#tw csa mention

[ramlionbam]

haven't seen anyone in the reblogs mention this but if someone selects "15 or younger" that's not a "waow" moment. sometimes that's a "i had consensual sex at a young age" moment but sometimes that's a "i was sexually assaulted as a child" moment and i don't think putting "(waow)" on that option is a good idea...?

also where's the asexual (and/or sex-repulsed) option. this poll seems designed to uphold compulsory sexuality, wherein having sex is an important part of 'normal' development and maturity, from how it's written and how some people are responding to it.

I just included what seems like the most common range for having sex for the first time (skewed older because…. It’s tumblr)

Also I mean physical sex I’m not talking about sexting your internet friends 🤨

[thatmexisaurusrex]

Anyone who’s protecting fucking LoverBoyDiaz who has been confirmed to have made one of the mistagged CSA fics on AO3 because you found out that person isn’t a fucking BuckTommy person like you’ve been screaming about for months instead of the obvious conclusion that whoever was doing it was someone fucking harassing random people who like the ship and traumatizing them should feel a-fucking-shamed and say who the fuck this is outside of their now deleted AO3 account. Fucking cowards protecting monsters just because you were wrong.

[rei-ismyname]

Charles Xavier's inappropriate feelings towards Jean Grey

The 60s run of X-Men was honestly half a pulp romance comic. Jean is the only girl/woman in the X-Men and all the dudes are backbiting sex pests (except Scott, who likes her but is too shy/concerned about his eyes to tell her.) From the moment she arrives they trip over each other to be near her and impress her. This was a frequent romance dynamic at Marvel (then Timely Comics) - one woman, a bunch of overzealous 'suitors' and the 'good guy' who'd have some obstacle to overcome to 'win' her love.

Stan Lee sucked at writing women, and mostly just wrote men with his own personality (eww) but he broke with the format here by positioning two men in the 'good guy' role. One of them being Charles Xavier, who is explicitly much older and in a position of power over Jean, was a wretched choice. Fortunately he dropped these secret feelings of his.

It probably would have stayed a Silver Age oddity - inappropriate and creepy but a one off like the time the famously red Scarlet Witch wore green. However, when introducing Onslaught as Xavier's 'darkness' Scott Lobdell picked it up and ran with it. The titular villain approaches Jean and tries to get her onside, taking her back in time (now she has telepathy) to observe Chuck's thoughts for herself. He's ostensibly trying to challenge her faith in her mentor but another reading is that this is the part of Xavier that absolutely has those feelings and wants to possess Jean - the subtext of the 'good guy' made text.

Jean asks Onslaught who he is and this is his answer - 'I am frustration.' Onslaught is a chimeric megalomaniac who wants to take over or destroy the world, but he is definitely made from Xavier and Magneto's 'desire for domination,' as Doctor Nemesis puts it. I find it interesting that this plot point was dug up and centered then not really spoken of again. 'Frustration' is especially loaded.

Creating new shitty things for Chuck to have done in the past has become a repeat source of drama for writers, but this is one that has a textual origin. It's almost become a cliche that he's got a seemingly infinite number of skeletons in his closet (one reason why the recent Sarah Gaunt focus made me groan) to the point it's hit diminishing returns. There's only so much you can pin on him before he becomes unsympathetic, though YMMV on that.

It's obviously a good thing that Xavier didn't vocalise these feelings or directly act on them, but 'loving' a teen was a God awful writing choice. The question is - how seriously do you take it? Does it factor in your personal judgement of Charles Xavier's character? Surely it has to, after all he's taken advantage of his power over people before, entering a romantic and sexual relationship with a patient in his care. Gabrielle Haller was fridged long ago, but with Xavier's manipulation, control, and training child soldiers all points of debate and conflict amongst X-Men right now, how far will they take it?

Not far enough to compromise their valuable IP, that's for sure.

[corvidcaeneus]

[until-my-teeth-fell-out]

First, you can't call fictional things CSEM that's a real label for the real abuse real kids might face. Stop treating fiction like real life I can't take you seriously. (And yes if you try to report CSA they usually ask you if a real child is present which shows how much they legit don't care if a fictional character is being hurt because it's not a real being. Regardless legality is not the same thing as morality here).

Now I do get that you're talking about fictional CSA and things like that stories though. Anyways, lolicon doesn't equal pedophilia because a loli is not a real child and pedophilia is real attraction to real kids.

This source talks about OCD specifically but the point still goes.

"It’s common for people to engage in fantasies involving taboo subjects like incest or rape. However, indulging in these thoughts does not equate to an intention to ever act upon them, or even desire them in real life. It’s crucial to emphasize that fantasy remains distinct from action, or even from other kinds of desire."

Take this quote from the source for example. This quote is about real life kink actions like cnc or fauxcest, so when done in fiction, it is actually even less "real" (not to say cnc and fauxcest are predatory either sine they're supposed to be SSC). So legitimately... there's not a single person being hurt.

"There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed even when it comes to writing stories." Yes for example randomly exposing a real person's home address while writing the story. But that's about a real person. It's bad because it hurts a real person. And fictional characters are not real.

"Don't act like everyone else has to accept it and never criticize" Criticizing isn't the same as literally calling someone a pedo or a groomer or something of the like.

Seriously, anyone that's throwing a hissy fit over people playing a video game really needs to go outside and touch some grass.

[cozmo-system]

imagine being so disconnected from reality you directly compare a sex trafficker to fan writers and artists, go rip off a toenail

[joycomplexx]

Sexually harassing proshippers does not give you a moral high ground. Sending rape threats to proshippers does not give you a moral high ground. Spreading real CSAM/CSEM to proshippers does not give you a moral high ground.

Antis who accuse proshippers of sex crimes and then turn around to do these things? Clearly, fantasizing about rape and CSA is not their problem.

[corelle-vairel]

I had this idea, so here it is

[destielmemenews]

"Gaetz's path was mired by a series of allegations of sexual misconduct, including sex with a minor. On Thursday, NBC News learned from a source familiar that the House Ethics Committee, which had been investigating Gaetz, was told that a 17-year-old girl had two sexual encounters with the Florida Republican at a 2017 party.

The description of the second encounter was included in her testimony to the House Ethics Committee as well as a deposition in a related civil lawsuit. The second sexual encounter included another adult woman, according to a source familiar."

source 1

source 2

source 3

[fireyfobbitmedicine]

H*rry P*tter author is into pedophilia pass it on

[damagedcoda6669]

TW: CSA MENTION

thanks dad (IM FINE BTW THIS IS JUST RLLY FUNNY 2 ME NOW)

[radfemsiren]

I’m the type of person that doesn’t cry easily, but one exception to that is seeing women protect young girls.

In this video, 2 young sisters, Zian (20) and Ashanti (11) Fagan, see a man and a 13 year old girl, and know something is terribly wrong. They call their mother, and the three of them follow him and the child until he finally releases her. Later they will find out that he had just raped her on her way to school.

The ending always brings me to tears. We hear Zian, the older sister recording, start crying because she understands what it feels like to be a vulnerable girl and live in a world hellbent on stealing away your innocence and hurting you for the crime of being born female. The child saying, “I was just on my way to school.” breaks my heart so badly.

Radical feminism is about love for women and girls, that’s the core of the movement, never forget that women are the protectors and that’s why we do this.

The young girls name is protected so I couldn’t find much information about her, except that she is back with her family recovering from this horrific crime.

The attacker, Kadian Nelson, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child rape… and if it gives you any consolation, searching his name on twitter will show his face slashed with razors by his fellow inmates, with reports of him requiring plastic surgery to remedy his facial disfiguration. It’s not death, but it’s something.

In the original 8 minute long video, these girls are following him for so long, and you can hear their voices soft and afraid… but they keep going. Their bravery in the face of danger is something I’ll never forget.

[claymton]

"the moralorel fandom is okay with liking flawed and traumatized characters until it's Cecil creepler" is the trauma not being able to molest/groom a 12 year old

[glitter-stained]

Jason Todd Meta: My opinion on the csa headcanon

Does Jason's behaviour suggest he was a victim of csa?

There is very little, in terms of clinical signs, that’s going to point to csa specifically, because most symptoms, for psychiatric disorders, aren’t specific to one disorder or cause. One thing that’s usually a good hint would be children making very sexual statements/references/jokes/behaviours that are very inappropriate in context (a good example of this would be Roman Roy from Succession); night terrors are bed wettings amongst children/teenagers over a certain age. But that is absolutely not necessary: many, if not most victims of csa don’t display these specific signs, and a twelve years old that suffers from night terrors is not necessarily a victim of csa. The one thing that tells you for sure, in a person with trauma, that they have been a victim of csa, is that they’re telling you they have been a victim of csa. I’m insisting on that part because there’s a whole bunch of therapists (cough cough psychanalysts) that will tell you confidently that your psychiatric symptoms stem from a childhood sexual trauma (cherry on top of the shit cake if it’s incestuous) that you didn’t know about because you’ve repressed it. I repeat, that’s bullshit. If you meet a clinician who tells you that, RUN. So, a warning: this is probably the least “psychological analysis” of my “Jason psychological analysis posts”, because Jason’s symptoms do not allow us to conclude formally for or against a history of sexual abuse. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do some meta, make sure we're on the same page with what's analyzed here, some textual analysis, discuss what the csa headcanon does and does not imply in terms of his behaviour. I think it’s a good idea to start with it so we know where we’re standing with our analysis, regardless of the fact it’s maybe not the most interesting in terms of psychopathology and neuropsychology.

A couple of disclaimers:

I only talk about the comics I want to talk about. This is for two reasons, which are that 1) I do what I want and if I don’t like/don’t find something interesting, I’m not gonna waste time on it; and 2) I’ve been reading comics for a couple of months only, and there are, like, a lot of them. If there are comics you wanna see analysed under that lense, feel free to suggest them! I might not want to, but it also could be that I haven’t read them yet. Additionally, I'm not interested in questioning the morality of Jason's actions here. Ethics are fun, and I like talking about them sometimes, and morality sometimes has a place in talks about demonization but largely speaking this isn't the space for that. I separate talk about morality and psychology stuff as much as I can for a reason, so if you are looking here for excuses for his behaviour or arguments as to why he is a bad person, you're in the wrong place. Moral judgement is irrelevant here for the most part.

On the events of Red Hood: Lost Days:

Jason has, at some point in the comics, been a victim of csa. When Talia kisses Jason before pushing him off a cliff right after he got out of the Lazarus Pit, and when she initiates sex with him in Lost Days, that’s not consent!! That’s a grown woman taking advantage of a traumatized teenager who is, on top of that, deeply indebted to her. That’s a predatory act, with a steep power imbalance, it’s sexual assault, and on top of that there’s an element of suggested pseudo-incest. That decision was retconned, and thank god, because it was a brutal assassination of Talia’s character based on a good bit of racism, and also because the way it was portrayed doesn’t make it clear that Jason is a victim in a situation rather than that super annoying trope of “teenage guy gets to bang a hot MILF and hahaha lucky him”, writing a male character in a situation of SA without acknowledging it as SA or taking it seriously is one of the tropes I hate most, it reinforces stigmatisation and isolates victims. For all of these reasons, I’m not gonna include that element in my analysis, but it’s important to note that if you do include those scenes in your conception of it, then Jason is undeniably a victim of csa and everything discussed about it applies to him.

What if it were a lie?

I’ve said it before (and I’ll say it again), I deeply, violently hate headcanons/tropes where a character lies about being a victim of csa (whether it’s for manipulation, personal gain, any reason really I don’t care). It’s rare as fuck in real life, however it’s a common trope that feeds into fear of being wrongfully accused that causes push-back and increases social stigmatization. CSA is a painful thing associated with intense feelings of shame and already a deep fear of not being believed. Imagine making a considerable effort to seek help after something terrible happened/is happening to you, and you have to brave your fear of not being believed on top of that, and once you’ve made all that effort you get rejected and villainized because it’s just easier for the person you’re reaching out to not to believe it. So I’m awfully weary of this type of headcanon, and I think a general rule of thumb is “if your interpretation of what the character is saying is that he’s talking about how he was abused, especially if he’s talking about sexual assault, then it happened.” If you don’t like that, if you don’t feel like that’s good representation, then you can question the story, think it should be retconned, or rethink your interpretation of what the character says if it’s ambiguous, but hcing that the character lied about his assault is not a hypothesis we’re going to accept here no matter what. So we can start by scratching that one out: Jason never lies about being a victim of csa, or wilfully hints at it even though that’s untrue, at any point.

Two other ideas I’ve seen floating around that I think are worth mentioning:

No, just because Jason lived in the streets as a kid doesn’t mean the only way he survived was through underage prostitution. I genuinely don’t understand that idea, yes being a street kid makes you extremely vulnerable, yes it makes the risk of resolving to underage prostitution to survive higher but it’s absolutely not a fatality. That idea is, quite frankly, weird. Do you automatically assume if a real life person tells you they were in the streets for some time at a kid that they are a victim of csa? Also, I've seen the idea go around that because some people have a strong reading/hc of Jason as bi (which I have no problem with I love bi Jason), that would be an argument in favour of the csa hc. Please don’t do that. There’s no link between queer sexual orientations and childhood sexual abuse, that’s a harmful myth that we should work to deconstruct or, at the very least, not continue to vehiculate.

Another important thing to keep in mind: childhood sexual abuse =/= childhood sexual trauma.

Now, a traumagenic situation is a situation that might induce trauma (so development of, acute stress disorder, ptsd, cptsd, derealization, any traumatic pathology really). These situations exist on a continuum of probability to be traumatized by this situation. For example, a flood, a car accident, witnessing a murder and being sexually assaulted are all traumagenic situations, but the probability of developing trauma from them are very different. It hinges on personal, situational, social, and environmental risk factors (that have nothing to do with being weak, anybody can develop trauma). A definition for traumagenic situations can be found in the diagnostic criteria for ptsd in the dsm-5:

A. “Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).

2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.

3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental.

4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.”

Note that the this last criteria has been added from the DSM-5 in order to explain cases of PTSD observed in at-risk jobs like cops exposed to repeated detailed child abuse, first responders collecting human remains, or, crucially, vigilantes repeatedly exposed to brutal crimes. This means that Jason, when he works on the Dumpster Slasher case, when he is horrified to find Gloria in the immediate aftermath of her rape (and later finds her dead body, because witnessing the consequences of these traumatic events is also an important component of that second-hand trauma), is being exposed to a very traumagenic situation. As I said before, that doesn’t necessarily mean you will experience trauma (thank fuck for that), but there are factors that influence that. SA related situations has an already pretty high probability of inducing trauma. On top of that, age is a big factor in that: the younger you are, the less resources, emotional regulation, development and coping mechanisms to face the traumagenic event you have (though there is such a thing as “too young to have PTSD" -when your memory is simply not developed enough for the memory to traumatize you because you will not remember the event.) At fifteen, with his memory fully developed but his brain going through so much changes because of teenagehood and his past history, Jason would be at risk. On top of that, you’re more at risk to get traumatized if you’re already stressed out when the event happens, so Jason’s mental state at this point in his robin run is also a risk factor. All to say, it’s very plausible for Jason to have sexual trauma without being a victim of sexual abuse in relation to canon events. Besides, in headcanon territory when it comes to Jason’s childhood before Robin, there are so many ways to be exposed to sexual violence : witnessing/finding his mother being a victim (considering the position of extreme vulnerability Catherine was in), witnessing assault in the streets, being the victim of attempted SA and escaping, watching street kids get picked up and later find their bodies/being told by other kids, as a cautionary tale, in excruciating detail, testimonies of their own assault… Or for example, if we’re thinking about Arkham Knight, being constantly threatened with SA, it being hinted and joked about and hanging over him like a sword of Damocles is something I could see Joker and other inmates do that could definitely induce sexual trauma even if it doesn’t happen ; what matters most, in trauma, is that the fear is real. Mechanically, when we’re looking at the way trauma works even on a biological level, the overwhelming fear is at the core of the pathology. (This is also why you can develop PTSD after a psychotic episode.) Like, my point isn’t that one of these things happened to Jason, or that he has to have sexual trauma from the events of the Diplomat’s Son or anything -mostly just that this is a possibility, something very serious that happens and an important nuance that I never see in discussions on the csa headcanon, and while it’s not exactly what the debate is about, I think it’s something important to ponder.

Do you consider the csa hc to be canon?

So, there are a lot of Jason stories, and I’m very pro “not take in account what is said in comics you dislike in your conception of canon” because if I did that absolutely no bat character would be readable, I have to believe that no character is defined by their worst writers. And boy, does Jason have a lot of bad writing… On top of the personal retcons, there are also the canon retcons: like Battle for The Cowl is retconned… Unless someone decides to reinject/revamp it into the narrative (please don’t please don’t it’s irrecuperable let it lay with the Flying Todds where it belongs). So, let’s see. There are three writers/arcs that imply/mention the csa hc: Starlin’s writing of Jason’s post-crisis Robin Run (canon though some stuff in it seems to have been retconned), Winick’s writing in Green Arrow: Seeing Red (canon as far as I know), and Battle for the Cowl (retconned). It’s worth noting that one of those are considered to be foundational works for Jason’s character (Jason’s post crisis Robin Run and Starlin’s part in it), and another was written by Winick, who wrote the other two foundational Jason stories: Under The Red Hood and Red Hood: Lost Days. On a personal level, I’m very mitigated about what I like and accept about it. I base my whole love and characterization of Jason about his post-crisis Robin Run, I love that little guy so much, Starlin’s take on Jason’s Robin Run is absolutely canon to me (which does not mean I like Starlin as a writer, thank you very much). On the other hand of the spectrum, the only reason Battle for the Cowl isn’t my least favourite comic ever is because The Killing Joke exists, absolutely not canon, get this thing away from me. And then in the middle, my feelings on Seeing Red (on the entirety of Winick’s Jason really) vary depending on the day, because I do like a revenge story that challenges the status quo with tropes of “bad victim” and it sets up Jason as a character based on love rather than morals which I adore, but there are also some elements of psychophobia in the writing that I (who approach stories through the filter of psychopathology first and foremost) can’t just look past, and also the way it intertwines with classist stereotypes. So do I consider Seeing Red to be canon? In good faith, yes, but whether I’ll accept it as such really depends on the day. In terms of the csa headcanon: it’s heavily hinted in BTFC but not outright said, it’s there as a undercurrent in Starlin’s run because of his intention (to make Jason die of AIDS). And then we have Seeing Red. Basically Jason lists elements about Mia’s life, including her past with underage prostitution (so, just to be very clear, csa), and says they’re very similar, having both lived on the streets, and understand having to do bad things when it’s necessary. This is not the same as saying “I was a victim of csa”, and what he’s saying could be interpreted differently (we know that he was stealing tires, and “only what he needs to survive”, so he could have been referencing small-time theft.) So, it could be a reference to something else, I totally understand why some people want to interpret differently. It just… Feels like such a weird and weak argument to be equating boosting tires to underage prostitution, to me it’s very ooc (in comparison to UTH Jason), and it would feel like weak writing from someone like Winick. Aka it’s not technically canon, and you don’t have to accept it as such(I understand the mentality of "I'm rejecting this interpretation because it feels like demonization of csa victims" perfectly), but personally I think it takes a lot from Jason’s character in Seeing Red and from this story in general.

[ikamigami]

I am not a groomer

This post is in response to the terrible accusations @Alexandraisyes has made against me. Any criticism or evidence you see, that can be used to support or agree to Alex, anyone can freely say below or send me an ask, I am willing to answer and refute anything provided.

These are the three main points I want to discuss and cover in my post:

1. Evidence against Alex's accusations that I am a groomer.

2. Explaining why I am still friends with Mothy, the one everyone is calling a child groomer.

3. An announcement that I will do everything I can to take this matter to court if I am not given a satisfactory explanation and apology. The bottom line is that I demand removal of my name and any mentions of me in the doc made by Alex. Pedophilia is the worst and most terrible crime one can commit to another human being. I’ve been carelessly and thoughtlessly accused of this crime with no proof. Someone actually has the audacity to accuse me of harming another in such a disgusting way despite me being, very close, friends with people who have been sexually abused.

Here's a link to the document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1geLNDVU5YU3PZtpbG5ZfYLHoTkMTx0ab_sh3Lqgh0P4/edit?usp=drivesdk

I got permission from Mothy to post information about them and screenshots from them. I also got permission from the other friend mentioned here but I'm not sharing their name by their request. Rest of the informations and screenshots are public.

[xx-slug-xx]

//tw- mentions of pedophilia, csem, csa, and lolicon

Guys, please please please don’t use the term CSEM to refer to fictional pornographic drawings that involve fictional characters who are depicted as minors

I can’t believe I have to say this, but I’ve seen too many people, just in the past 24 hours, use the term to describe porn that someone drew

Holy shit, lolicon and the like is not CSEM, CSAM, or CP just because a hypothetical and fictional minor is involved in the art. Those terms are specifically used when talking about real sexual abuse cases involving real-world minors.

Fiction cannot be CSEM because it doesn’t involve the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of a real minor! The creation of these pieces of media do not involve the direct harm of a real minor!

Just say “lolicon” or “fictional porn involving fictional minors”. Just use something, ANYTHING, that isn’t used to specifically identify real life abuse materials! Please just don’t use a term that has this much seriousness attached to it as a means of labeling fictional content that you don’t like, even if it triggers you!

You being uncomfortable doesn’t justify the misuse of a term that is used to directly describe abuse, and it makes real victims of CSEM feel like shit when you label some random anime girl as a “victim” right next to them. Because, get this, when you label something fictional as CSEM, CSAM, or CP, you are inherently insinuating that there is a victim involved in the creation of this media, which is inherently untrue with fiction. STOP DOING THIS!!!