#this isn't harmful tl anyone it's fiction

[neoarchipelago]

I can't believe this… the pot is yet again being stirred. I keep repeating myself. I made an essay!

Here, hoping that you fully understand.

THIS MENTIONS SA, SH AND OTHER DARK THEMES! PLEASE AVOID READING IF YOU FEEL TRIGGERED

I- dub-con, non-con and CNC kink in fiction.

A- the place of these themes in fiction and how it separated from reality.

I think the line has to be drawn. A line people seem to forget too easily. Obviously, rape is a horrible thing. This fact has never been refuted in any fics or novels or books. No writer will ever tell you, ‘rape is awesome and soooo romantic’.

Fiction is absolutely fiction. We are aware of it. There's a big difference. This obviously something readers choose to read being aware of fiction. Being aware that the real thing is horrible. Warnings and tags are always there to avoid readers unaware of it.

B- the differences with other themes

One thing I've been asked is what kind of difference writing rape is from writing dub-con or even pedophilia?

On dub-con, the line is blurred. Softer, protagonist may be in a path where the sexual action is wanted but blocked by the mind or pushed to it by the other protagonist, forcing their own need to give in. It is still seen as rape as consent is not fully given. There's not much difference from non-con. Writers usually use this tag to avoid any triggers to people.

For pedophilia, let's see this in a more details. I think we can all agree that all these themes, dub-con, CNC, non con, always involve adults. Whatever it is the kink, or in stories, it’s adults. Adults who are aware of what sex is and what this kink it. Children should never be near any of those themes. It's not about kinks anymore, children don't have kinks.

II- the reality of voicing your opinion on internet

A- SA victims and SH victims, sexual shame

Now there's something we need to talk about. Writing theses themes are used by many as a coming mechanism. SA victims may often use these writings to help the aftermath of these events in their own life.

In the kink itself it's something that obviously causes a lot of shame towards people who are not part of it. But many things need to be said. It's a need for a control of a situation that is dangerous and traumatizing. It's a sign of truth with your partner. Fiction is a way to live that fantasy in full safety as they are clearly aware of the truth of that situation in real life.

Now the thing that has started this whole conversation was the ‘don’t forget to tell rape kink writers to off themselves’.

It is not a small detail. Not at all!

This is where fiction is separated from reality. You are telling a real person to commit a real act that could lead to fatal consequences.

Obviously I think we’re all aware that many people on this website suffer from depression, self harm tendencies and bullying. I do too. Your words matter. Trust me. We’ve seen it with Inquisitor’s death while a live TikTok.

Many other tiktokers who had helped not only spread rumors but bully the creator only realized their mistake once he killed himself.

This is a no turn back situation.

Do you think you have the guts to wake up in the morning, knowing someone killed themselves because they wrote something you were against? That you are the reason they died? Their families are grieving?

You can find an article on the CNC kink here:

-https://www.choosingtherapy.com/consensual-non-consent/

B- respect even through anger

We have established one thing. The internet is a wild, free universe. Anyone can say or write or post whatever they want.

You are free to voice out your opinion, anger amongst these binary and servers. But one thing that is not ok is the way you say it.

A point doesn't need to be full of hate or threats to be said. Especially when serious consequences could be blown by it.

Everyone has their opinion, things they don't like. You are free to avoid tags, not read, block people. Protect yourself first. But attacking isn't protecting yourself. You’re simply causing another kind of harm.

People need to own up to their words and actions.

If you tell someone to kill themselves, it's horrible. It's an actual crime. A full crime.

-_-_-_-_-

Please stop stirring something that was dying.

People were blocked opinions voiced. Not only was it hypocrite of her as dub-con is not massively different but she also ended up insulting horrible actual SA victims in the comment of her post. She didn't write, she reads. Been fully following a series on this and being tagged in future chapters.

Voicing out 'they should go to therapy' or even 'it's not my job to see if they need therapy' after she actively tells people to off themselves is irresponsible and literally trying to take off responsability for words that will cause terrible things.

People have fetishes. Rape, bdsm, kidnapping, poop and pee, blood, pain. There are particularly hard to accept kinks. But none deserve to be told to kill themselves. You're shaming people. Inciting hate and self harm.

If you aren't understanding that. You're just as bad as her. Uncomprehensive and trying to avoid responsability.

very funny silly for a blog called "ladygoth" to be anti dark content

you know goth. known for being very innocent, prudish and not at all founded on the fascination of death, morbidity and cult like symbolism

I know right?!

Also, and the WORST PART:

They were on a tag list for a dub-co' series of @greatstormcat ...

Like... The audacity? The BS?

[coldresolve]

Hi, I'm Elias, I'm a 26yo trans guy from Denmark. I write shit, I draw shit, and I get into unneccesarily tedious arguments with anons about torture apologia in fiction. I think that sums up my vibe

I've made a few posts about this already, but tl;dr: the Danish NHS has been refusing to treat me for gender dysphoria for the better part of a year now because they've deemed me "unstable." Unstable how, you ask?

I have depression.

No, that is quite literally it. Full context under the readmore.

Fighting to be heard and having the door repeatedly slammed in your face sucks peak ass, and I'm done now. The NHS is so lackluster when it comes to trans people, all of a sudden, it makes perfect sense to me why 31% of transgender Danes get HRT outside of the NHS.

And I'd rather not have to turn to the black market, so rn I'm hoping to get a prescription with GenderGP. The issue is, I'm poor as fuck and can't afford the start-up fees for the forseeable future - unless I do something like this. I hate asking others for money, and I hate it even more if I'm not in a place where I can give anything in return. But I also recognize I'm in over my head with this, so. If you've got a cent or two to spare, I'd be grateful as hell.

I've mathed it out, and my best estimate is that I need around 3500,- DKK / $500 USD. Again, this is just to cover the initial subscription as well as mandatory consultations/blood tests. I should be able to cover the prescriptions on my own, as well as further tests/consultations down the line, so I'm hoping this is a one-and-done sort of thing.

paypal: elimunpau@gmail.com

Also, important note. We're in a global cost of living/housing crisis and this isn't a strict life-or-death situation. If you're in a tough spot right now, don't send me anything, that'd just make me feel worse about asking. I appreciate the thought but you gotta take care of your own needs first. Peace and take care ✌️

So I've been dealing with major depressive disorder since I was 11. It runs in my family, and as you might imagine, after 15 years of living with this thing, I've learned how to manage it pretty well by now. I know what it's like to genuinely be unstable - and if I were in a place like that, no problem, I'd be open about that. I wouldn't be making decisions like this. I know myself. You kind of have to when you're dealing with a chronic mental illness.

Here's where I am right now: I've got no suicidal ideation, been clean from self harm for four years, no psychosis, no inpatient admissions for the last five years. I live on my own, take my meds, and I'm keeping my life in order. Depressed, yes, but about as stable as someone with my history can get, and ask anyone who knows me, me wanting to get on HRT isn't some spur of the moment decision. I've done a fucking decade of soul searching, and a few years ago, I finally (duh) reached the conclusion that living as a woman isn't something I can even fake being content with - believe me, I've tried. I'm well aware of the scope of medical transition, but I'm settled in who I am. And I just want to live like me now. That's the only thing I want.

If it counts for anything, my partner and family have supported me through this, which has been priceless obviously, but it also goes to show that me saying "I'm capable of making medical decisions" isn't purely a personal assessment. I'm pretty sure they'd speak up if they thought I was being unstable about it or whatever

But the CPH clinic for sexology, who have consistently refused to listen to me telling them all this, have somehow magically aquired divine knowledge on my capacity to make adult decisions about my own body, and on the basis that I have MDD, they're refusing to even set me up for a preliminary interview - one that would preceed a 6 month full-team psych evaluation before the prospect of HRT would even come up. They said in their latest refusal that they wont accept another referral from me until a year after my last in-clinic conversation with them, which happened on October 24th, 2023 - meaning that with the NHS, if they accepted my referral come October (which I don't have much faith they will), the earliest I could possibly get on HRT is April 2025. Arguing for my own sanity would've sucked enough as is, but it's made harder by the fact that they won't even talk to me. You're a trans guy who would like healthcare, but you have a mental illness? Good luck, you're on your own. Long live the Danish bureaucracy.

Dysphoria makes me fucking miserable. I'd rather not have to write a sob story here, and tumblr is like 80% trans people so I guess a good portion of you can imagine why waiting another year for the possibility of maybe-perhaps-if-all-goes-well getting on HRT would not actually make me less miserable about it.

So. I'm sitting down next week along with my mom to file a formal complaint with the patient's rights committee. I don't know what to call this other than some form of discrimination on the basis of mental illness, because nothing in my current situation would prohibit me from making medical decisions for myself. And I honestly don't think that a complaint is going to do much, but I intend to make it obnoxiously long, because by law, a specialized doctor and an attorney have to read through the whole thing. If you can't beat 'em, make 'em read 50 pages of you going into detail about why you think they suck, right

And yeah, like I said, in the meantime, I'm trying to go via GenderGP. It'd be nice if my poor ass could get HRT via the NHS instead of having to pay out of pocket, but apparently the bar for entry requires that you 1) have gender dysphoria to the point where it impedes normal function and 2) somehow aren't mentally ill. Who wrote these rules? Some 60yo cis guy in a suit in Christiansborg, I imagine.

Feel free ask about anything relating to this whole situation, I'll be as open as I can about it, cause I understand that if you're going to give money to someone, you want to know what it's going to. Though I hope you understand I'm not going to doxx myself more than I already have now, or give you my entire medical history - only what's relevant to my current situation.

I know Denmark is a welfare state and on a global scale we're doing alright, but I hope you don't mind if I say this: This shouldn't be happening as often as it does. Fuck the Danish NHS.

[archivalofsins]

So, let's talk. This is going to be a serious discussion about hyper-sexualization and hypo-sexualization.

TL;DR- Sexualizing characters is an issue but not simply because sexualization is occcuring. Everyone has different needs, interests, and ways they interact with the media they enjoy. All of which are worthy of respect. However, other's need their right to not be exposed to things that cause them discomfort respected to. So, it's always best to properly tag things with consideration towards those we share this space with. It's important that when doing what you want you spare consideration to those you can.

Now, Gunsli why would you be bringing up this? Well remember this post. In this post I said this,

While a factually sound statement it seems to have been misinterpreted. So, let us elaborate on it real quick.

It is important that everyone tag things properly with respect and consideration toward other fans.

People interact with sexuality and the concept of being sexualized in different ways. What may not seem like much to one person will more than likely be too much for another. This is where-

Hypo-sexualization and Hyper-sexualization come into play.

Source (CW: MENITIONS OF SECUAL ABUSE): X

Sexualization is a topic that is heavily rooted in individual perspective. Not only when it comes to real life people but fictional characters as well. What one person may find pleasing to read or see art of involving a certain character another person may dislike. However, the conversation I was personally having about Mikoto was never about whether or not he should be sexualized.

That's irrelevant. People should continue to do what they please in a way that is considerate of the other people in the community around them. Literally it is that easy.

But isn't sexualizing him when he has such a disorder bad?

Not sexualizing him solely based on the idea that he has a disorder is bad as well. People with dissociative disorders can and sometimes do want to be sexualized. If Mikoto was a real person then forcefully sexualizing him would be an issue. However, he is not.

Well, since we know the characters can hear what we're saying I'm uncomfortable with it.

I'm right there with anyone who is feeling that way. It's incredibly embarrassing to think that some of the views we've all seen now and again can or have been heard by Mikoto for the amount of time that it has been. For people who have experienced forced sexualization this can be a wildly upsetting thought and they have every right to be upset about it and display that upset.

However, no one has the right to tell others how they should enjoy things. Regardless of how much it causes them discomfort. In the same vein no one else has the right to continually expose people to something they have said they dislike. This is why personally I think tagging things appropriately is the best way to do things moving forward. We can't control how people talk about Mikoto on other platforms.

However, we can control if we respect and show consideration for the people within the fandom on the platform we are on. Regardless of how they enjoy a character or don't enjoy them. Regardless of if our opinions may vary. I don't think anyone here wants to have their actions cause anyone real life harm.

Yes, the sexualization of Mikoto's character can be upsetting considering one's lived experiences. However, derivative works are a way for many people to explore aspects of their own sexuality safetly and that aspect of fandom should be respected as well. Representation matters and as I stated in the previous post Dissociative Identiy Disorder is not a monoloith.

What one person finds unhealthy to be displayed in this instance may not be unhealthy to others. There are people that have Dissociative Identity Disorder that will, can, and should find the sexualization of Mikoto's character comforting. Simply because it displays that someone with the disorder can be desired in that way.

Then there will be others like me who dislike it. Because at times it can feel as though Mikoto canonically having Dissociative Identiy Disorder isn't being fully explored and it's just there to check off a switch kink.

“A switch is someone who demonstrates both characteristics and is comfortable with both submissive and dominant roles,” X

Which no one is really being slick about but like you don't need to do this with the one character that has Dissociative Identity Disorder literally anyone can be a switch.

Yet again I must stress him being sexualized was not my issue. The way he was being sexualized was. Something I failed to fully elaborate on in my previous point. So, I will now do so here.

My issue was the fact that the way Mikoto is sexualized veers into slut shaming. Something that many are very reluctant to say can happen to males, but it does.

The comments I've seen made about Mikoto are simply disgusting to me because they've literally mostly been,

"He knew what he was doing being shirtless in his video that many times"

Me: You mean changing his clothes in the comfort of his own home? You mean taking a shower and bath in the comfort of his own home?

Regardless of how someone presents themselves and where they are not responsible for someone else finding them attractive or interpreting them sexually. I wouldn't be okay with this being said about a male or female character. Simply because no one is responsible for what a person finds sexually attractive or not.

When I said what I said it wasn't meant to be from the lens of stop sexualizing this character you grossy gross's oh no my pure eyes have been sullied by your heathen ways.

No, it was literally making a very offhanded comment about something that had been bugging me since MeMe released actually since before Milgram was even a thing. The hyper-sexualization of men and the retraumatization of males who have experienced sexual violence through fetishization.

This was never about what people in the fandom should and shouldn't do. It was about interacting with the concept that males have sexual trauma too. That is ignored and heavily overlooked by society. Along with the fact that if Mikoto was Yuno most of this shit wouldn't be being said and provably so,

Yuno dressing like this was mostly described as empowering, liberating, her owning her sexuality.

I have to stress Mikoto was implied to be thrist trapping for taking a shower and bath in his own fucking home last trial. Yet Yuno is here in full lingerie, and I didn't even see one thing talking poorly about her to the extent THIS MAN HAS BEEN FOR WEARING WHAT HE IS IN THIS THUMBNAIL.

Naw, you got me fucked up.

It was never about the fact that sexualization exists. Because that's always going to exist. It was about how that is disproportionately displayed. Men are just as worthy to their own sexual autonomy and the respect of that as women are.

That will always be my line with this.

Forced sexualization is bad whether it's happening to a man or woman. The characters should not be being discussed as though they are real people but the behavior that the fandom demonstrates publicly should be regarded with the consideration of real people. Because how one conducts themselves in the real world can and will impact real people.

[entomjinx-reblogs]

"Proshipper" is a Homonym

TL;DR for those of you who don't want to read: Both sides of this argument believe that the word "proshipper" means something entirely different, and it's because of the censorship push by people rehashing purity culture who don't understand that fiction doesn't become real life. --- Because I partake in fandom culture, I see anti vs proshipper discourse all the time. We all know it's there, and one of the biggest causes for that discourse is the fact that the term "proshipper" has evolved into a homonym.

A homonym is a word that has the same spelling and usually sounds same, but can be used to mean entirely different things when placed in a different context. A quick and easy example of this is the word "bark" which can refer to tree bark, or the sound a dog makes. Another is "watch," which can be used to tell the time or to tell someone to look at something.

Proshipper, is now one of these words.

Anyone who's ever done a deep dive into fandom culture knows that "proshipper" originally meant that someone was okay with shipping characters from the source material. The prefix "pro" means "for" or "forward," like in the word "progress" (to go forwards). There was then those who were against shipping characters from the source material, who called themselves "anti-shippers," later shorted to "antis." "Anti" means against or oposite of. It's fairly easy to keep track of, but I'm breaking down the prefixes of the words for a reason.

As fandom's began to explode in popularity, it was less easy to control what people could be exposed to, and what they wouldn't be. This angered certain people, and while I could get into every detail of how the rhetoric of "if you write/draw/read about [xyz] in fiction then you're immoral in real life," is nothing more than an expansion of purity culture censorship and is a rehashing of "if you see gay people, you'll become gay," I won't.

The point is, when people began to get angry at the existance of things they didn't personally enjoy, they began to call those things problematic. Just like in most foot-in-the-door cases, they started with anything including abuse, incest, pedophilia and other trauma---which is often use as a coping mechanism, but again not the time---in order to catch a wider audience, and then they began adding other things they disliked under the umbrella of "problematic" and "immoral." When the realization that much of fandom participated in shipping, it was broaded from genres and stories as a whole into shipping itself.

When this happened, they took the popular term "proshipper," and said that the prefix was short for "problematic." They then use this to group even the most innocent of shippers into the same category as those who wrote gore, incest, murder, ect. They then twisted this to say that every proshipper supported all of those things happening in real life.

I would like to now point out the definiton of fiction as taken from Oxford dictionary:

literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

something that is invented or untrue.

Fiction is often used to explore people's real life trauma, but even in cases when it isn't, that doesn't mean that people whouldn't write about it in untrue instances that have no way to harm real life people. Many "immoral" things are often used to show that someone is a villain, or has survived something terrible, but it can be used for so many other things as well. And that, is the point of it being fiction. It's not real, so it can be use to explore any number of things for any number of reasons without harming real people.

However, that has not stopped a mass amount of antis claiming that those who create anything they disagree with is "immoral," hence the rise of the belief that "proshipping" means "problematic shipping." Now, what any given anti believes is problematic is unique to the individual, but like in all cases of censorship, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.

Now because of the change in language, one might think that this is a case of a change in semantics, but that's untrue. While there is always going to be a time period where a word whose meaning is changing is used in both ways, it's typically not this consistent. Take the word "cute," for example. It was originally a shorteningof the word "acute," and was written with an apostrophe to replace the a. It meant "sharp or quick witted," but in the 1830s, it took on the meaning we know it to have today. A better example of this could be any piece of modern slang. Take your pick.

"Proshipper," on the other hand, is used by antis to mean "problematic shipping," and by most proproshippers to mean "for shipping/shipping is okay." Some proshippers do use it the same way antis do as a warning of the content that is on their page. Irregardless, the equal use of both meanings marks the word's change into a homonym.

As you have no doubt seen from the sheer amount of discourse that is always present, this leads to many instances of confusion. It also gets many innocent people harassed by antis who believe they have the moral high ground, as if their actions are not harming real people, unlike the things that they are against, which only affect fiction.

[bewareofdeaddove]

hello! since this is a discourse blog, introducing myself isn't a priority, but i'll do it anyway.

you can call me whatever name you want on this blog. i'm a minor. i use it/its pronouns. i will provide tw tags simply: no "tw" or "cw", just, for example, "blood" or "queerphobia". please block tags you're uncomfortable with!

i have no dni; i believe in fostering open and good faith discussion on this blog, as that's the point of making it! telling me to kill myself will get you blocked.

as a quick tl;dr before i conveniently list out some of my opinions: i am against harrassment and censorship, and i don't care what people decide to write fanfiction about or draw.

i am wholly against any form of harrassment. this includes calling people pedos for fictional ships, telling people to kill themselves, and anything else. if you really hate someone's posts, complain in private with your friends like everyone else does, don't harrass people.

i am wholly against censorship. media, no matter how bad or "irredeemable", always has a right to exist. all art has inherent value.

i don't judge people's morals over fictional content. as long as whatever you're posting is tagged properly and can be blocked if neccessary, it's not my business.

fiction and reality are not equal, but do have some effect on each other. i, of course, have issues with trends in media that, for example, downplay abuse and sexualize/"adult-ify" teenagers, but fanfiction is, like, the very end of that chain. it doesn't affect anyone. because of that, i don't care about it.

i don't care what you make if it doesn't hurt anyone, but being a bigot in your fiction does hurt people. the way people behave towards fictional characters, i.e. racist comments towards characters of color, can still be bigoted. it doesn't hurt the characters (obviously) but it does hurt real people, and that's where i draw the line.

i only have an issue with fanworks when they begin to perpetuate actual, real-life bigotry. this leads into my next point...

what are your personal limits regarding fiction?

aren't you basically pro-ship, then? well, yeah, i guess. i don't identify with the pro-ship label for many reasons, though. most of all, though, i don't want people to put words in my mouth; i have no desire to be called a pedophile because of the pro-ship label. i have no desire to have people assume that i want terrible things to happen in real life over internet discourse. i will never tolerate these accusations, and i don't use the label in order to avoid the possibility. you can call me whatever you want, though.

i don't particularly like anti-shippers. this is mostly from experience. i have been deeply entrenched in anti-ship communities, and i have come to only think one thing of them: the people themselves have good intentions, but the mindsets they foster are incredibly harmful. i'm open to discussion about this.

i avoid anti-shippers because of their tendency to harrass people, also. like... big tendency. community-built-on-the-idea level tendency. pro-shippers also harrass people, which is another reason i choose not to label myself as one. this i know from experience.

as a general rule, i am uncomfortable with:

shipcest

minor/adult ships

lolisho content (i have complex feelings on it, but i'm just uncomfortable with it as a whole and ask that it not be brought up with me)

rpf, but i only draw a hard line at rpf of minors and generally tolerate everything else, however begrudgingly.

i am fine with:

aging up underage fictional characters

selfcest (although i usually call it selfslash for comfort)

"rpf" of fictionalized versions of real-life people, like idk, hamilton characters.

just about anything else, honestly. we'll see about specifics.

in addition, my boundaries for this blog are as follows:

i will not respond to anon hate, including anything with death threats or anything accusing me of, like, being a pedo.

i will try not to reblog from people who have neutrals in their dni (as that's what i consider myself), but i don't really check dni pages, so i might make mistakes in that regard.

i will not reveal personal information about myself to justify my opinions.

[beast-feast]

Hey. Anon here.

I really don’t want to add on to drama, but I’m just so fucking confused. Because whenever I hear the term “proshipper” my mind immediately goes to the worst types of people. People who think pedophilic, incestuious (forgive me if I spelled that wrong), and shipping abusive characters with their victims is ok. Not like, showing the horrors of what it can do, but romanticizing it. Which is something that isn’t ok.

Now, I don’t agree with harassment. That ain’t ok. But…that’s not what you meant by “proshipping”, right?

Oh yeah no absolutely not, that's not what I meant. What happened, without giving names or too many details, was that someone from several servers I was in draws art that is proship and they identify as one. However they do NOT want to affiliate with anyone who actually thinks that that type of stuff is okay — so y'know, even if they draw noncon and incest and stuff, they don't want anyone who is actually into that with real people to talk to them. Which is valid, because neither do I lol.

Being around them and other folks with similar opinions is definitely an experience; I don't align with them with some things, just because it isn't my taste, but everyone involved are adults and so I just don't pay mind to it lol. I just move on. I know that these people don't actually want to like, idk, make out with their siblings so I'm not really concerned with what they draw on their own time. I've had a number of conversations that go into what people would consider "proship" territory but honestly 9 times out of 10 it isn't romanticized. And definitely never condoned.

Obviously there's proshippers that ARE actually into that kind of stuff, like actively seeking out real life content of incest and rape and whatever else, but those are people I think that everyone should avoid. Not because they're a proshipper but because, y'know. They indulge in the actual harm of a person/people that are actually alive. THOSE are the types of people that I think a lot of folks think proshippers are, or that they're secretly grooming minors or something, but honestly like. Every server with these people is strictly 18+, and have a sort of verification system to make sure that getting in as a minor is minimized.

Basically TL;DR: "Proshipping" as I use it is for people that are engaging in content that involves only fictional people. I don't affiliate nor do I even Like people that take those idealogies and seek out that content with real life people and especially minors.

[saderplate7]

THATS WHAT IM *SAYING* I CAN TALK FOR ACTUAL HOURS ABOUT THE USE OF MUSIC IN THIS SCENE IF ANYONE DARES TO GET ME STARTED.

overall, during That Scene™, when crowley speaks, the music cuts. when aziraphale speaks, tries to bring him towards the light, so to speak, it comes back. aziraphale is still living in his old life— the fictional fantasy world where everything is perfect, the one where the show is known for its iconic soundtrack. aziraphale's world in this scene is *fantasy*. a jane austen romance, where people dance to solve their problems and everyone is good-hearted. he believes in and wants to live in the jane austen-y, romantic, perfect world.

crowley does not. crowley has *seen* the light and does not particularly care for it. he's living in real life, where people don't just return to their harmful and destructive lives, where all that matters is being safe, happy, and on his (their) own.

here is where the music cuts:

"tell me you said no." we don't just live in a fantasy. this is real life. you saw through it. right? -> after this, we get a solid eighty percent of crowley's monologue. snapping back to reality. away from divine plans, and leading the universe. we're forced to listen. without the music as a distraction, we have no other choice. this isn't just bringing aziraphale back to reality. this is bringing US back to reality. we endure the agony with no backing tracks to distract us from david tennant's amazing performance, and we love it because we're all insane

then, the music returns— as crowley closes himself off (puts his sunglasses back on). aziraphale, for lack of a better way of phrasing this, is trying to force the fantasy world back. and with it, the soundtrack returns.

then it cuts at "do you hear that?" i don't think i have to explain this one except by saying that i cried my eyes out.

then at "we could've been us," we get a backing track similar to, in my opinion, two other tracks we've heard in this series: the "oh shit im in love with you" one from season 1 (you know the one), where crowley rescued aziraphale's things from the explosion, and the one at the very beginning of season 2, during angel!crowley's moments of creation. this is crowley's last shot. he can salvage this if he tries hard enough (and we're all aware of how he goes about doing that. god bless michael sheen's facial expressions). unfortunately he does not succeed.

in conclusion: what a brilliant scene. i'm obsessed with music theory and tech design and good omens, and i stopped crying while rewatching the scene just long enough to write all this down

TL;DR: one reading of the usage of music in the final fifteen is by clearly marking the differences between a character (aziraphale) with too much hope and fantasy for his own good, and a character (crowley) forcing himself into reality

( @neil-gaiman i hope i'm onto something here)

Can we talk about the brilliant choice to stop all music when crowley starts confessing?? It’s just the ticking clock and tennant’s raw, incredible acting. What. A. Scene.

[organized-chaotic-disaster]

you cant be an anti and also hold the same beliefs outlined in the "authors shouldnt be allowed to write about-" post you reblogged criticizing the people that say things like that. those people and antis are the same kind of person with the same set of beliefs- antis believe that there is inherent harm in portrayals of messy relationships and/or outright abusive ones, they believe that anything with unpleasant elements should be censored. they are the same people and by being one you are contributing to the rise of censorship and fascism

I have important work I need to do so I'm going to try to keep this brief

I assume you're talking about anti with regards to being the opposite of pro-shipping. I never said I was an anti. I have said I don't like pro-shipping, because my understanding was that pro-shipping endorses things like pedophilia and other types of abusive relationships— if that understanding is wrong, please feel free to kindly correct me

It's one thing to endorse something, and another thing to write about it

Take fictional stories about war, for example. A lot of the time, these stories are very ANTI-war. Yet they still write about it. They don't endorse it, they use it as a method of telling their story about why it's bad. To discuss why something is bad, we need to discuss it in the first place

I don't appreciate people genuinely shipping underage characters with adult characters. I also don't appreciate people genuinely shipping relationships they portray as abusive, like incest or other abuse. I don't appreciate people genuinely endorsing racist beliefs and stereotypes. I believe such topics should be allowed to be written about and discussed, but endorsing them is another topic entirely

If something is not doing active harm, that's fine. Literacy has been used to do active harm, yes. So in those cases, people need to be properly educated about why those cases DO cause harm if they're to engage with them

Some people I know read Matt Walsh's transphobic book recently. That is doing active harm because they read this and endorse transphobic beliefs as a direct result. But someone that understands why this book is harmful should be able to read it, so that way they know what it's saying and how to combat its harmful ideas. I believe that's why the post said even these kinds of texts should not be censored, but read VERY carefully and with scrutiny (apologies if I'm misremembering that part of the post)

In order to combat harmful beliefs, we need to understand them so we can refute them and explain why they're harmful. Just plugging your ears and pretending it isn't there doesn't help anything or anyone. I assume you understand this, based on your message, as do I. Which is why I reblogged that post

I'd like to reiterate that what I DON'T like is people genuinely endorsing the harmful things portrayed in such works. Some people genuinely ship underage characters with adult characters, in the way that, if they were real people, they'd be happy to see them together in a romantic and sexual relationship. That's not okay! THAT'S what I'm "anti" of, not the critical portrayal of such topics in the first place!

Personally, I don't read fics that include pedophilia, incest, or other abusive topics, because I find them squicky. But I understand that, in some cases, these people are simply writing about a dark topic they don't endorse because we need to discuss these things! For some people, writing these stories is how they process such trauma they've experienced— I've done similar writing myself!

TL;DR: it's not the existence of writing about dark and harmful topics that bothers me, it's the endorsement of them

I hope this clears things up. And if I got something wrong here, like what it means to be pro- or anti-, please let me know kindly, not aggressively

[c-is-for-circinate]

Like, is the gist "Real life pedophilia/incest/rape is bad, and stories saying these things are good are bad, but including these topics in a story isn't inherently bad, so the people being like 'hey, maybe Ao3 shouldn't have so much kiddie porn there's an entire category called "Underage"' are just overreacting and making things worse?" Because it feels like you're saying, "your negative reaction to this stuff is valid, but also you're annoying and prudish and bad and really you aren't valid."

So here’s the thing: it really does not sound like you're asking this question because you want my answer, it sounds like you want to be angry with me and have a fight. And fair enough! I'm not terribly interested in a fight, but apparently this is my day to dive into this topic as thoughtfully and honestly as I can be. Maybe I'll say something you haven't already heard from other people before. Maybe not! Only you, anonymous asker, know that.

To begin with, you got part of the gist right. Real life rape (including child abuse/child sexual abuse as well as incest) is bad. Stories about rape, about underage sex, and about incest, are stories.

They're stories. They're pixels on a screen. They're not real. Whether they claim that rape is good, or bad, or sexy, or melodramatic, or life-destroying, or a normal Tuesday afternoon. They're stories.

And having a negative reaction to them is valid. Stories can stir up powerful emotions in people. It is absolutely, 100%, fair and valid and even normal for there to be certain tropes, plot elements, events, and kinds of content that make you upset and that you never want to see in a story you read, ever. You don't have to want to read about sex. You don't have to want to read any of it. That doesn't make you bad.

There are tropes, plot elements, events, and kinds of content that upset me. There are stories I won't read. The same is true of literally everyone else I know. Even though I know the stories aren't real. Even though I know the things happening in them are happening to fictional characters, who do not exist, who I cannot protect and who also cannot be harmed because they're not real. Even then, I can be made sad and scared and upset and hurt by reading those stories. And that is okay and that is valid and I am not bad or wrong for being upset about the story I've read, and neither are you.

But that doesn't mean the story doesn't have value to somebody else. That doesn't mean the story isn't important to somebody else.

What I see most often coming from antis, possibly even including yourself, is an overwhelming desire to protect. They want to keep themselves and others--possibly people they know, possibly hypothetical people they may never meet--safe from being hurt by these stories. And that desire to protect, also, is normal. It's even admirable! The problem, though, the thing that does more harm than good, is when that desire to protect drives people to lash out against things that matter to other people.

There is a difference between actual rape and stories about rape. There is a difference between a story that could theoretically hurt somebody, someday (which is all stories, always), and a story that hurts you personally. And there is a difference between a story that hurts you personally, and a story that is inherently poisonous to everyone who touches it.

We know--absolutely, scientifically, incontrovertibly--that stories about rape do not make people rapists. Yes, even the stories where the rape is there to be sexy. Even stories where the person being raped is a child. Even then. Fiction is not the same thing as normalization; again, there are far smarter people who have written far more extensively on that topic than I, and next time I come across something that goes more into detail on this point I promise I will reblog it. If this really is the thing you're afraid of, I may not be the right person to convince you that this is an unfounded fear, but I know someone out there can elaborate on it.

(Unfounded, which is not the same thing as invalid. My mother's claustrophobia is unfounded; it flares up in many situations where there's no physical threat whatsoever, where she has plenty of space to move and air to breathe. It's still real. It still chokes her. It's still valid, she is not bad or broken to feel that way, and she still can't drive through certain tunnels. The fear is real. But the thing she's afraid of can't physically hurt her, and that is worth knowing in terms of how she deals with it.)

We know, absolutely, scientifically, and incontrovertibly, that stories about rape and many, many, many other things can hurt and even traumatize their readers. Even though the situation you're reacting to is not real and you receive no physical injury, you can still be hurt by it. The key word there, though, is readers. The fact that the horror genre is out there terrifying people who enjoy being terrified for fun does not damage me unless I do something stupid and try listening to the Magnus Archives again and end up tense and miserable and paranoid for the rest of the week. The fact that guacamole is apparently delicious to everybody else in the world does not hurt me unless I do something stupid and order the wrong thing at a restaurant, and end up itchy and miserable with a little trouble breathing for the rest of the night.

The fact that there are, yes, tens of thousands of fics on AO3 in which characters under the age of 18 have sex? It can't hurt you. Those fics do not hurt you by existing. They can only hurt you if you read them. They can only hurt anyone who reads them. That's why there is an 'Underage' tag--and it's worth noting, 'Underage' is a warning, not a category. Nobody wants you to get hurt reading the wrong fic, any more than the sushi chef wants my throat to swell up because I ordered something with avocado. Literally nobody wants that.

The flip side, of course, is that you hating each and every one of those fics individually and as a group doesn't actually hurt me, or anyone else who writes, reads, or enjoys them. By itself. You can hate anything you like, and fic writers can write anything they like, and it all comes out in the end, more or less. Except.

Except that reading fic is always, entirely, 100% opt-in, and online harassment isn't even opt-out. Some antis have a nasty habit of going after writers whose content they don't like; climbing into inboxes and comments sections, calling those writers nasty names, throwing around cruelties and aggression and insults. I know that's not the same thing as simply disliking a genre, or even passively disagreeing with its existence (although disliking a genre and disagreeing with its right to exist are also very different things). I know not all antis do that. I don't know you, anon, but based on the speed and aggressiveness of this response to my last post, I can't help but wonder if you would do that.

And that does hurt people. Just like it might hurt you if someone threw a bunch of content that makes you uncomfortable into your inbox. Including the harasser, actually--because getting into fights with strangers on the internet about things that make you angry, sad, defensive, and upset isn't good for anybody. Including both you and me.

Anyway, after yet another lengthy ramble, let's get the tl;dr response to your ask here: nobody is ever bad or wrong for disliking certain content in their stories, no matter what that content is. You and your emotions are valid. The "overreacting and making things worse" part isn't about what you feel, but what you do with it. Constantly engaging with places where the thing that upsets you will probably show up, even to argue and try to fight it, will make things worse in the sense that now you're spending way more time thinking about this thing that makes you upset and angry, thereby leaving you more upset and angry. Getting together with a bunch of your upset, angry friends to make your feelings everybody else's problem? Makes fandom a more toxic place for everyone else involved.

Don't read stuff that's going to hurt you. Don't make other people read stuff that's going to hurt them. That's the whole thing, really.

[aenor-llelo]

why do you actively hate ao3? mostly wondering cause you mentioned it in your recent post

for a "non-profit", they fundraise for money goals far beyond what are actually needed to pay for their site upkeep, all their executive decisions are pay-to-vote, most of their mods are unpaid volunteers, and they actively protect rapeporn and CP under the guise of protecting the freedom of their archive.

a new admin suggests regulating harmful, bigoted, or CP content, they're blasted as (squints at handwriting) a planted agent of the chinese communist party when the site is banned in china

additionally, most defenders of keeping CP content on the site do so with the claim of defending QUEER content.

however, a sizable chunk of the popular creator/reader body and execs consist hetero cis white women, and implying that they, the people in charge, censoring legitimately illegal content, would be the gateway to them having "no choice" but to go on the "slippery slope" of regulating queer content, creates false alarms that the censorship of CP is the censorship of queerness.

...which continues to enforce the idea that pedophilia is queerness. which it is not. pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it has never been considered a sexual orientation, and it is proven in multiple studies that it is a choice, not a inherent identity the way gender/sexual orientations are.

and for people about to say rape porn and CP is an author's "coping fiction", it's not! writing a narrative about rape/abuse survivors and aftermath is coping- but creating and distributing CP is reopening their own sexual trauma and normalizing readers to engaging in both ends of sexual trauma.

everyone saying their therapist reccommended it is also, bluntly, a Fucking Liar. because if their therapist knew they were writing CP, said therapist would be legally obligated to report them for pedophilia.

AO3 is a culturally significant site on the internet home to many impactful pieces of transformative fiction, and few sites offer the extensive features it does for content curation and moderated interaction. but they're still run by CP defenders and an active shelter to people who want to create and consume pedo content.

i actively plan to cross-post most of my works onto an independent site once they're completed. if ao3's management and policies do not change, i will most likely stop posting content there entirely.

tl;dr ao3 is a useful site but it's not the non-profit it claims to be and actively shelters CP of both fake and real minors without regulation. don't donate to ao3!

this post isn't a debate btw. google is free, and crawling through ao3's own rules and tags is not hard. anyone who starts trying to engage me in "debate" about whether it's okay to write novels about how fuckable real life minors are, and why defending them is key to defending the queer community, is giving me a free blocklist.

[sideprince]

I think the tl;dr of this is that the Marauders weren't really rebels and while they were, technically, rule-breakers, we don't see much evidence of consequences for them.

Let's take the definition of a rebel from Webster's Dictionary is:

1: opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler 2: DISOBEDIENT, REBELLIOUS

There isn't really evidence in canon that the Marauders broke rules with any purpose other than entertaining themselves. Their rebellion was transgressive but without purpose. They weren't doing it for political reasons or to make any kind of point. The textual evidence we do have of their motivations are:

bullying Snape out of boredom/because "he exists"

hexing people who annoy them

having "adventures" running around the school grounds and Hogsmeade with a werewolf for personal entertainment

As to their punishments, there's no indication that they were punished for the werewolf prank (where Sirius tried to kill/maim/turn Snape by using his supposed best friend to attack him without consent). No punishment is ever implied or said to have been doled out. Sirius only refers to it in the context of asserting that Snape deserved it more than a decade later, and doesn't say anything about having been punished. In fact, the only repercussions we know about that incident is that Snape was bound to silence by Dumbledore. (I haven't read the books for a while but if anyone has a better citation re: a clear statement of lack of punishment, please drop it in the notes or a reblog!)

The Marauders also don't seem to have been punished in any way for bullying Snape publicly and egregiously. (And yes, it was sexual assault as well as bullying, but if we're going by UK laws in the 1970s, pantsing didn't count as sexual assault yet and I think it's important to contextualize events within their own time periods even if they're fictional.) When Harry asks Lupin and Sirius about it, they make excuses and Lupin tries to argue that Snape and James hated each other and make it sound like a rivarly instead of 4-on-1 bullying. Again, at no point do either of these surviving Marauders say anything about having been punished. Sirius says, "I'm not proud of it" but he doesn't say anything along the lines of, "we had a week's detention for that, you know." No punishment or consequence of any kind is even mentioned. In fact, Sirius, who says isn't proud of his actions, does so when he's serving in the Order with Snape, who he recently ostracized and referred to by the same nickname he had bullied him with at school.

We do know, however, that the Marauders served detention often, because when Harry has to serve detention with Snape night after night for having used Sectumsempra on Malfoy, his punishment is to rewrite old cards, many of which refer to his dad and/or his friends and the rule-breaking they served detention for. Rule-breaking isn't the same as rebellion, though, and the glimpses we get of these cards show that the Marauders were punished for things like hexing people in the halls (I think one was for making someone's head swell up). This correlates with Lily's accusation to James in SWM about him hexing people just for annoying him and just because he can. Again, it's interesting that given all these detentions the Marauders were given, we're told of no punishments for the werewolf prank and for bullying Snape openly in front of a crowd of onlookers.

What's also interesting is that despite all these detentions, there weren't any further, more serious steps taken to discipline them. Comparisons get made to the Weasley twins, but their rule-breaking tended to be focused on achieving goals, not on harming other students. The Marauders, however, seemed to be a threat to the well-being of the students around them, but at no point is it indicated that their myriad of detentions was ever escalated to more severe punishments, because they were clearly ineffective at curbing their behavior. This is especially interesting when you consider that if, presumably, they had been breaking rules and getting detentions for a few years by the time the werewolf prank happened (and we can assume so, as it's unlikely that they developed behavioral problems as a group overnight), that would have been a marker of escalating problematic behavior and yet there seemed to have been no consequence. Isn't Sirius the kind of character who would boast about his egregious rule-breaking that cost him a great punishment? And yet he doesn't.

James and Sirius are privileged boys from wealthy pure-blood families. Lupin and Pettigrew are protected in their shadow, whatever their own lineage (we know little about Pettigrew except that he's cowardly and ingratiates himself with stronger people, and as for Lupin, his status is compromised by being a werewolf so he's at a disadvantage). What James' and Sirius' status gives them is the ability to break rules with impunity. The parallel I would draw to a real-world example is the way punitive laws are often a serious blow to low-income transgressors and essentially a fee to pay for wealthy ones. A no-parking zone for someone who can afford to pay the fine is just an expensive parking spot, etc.

James and Sirius aren't rebellious, because they are not only part of the system that holds power in their society, but also because they don't experience the consequences rebels do. They're given a free pass again and again, until their own hubris kills one of them and lands the other in Azkaban for a decade. Their rule-breaking at school is risk-free because to them, detention is an annoyance and no matter how terrible their behavior, they expect to have the same opportunities after they finish school whether or not they have a clean disciplinary record.

I would like to submit two ideas because I think I'm poking something but not going in fully, so I would very much like your opinions and additions about it (of course, as long as they remain in good faith *side eyes possible antis viewing my post*).

Marauders and surface-level rebellion

I've finally put to words something that really bothered me with the Marauders, though I don't know the name for it.

It started when I read a reblog that said:

I remember Brennan saying “laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class” during an episode of D20 and we truly just had to stan immediately

This is something dear privileged white woman Rowling didn't realize/understand well, since she held a high socioeconomical status even during her """poverty""" stage. It's known that, despite seeming to be defending ideas of fighting against fascism and "pureblood" supremacy in favor of acceptance of the other, her books reek of colonialism/imperalism. The story of the Marauders, a gang of privileged boys like her, is an in-world replica of that problem where Rowling betrays yet again her actual mindset.

The Marauders adopt the "bad boys who break rules" to get style, while completely losing/staining the moral sense in it.

Let's take piracy.

Some people pirate stuff because they consider that the stuff they'd like to get comes from unethical companies that abuse their employees or use modern slavery, or people who spread harm against certain minorities (like Rowling against trans people and thus the LGBT+ community), so while they may want to access the content, they don't want to give them money and might even encourage pirating their stuff to make them lose money.

Some pirate stuff because otherwise it's lost due to unfortunate "terms of use" -- see video games companies like Ubisoft (deletes gaming account after a while), Nintendo (does not bring back old games), etc.

Others pirate stuff because they just don't have the money but they still want to try the stuff that might make them happy and forget that they're poor -- reasoning that the company isn't losing any money anyway, or not much, since they wouldn't have been able to pay for it in any case.

Others pirate stuff because they consider the price ridiculously high or they consider it shouldn't be something to pay for at all. (Like education stuff -- isn't education supposed to be free for all, so that it can actually uphold everyone's fundamental and unconditional ( = not conditioned by wealth...) right to have an education? Oh and before anyone asks: I've DEFINITELY bought the ~15 expensive books that's roughly worth 500€ in total and that my uni asked I buy to study and get my degree...)

Rowling's Marauders is a group that would pirate stuff just because they'd think it would give them an edge, because they'd think it would make them cool to be seen as "talented" hackers who "defy" companies. Companies... that their own friends and families would own, and as such, would find that kind of behavior funny and entertaining (while they would trash other people around for considering it).

Another example. In society, in history, it's been proven time and again that breaking rules -- going against the law -- is an eventuality that's important for everyone to consider, if they want to defend their rights. Anti-racism, feminism, LGBT Pride, etc, advanced because people broke rules. In USA states where abortion is currently being banned, women and minors (+ their close ones) must now consider breaking the rules to get an abortion. (Privileged people don't give a fuck about those people, and if they suddenly decide that (moral) rules don't apply to them and they will get an abortion, they will just take a plane ticket to a country where abortion is legal, fiddling with legal stuff if necessary thanks to the lawyers their fortunes can afford and the lobbies that they're instituting.)

Revolutions happened because people broke rules too. I particularly like the 1793 Constitution in France Because it asserts that the people have the right to break rules and riot if the power in place threatens their fundamental rights:

Article 35. - Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. Article 35. - When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most essential of duties.

(Of course the power in place would state and enforce and make use of propaganda to say that it's completely illegal and illegetimate and that those who riot for legitimate rights are terrorists!)

Breaking rules is at the core of anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism. Breaking rules is essential when those rules are abusive. Too often, those who put those rules in place really are only setting their rules of the game to establish their power over the others. Or as the reblog says: "laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class".

Rowling's Marauders break rules because they are the socioeconomical class in power. As such, no one can do anything about it, no one will really tell them down for it. They get excused and justified and romanticized by their peers, just like billionaires & politicians are excused by their peers and notably mainstream media (which is owned... by other billionaires). They break rules -- not because they think it's necessary and the morally right thing to do despite the dangers it puts them in -- but because it makes them feel powerful, important, invincible, which for them is very fun. As Snape says: James and his cronies broke rules because they thought themselves above them:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. [...]”

They break rules because they're allowed to.

Which is why, in reality, the Marauders aren't really breaking rules or defying anything or opposing an actual big threat. They're a bunch of jocks who are having fun in the playground that's been attributed to them thanks to their status and family heritage (others wouldn't get the same indulgence because they don't get that privilege).

They break rules because they want to look cool, to be the "bad boys". The message has been compleyely botched. Especially with Lily actually finding this hot.

Because Rowling finds this hot:

[...] I shook hands with a woman who leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially, 'Sirius Black is sexy, right?' And yes, of course she was right, as the Immeritus club know. The best-looking, most rebellious, most dangerous of the four marauders... and to answer one burning question on the discussion boards, his eyes are grey.

(Anyone has an eyes washing station?)

Another quote:

"Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married."

(Nevermind the eyes washing, anyone's got some bleach instead?)

Stanning James Potter for being the leader of a gang that prides itself on breaking rules and always getting away with it -- it feels like stanning Elon Musk for being "innovative" and "a daring entrepreneur" despite being a manchild who exploits workers and modern-world slavery to play with his billions while always getting away with it.

They're not being "rebels" -- they're being bullies and flexing the fact they can get away with it thanks to abundance of privilege. Those are the tastes of a posh British white woman. She wanted the facade -- not the substance (that is, if she ever understood it).

You might say that they did oppose a big threat, the Death Eaters, but again, it's botched because:

they target a lonely, unpopular boy who's best friends with a Muggleborn Gryffindor, rather than baby Death Eaters like Mulciber, Lucius, Rosier, Avery, Regulus, etc.

The leader sexually harasses the Muggleborn Gryffindor because he's sexually jealous of the unpopular boy who dared not take the insult about his chosen House and shut up. Lily is treated as an object, they don't listen to her, and they barely speak about her later. (Lots to say to show that, which I won't do here because this is not the main subject.)

When the Marauders do join the Order, they do it... because they primarily want to adopt a rock-n-roll style and play the "bad boys" again. Or at least that's the message that's given to the reader:

They seemed to be in their late teens. The one who had been driving had long black hair; his insolent good looks reminded Fisher unpleasantly of his daughter's guitar-playing, layabout boyfriend. The second boy also had black hair, though his was short and stuck up in all directions; he wore glasses and a broad grin. Both were dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with a large golden bird; the emblem, no doubt, of some deafening, tuneless rock band.

(God, the Prequel is so cringy.)

They don't choose Dumbledore as the Secret Keeper, they don't tell him they changed to Pettigrew -- even though he literally was their war leader -- James uses the Cape to fuck around even though he was supposed to be hiding with Lily and then Harry (until Dumbledore takes the Cape from him)... and eventually, their group exploded, with James killed off, Sirius thrown to Azkaban, Peter (the traitor) hiding as a rat and Lupin going off to find jobs to survive.

Why did that happen? Because they thought of playing their part in the Order like going on a teenage adventure rather than engaging in a resistance organization. It was, first and foremost, about playing "the bad boys" and having fun.

(Harry half-inherits this. While he doesn't break rules just to look cool, and actually has several moments where he does break rules because it's the right thing to do -- like under Umbridge or, of course, when Voldemort takes power -- he does often get pampered when he breaks them in his earlier years. By Dumbledore, but also McGonagall, however much Rowling tries to sell her as a "strict but fair" teacher. Or by Slughorn, now that I think about it. That's something that enraged Snape, as it brought up memories of Harry's father -- Snape's own bully -- getting the same treatment.)

It's not a coincidence that Rowling not only failed to properly convey through the Marauders the true value of breaking rules, but also lusted over them for adopting that "bad boys" trope. It speaks to her own privilege -- she who never had to put herself in danger and go against the law in a risky attempt to protect herself or other less privileged people.

(Here's a useful read to expand on those worldbuilding issues.)

2. Dark Magic, obscurantism and conservatism

For context: Opinion: The Dark Magic/Light Magic Dichotomy is Nonsense (by pet_genius).

The idea of "Dark Magic" as something that's repeatedly told to be "evil" magic and where you cross the line of the forbidden, while hardly putting in question that notion that was (for some reason) enforced by wizard society, is another blatant example of Rowling betraying her mindset of privileged British white woman.

Rowling couldn't put herself in the minds of a society of "outcasts (witches & wizards) deeply enough to consider they would not see any magic as "Dark" at all (being a ""Muggle"" concept), or that Dark magic is only magic that requires something unvaluable to be traded off -- like one's soul or health or life or sanity. Instead, she has Dark Magic defined as "evil" magic, even though her own books show that you can do evil stuff with normal magic, and that you can do morally good stuff with Dark magic. This thing happened because Rowling could not think past her own little world and instead she poured a conservatist mentality (+ typical "Muggle", anti-witch prejudice) into the HP (wizard society) worldbuilding without considering that there could, in fact, be fundamental differences between the two worlds that include thinking of magic differently. (This has a lot to do with Rowling's wizard world being a pro-imperalism fest.)

"Dark Magic" feels like a lazy, badly-executed plot device to tell the reader who's a good guy and who is not. Because of course, that's how things work in real-life, huh… (Did she ever hear of "don't tell, show"?) It's used as an excuse to define who's evil (teen Severus) or not (James), who's worthy or not -- not how their magic was used. Which is a BIG problem:

“I’m just trying to show you they’re not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are.” The intensity of his gaze made her blush. “They don’t use Dark Magic, though.” / “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him —

Even worse, Rowling doesn't follow her own in-world moral framework. Dark magic is acceptable for some people (Rowling's partial self-inserts: Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione to Marietta...) but not for those that Rowling hates (Snape, who ironically represents the closest thing to rebelling by unapologetically obsessing over the Dark Arts). Again, this is at best unadressed in-world hypocrisy, at worst an expression of in-world and out-universe privilege (I get to do this and stay a good guy, but you don't).

There could have easily been rightful criticism of whatever could be defined as "Dark Magic". What if Dark magic was just something defined as "Dark" usually because the power in place doesn't want the people to touch it? Is abortion or contraception or a sex-altering or a goverment-threatening spell, Dark Magic? Is foreign or ethnicity-specific or female-centered or queer-centered magic, "Dark"? How about showing why (Muggle-raised but also neurodivergent) Severus thought Dark magic was so great, showing his point of view, while also establishing where the true limits are? If Lily can't be the one who sees past the "fear-mongering anti-intellectualism/propaganda", how about Harry being the one who does, thanks to him relating to Snape on a personal level? How about making Hermione go from someone who condems Dark Magic, to someone who entirely changes her point of view and understands that this is all bullshit -- effectively showing the dangers of only following what the books say, without putting them into question or thinking by yourself? How about a nuanced view of Dark magic as something that requires a significant sacrifice, which is conceivable for something they see as equally or even more important [Lily's life for Harry; Snape's soul integrity for Dumbledore]? How about making the Death Eaters, people who deviate that legitimate interest, rather than just evil guys who thrive in Dark magic for its supposed added evilness? How about showing that Dark magic was just a notion invented by Muggles to throw "witches" (real or not) to the burning stakes -- later taken by the witches and wizards in power to define, in the magical community, what was okay or definitely forbidden because it's the trademark of those who represent a threat to the magical community (understand: people who riot or strike or protest against the ruling socioeconomical class' politics)?

But there was none of that.

"Dark" magic in HP merely seems to be a weird concept that at best accidentally takes the form of an in-world obscurantism, at worst is just the trademark of someone who cannot imagine a "hunted, ostracized" community with a different culture and mindset than her own. Aggravating is the fact that she used "Dark magic" as a plot device to magically cast some people as good and others as never bad – again, probably reflecting her own questionable mentality.

The fact Rowlnig invented the notion of Dark Magic and had her world consider it seriously as an evil thing instead of being open-minded seems to be less telling of her wishes to show a wizard society that can be as prejudiced as the muggle one, and more of her own bizarre world where you must be evil if you are knowledgeable in or interested in certain "taboo" things (RIP neurodivergents).

Rowling glorifies the Trio and the Marauders for breaking rules. Yet when it comes to actually breaking expectations and norms, notably in the wizarding society -- like the use of another magical species as slaves, or the blatant anti-Muggle prejudice held by everyone including "good guys" (or anti-centaur while we're at it), or stupid anti-knowledge prejudice like "Dark magic is evil" -- there is none of that. At best, it's surface-level opposition that comes out as white savior syndrome. At worst, the protagonists make it their noble code to enforce those norms, and "sinful" characters (Snape, for one) are punished for not conforming. Too often, those sinful characters are punished by the "good guys" with the very thing that they apparently oppose so fervently.

Without ever adressing the fact that those characters were ("morally") allowed to do that because it was just, in the end, a matter of who gets the privilege to do that, and who does not.

There.

Do you have anything to say to develop on those ideas? I feel like I'm reaching my knowledge limit and I'd like to see if those ideas can be expanded.

[nimbosaur]

There must be fans out there that are like "wtf" to the rest of the fans' actions right? Right????

As 0 alacrity put it while we were talking, by the way, they're the one also helping me have evil little thoughts.

Here's a tl;dr of it, but a pretty good think piece is under the cut.

So, basically YES. But being just "wtf" doesn't do enough. Spamton very much has asked for help and believed in the common sense of people to help him get out of this situation, but like in any fandom, while extreme fans are not the majority, they're the ones bold enough to act upon their desires and do horrible stuff.

That includes doxing, harassing and possibly harming people who oppose them, and usually people with good sense kind of keep away from that for a good reason. So while there's critique and attempts to help, no one really has managed to do much more than just that.

Buckle up because this one's kinda long but a very interesting read.

BIG NOTE: Spamton is a fictional character, it is not to be taken literally as a "parasocial" relationship with him. It is a Commentary about how people approach RL CELEBRITIES/YOUTUBERS/CONTENT CREATORS/ ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO ARE POPULAR.

We have to put this as a note because there is a problem with media literacy and self projection of consumers while ignoring the bigger problem/commentary.

" The thing is you have to think about in every fandom, it's not like the crazy fans are the majority, but they're the ones bold enough to act upon their desires.

And the question is "As a member of a fandom, or as a member of someone who likes this media that also participates are you a passive fan or an active fan?

By passive I ask this "you watch this, you say this is wrong, this is fucked, but you don't participate but you are a witness to these events. You know it's going on you know what's appropriate and isn't, but the question is: Would you step up? would you try to save your bias? are you going to be a part of the opposing numbers that say hey enough is enough and band together to show support and free your celebrities from the cages they're placed in? Or will you watch.

Many people want to say I'll act upon it but if look around us, you'll see that there are so many passive fans. There are so many bystanders, there are so many people afraid.

You may not contribute to the extreme actions that crazy fans take but the question I have is ...are you brave enough to regulate your own fanbase? Knowing that there is potential for harm.

There is potential being hunted for speaking up, there is potential you'll be left ALONE not cause people DONT agree with you but they're just as afraid as you to get involved, and at this point that's a question of asking, can you really say you don't contribute to the problem when you let shitlords like that take over fan spaces to dictate the general image of the thing you love to destroy the things you adore, to cling to the past?

Here's a question too? How much do other people let other fans get away with things and blame the celebrity instead. People view celebrities as figure heads, Spamton probably called out for help, he believed in his fans too. He still hopes and believes that too but when you reach out and you witness passive fans turning their backs, the few who speak out being taken under waves and drowned out by the voices of the nutcases, and the worst of them all, those that instead of helping blame the celebrity, anyone would lose hope.

And most reasonable people if we're being honest, don't want to fight with crazy people. Even the most well adjusted individual knows the difference between extreme worship/martyr complex actions and understanding that " hey, these people are CRAZY ENOUGH to imprison a single whole ass man, a powerfully popular whole ass man.

....

what is someone like me going to be able to do other than countless death threats and getting doxxed?"

you ever think about that?

Side note: I know this is going to be said and I'm going to address it early. If someone says "Am I the bad one for not acting?"

You make your own decision based on that. But the point is being missed if you are asking this and not looking at the overall issue of fan culture itself and who gets to speak out for the community you're a part of. If you choose to not say a word, that's on you and that's your choice and you should own it.

Own that not saying something when watching this does have an effect. Choosing to accept that affect in silence is your prerogative. Whether it's good or bad is Up. To. You.

But know that if you don't do anything and you don't like the result that occurs due to waving off your say. It's a choice you made to leave that in their hands, you have chosen to say "My choice doesn't matter"

[stubbornjerk]

Why people keep telling you to block them if you support Pholo (Penumbra Edition)

Or: why jitterbug-juno really deactivated

I love when people categorize this as fandom wank. Really makes you feel like you’re putting the onus on either side of the conversation.

I’m making this post not because I want to stir up spoiled milk, but because I want it out there that this wasn’t a purity culture war.

The TL;DR version of this is that fans of color tried to tell Rab (prev. jitterbug-juno) not to post her Omegaverse (or A/B/O) fic. And instead of taking the L, she posted it on Ao3 and deactivated.

But, if you want context, well, buckle in. CW for mentions of racism and transphobia.

What did jitterbug-juno do?

Before I get into this I do want it out there that I will not be linking Rab’s fic, but I will show you this screenshot of the summary of it.

[ID: It is a screenshot of a fic, “As You Are” by Pholo.

Summary: Peter can hide his scent glands behind cologne; makeup; concealer pads. He can quash his heats with suppressants. He can divert the urge to nest and fawn.

But he can’t feign another gender’s subvocals. He lacks the anatomical capacity. Mag taught him to distract from his silence with fast, flashy words. For longer heists he relies on social convention. Traumatic mutism is uncommon, but remarked upon by enough war vets and soap operas to be widely recognized. Peter’s marks assume he’s been harmed long before they assume he’s a closeted omega. It would take quite the backwater brute to ask why he doesn’t murmur or chuff or growl.

On the 'Blanche there are the usual furtive glances. Juno makes clear to Peter that should he ever want “to talk about what happened,” he’ll be there to listen. The gesture annoys Peter more than comforts him.

‘Nothing happened,’ he wants to scream. ‘There’s nothing to talk about!’

There are 14 comments, 85 kudos, and 11 bookmarks /end]

You decide what you’re doing with that information, but honestly, I’d rather you don’t give it anymore engagement than it deserves.

There was a period earlier this June (yes, even though it’s only the 10th, at time of writing) when Rab was posting snippets of the aforementioned fic on her blog and tagging it appropriately, putting it in the attention of pretty much the entire Penumbra fandom.

What’s Omegaverse or a/b/o and why is everyone so against Rab for it

If you know what Omegaverse is, I don’t have to tell you why it’s controversial. If you don’t know what Omegaverse is, well, Fanlore said it best:

a kink trope wherein some or all people have defined biological roles based on a hierarchical system, with the terms originating from animal behaviour research. There may be werewolf, knotting, or other animalistic elements involved, or the characters may be otherwise purely human.

The term is generally written with slashes (a/b/o). Many fans, particularly ones from Australia and New Zealand, are uncomfortable seeing the term without slashes because it is also an Australian slur for aboriginal people.

I won’t get into the history or the heaps and tons of other discourses (mostly about fictional male pregnancy, homophobia, transphobia, sexual assault, etc.)  that go on within that. We’re here specifically on Rab v. Penumbra fans of color and we’re staying there.

Anyone who’s been in Penumbra enough to realize that everyone draws the Junoverse characters in a certain way knows that a) Juno is black, b) Nureyev is Asian, and c) as a fan you have to be aware of what you’re subjecting or saying about either of them because of the political repercussions that come with it.

And despite that, Rab proceeded to write Peter Nureyev, a gender nonconforming gay Asian male character that is widely headcanon’d as trans, into a fic using a kink trope that relies heavily on animal behavior.

Unlike most people new to fandom, Rab is aware of what Omegaverse is and is very much white. She is (and if she isn’t, should be) aware of the racist undertones that writing him in would get.

I couldn’t get a screenshot of what snippets Rab was sending out into the ether, seeing as a majority of my friends would rather not have seen any at all (I have all of the usual tags blocked so I wouldn’t have seen it either way), but needless to say, Rab got attention for it. Both positive and negative.

Anne (@hopeless-eccentric) even posted a satirical fic, in the odds that Rab was just writing this thing to be “the first” to write Omegaverse fic in the Penumbra tags.

But, I’m assuming more than one fan of color came into Rab’s inbox and messaged her about it, but someone I know (who would like to remain anonymous) was gracious enough to take a screenshot before he sent his in and let me use it for this post:

[ID: A message to jitterbug-juno about to be sent by a sender whose name is censored with a black bar. His messages says:

“as someone who is a person of color i think the nature of the fic you are writing right now is extremely racist and attributing animal characteristics to lgbt people of color is not at all appropriate, especially when you are someone who is white. i have to ask you to not publish this fic and to reflect as to why you would want to write this in the first place, these tropes are extremely harmful and”

There are 33 characters left to write into the message. /end]

I can’t speak for whoever else sent asks about the fic she was writing. If anyone was actually not-so-gentle with her, well, minorities don’t really owe it to you to be gentle about what they can tell is bigotry-tinged behavior.

But, the message was clear: this is different from your garden variety, lily white straight male character m/m kink fantasy. This is an actual queer Asian character that a lot of queer Asian people feel attached do. Do not post the fic.

What happened next: the beginning of the end

The next morning, I woke up to most of my friends being frustrated by this post on Rab’s account:

[ID: Dated 5 June, a post by jitterbug-juno:

“Gonna leave the fandom for a while. Wishing you all well.”

The tags say the following: not sure if i’ll be back, thank you so much to everybody who’s read my fics, and who’s sent asks or engaged with my art or any of that, you’re amazing and I’m sending love /end]

That... was not what fans of color wanted, but it was definitely an action they took. Some celebrated, as they were very much wary of Rab for having caused much of the same category of drama in fandoms like Voltron: Legendary Defenders and Warrior Cats. This also meant that she was probably not going to post the fic either.

Some, myself included, were relatively pissed, as they’d wanted even just the measly bit of accountability. An apology or an acknowledgement of having been called out in private and that they’ll take time to consider why. But instead we got Rab leaving in the face of fans of color telling her not to post her Omegaverse fic.

Well. The next day...

[ID: Dated 6 June. A post by jitterbug-juno titled, “Well... that was short-lived”

“I gave the situation a lot of thought yesterday. The reaction to my omegaverse previews made me figure I should leave the fandom. It seemed like the safest option.

But you know what?

Hell.

I don’t want to leave. The fic discusses the tropes of omegaverse and I spoke to several POC on Twitter, and I’m going to post it with plenty of tags so people can avoid it if they wish. I’m not going to be chased out of this space.

Thank you to everyone who sent messages yesterday. I shouldn’t have made that post about leaving. It was really reactionary. I’m okay and I appreciate your support so much.

(bolded on the post) To those who are angry and uncomfortable with me: Please block me. If you’re going to talk about this fic on Tumblr and Twitter– and this may sound odd– PLEASE NAME ME as Jitterbug-juno or Pholo. Don’t vague me. That way people who don’t want to see this discourse can add my name to their block lists.“ /end]

That certainly was short-lived, she wasn’t kidding.

This got a lot of outrage. Again, the fic is up on Ao3 and she has not taken it down. A lot of POC were pissed and I didn’t see a single fan of color actively support what she was doing, at least, not in my friend group. Everyone started making those posts to block them if you liked the fic or Rab’s content in general, in accordance to what Rab wanted.

Perseus (@mraudiodrama) noticed/pointed out that Rab deleted the part where she said she spoke to several POC about releasing her fic, as well as the part where she said she refused to be chased out of the fandom. This was an incredibly pointed detail to edit out, according to some.

[ID: A screenshot of jitterbug-juno's last post taken 11:00PM. Much of it is the same except the following bolded words are removed: "The fic discusses the tropes of omegaverse and I spoke to several POC on Twitter, and I’m going to post it with plenty of tags so people can avoid it if they wish. I’m not going to be chased out of this space." /end]

That same day, Rab deleted her blog. I actually caught this one on tape, believe it or not.

[ID: A screen recording taken at 12:01 PM of someone scrolling down jitterbug-juno's account. The posts and asks about Omegaverse and her post about leaving and coming back are conspicuously absent. /end]

Initially, I thought she deleted all mentions of it. I wanted to see firsthand if the rumors about her deleting portions of it were true. If she added things where she was saying that she wanted to write it because she was autistic and wanted Nureyev to be autistic too, regardless of the numerous QPOC telling her not to do it.

Instead, it turned out, she deleted her blog.

And now, we're here. The fic is still up. Her blog is down. Rab's public Twitter account @nataclinn is quiet about this. Her @cushfuddled Twitter account is on private after her run-in with the Warrior Cats fandom, according to a friend. And her Tumblr @cushfuddled account has nothing but memes.

Again, I didn't make this post to stir up drama. I wasn't even obsessively making this post as a call-out because she isn't in the fandom anymore. I just want it out there that this isn't a purity culture thing that got out of hand in a fandom as niche as Penumbra. This was a case of someone being called out and failing to acknowledge it before running away. And I want all that out of the way before I say:

If you are on Rab's side of this debacle, I, a queer person of color, want nothing to do with you either.

[tezzbot]

(srry for rambling but i really wanted to share this))

So, I re-watched the G5 movie and honestly, I don't get why people are trying so hard to make Hitch seem villainous. Like, I get cops are bad and use their status to get away with shit. And people want to show they hate cops by constantly bashing on any cop they see on TV. But Hitch doesn't act like a cop, nor does his character glorify them.

The biggest thing people should be talking about was the fact that that militaristic propaganda shit that took place. Hitch being a sheriff isn't even a primary thing in this movie. It's practically forgotten after the whole journey to gather the stones.

Firstly, no where does he use his status to overpower anyone. Sheriffs are way different from cops. Plus he's supposed to be some version of an Old West sheriff, which is way different from sheriffs we're familiar with. Anyway, sheriffs are supposed to be the peacekeepers and enforce health and safety regulations, as well as the law, which is what Hitch does. Hitch's character is law abiding and does his job correctly. His character is hard working and likes to get his tasks done efficiently.

And all he does is complain about litter and enforce the law. He doesn't use his status to use people or hurt them. There's only a few times where he goes "hey, I'm the sheriff!" and its mostly a desperate plea to get people to listen to him (which, literally no one did in those scenes and he was polite about it and let it go lol).

It seems like he genuinely likes his job. He likes protecting the others and making sure things are done in an orderly fashion. But he doesn't at all harm others. Plus, there are times (though few honestly) where he uses his own morals to make his own decisions.

Not only this, but Hitch is shown to be caring. Even while he's trying to get Sunny back to town. People like to use the quote "I'm the only friend you have" to make him seem manipulative and whatnot towards Sunny. But that's not what he's doing. He's literally stating the facts. Throughout the movie he seems understanding of her actions, despite not feeling the same way she does. In this scene he also makes that clear, but tells her that no one else is as understanding and accepting as he is. Which is literally shown to be true. Her actions not only affect her image and the way the townsfolk treat her, but also affect his status as her friend and as sheriff. He's not using this line with, like, any malicious intent or anything. He wants to protect her, whilst looking out for himself. He's not letting her actions drag him down and makes a stand for himself. Despite her beliefs, whether right or wrong, a true friend wouldn't do that. Plus this is the wayyy beginning of the film, no one is positive if she's right or wrong. Not even Sunny herself.

Anyway, I feel like people are using the fact that he's a sheriff to hate on him which is ridiculous. And this goes for any fictional cop, too. Cause, like, he's a literal cartoon character.

Instead of attacking cartoon horses, why don't ya'll actually focus on REAL cops who are doing ACTUAL crimes.

TL;DR: Hitch is a sheriff, not a cop. He did nothing wrong, so stop making him out to be the bad guy. Attack spoiled bitch boy Sprout instead who ACTUALLY used his status for evil.

anon are we about to kiss i think we're about to kiss

YOU R SOOOO RIGHT HITCH IS JUST LAWFUL GOOD TO SUNNYS CHAOTIC GOOD THEYRE BOTH GOOD THEY JUST HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY SEE AS FACT IN THEIR MINDS AND THATS LITERALLY JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE<3

and also? he's a cartoon horse guys can we please calm down GDNVDN

[vanilla-bean-buttercream]

Hello Mx. I saw a post of yours, and have come to say that, no, fiction CAN affect reality. I and multiple other minors have been groomed by fandom into thinking incest was an ok thing and that you should do. But it isn't. I have an older brother and have been scared of him ever since I found out what real incest was REALLY like.

Hello Mx. I received your ask, and while I said I wasn't going to be replying to anymore asks, I'm going to get very personal here.

I was emotionally abused when I was younger. I was fat shamed, told I was lazy, told I was not trying my hardest when I was. I was hit as punishment. I jump at sudden noise, even if it's quiet. I fear rejection, so I put up a million walls to make sure others couldn't reach me. If someone tells me that they don't care what I do and to do what I want, I go into a panic attack. This went on into my adult years and affected me until my abuser moved out of the state 2 months ago. My father is still in this abusive relationship and can't leave it, and that pisses me off to no end.

I do not bother people who write characters that are abusive in canon as romantic.

I was in an unhealthy poly relationship. The boy who I dated was the definition of nice guy. He would not accept me turning him down, had a hand in sabotaging the relationship I had, and sexually harassed me. He also sexually abused my best friend. In a Hail Mary attempt to get my friend out of the relationship, I agreed to date him as long as he dated her too in a poly relationship. Like I thought, she was very uncomfortable with the fact that he would date someone else when she gave up so much for him and dumped him. I announced it was over too and swore I would never be in a poly relationship again.

I do not bother people who write poly relationships whether they're consensual or unhealthy.

I was told that sexual attraction is the only reason you should date someone and read many stories that support that idea. I had my ex tell me asexuality wasn't real and I was just leading him on. He accused me of being a slut because of the previously mentioned boy. I became disgusted by sex and would vomit if people suggested me having biological children one day. I started to hate love stories because I felt broken.

I do not bother people who write smut or pregnancy fics or tell people that dream of having a nuclear family they are letting heteromantic fiction affect their reality.

I'm sorry you suffered. We both didn't deserve what we went through. No one deserves what we went through. Our trauma is something that shouldn't be taken lightly or mocked. Anyone who tries to intentionally trigger us with our trauma should be blocked at best and banned at worst.

With that said, if I ever meet your brother, I will punch him in the face without hesitation. No acceptions. To take someone in a vulnerable state because you're older and affect them in such a negative way is disgusting, unwarranted, and should be treated with the proper shaming it deserves.

Likewise, if I ever catch someone grooming a minor in this fandom to think that incest is okay and to give in to their relative, I will report and ban them from every site I can find. I will do everything in my power to make sure the victim is not hurt. No relative has any right to touch or harm their family members, biological or not, in that way.

But I can't be there for everyone, and there are people who slip through the cracks because they know I will hunt them down, so they hide. They pretend to be survivors projecting. They pretend to be kids who don't know better. They pretend that fiction doesn't shape reality.

Abusers are never as obvious as media makes them out to be. They're supposed to be violent and obvious and over the top. Some are, but a lot are not. They're the parents who slowly starts taking portions of your food away so you can be thin and pretty. They're the girlfriend that goes through your phone to protect you from skanky girls and blocks your friends from your contacts until she's the only one who you have left. They're the partner that showers you so much love you don't know what to do without them until you realize their sweet words have turned more critical over time, but it's only because they loved you, so it's fine that their words make you cry. They're like a pot of water with a live insect that is slowly boiled until the insect doesn't realize they've been boiled alive.

But I digress.

You know, you can tell me fiction affects reality, and I would say yes. You are right. People let fiction shape their reality. They latch onto stories and do their best to bring that little bit of happiness into their lives, whether it's healthy or not. People see the news glorifying shooters and want to go down in history like that too. People see people killed in horrific ways on a video game and become desensitized to violence.

So yes, fiction if handled incorrectly can affect reality.

However, there's a piece of this moral puzzle missing that is key to arguing my point.

I learned how to separate fiction from reality. It was difficult, and I still have moments where it's hard, but I have learned that putting characters in political agendas is trivializing to those who have suffered through those events. I have learned that representing minorities should always be run by people of that race who can tell me what to avoid, even if I think it's just "for the plot" because I'm dealing with real life stories and people. I have learned that my comfort character is not above criticism, and if people want to do less than savory things to them, it does not mean that they change canonically nor affect how I should be seen for liking that confort character. I learned to accept people's head canons were different, sometimes contrasting to mine, and that was not a critique of me or how I viewed that character.

I learned the difference between someone who is turned on by bdsm and someone who is abusive. I learned the difference between sympathizing with a villain and supporting their actions.

I learned fiction can alter reality if allowed to enter the world as fact, but it takes a person with better morals to not let fiction be their reality.

Just because I play the goose game doesn't mean I'm going to throw someone's picnic in a lake because it's funny. Just because I laugh when people are embarrassed in a story does not mean I think embarrassing someone publicly is okay.

And for goodness sake, my kinks should never be taken to an extreme in a healthy relationship, because role playing controlling your partner is a lot different than doing it non-consensually.

I see your argument. Your distaste for the ship is seen and acknowledged. I will not, nor will I ever make you feel like you have to ship it or interact with those who do. Not because you're traumatized, but because I have no right. I don't know you. I won't ever meet you. I'm a stranger on the internet trying their best.

If your reasoning for not interacting with me is because I allow remrom shippers to interact with my content, I have no problem with you unfollowing or blocking my content. I want you to be safe on your own blog. I want you to cultivate your own online experience.

But the reason I am "apologetic" for remrom shippers is I'm being a role model in my own way.

I cannot be there to protect all victims from being groomed, but I can show them the difference between someone who will hurt them and someone who will protect them. I can show them that fiction can be a healthy outlet, but that's where it stays, and why it stays there. To make incest a forbidden fruit has done more harm than you'd think and pushes rebellious kids and teens to people who offer sweet words instead of criticism.

If I can be a safe blog for people to come to, whether they're questioning incest or not, I'll be that blog. I'll do my best to get them help and listen to them.

I'm a teacher for a reason. My purpose in life is to make people think for themselves and question, wonder, and entertain the idea that anything and everything should be questioned and fact checked until they draw their own conclusions. My purpose in life is to treat everyone with the same respect I would like extended to me. My purpose in life is to make sure people don't think their trauma is above being talked about, and there are adults that are willing to help them no matter who they are or what they've done.

--

Tl;dr I'm sorry you suffered, and you didn't deserve that. I can see why the ship hurts you, and you shouldn't have to interact with it. However, that's on you to be your own content police, especially when it comes to your blog. Your trauma is not a ruler to bang on people's knuckles. Learn how to separate fiction from reality and advocate for others to do the same instead of policing what's good and not good.

[estebanbicon]

About that rpf post you reblogged... I'm not going to try and cancel you or anyone who might enjoy it... But there's a difference between writing about dead people like the majority of the examples cited and writing about very much alive people. Many people have said people shipping them with their friends caused a strain in said friendship, or in some cases even ruined it. Actual queer people like Dan Howell, a gay man, have said that it was traumatic or Lauren Jauregui, a bisexual woman, said it made her feel like a predator. I guess rpf can be ok if you keep it in fan spaces and at least try to make it difficult to stumble upon (by making it only available for people registered on ao3 for example). But please don't try to deny the harm it can cause.

oh no, i agree with you! i agree that it can be awful, and i pretty much explained my stance on it here yesterday.

tl;dr: rpf in itself isn't inherently bad, it only is if you cross the boundaries between reality and fiction, and actively harrass the people involved.

so per se, most rpf is on tumblr and/or ao3, and you usually find it by searching for it.

it is the people taking it outside those spaces that are the fucking problem because they cross that line.

that is my opinion, and ofc feel free to disagree!