussion right now because this clearly isn't the point of the situation that’s happening here. Based on what you’re saying, your opinion is influenced by your past experiences. Which isn’t a bad thing, we all have our own biases, but it makes a proper discussion quite difficult, especially when there is trauma involved.

Here is the thing. I know what gaslighting is. I myself was also a victim of gaslighting, believe it or not. I was in a very bad place for a lot of years, and some of the events from that time affect me to this day. There are a lot of things that trigger me, ruin my mood, make me panic, in fact, all of us have those things to some degree. And all of us have content that is deeply upsetting, even if it’s not related to one’s past trauma. But that doesn’t justify asking people on the internet to stop talking about characters a certain way or reading them a certain way. How is it different than people asking us not to post Shroudcest or not to talk about them in as a romantic ship? There might be people who don’t just use it as an excuse, but are actually getting triggered by me drawing these two, so what should I do about it? Obey every single one of those people? Then it’s just easier not to post anything about any character.

Unfortunate as it is, I cannot take care of all of you: it's impossible. You have to take care of yourself. Mute the word, avoid our posts about Jade, whatever feels more suitable. Because we are not going to rewrite the way we view certain characters because of someone else’s bad associations or even just different reading of the said character, it just isn't fair to ask that of someone. You didn’t say “you know, I personally don’t think that Jade is this way, because of this, this and this”. This isn’t how you approached this; you were upset about the fact that I made Jade into a gaslighter instead of making Rook one, and this is clearly your bias. Which is, once again, not a bad thing in itself, it’s just that I still have no idea what exactly you wanted me to do. Even if Rook reminds you of someone from your past, even if Jade is your comfort character, I can’t take those things into account about every single one of our followers, so why should I do it for you? This wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the people here, right?

We are all entitled to our own opinions and feelings, and I wouldn’t dare to argue with you about it anywhere else: this topic is clearly hurting you; so arguing about it would just be mean and uncalled for. But this is our blog, our space and our territory; and we are going to talk about the characters in the way that we want. Especially when this is a hc post, for fuck’s sake.

You didn’t sound offended or mad, you sounded upset. And I might also sound upset, but I actually am a little mad because if you are the person I think you are, I am a bit disappointed by you saying this to me via Anon.

Please understand. I am being this strict because I feel like I need to remind you about certain boundaries that I don’t want to get violated.

Having bad associations and getting triggered by a character is a horrible thing, and as someone who had to rewatch a bunch of stuff to get new fond memories of quite a lot of characters, I understand that,  believe it or not. I actually had to rewatch a lot of shit to get to love some characters again. And it was my fight to fight that Katsu was kind enough to help me with because Katsu is my partner who wanted me to get better: I am a part of Katsu’s life, that’s why Katsu listened patiently when I was mad at a character that had nothing to do with the thing I was actually mad about.

My point is that we have our own circumstances, and you have no idea how bad of a timing this whole shit is. You don’t know what kind of life we live and what we go through right now, and, to put it mildly, it’s not the best, so we’re really not in the mood.

So please. Take care of yourself and just ignore shit that you don’t like because while it might be traumatic for you, to us it might be one of the few things that bring us happiness.

[immaturityofthomasastruc]

Something I dislike about Miraculous since season 3 is how all kinds of evil are carried by Gabriel which could sound good cool but that ultimately destroys he’s character

He was the basic:I’m your father,I hurt you because i love you and your mother

But then he kinda stopped caring for Adrien safety,then it came the “end the world”, Not even rewriting it but straight up destroying it

And now he has the sicko kind of villain having a obsession for defeating ladybug which doesn’t fit he’s character since unlike other villains like Eggman from sonic, he’s main characteristic isn’t a ego which got destroyed over and over again by a teen. That development from “I’ll conquer the world to make everyone gaze upon my brilliance” to “I’ll drown you,I’ll drown you like a basket of dumb puppy’s” or “that’s stupid,you’re stupid!!! STOP BEING STUPID!!!” or “now that you are this super thingy you think you’re better than me Dr.Ivo Robotnik? WELL YOURE NOT! I own you,I OWN YOUR PLANET, I own this planet! In fact F*CK THIS PLANET”. Since he’s character was about a EgoMegalomaniac which was defeated by a sassy Ego maniac but Gabriel goal was never for he’s Ego or to conquer or for revenge. So he’s later actions are kinda… out of character which is now he’s character which is sad

That’s because they tried to turn Gabriel into every kind of villain since he’s the only Maniac of the series. You know why Spider-Man has many enemies? Because each one does a thing Gabriel does but perfected it

Green goblin-insane megalomaniac with a giant ego trip which killed the man he once was replacing it with a monster which became obsessed with defeating the child who defeated him over and over again for years

Rhino-a maniac who does this for power and money, he nothing more than a criminal which is capable to getting he’s hands dirty

Mr Negative-a victim of someone else with a single yet selfish plan of revenge but he’s ultimately stopped by the third party of Spider-Man

The lizard-a victim of he’s recklessness but is nothing more than a man trapped inside a monster

Venom-someone selfish blaming someone else for he’s misery manipulated by a sinister creature with the same mentality

Carnage-a unstoppable maniac, abomination, MONSTER who lacks any care for human life and the monster covering he’s body is nothing but a fitting look for he’s interior.

Yet all those traits,all those ideas and arcs are molten into a character which ultimately does not work for how contradictory he ultimately is. If they want to do those arcs then fine but they’ll need more than Gabriel since he’s not the right villain for that history

I talked about this briefly in my analysis of him as a character, but the problem with Gabriel is that the writers seem to be divided on whether to make him a more sympathetic villain like Mr. Freeze or an unapologetically evil villain like Lex Luthor.

Both are amazing characters in their own right, but just because you put aspects of both of them in one character, it doesn't make the result a good one. Gabriel clearly has the charisma to be an irredeemable monster, but more often than not, the show goes out of its way to make you feel bad for him, even when he's shown to abuse his son emotionally and physically. You could have easily fixed the issue with Gabriel by revealing that Nathalie is the one who wants to recreate the world in her own image. Either that, or have her be the one who is more willing to hurt people than Gabriel is, while he cares more about the well-being of people like his son.

Like you said, Spider-Man's rogues gallery works because of how large it is, opening the door for all kinds of stories without needing to worry about ruining any previously established motivations, and instead focusing on how people who fell into similar circumstances as Peter Parker went down a different path than he did. They don't try to cram different character traits into a single villain and have Spider-Man fight them every week. They simply let each villain tell their own story, and that's why it works more.

[hadescabin]

why do you want to get rid of tigerdove instead of trying to fix it??? no shade or anything.

TW// GROOMING, MANIPULATION because quite honestly, there's nothing there to fix. it's just bad from the bottom down. i've seen really great rewrite aus that age tigerheart down to dovewing's age, so that they pursue each other as apprentices, which is something i considered doing since it doesn't really change much in terms of the story. however, i've come to the realization that the age gap isn't the only thing wrong with the relationship. That aside, Tigerheart is very manipulative and awful towards Dovewing, throughout the entirety of the time they've known each other, and even now that they have kits. Someone in my TigerDove is grooming post brought up a great example of how he even went out of his way to have a whole incel breakdown to Ivypool when she stood up for herself and cut off their relationship when he was trying to pressure her back in.

("Your sister who I've groomed since she was 13 put her friends and family over me" is a crazy thing to say and rage about btw. People like to say that bumbledove is worse for the incel stuff, have completely forgotten that Tigerheart, or many men in the series really, throw a fit when they don't get what they want. It's just worse when you keep in mind that he spends 4 books isolating and manipulating her into a relationship with him since the moment she was a child, and lovebombing her when she fights back. See: their argument about Dawnpelt in The Last Hope). People seem to have this misguided view that Tigerheartstar is this sweet himbo blorbo who loves his wife and kids, when in reality he's the complete opposite. Canon establishes him as someone who is very sneaky and great at manipulating the people around him to get what he wants. This isn't just an "Ivypool is biased" thing (though I do admit that she does hold some), it's just canonically established as the type of person tigerheart is.

(This actually isn't the first time someone points it out in the book, though I decided to stick with Squilf since she is a lot more reliable than someone like Bramblestar LOL). While it's certainly true that he cares a lot about his family, to the point where he selfishly puts them above everything else, it's also true that he just isn't the best father. Let's not forget how he actively victim blamed Shadowsight for being manipulated by Ashfur, and ordered him to constantly remain in close proximity to care for someone who took advantage of him. Between that and him kicking out nomads from their own territory, Tigerheartstar can be interesting in the way that he's consistently written as having these glaring flaws such as poor judgement and selfishness. Which, as much as I hate the guy, I do like that about him, and therefore wish to keep that in. However, I run into 2 problems. To start off, I don't feel comfortable writing a grooming relationship in my rewrite, it's not a subject I wish to touch. Second of all, even if I do age down Tigerheartstar, I really don't want Dovewing to be trapped in an abusive relationship, especially since her arc is about escaping that. It wouldn't make sense for her to escape to the same clan of the guy who manipulated her. It honestly makes more sense if they just remain good friends, not every forbidden meetup plot line needs to be romantic (like Firestar sneaking out to meet Princess). Maybe there will be a point in time where Tigerheart(or Goldenheart/paw in my rewrite) tricks Dovepaw for herbs or something, but it's established as awful on his part, and it very much nearly ends their friendship, which serves as a small wakeup call for him (Goldenheart is very spoiled in my rewrite so he's just used to doing whatever to get what he wants even at the expense of others). I don't know though, I still need to workshop it. TLDR: Outside of the massive age gap, similarly to relationships like BrambleSquirrel, TigerDove is unintentionally written to be too toxic (in this case it's grooming) for me to try and fix. "Fixing" TigerDove, would be "fixing" Tigerheartstar, which you really can't do, since him being awful is just his character. I really don't feel comfortable trying to pretty up a grooming relationship anyways, best to cut it out. edit: i decided the "evidence" i used with jayfeather wasn't exactly accurate in showing what I was trying to say, and that it would be best to cite from a more recent book. so i decided to replace it with an excerpt from Squirrelflight's Hope. dont get me wrong though it's still very much an example of him being antagonistic in the series even way back during OOTS.

[ifyouknowmenahyoudontt]

canon sucks in the sense that there should be more characters of color than we can count on our fingers, more canonically queer characters, more disabled or neurodivergent characters. not everyone should be cishet, white, and neurotypical. ( and the "erm but actually dumbledore was gay and hermione was black!" bullshit doesn't satisfy this ) and i applaud the old fans for getting over the old faceclaims ( aaron taylor johnson, andrew garfield, ben barnes... i salute the many edits of them ) and the new age fandom for keeping up the poc headcanons!!

canon sucks in the sense that while we can have complex characters, morally grey leaning dark characters, those characters should not try to be slotted into "good or bad." those characters shouldn't have very brief redemptions that suddenly make them heroes and epic good guys after entire books of assholery and even bigotry. two guesses as to who i'm talking about here!

canon does not suck in the "my favorite character may have maybe a sentence of plot relevance doesn't get enough attention, so i'm going to ignore all the canon things that point to them being a bigot and instead woobify them and try to make them more important than they actually were" way.

like, fanon regulus black my ABHORRED. while he wasn't abused himself, was canonically the favorite of his parents because he aligned with their ideals, it's interesting to explore sirius' complicated thoughts on his little brother. one that many mistreated and abused older siblings have when it comes to their younger- could i have done more, could i have saved him, changed him, etc. but acting like regulus wouldn't have hated his guts and wanted sirius dead, literally became a death eater and fully agreed with voldemort's ideals?? did we read the same books?

and canon does not suck in the "i'm going to take these cool complex characters and dumb them down to a single personality trait or stereotype, and pretend they're not a complex person with flaws" way.

like, i love james and sirius, literally my favorite characters! they were not always the good guys. canonically, even if he turned out to be an exponentially worse person, they were the villains in someone's story. they used to be bullies, just for the sake of it. they used to be asshole teenage boys with big egos and privilege ( both coming from wealthy pureblood households ). and they don't have to use that privilege AGAINST anyone! they obviously wouldn't, both of them are considered "blood traitors" for a reason ( james marrying a muggleborn and sirius even associating with james and lily and remus ).

it's so much more interesting to explore how they would have been as privileged little dickheads in the 70s in the midst of war, rather than "sunshine himbo james" and "femboy twink sirius" ( or if we wanna go back to old fandom shit, "sexy, lady-killer, has fucked everyone and their mom sirius" ). i also just hate "big sexy strict alpha remus," i can stand him being sarcastic because it's funny but i can't with people who take away his shyness and kindness. give us quiet bookworm remus back PLEASSEEE

even peter, and i used to be a victim of this as well- THEY LIKED HIM! peter was a marauder, he was part of the group, he was their best friend too. i understand people who try to erase him altogether just out of hating him, but those who pretend that james, sirius, and remus didn't care for him are just wrong. it's okay to not like a character, but don't rewrite canon in a way that fully fucks up the story. peter's betrayal sucked from all angles, because he was their friend too.

and reading what you and multiple other people have said about lily is so right, she gets the "jealous straight girl that wants james but HATES REGULUS for stealing jamie!!" treatment, or is just cast out altogether. like, sorry, who did harry get his striking green eyes from? who brought him into the goddamn world? james sure as hell didn't do it alone, and last i checked, regulus was dead by then if we wanna be real about it.

this turned out to be an insane rant, SO sorry, but hp is my special interest and i LOVE the marauders era just as much as i love the golden trio era. they're interesting to explore as characters, ESPECIALLY james, in the same way a lot of people like rose quartz from steven universe? he's spoken about as this infamous, talented, really good dude who died protecting his wife and son and helped bring upon the savior of the wizarding world. but he was also like a huge asshole when he was in school, and harry probably would have hated to meet james and sirius from back then! but people dumb all of them down in the marauders era works just because we don't get explicit descriptions or tellings of what they were like. and it's so annoying!!

i strongly agree with this.

tbh regulus being one of the most popular character speaks a lot about this fandom. bigotry is a broad term and those who criticize JKR (rightfully tho) but go on again to do that to women? or the poc? hypocritical

and the fanon remus thing pisses me off so bad because the point of his character was that he was a soft and sensitive person contrasting with his “condition”!!!! he was human!!!!!!

i agree w this sm

[numberoneaaronhatee]

My rewrite is complicated. Help

I have realized that my rewrite/AU depending on how you look at is complicated. The magic system is complicated but that's what makes it good and powerful and 'realistic' The tech is a mix of 2000's 2010's and modern day technology (don't get me started on the magical technology (actually please do ask)

I don't know why but I love added complicated but not convoluted topics and ideas. I love writing about ships that seem toxic until you look deeper (aka Vylad x Gene or Aaron x Ein)

Like sure if you do into my rewrite blind I bet you'll be confused but I love my rewrite I love my writing style even if it is hard to understand unless you're me.

Like yeah have I strayed too far from the original work? Yea! Have I changed the characters to make them more interesting? Yeah, I mean Aaron is still the same base character except he isn't a pedophilic freak, he's an abuse victim (which he was in canon) he's struggling to find who he is, he hates being Ultima sure but when his powers cause him to lash out or hurt someone he'll try his hardest to inflict 5x the pain he's caused on himself even if he just bumped into someone. He hates himself and his journey to self love and care is so painful by the time we get to season 6/ season 6 content.

Sorry I went on a rant but still I have so many ideas and lore but I can't lore drop why the world works because the way it works has been setup for years and for thousands of years I would have to go back to Irena times in my modern day rewrite to help people understand

I don't know man, maybe I just really want people to ask about my rewrite despite me not even posting in this account like that. Idk, I don't know. May the gods help me.

[lockandkeyhyena]

Tricks up my sleeves took YEARS to be completed and they want to pretend they didn't know about the drama until now? After admitting they unfollow anyone who DARES bring up what shitty things ppl in the community are doing?? It's such BS what are yall talking abt them acting reasonably. Have any of you read the actual comment they made, there's a reason they're being so vague about "problematic" stuff the artists did because both drew CP and one of them STILL HAS A PLATFORM. If you replaced problematic artists in their comment with "people who sexualize children" it'd sound insane hence why they're being so vague and weird about it. It's pure manipulation folks!! Also they supported JK Rowling with a drawing for her birthday on twitter and said they "didn't agree with her views" but were still gonna support her. This is that same attitude but for people who did something that is literally ILLEGAL what do u mean reasonable this is one of the worst responses I've seen in my life??

They made it all about "poor me the internet is so mean just bc I put some bad people who did bad things [they rlly don't wanna mention what was actually done LMAO] Im a grown ass adult who thinks I shouldn't have any responsibility to protect my mostly child audience pwease tell me I sound reasonable." We are not rewriting this narrative to be nice to them come on guys.

Their care about the victims to these people is SO PISS POOR, they won't even add A WARNING A WARNING a sentence in the desc saying 'hey these two people suck don't watch if that would upset you'. Then at the same time are telling people to just not watch it if they don't like it? HOW??? IF YOU WON'T WARN THEM WHAT'S IN IT THEY CAN'T AVOID IT?? Almost like admitting they have two abusers in their map would be like... A bad look or something and they care abt that more than others safety or comfort.

Also they deleted my reply to their comment saying all this so no, they're not "being reasonable" this is purely and simply protecting the horrible artists who did that shit. Let's not play devil's advocate for ppl who draw CP please-

jesus christ calm down i was just giving my uninformed opinion on the situation because people asked. did you not see my reply adding that if they purposefully blocked people warning about dangerous people in the fandom, they have no right to complain when people point out that they have unsafe people in their map?

how the fuck did you jump from that to me ‘playing devils advocate for people who draw cp’???

if i sound defensive its because i. am. obviously.

[that-darn-clown]

laptop decided to freeze while writing this last time, so here we go again:

so. thought about Rewrite!Malhare and Help Wanted (OG) and that one "the haunted house loves you and doesn't want you to leave" post. also your original response to my ask going into detail on the plot of Help Wanted in the Rewrite where you said it was like if Purble Place wanted you dead.

like, if we can consider William's mental state at this point (had already been dead and stuck in a building, both alone in a backstage area with the door blocked off and surrounded by ghosts who either hated him or were terrified of him, and was now currently being tormented by his son in a hell of his son's creation with the occasional appearance of the other souls of his victims), He Likely Ain't Doing Too Hot. he's probably desperate for any positive human contact. mix this in with William still doubling down on the fact that he was a good father and having some control in his current situation, and you've got one unstable (in multiple ways) lil glitchy hare, who can swap between being a manipulative charismatic, silly guy to being fucking terrifying within seconds. (and is only 2% of Afton's soul in AI form but y'know)

so like. imagine this from the perspective of our three protagonists:

you're Vanessa. your abusive dad just kinda moved in with you, because you felt an obligation to take care of him. you escape to video games and the internet as a way to ignore your current...circumstances. you download these games by Fazbear Entertainment, the games constantly getting recommended to you as you browse the internet for some reason. then this...AI thing starts talking to you. you spend more and more time talking to it, and you hardly even realize it. it keeps making these...odd statements. it compliments your fursuit, a rabbit (makes sense). it seems to comfort you as you vent about your current life problems. then it gets worrying. it says things like "You remind me of my son, I think you two would get along! :)" and "Your father's terrible! I would've been a much better father to you than him." his suggestions keep getting more worried, and you've had to switch your sessions online with it to being during the night, since it's...oddly clingy. and, of course, the other two people in your house have to use the computer, too.

then, it starts suggesting that you kill.

starting with your father.

you're Summer. your girlfriend roommate has been acting weirder since her father moved in with you both. she's been on the computer for hours at a time. even weirder...the game pack she downloaded is on your account, too. you decide to investigate. you discover this...Thing, too. it's toying with you, you know it is. as to why...well, that's anyone's guess. it keeps messing with you, messing with your progress through the games. and you don't know why. you record audio logs, keeping track of all of this, but you hide them the best you can. it...starts asking questions. about her. "How long have you both known each other? :)" "Vanny doesn't seem to like her father here...is that why she comes to talk to me so often? :)" "Has Vanessa expressed any interest in murder before? :)" even worse, she's getting...weirder. and not in a good way. she seems more...volatile now.

you don't know what to do.

and, finally, you're Bill. you're surprised that you're even in this situation in the first place. you were honestly expecting her to slam the door in your face and tell you to fuck off, but...she doesn't, surprisingly. but you can tell things are tense. she's been getting on the computer more, playing these...well, to be blunt, they're kid's games. she's, what, 23 now? great, now they're on your account, too...wait, Fazbear Entertainment? that's a name you haven't heard in years...well, for good reason...you don't have the happiest memories with that place...but it's under new management now, so who knows? then...you come across IT. it's hostile to you, knowing things about your history that it just...shouldn't. with your daughter, with your brother...and it hits you. somehow, you're talking to your brother's killer. it keeps fucking with you, messing around with you as you try to get through these games, not letting you leave until you do it "right," all while practically taunting you, sometimes bringing up your brother's murder. you don't know why this thing doesn't just let you get through the games as fast as possible, if it hates you so much. it won't have to deal with you, then. even worse, your daughter is...hostile, now. she seems like she's about ready to snap at you any moment.

you don't feel safe in the house now.

(don't mind me. just rambling about random thoughts i had about this)

[shrimpmandan]

Hey! Sorry for bothering you, but I have a couple more questions in need of answers.

There's an interesting article I found: https://themeadowglade.com/what-it-means-to-romanticize-mental-illness/

I've done some research regarding romanticizing mental disorders, and the vast majority of articles I found are highly against romanticizing them. If romanticizing mental illnesses is harmful, why romanticizing things such as abuse or paraphilias isn't? Last time I checked, paraphilias are classified as mental disorders, too.

Secondly, I wanted to talk a little more about the recontextualization of trauma as a coping mechanism; you said it's beneficial to recontextualize your own traumatic events by "recreating" them in fiction and I agree with that. Do you as an abuse victim believe that it's offensive to romanticize someone else's trauma, and only you can do that to your own traumatic experiences? For example, it's okay for me to "rewrite" my own traumatic past in fiction by giving the character I insert myself into more power against a bully/abuser but it's wrong if I glorify someone else's traumatic experiences. I personally would be very offended and hurt if someone else glorified my trauma.

Sorry if this came off as aggressive! Being malicious isn't my intention, I'm genuinely curious about your point of view.

Not aggressive or a bother at all! Again, I love answering asks like this, so by all means, ask as many as you'd like.

And above all else? Yes, romanticizing mental health struggles CAN be harmful. Being mentally ill doesn't make someone more or less worthy than anyone else, so on a surface level, of course I agree with that sentiment. Actually reading the article though, a few things stood out to me. Specifically, the segment in the "horror and mental illness" section kind of bothers me.

On the one hand, I agree that mental illness does not inherently make someone violent. However, something I've never liked is the fact that it goes from "we shouldn't portray ALL mentally ill characters as violent", to "mentally ill characters can never be portrayed as violent because it's stigmatizing". My family's history of mental illness is rough. "Rough" as in my grandfather had schizophrenia, and he has committed murder over his delusions. His delusions and hallucinations were also a driving force of him abusing his children whenever he wasn't medicated. This does not mean all schizophrenics are violent, and they are far more likely to be victims of violence themselves, but should we not talk about people like my grandfather because they stigmatize other schizophrenics by proxy? Or talk about people like my mother who has a... LAUNDRY list of mental health problems, and has also historically struggled with violent outbursts? And of course this is ignoring the fact that the majority of infamous American serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were often diagnosed as having personality disorders, mental health problems, and other unresolved issues as at least partial causes for their violent behaviors as well. Untreated mental illness-- a lack of a support group or anyone to listen especially-- can be deadly both for the sufferer and those around them in some instances. I don't like when the mentally ill are passively infantilized as harmless.

LONG tangent aside, I feel like this article kind of highlights my point from the previous ask, about how we assume that the people who romanticize the ugly parts of our world have never suffered through it themselves. I mean... I'm mentally ill and I love writing about violent mentally ill characters. I also have a soft spot for the whole "oh they fell in love and now they're all better" trope even for as painfully inaccurate as it is. Granted, having people in your life who care about you absolutely can improve your mental health, but rarely to the point that the example in this article presented. I relate to the violent outbursts of volatile mentally ill characters, and to the unrealistic expectation that someone will swoop in and "fix" you. It's comforting, for as much as I know that it's, of course, not real.

I think the rest of the article is pretty uninteresting, though. Not in the sense that it's wrong about things, more in the sense that this is stuff we already kind of 'know'. Mental illness isn't a desirable or honorable thing to have-- I'd argue it's not all bad either. It's neutral. It's just part of reality. And of course, the experiences between one mentally ill person will be vastly different from another's, and that diversity should be embraced, not shunned so that neurotypicals can find us easier to accept.

Onto the rest of the ask: you're both correct and incorrect that paraphilias are classed as mental disorders. The word "paraphilia" more or less just means "a fetish", and it is not inherently a mental disorder. What turns something into a paraphilic disorder is one or both things:

The paraphilia causes clinically significant distress to its possessor, or puts a strain on areas of their life.

The paraphilia requires a non-consenting party in order to be expressed.

I could say a lot and I mean a LOT about paraphilias, but in the interest of making this post not 25 paragraphs long, I'll just direct you to this post I made on the subject as it goes pretty in depth into paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. Like other disorders though, paraphilic disorders are a morally neutral thing on their own, and some paraphiles may take comfort in romanticization IF they can separate the reality from fantasy (i.e. that acting on nonconsensual urges is not okay, or that what is portrayed as consensual in fiction may not translate to real life).

Now onto my favorite part of the ask and something I sat on for a little while! The topic of "fetishizing MY trauma" is always something that utterly fascinates me-- because it's an extremely self-centered viewpoint to have. Lemme explain.

What I'd consider to be a fetishization or romanticization of my trauma would be if someone was listening to me vent. I've actually had this happen before-- I was venting to my mother about my groomer, and because she didn't really know how to respond, she started talking about how my groomer must've been irresistible because he was British (thus implying an accent). I'd never actually heard his voice granted, but it was still a romanticization of my trauma for her to have tried to make my groomer out to be sexually desirable, and that's something she later realized and apologized for.

What I do NOT consider romanticizing "my trauma" is for some rando on the internet who I know nothing about, and who doesn't know me in return, writes a fanfiction involving a fetishized portrayal of incest and COCSA, which I went through myself. It would be extremely self-centered of me for me to march into this stranger's space and demand they stop writing about something because I lived through it, because for starters, how the hell do I know that THEY haven't? Why am I assuming that this person is a malicious fetishizer and not a recontextualizer? And for that matter, why does it anger me so much that-- even if they didn't live through anything horrible-- that they're enjoying a fictionalized depiction of that abuse in their own little bubble? If I say it's bad because they're fetishizing abuse, then I'm a hypocrite because I have a rape kink. If I say it's bad because they're fetishizing "my" trauma, then I'm being a selfish brat and demanding random strangers cater to me. If I say it's bad just because "it's bad", then I don't have an argument to begin with.

I already talked about how a lot of people with rape kinks aren't necessarily rape victims as well. Would that count as fetishizing someone else's trauma? How about the fact that we romanticize death and violence-- is it disrespectful to murder victims and their families to find fictional serial killers hot? Is it disrespectful to CSA victims to be into lolisho or CGL? Are people who think kidnapping and forced marriages are hot fetishizing my mom's trauma because that happened to be what she went through? Hell, is it disrespectful to be into BDSM at all just because some people were horrifically traumatized by BDSM? I fail to see why "trauma" is being used as a replacement word for "abuse survivor", and why romanticizing certain forms of abuse is considered ostensibly worse than fetishizing murder, or fetishizing anything that could be POTENTIALLY traumatic to someone. In fact, on the topic of BDSM, that's actually a talking point used by radfems. That enjoying being hit during sex or enjoying being owned is disrespectful to (female) domestic violence victims, because you're fetishizing their trauma, or otherwise traumatizing yourself by being into it. Most people of course see that argument and go "no, that's fucking stupid", but then fail to apply it to other forms of fantasy and roleplay because we have a more visceral reaction to sexuality than we do to violence.

The long of the short of it is, is that you can't... "own" trauma. You can own your experiences, but you don't own the concept of being traumatized by sexual assault or by a car crash, and that doesn't mean other people are disrespecting YOU for having rape fetishes or... car crash fetishes (which yes, is a thing). They don't even know who you are, but there's this strong sense of entitlement of "well, I lived through this and it sucks, so why should YOU get to engage with it in a fun and lighthearted way where nobody gets hurt?" Maybe it's jealousy, both towards survivors who can engage with their trauma in fiction without being triggered by it, and towards people who weren't traumatized so they don't carry the baggage associated with heavier fetishes and fiction? And of course, all it leads to is creating an unsafe space for trauma victims, by forcing themselves to out themselves as victims to escape harassment-- only for them to most likely just have their trauma invalidated, denied, or even justified by people who are deeply bitter about the fact that someone else could move on where they couldn't.

Hopefully this all makes sense! I'm well aware that this is very very long.