#cw csam discussion

[iamnmbr3]

isn't pdf to ship minor characters(like trio) with adults like voldemort or professors?i mean ok ship dark enemies but not pdf. You agree with this?

Lmao what? "pdfs"?! Really? This isn't TikTok where we bow the censorship of corporations or the authoritarian CCP. If you want to talk about an issue talk about it properly. Say pedophilia. Say rape. This is a serious issue and it should be treated with gravity. You owe that much to the victims of CSA and those at risk of CSA.

Now, first of all, no it is not pedophilia to write about underage relationships in mainstream literature (otherwise George RR Martin would be in jail) or in fic or to portray it in movies or tv shows as long as the actors in real life are of age (otherwise HBO would be in jail since Dany is played by an adult actress but is supposed to be 14). Fictional characters are not real people and do not need to be protected. You know who DOES need to be protected and who gets harmed by this kind of ridiculous fandom discourse? REAL CHILDREN WHO ARE VICTIMS OF CSA.

Pedophilia is illegal not because it's fictional content that isn't to everyone's taste but because it is real. The term pedophilia refers to the RAPE of real children. CSAM refers to materials - like movies/photos/etc. made depicting REAL CHILDREN BEING ASSAULT. Not in fiction. In real life. Don't you dare equate someone's dumb fanfic about a fictional ship you don't like to that.

Those are the people who need your help. The real,live children who are being hurt and victimized every day by predators. And those are exactly the people who fandom antis put at risk. For example, a few years ago antis started mass reporting AO3 to an FBI reporting hotline meant for reporting CSA/CSAM because they didn't like the fics on there.

Now, of course AO3 didn't get in trouble because fictional stories about underage characters aren't illegal. But you know what did happen? The hotline got clogged up with these fake reports that had to be investigated which caused delays that put actual children being victimized at risk. Think about that. Children who who were being abused and raped had to wait longer to get help, because of antis clogging up the help line meant to protect them.

So no. People can ship whatever fictional content they want. That's not pedophilia. Pedophilia is real adults abusing real children. Don't you ever disrespect the victims by comparing that to some stupid fandom drama.

[salora-rainriver]

the lily orchard thing is weird because the primary callout for her that i've seen comes from a youtube channel with absolutely no sense of proportion, putting "wrote a shock fic years ago" and "featured as a character in feral furry porn" right next to "actually groomed minors" as though these are all equally bad and worthy of scorn. it makes me realize that even when we're right that someone is a bad person, we can still fall into transphobic ways of framing it

Okay full disclosure: i don’t know what youtube vid you’re talking about. I did watch A Videos on Orchard.

So first off I get the point about proportionality, theres absolutely a difference between writing stockholm and that whole stint where she encouraged a teen and an adult to “breed”, and I do agree that any callout should make the difference in severity clear,

But im not sure that, in this case, someone failing to make that distinction clear is A Transphobia. And that’s because… I’m not convinced Stockholm was intended to be a shock fic. I can definitely see where one may draw such a conclusion, I just personally feel otherwise, I feel like Stockholm is itself morally wrong. I feel the same way about it that I feel about “lolicon” art, and asking me to not mark the fic as a slight against Orchard feels odd to me, because I would be uncomfortable with Butch Hartman writing material like that. I would want to know that he wrote this, feels no remorse for writing it, intends to make media for children while having written that.

People draw their personal lines in the sand in different places, particularly when it comes to fictional depictions of That Shit. Someone’s Lolita (a harsh and uncomfortable work thats clearly not glorifying the act once you sit down and engage with it fairly) is going to be another’s [idk insert literal fucking CP here], and the wide diversity of art makes it nigh-impossible to be able to draw a line between Acceptable and Unacceptable.

And for what it’s worth, the above ^^^ is why Im frustrated with the binary framing of the pro-ship and anti-ship discourse. It just doesn’t work, even the most ardently pro-ship person is going to draw their line somewhere, and even the most ardently anti-ship is going to look at someone else’s judgement and go “but theres nothing wrong with this”. And ultimately, the two camps of pro and anti… don’t actually exist. Ask me honestly which camp I fall in and I genuinely wouldn’t be able to tell you, and if you interrogate your personal moral values and feelings about various dubious media honestly, you’ll realize that you can’t, either.

Sorry. This is a ramble. I’ll summarize:

- I think it’s important to know that Orchard wrote Stockholm, and to allow people to judge her for writing that, because many believe that works like these are morally wrong, period end of, and it’s not transmisogyny for one to judge this fic the same way they judge similar works from cishet writers.

- despite having that opinion, I do agree that the real grooming is much worse than the fic, and agree that making this distinction clear is important.

- I also think its dangerous to discuss the morality of fictional media from an all-or nothing binary framing, because the truth is we do not genuinely hold such extreme positions in real life, we all have a limit somewhere on the spectrum in either direction, which is my main frustration with pro-ship and anti-ship discourse, because you can never fully belong to either camp. Your position on the issue will be a mix of both. Pro some ships, anti other ships.

I hope thats clear? Thanks for the thoughtful ask. Also, mandatory “pls be gentle I’m the birthday girl”

[aeide-thea]

[cw for discussion of abortion, fictional depictions of underage sex, and CSAM]

people are inevitably going to use whatever language about a topic reflects their own framing and priorities, and i don’t necessarily see that as being inherently disingenuous. like, people who support abortion access typically self-describe as ‘pro-choice,’ not pro-abortion, and that’s not because they aren’t, in many cases, pro abortions for those who need or want them, but because they fundamentally frame the issue in terms of bodily autonomy, and prioritize pregnant persons’ right to self-determination. people who don’t support abortion access, on the other hand, typically self-describe as ‘pro-life,’ despite the body count historically and currently associated with abortion bans, because they frame the issue in terms of babies’ lives and prioritize their preservation, no matter the overall human cost.

i’m personally strongly pro-choice, and while i’d frankly be fully willing to self-describe as pro-abortion, it’s not the first language i’d use: because the fundamental goal as i see it isn’t necessarily to increase the number of abortions performed, it’s to increase people’s ability to determine the course of their own lives, and to parent as and when they choose, rather than by default or coercion. i could, and have, gotten mad about the anti-abortion camp’s refusal to admit it’s anti-choice, but frankly, i think plenty of them would admit they were anti-choice if pressed—they’d say, yeah, sorry, i do think an innocent life is more important—and i don’t ultimately see that fight as being all that useful, really, because i don’t think the language either side uses conceals the fundamental conflict for any meaningful length of time.

similarly, i don’t think it’s fair to say ‘why won’t the anti-AO3-censorship camp just admit they’re pro-CP’—it’s because fundamentally, the organizing principle of the anti-censorship position is, wait for it, anti-censorship. you don’t have to love fiction that depicts underage characters in sexual situations to be concerned about the implications of saying you can’t produce/host/consume fiction that fits that description. (also, ‘fiction that depicts underage characters in sexual situations’ is not the same as CSAM; to elide that distinction is to ignore the extremely relevant question of ‘were real, non-fictional children abused to produce this material,’ and to activate hearers’ disgust in an attempt to forestall a more considered response.) taking a hardline anti-censorship position unavoidably entails defending even commonly-reviled vectors of, again, fictional exploration, but i don’t think it’s therefore disingenuous of the anti-censorship camp not to self-identify as ‘pro-grossness’: on the contrary, it’s a clear, forthright declaration of what they (we) see as the central issue.