filthyriddle

[filthyriddle]

An issue with banning 'X taboo' in fiction

Warning: Brief Mentions of topics such as Rape, Incest, Paedophilia, in the context of them being used in fictional narratives

I often see, Antis complain about AO3 tags or just the topic/s in general when it comes to fanfiction, though this also gets applied to original fiction too.

Antis will call for topics such as Rape, Incest and Paedophilia to be banned, even made entirely illegal, to be made in fictional media. They often fall on the guise of that it's "gross", "fetisishing" and "encouraging" these immoral acts.

Yet none of them realise what banning this would actually entail and why it would be a major issue if it was banned, ESPECIALLY for victims of these abuses.

This is a long one.

Antis explain that the only instances that 'should' be allowed, are narratives that don't 'fetishise/sexualise' the act, don't show the abuser in a positive light and the narrative, plus author, condemns the action. Yet Antis can never agree on what counts as what, because it is so subjective and they constantly move goal posts. The only ones they would agree one somewhat, are very clear cut and simple narratives.

You know the ones, "evil guy clearly evil and does bad things, gets punished by good guy, victim is small and weak, gets help from good guys" That whole concept, anything more complex than this? Well, you're accused by antis for whatever bullshit they can think of. Doesn't matter if you write your own experiences within this narrative, if it doesn't match their simplistic view of abuser and victim, you're now deemed an 'icky proship freak'

Anyway, the one thing Antis fail to realise, that it is impossible to follow these 'rules' in regards to banning something in a fictional narrative.

Now, I'll approach this with like, laws in mind, but this concept can be applied to websites such as AO3. Just on a smaller scale.

Let's say that, since Antis are the 'normal' ones, the law agrees to ban Taboo acts in fiction, unless they follow a set of rules.

Who sets these rules?

well, it won't be the general public that's for sure, it'll be people in power. We don't know if any of them will be victims of these abuses either, or seek out advice from victims. considering current government opinions in what 'should' be progressive countries, queerness in kid's fiction is paedophilic grooming.

How do we define 'Sexualising', 'Fetishising', 'Normalising'?

These are subjective words, everyone has a different perception on what counts as what. Some may argue that even just describing the act in a non-explicit way is sexualising. Others may say that if the Victim tries to downplay the act and justify the abuse, something that is common with victims, it is normalising the act. This also ties in the previous one, these same people will define these terms. Authors also write differently, which, can be misinterpreted and in general, interpreted in many ways. This is why Literature classes exist and why we are taught to analyse fiction in school. It's basic media analysis.

How do we monitor fiction mentioning these topics?

Now that we have the rules laid out, how will these be monitored? Will there be a team to read through every single piece of literature with a checklist to determine if the fiction is okay or not? That'll take a LOT of time and that team will have their own biases, so surely an AI will be developed to do this automatically yes? That's quite expensive and you'll need to ensure that the AI doesn't flag fiction that would actually be okay to be published. Every author writes differently remember, so how would the AI be told to consider different writing styles?

Society's opinions change overtime, how will this come into play?

This is on a large scale, but we all know that society's opinions evolve overtime regarding topics, this evolution can be really progressive or very regressive. How much will this affect this ban? Someone may join this fiction monitoring team and express how a 20 yrold dating a 25 yrold is paedophilia, how childhood friends that grew up together is essentially incest. Will the rules be altered to consider this?

There's probably more aspects to consider about how this law would be considered and played out to how the antis wish it to be. But here's the reality.

It won't ever work like that.

Look at previous bans of topics, fuck, Queerness in fiction is a very basic example that is still being argued to this day.

Do you know how this would play out? there won't be a checklist, there won't be a monitoring team to ensure that the narrative is okay, there won't be an AI to do it. Why? Because it's impossible.

Instead, there will be a total ban. You wouldn't be able to mention it explicitly and good luck finding ways to give an implication that can be easily picked up and not misinterpreted in any way.

"But surely this is a good thing? No one will write icky freak shit"

Yeah no, this ban doesn't just remove narratives that may portray the act in explicit detail, which you consider to be 'sexualisation'. This ban would remove ANY and ALL mentions of these acts.

Do you know who that includes?

Victims.

Say goodbye to any character who could be representation of victims of these abuses. Say goodbye to narratives that tell the author's story of their own experiences with these abuses. All of that will be banned because it would require mentioning the taboo topic, which is banned in this scenario.

Thank you Antis, thank you for caring about us so much that you call for a ban which will essentially remove all representation of our experiences and media we would find comfort in because we can relate to the victim in that narrative.

Oh an by the way, there are published books made for children who are victims of SA, these books help these kids learn that they're not alone, help them understand what happened to them and that what happened to them wasn't okay. Yeah well, the ban will remove that too.

But wait! There's more!

It likely won't just stop there, ohhh no, this ban could very much inspire people to make a similar ban for other forms of violence. The gaming industry already deals with these moral panics on the daily, especially when a violent game gets popular or a mass shooter is discovered to have liked playing these games.

There's likely more I could add here but I've already said a lot, I've studied media for years now and I advocate for media literacy, critical consumption and media analysis a LOT.

Those who call for this ban just show to me how much they lack media literacy and how these things would actually work in the real world.

It's okay to not like certain ways an author may portray a certain abuse, but don't call for a ban for it simply because it doesn't match your standards.

Complex narratives are allowed to exist, just because the narrative isn't holding your hand, doesn't mean it 'glorifies' (or whatever buzzword) the act, like you think it does.

So the next time you think about wanting AO3 to ban a certain tag, which, btw, the tag is there for it to be excluded in filtered searches so you can easily avoid it. Take a second to think about how this ban would play out and be realistic about it.

I've seen multiple antis 'explain' what these buzzwords mean and each time I see it? Not only does it contradict the others I see, but it calls for authors to essentially tell the public about their private life (bcos if ur an author who isn't publicly a victim of abuse and write about abuse, that's fetisisihing), AND it restricts narratives to bare bone basics, to something that would be repetitive, unchallenging for more mature readers and just, not representative of different spectrums of victims that exist.

I can certainly say for myself that If I wrote my experiences of abuse in fiction, Antis would deem it 'buzzword, icky proship content'

TLDR: If there was a form of Ban of taboo topics in fiction, it will involve banning any mention of the taboo act, outright, as it's impossible to follow very subjective rules that antis propose. This outright ban removes representation of victims in media.

If the ban even DID follow the subjective rules, complex narratives will be banned which removes representation of victims whose experiences are more complex.

This ban can be weaponised to attack Minority representation in fiction, for example, Bigots see queerness in children's media as paedophilic grooming. This ban can also move onto other forms of violence and immoral acts.

Basically, it's nonsensical and would do more harm than good.

You're burning a whole forest down, because you set fire to an individual tree for not meeting your standards.

[filthyriddle]

Tom: I want to gain immortality

Harry: k.

Also Harry internally: for whaaaat? you’re 15, dude

[filthyriddle]

'Innocent 'Adult Antis || Short Think piece

Warning: Fandom Discourse Post

One of the big takeaways that I have gotten from witnessing and interacting with fandom discourse online, is when adults, particularly artists, make a claim that they have no idea what an anti is, that they just 'don't like illegal ships'. Yet, they know FULL WELL, what a proshipper is (or at least their perception of a proshipper) and whine about 'proshits' in an extremely childish way

I've seen this happen multiple times, it's often after a recent fandom discourse that got a lot of attention. An adult who has a decently sized following, will make a post vaguely referencing fandom discourse and saying how they don't know what an anti is. Feigning ignorance towards 'shipcourse' in general, but when you see their previous posts, they've complained about proshippers following them.

But to top it off? They add a full innocence aspect to it and their posts about proshippers, sound like they've been written by a young teen.

To summarise the feelings I feel from this is:

"what's an anti? uwu, I just don't like illegal ships"

*a few posts before that*

"ewww!! A proshitter interacted with me!! gross gross gross!"

Most of the time I see a post like this, I check their profile to block them and I see an indication that they're an adult and it disturbs me so much.

If you know what a proshipper is, there's a high chance you know what an anti is, ESPECIALLY if you heavily dislike proshippers interacting with your account, you've probably been called an anti. You have access to the internet, to fandoms. It's not difficult to search what an anti is in regards to fandom discourse.

To be an adult, who doesn't have a clear indication of whether you're an adult or minor and to talk about 'icky proshits' in such a way, is genuinely unnerving.

It gives me the vibes of "don't worry! i'm a safe adult! I dislike those icky proships!" which... is not a good vibe to get

Don't like fandom discourse? cool, don't directly seek it out or get yourself involved.

Don't know what an anti is? cool, either search it yourself or ask a friend, no need to spend time making a 'cutesy' art piece or type up a post that specifically adds an element of innocence.

Don't like proshippers? cool, block and move on.

Don't want proshippers to interact with you? cool, make that visible on your bios. Carrds can be useful, but many people will not click on a link just to see if they can interact with one of your posts.

Overall, this innocence light that some adult antis try to paint on themselves is just so, unnerving.

Making a post to declare your innocence is just so pointless too, especially when it's clear you know what the 'other side' is. It's obvious you just want clout.

[filthyriddle]

Past Experiences With Antis

Warning: Fandom Discourse Post, Discussing Abuse

Copied over from Twitter

Between 2016 and 2018, I used to be in an anti circle, whilst I actively didn't set out to harass people and kept myself out of direct involvement, the 'friends' I had at the time always found a way to drag me into things. This post will detail my experiences with Antis, Anti spaces and how I got out.

I have always used art therapy as a way to explore my trauma and take control of the situation. My therapist first started with advising me to write things down to get it out, then it moved onto messy scribbling. Before finally settling onto reading + creating transgressive art.

When interacting with this art, I have full control, I can 'leave' at any moment if I notice myself getting triggered and with my therapist, I found a great balance to figure out the difference between consuming to heal and consuming to self-harm. This is something I've done for years, not once did I encounter someone who had an issue with it IRL.

When I started to engage in online social circles especially for fandoms, it was around 2014, Back then it wasn't as often, mostly fanfiction/fanart and the occasional comment. It was 2015/6 when I started actively engaging and wanting to find a group of online friends.

Of course I stuck to finding friends in fandoms since It was much easier to discuss the source of the fandom with others and find friends from there, I eventually joined a GC and things were great.

Until it came to Fan created work.

In the GC, let's call them Jan, Jan would send over 'problematic' art into the chat, commenting on how disgusting it is, how the creator should be arrested, how everyone interacting positively are all 'sickos'. Jan was the most extreme one, they'd harass, bully and threaten any artist who created a piece of work who didn't follow Jan's black & white morals. Jan went on tangents in the GC about how fiction MUST be shown in XYZ way, how reading a fic with X topic and not being disgusted by it meant that you condoned said work.

I mostly ignored them at first, until others started to vocally join in and I was confronted about my thoughts on a certain piece of work, that everyone else knew, contained the topic of my abuse.

I was honest, telling them that I wasn't super fussed, I decided to open up on my methods of art therapy, hoping to give them some insight on why someone may create and consume this type of art.

They didn't like that one bit, for WEEKS since I opened up, they went on and on about how I had to stop, how through this art therapy, I was retraumatising myself, self-harming and condoning what was being reflected. Telling me how "worried" they were because they didn't want me to end up "destroying" my morals with such "icky" art.

It wasn't long until I gave in and believed what they were telling me, I still refused to be involved in their little harassment campaigns but they often used me as their token victim. Pulling me into a conversation directly so I could be a "listen to victims!" gotcha, this took a toll on my healing. Without my art therapy, I had no controlled or safe outlet for emotions, memories, triggers, etc. I started to spiral, finding myself deliberately searching 'proship' content to send to the GC. I didn't realise at the time that this was my brain trying to get me to use art therapy once again.

Then I couldn't take it any more, I was starting to feel urges to physically self-harm again, my deliberate searching for discourse to read was a more emotional and mental s/h. So I asked the GC to stop pulling me into discourse, to stop using my abuse stories for their personal gain.

Jan and a few other vocal 'antis' DESPISED that, for hours I was being bombarded by their disgusting words. They accused me of lying about my abuse, that I deserved it if it was true. They accused me of engaging in transgressive art therapy to prey on children, to manipulate others into thinking that was was being reflected in the artwork is okay. I felt so sick.

So I left, I left the GC, blocked them all, deleted my socials at that time and worked on getting a fresh start. Deep down, I knew they manipulated me, that I didn't truly believe a word they spewed regarding art.

I got back into my typical methods of coping, transgressive art therapy and worked on healing the damage they had done to me.

Things got much better after that, I finally had control again, I went to using a method of blocking anyone I come across who is an anti or shared a similar mentality, to avoid interactions as much as humanly possible.

Yes I make these tangent posts, but I can do that. My main goal is to cut off any possible direct interaction.

Funnily enough, a few months after this, one of them got in contact with me through what is actually their main account. I'll call them Feb. Feb was always quiet in the GC, not adding too much apart from the small comment and I got along well with Feb.

Feb came to me and told me how Jan and the others did the same thing to them long before I joined the GC, after I left rather vocally in the GC, Feb told me it inspired them to do the same.

Turns out, two other of the vocal antis, we will call them Mar and May. Actively interacted with that the GC called 'proship content'. Mar consumed it as a stress reliever but was in denial about it being the same thing me and Feb did, Mar insisted that. I don't know too much about Mar, but I believe Jan manipulated them too.

Jan was the main harasser afterall.

May instigated discourse as often as Jan, turns out that they purposely looked for 'proship' content to share to Jan, purposely angering themselves and directly arguing with artists. To me, this is a form of s/h.

Overall, that time period was one of the most toxic times in my life, it felt like I was constantly on eggshells, I'm so glad I got out when I could. There was more that Jan did, but I won't go into those details because they're private and directly involved details of my abuse. Which I don't really want to go into too much detail on my socmed.

But yeah this is a somewhat summary, it always scares me to learn from 'ex-antis' how they went through a similar path of manipulation as I did.

It's okay to be disturbed by certain fiction, it's okay to not like it. What's not okay is to get on this moral high ground about it. I've been interacting with this artwork for years. My morals haven't been altered by this fiction, because I already know my morals and stand by them.