rcritical - Tumblr blog

[rcritical]

We have another follow-up statement to clear up any further misunderstanding that we failed to ascertain in our previous one. Think of it as a continuation.

It has been brought to our attention that we may have inadvertently invalidated and cast doubt onto another survivor with the reblog we referred to previously. That was not, and never will be, our intent with this blog. But we still apologize for doing so, even if it was a misunderstanding.

To clarify, in said reblog, the “lie” part was specifically meant for the accusations and assumptions regarding the writers of the original post mentioned in said reblog. A reblog which in fact we did not delete, as we have been accused of, but instead the account it was posted on was blocked as a trigger response by our own survivors. Since the person behind this account is a survivor too, we really expected empathy from survivor to survivor instead of getting shamed for speaking up about what made us uncomfortable about Ursa and her fictional characters, instead of being told it was our interpretation, to move on and ignore the problematic aspects. The contents of that account were too triggering for some survivors and we believe it was full of victim-shaming, invalidating survivors experiences and gaslighting survivors.

This was not perceived that way just by the members of our team but also by other survivors who aren't part of our team and whom we have talked to and have told us they have that triggering account blocked too. Some even think the contents of that account are super concerning especially because of how aggressive they came across. You cannot actually blame survivors for not wanting to be reminded of their trauma or for not wanting to be shamed or for getting triggered by someone telling them it was their interpretation and they should move on instead of speaking up about what makes us uncomfortable. We understand that everyone deals with their own experiences and trauma differently.

We want to make clear that when we made our original post, we were doing this to speak up about the problematic aspects across Ursa’s work, driven by our own collective experiences and trauma as survivors. We did not report the author, we did not write this to prove anything to anyone, we did not write this to incite discourse or any of the accusations that have been thrown at us, be it directly or by vagueposting.

So, again, the things we want to clarify are:

We did not invalidate any survivors, the "lie" part was about that account lying about the writers of the original post, we do admit the message could have been clearer not to leave room to misinterpretation.

The "gr**mer creep" comment at the end of our reblog was not written by any of the writers of our first post. It was addressed to the account who was specifically defending Ursa and Niall’s actions and telling us survivors that we should move on instead of speaking up about what makes us uncomfortable about Niall and other Ursa’s characters. It was not addressed towards Niall stans, we have nothing against those who acknowledge his flaws and who don't get angry at survivors speaking up about what makes us uncomfortable about him, as well as don't try to shut down or demonize survivors speaking up about him and Ursa. Said comment was the result of a trauma response by one of our survivors, since they have been victim blamed and gaslighted in the past by other people telling them it was their interpretation too. We did not want to invalidate their rightful anger, but we do think it would have been better if they had posted it on their personal account instead of rcritical, especially since they weren't one of the writers of our first post.

As for that account who keeps spreading insensitive remarks about survivors, @pettysadcritical, here's what we have to say:

"How quickly their argument fell"? Not really, that was not an argument, that was a disclaimer and our arguments are still standing. And even if the disclaimer was contradicted, it still doesn't invalidate anything because the person who wrote that comment is not one of the writers of the post. That comment was only addressed to an account that is actively harming and invalidating survivor's experiences, not to the stans of that character in general.

"This isn't about survivors" Are they trying to invalidate us as survivors? It is not a personal vendetta to call out an author that has had triggering patterns across all her work. If that was the case, we would have taken action towards Ursa. There’s a big difference between having an open discussion about works of fiction and going after/harrassing a writer.

And yet again they keep repeating Ursa’s words about telling us "it's our interpretation", which we have debunked in our original post already (as it's victim blaming and gaslighting). "You don't get to disregard that because it helps you feel better"? Do they really think we feel better by getting triggered by these characters and problematic topics? To imply that us being triggered equals us feeling better is very insensitive.

For the last time, we aren't attacking anyone on DMs, we aren't harassing anyone and we haven't sent any anon hate, we have made clear many times that we disapprove of those actions.

We are not fake wokes (calling us fake wokes is invalidating us too), we do care about survivors, as we are survivors ourselves. But by trying to invalidate our original post so intently, it is clear who is the one who doesn't care about survivors here.

"It is insensitive for survivors who ACTUALLY experience trauma" Who "actually"? Are they trying to imply we are not survivors and that we don't experience trauma? First off, trauma is not a competition and they are no one to say who is a survivor and who isn't. As for our post being invalid, they should tell that to the many survivors who actually felt validated by our post. Or are they going to dismiss their experiences too?

Having said that, we hope that people start focusing on the points we made originally about Niall and Ursa instead of the trauma response of one of our survivors caused by a very triggering post. A very triggering post that has not been addressed by most of the people who are angry at us, despite the highly problematic contents, being full of survivor shaming, gaslighting and victim blaming towards survivors who don't agree with them, in the words of the survivors among us who blocked this account.

People have also told us they are afraid of speaking up about this because they fear exactly what's happening to us, of people getting so angry at them because of a fictional character they like, while completely ignoring or dismissing the valid points our original writers made. So for the SA, gr**ming and r@pe survivors who feel uncomfortable with Ursa's problematic themes and characters, we want you to know that you’re not alone and that you're free to speak up about it.

We, as survivors, don’t wanna see the points we made in your original post invalidated and people no longer focusing on our arguments and demonizing us survivors instead, because that happens way too often with survivors when we speak out. So don't be a part of it, don't be a part of the people who shut down survivors.

[rcritical]

In light of recent discourse in the fandom, we would like to issue this follow-up statement.

The purpose of our post wasn't to target anyone but to raise awareness about Ursa and her problematic patterns. If there has been anon hate, we really have nothing to do with it and we condemn of sending any anon hate.

In this blog, there are many people, not all of them contributed to the post but they are here because they are survivors and we know them too, one of them felt invalidated by yet someone else repeating Ursa’s argument and telling them it was their interpretation and that they should move on, plus attacking them for things they had nothing to do with and got heated about it. We do think it could have been worded better but we also understand the frustration of this survivor by yet again being faced with someone telling them it's their interpretation and that if they don't like they should move on (very insensitive to tell survivors to move on instead of speaking up about what makes us uncomfortable by the way).

Telling someone who has been a victim of this that "it's their interpretation and that's it" or that they should "move on if they are uncomfortable by something" are harmful and insensitive statements that can also cause us, survivors, to doubt ourselves, to be ashamed of what happened to us and to feel invalidated. We also want to let everyone know that this is not a personal vendetta against anyone, we repeat: in our original post only Ursa and her characters were mentioned. It was never with the intention to make anyone mad, and it didn't have to, we think our original post was polite and respectful enough not to make anyone feel mad by it but yet, it received attacks for things the writers of the post have nothing to do with and telling us it's our interpretation and to move on even if we feel uncomfortable.

And as we said, even if some people got angry by our original post, we are glad to have posted it because it helped other survivors feel validated and that's what is important, in that sense it fulfilled its purpose.

[rcritical]

just adding something for you:

''the statements accusing the people behind this post don't apply to the ones who wrote most of the post. Keep in mind this post was written by a lot of people so it's unfair to try to invalidate this post because of just a few. For the people who apply, they mostly helped with the editing of the post, but the post was written by people to whom those statements don't apply. This is not any beef with anyone here because the people who wrote the post don't actually know any of you, we only want to share our feelings about this as survivors and regardless of whether people who stan that character get mad because of this post, we're happy to have posted it because it helped validate many other survivors besides us (as some have stated to us)''

"FYI I did not write the post, didn't even contribute; I think it's too polite for the likes who fetishize such heavy subjects and I don't mind being aggressive to horrible people who belittle and talk over real-life grooming and sexual abuse survivors and make trauma a competition. Don't talk shit about these writers, you don't know them 1, don't be weird 2, no need to get personal and lie (about the writers) just bc you feel guilty about simping for a groomer creep" <- this is only addressed to the account who is defending Ursa and Niall’s actions and telling us survivors that it's our interpretation and to move on and the "lie" part is not with the intention of casting doubt or denying them as a survivor but about them getting personal and lying about the writers of this post.

We do admit it could have been worded it in a better and clearer way, so we are sorry for this whole misunderstanding. We hope our message is clear now.

A Statement on Ursa

⚠️This post was written collectively by gг**ming and г@pe survivors and is purely for the purpose of raising awareness. It will contain discussion of topics such as gг**ming, inc*st and s@xuаl аss@ult.

We’d like to start off this post by stating that this is not meant to shame or police those who are romancing Niall. We are simply holding Ursa for these statements she made and the problematic elements in her stories and, while one may argue that every RC story has its own problematic issues, none of them have had the author quite literally victim blame survivors of gг**ming and г@pe. This is a very serious issue that should not be taken lightly and it doesn't mean that we are minimizing or overlooking problematic issues of other stories. The reason we are doing this is because there’s already a pattern with this author and it has happened within all her 3 stories. The order of events are as follows:

Release of Q30 S3 (2019)

Revelation of Q30's plans for a г@pe scene (2019)

CY’s release, Alexander's г@pe/s*xuаl аss@ult scene (2020)

Forced apology for Q30's г@pe plans (2021)

Tiamat, gг**ming and victim blaming (2022)

Queen in 30 Days - Ahar

To begin, we would like to bring attention to these statements by Ursa regarding the development of the book Queen in 30 Days, where she spoke of a scenario where MC was supposed to be г@ped in Ahar, a fictional kingdom inspired by the Middle East. We also want to point out that a Middle Eastern person, who read Q30 S3, brought to our attention the misportrayal and prejudiced view of their culture by Ursa, which borders on racist connotations, making this plotline even more insidious in tone than it already was. This is to be elaborated in a separate post.

The following are screenshots of Ursa’s statements (in Russian, and English translation):

GG: MC, LL: Love line

As Ursa stated, this was a scrapped idea that, after provided with screenshots from fans, she apologized for and even condemned herself for conceiving it. But it must be pointed out that at the beginning she tried to make it seem like she knew nothing about it and only apologized after fans posted screenshots of her saying those things. Either way, this is the beginning of a pattern for Ursa and her choices when it comes to incorporating ab*sive dynamics in sexual encounters or relationships with the love interests. Case in point, Alexander from Chasing You.

Chasing You - Alexander

When the г@pe scene with Alexander in Chasing You S1E4 first came out, many people had a very negative reaction and she ended up altering it. But she didn’t apologize for it and she even dismissed it as a joke when someone told her some people can get triggered by it, which was very insensitive and dismissive of her. And this response of devaluing survivors’ triggering experiences is one she has repeated in the past, as seen by this interaction with another player below, where she even refers as a “joke” to a comment made by Alexander where he declares he will г@pe MC, if it can be called “joke” because г@pe is not a topic to joke about:

This is the “joke” she’s talking about and Alexander’s unaltered dialogue. For context, it was during the scene when Alexander ties the MC up against her will and she was screaming and asking him to let her go:

This is later explained by Alexander having an interest in BDSМ. However, the way that BDSМ was depicted here is not accurate to the real life practice, where they require consent from all participants. This is not the case here, as Agatha/the MC never gave her consent to being tied up, and in fact continues to protest it until Sam shows up. So due to the lack of consent, what he did here may be classified as s*xuаl аss@ult.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Ursa inserts very sensitive content in her stories, people point out how triggering they are and she tries to downplay them, even after apologizing and altering said content. Now, two years after that infamous scene she's trying to shift the blame on people calling her out for the problematic elements in her stories. So who wrote those scenes then? Is she backtracking now because she is not being faced with “backlash”? Let’s take into account that many people who called her out are actually survivors so her telling them “hehe it was a joke” or “that’s the way you read it” is like throwing a bucket of cold water over them. It comes off as if she’s invalidating or dismissing their experiences and feelings when she’s the one who is not even doing the bare minimum of putting a trigger warning. To Ursa, these aspects are someone else’s problem, not hers as a writer.

Flower from Tiamat’s Fire - Ursa’s Statement on Niall

From Chasing You, we move now to Tiamat and the statements that essentially lead to the writing of this post.

Are we the only ones who feel uncomfortable by these statements? Does no one realize how problematic they are? This statement is essentially telling r@pe and gr**ming survivors that it's their fault for getting triggered or uncomfortable by those scenes because it was only their interpretation. This is what is defined as victim blaming, a tactic that devalues victims of a crime or accident by holding them responsible for the acts committed against them. The fact that Ursa is using a literary criticism concept and victim blaming to defend herself from these issues is very alarming. The pattern continues.

While this whole controversy with Niall can be argued to be somewhat ambiguous, you can't deny that by the information provided by Ursa regarding their background, this is bordering on gr**ming. Now, how can we make that accusation? First, let's define what "grooming" means.

________

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years.

The relationship a groomer builds can take different forms. It can be:

-a romantic relationship

-as a mentor

-as an authority figure

-a dominant and persistent figure.

Source: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/

___________

Niall met Nikkal when she was 16, making her a minor. While we may not have direct evidence of him raising her, he still took her in as her guardian and provided for her as a figure of authority and guidance…and now we are just meant to accept that he has not only romantic but also sexual feelings for her? Can you imagine dating someone you met as a minor? Someone whom you presumably have accompanied the growth from a teenager to an adult? Someone whom you have positioned yourself as someone to look up to, trust and even others perceive as family? This is a relationship that we, some of us actual survivors and those who are familiar with survivors, have deemed as reminiscent of gr**ming. And while this a separate issue on its own and Ursa has the audacity to tell us that it is just our own “interpretation of him as a gr**mer”, there is no way to deny that she was the one who chose to portray the relationship between Niall and Nikkal as such. She chose to make Nikkal a minor when she was taken in by Niall. She was the one who chose to set up the dynamics of their relationship as that of an inherent power imbalance. She does not get to excuse her choices as something that a reader may infer from her writing when it is a statement that she has put out and stated as a fact.

So, let's break down the definition. Ursa says Niall isn't an adoptive father but a guardian. Since he isn't her parent (a natural guardian) this makes him a legal guardian.

________

A legal guardian is a person who has been appointed by a court or otherwise has the legal authority (and the corresponding duty) to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward. Guardians are typically used in four situations: guardianship for an incapacitated senior (due to old age or infirmity), guardianship for a minor, and guardianship for developmentally disabled adults and for adults found to be incompetent.

Most jurisdictions recognise that the parents of a child are the natural guardians of the child, and that the parents may designate who shall become the child's legal guardian in the event of death, typically subject to the approval of the court. Where a minor child's parents are disabled or deceased, it may be necessary for a court to appoint a guardian.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian

Generally, guardians fulfill the role of a parent for a child who is not their own. However, in situations where a child has significant medical needs or the child has financial assets, the child's parent may obtain a guardianship over the child or the child's estate.

source:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-guardianships-work-faq.html

___________

At the time of their meeting, Nikkal was 16, in an orphanage along with her brother. He wasn't appointed by their blood relatives, he isn't their blood relative, therefore to gain guardianship over her and her brother, he would have to adopt them or pull strings at court.

Even if he sent them out to another school for a few years, until she's old enough to attend the Academy, he still would have legal responsibility and have to make decisions for her during her late teens. Upon her arrival at the Academy, he became not only her guardian, but also her Warden, according to the story. Niall demands obedience from her not only as a "daughter" but also as a student from that point onwards. To simply handwave his relation towards her as that of a “sponsor” is to ignore the implications that come with establishing an adult as responsible for a minor, only to later engage in a romantic and sexual relationship with them.

Let us analyze this power imbalance. He simply has too much power over her life, especially when he enforces it later by separating her from her peers, her newly appointed (by him) home, forcing her to rely tightly on him and him alone. If she can be considered an adult at 30 and of sound mind, why wasn’t the guardianship terminated by her reaching 18, or legal age of that world? If it were not adoption—a permanent obligation for child’s care—but a guardianship, Niall has no right to enforce his power over her. Yet he doesn't treat her as autonomous, but continues to enforce the idea that she is his to be taken care of.

Once again, Nikkal at her 30 is dependent on his whims. Outside of the bubble he created, she has no money, home or shelter. As if this isn’t enough, he also denied her an access to higher education and resources she needs for her development as a fire mage. He unreasonably expelled her for disobedience, when she was forced by a very powerful woman to do something against her will.

The remark of "We also look just like a couple! Or a father and a daughter" isn't a coincidence. Even if it's a joke, it's a Freudian slip, only proving that she is self-aware to some extent. And he is too, that's why he wasn't thrilled about it. The term "Freudian slip" refers to the psychological theory that, when a person misspeaks, they are inadvertently revealing repressed or secret desires. In his diamond scene in S1E8, he has a line where he admits that Nikkal trusts him as an authority figure and that a sexual relationship would be inappropriate.

But the father/daughter comment was not the only one that presented these incestuous hints. It also happened when Nikkal asked Niall if he treats her as his sister and he said yes.

Unfortunately, Niall's case is not the only example of inc*st hints or borderline inc*st in her stories. In CY's first season, the player is forced to initiate intimate contact with Dante, the MC's adoptive cousin. Her adoptive cousin Eliza also s*xually harasses her by touching her chest without consent or warning.

This gesture is excused by the cousin's jolly infantile nature. Later we learn about the secret romantic relationship between adoptive siblings Dante and Eliza, who grew up together.

While, as we had already stated, we do not condemn those who pick these fictional romances nor the exploration of serious themes in literature. We, as survivors of similar events, simply couldn’t ignore the obvious pattern across Ursa’s work and not speak up. Family relationships that escalate into s*xual acts, often imposed on the player in the early stages of the story, romanticized and justified by the characters, belittle the seriousness of the actual real life cases. Portraying such themes in media requires careful handling and presentation, and we hope these subjects will be addressed with the care and consideration they deserve in the future. We would also like to reiterate that we are criticizing these stories and statements because we love RC, and want them to do and be better. Thank you for your attention.

[rcritical]

A Statement on Ursa

⚠️This post was written collectively by gг**ming and г@pe survivors and is purely for the purpose of raising awareness. It will contain discussion of topics such as gг**ming, inc*st and s@xuаl аss@ult.

We’d like to start off this post by stating that this is not meant to shame or police those who are romancing Niall. We are simply holding Ursa for these statements she made and the problematic elements in her stories and, while one may argue that every RC story has its own problematic issues, none of them have had the author quite literally victim blame survivors of gг**ming and г@pe. This is a very serious issue that should not be taken lightly and it doesn't mean that we are minimizing or overlooking problematic issues of other stories. The reason we are doing this is because there’s already a pattern with this author and it has happened within all her 3 stories. The order of events are as follows:

Release of Q30 S3 (2019)

Revelation of Q30's plans for a г@pe scene (2019)

CY’s release, Alexander's г@pe/s*xuаl аss@ult scene (2020)

Forced apology for Q30's г@pe plans (2021)

Tiamat, gг**ming and victim blaming (2022)

Queen in 30 Days - Ahar

To begin, we would like to bring attention to these statements by Ursa regarding the development of the book Queen in 30 Days, where she spoke of a scenario where MC was supposed to be г@ped in Ahar, a fictional kingdom inspired by the Middle East. We also want to point out that a Middle Eastern person, who read Q30 S3, brought to our attention the misportrayal and prejudiced view of their culture by Ursa, which borders on racist connotations, making this plotline even more insidious in tone than it already was. This is to be elaborated in a separate post.

The following are screenshots of Ursa’s statements (in Russian, and English translation):

GG: MC, LL: Love line

As Ursa stated, this was a scrapped idea that, after provided with screenshots from fans, she apologized for and even condemned herself for conceiving it. But it must be pointed out that at the beginning she tried to make it seem like she knew nothing about it and only apologized after fans posted screenshots of her saying those things. Either way, this is the beginning of a pattern for Ursa and her choices when it comes to incorporating ab*sive dynamics in sexual encounters or relationships with the love interests. Case in point, Alexander from Chasing You.

Chasing You - Alexander

When the г@pe scene with Alexander in Chasing You S1E4 first came out, many people had a very negative reaction and she ended up altering it. But she didn’t apologize for it and she even dismissed it as a joke when someone told her some people can get triggered by it, which was very insensitive and dismissive of her. And this response of devaluing survivors’ triggering experiences is one she has repeated in the past, as seen by this interaction with another player below, where she even refers as a “joke” to a comment made by Alexander where he declares he will г@pe MC, if it can be called “joke” because г@pe is not a topic to joke about:

This is the “joke” she’s talking about and Alexander’s unaltered dialogue. For context, it was during the scene when Alexander ties the MC up against her will and she was screaming and asking him to let her go:

This is later explained by Alexander having an interest in BDSМ. However, the way that BDSМ was depicted here is not accurate to the real life practice, where they require consent from all participants. This is not the case here, as Agatha/the MC never gave her consent to being tied up, and in fact continues to protest it until Sam shows up. So due to the lack of consent, what he did here may be classified as s*xuаl аss@ult.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Ursa inserts very sensitive content in her stories, people point out how triggering they are and she tries to downplay them, even after apologizing and altering said content. Now, two years after that infamous scene she's trying to shift the blame on people calling her out for the problematic elements in her stories. So who wrote those scenes then? Is she backtracking now because she is not being faced with “backlash”? Let’s take into account that many people who called her out are actually survivors so her telling them “hehe it was a joke” or “that’s the way you read it” is like throwing a bucket of cold water over them. It comes off as if she’s invalidating or dismissing their experiences and feelings when she’s the one who is not even doing the bare minimum of putting a trigger warning. To Ursa, these aspects are someone else’s problem, not hers as a writer.

Flower from Tiamat’s Fire - Ursa’s Statement on Niall

From Chasing You, we move now to Tiamat and the statements that essentially lead to the writing of this post.

Are we the only ones who feel uncomfortable by these statements? Does no one realize how problematic they are? This statement is essentially telling r@pe and gr**ming survivors that it's their fault for getting triggered or uncomfortable by those scenes because it was only their interpretation. This is what is defined as victim blaming, a tactic that devalues victims of a crime or accident by holding them responsible for the acts committed against them. The fact that Ursa is using a literary criticism concept and victim blaming to defend herself from these issues is very alarming. The pattern continues.

While this whole controversy with Niall can be argued to be somewhat ambiguous, you can't deny that by the information provided by Ursa regarding their background, this is bordering on gr**ming. Now, how can we make that accusation? First, let's define what "grooming" means.

________

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.

Grooming can take place over a short or long period of time – from weeks to years.

The relationship a groomer builds can take different forms. It can be:

-a romantic relationship

-as a mentor

-as an authority figure

-a dominant and persistent figure.

Source: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/

___________

Niall met Nikkal when she was 16, making her a minor. While we may not have direct evidence of him raising her, he still took her in as her guardian and provided for her as a figure of authority and guidance…and now we are just meant to accept that he has not only romantic but also sexual feelings for her? Can you imagine dating someone you met as a minor? Someone whom you presumably have accompanied the growth from a teenager to an adult? Someone whom you have positioned yourself as someone to look up to, trust and even others perceive as family? This is a relationship that we, some of us actual survivors and those who are familiar with survivors, have deemed as reminiscent of gr**ming. And while this a separate issue on its own and Ursa has the audacity to tell us that it is just our own “interpretation of him as a gr**mer”, there is no way to deny that she was the one who chose to portray the relationship between Niall and Nikkal as such. She chose to make Nikkal a minor when she was taken in by Niall. She was the one who chose to set up the dynamics of their relationship as that of an inherent power imbalance. She does not get to excuse her choices as something that a reader may infer from her writing when it is a statement that she has put out and stated as a fact.

So, let's break down the definition. Ursa says Niall isn't an adoptive father but a guardian. Since he isn't her parent (a natural guardian) this makes him a legal guardian.

________

A legal guardian is a person who has been appointed by a court or otherwise has the legal authority (and the corresponding duty) to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward. Guardians are typically used in four situations: guardianship for an incapacitated senior (due to old age or infirmity), guardianship for a minor, and guardianship for developmentally disabled adults and for adults found to be incompetent.

Most jurisdictions recognise that the parents of a child are the natural guardians of the child, and that the parents may designate who shall become the child's legal guardian in the event of death, typically subject to the approval of the court. Where a minor child's parents are disabled or deceased, it may be necessary for a court to appoint a guardian.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian

Generally, guardians fulfill the role of a parent for a child who is not their own. However, in situations where a child has significant medical needs or the child has financial assets, the child's parent may obtain a guardianship over the child or the child's estate.

source:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-guardianships-work-faq.html

___________

At the time of their meeting, Nikkal was 16, in an orphanage along with her brother. He wasn't appointed by their blood relatives, he isn't their blood relative, therefore to gain guardianship over her and her brother, he would have to adopt them or pull strings at court.

Even if he sent them out to another school for a few years, until she's old enough to attend the Academy, he still would have legal responsibility and have to make decisions for her during her late teens. Upon her arrival at the Academy, he became not only her guardian, but also her Warden, according to the story. Niall demands obedience from her not only as a "daughter" but also as a student from that point onwards. To simply handwave his relation towards her as that of a “sponsor” is to ignore the implications that come with establishing an adult as responsible for a minor, only to later engage in a romantic and sexual relationship with them.

Let us analyze this power imbalance. He simply has too much power over her life, especially when he enforces it later by separating her from her peers, her newly appointed (by him) home, forcing her to rely tightly on him and him alone. If she can be considered an adult at 30 and of sound mind, why wasn’t the guardianship terminated by her reaching 18, or legal age of that world? If it were not adoption—a permanent obligation for child’s care—but a guardianship, Niall has no right to enforce his power over her. Yet he doesn't treat her as autonomous, but continues to enforce the idea that she is his to be taken care of.

Once again, Nikkal at her 30 is dependent on his whims. Outside of the bubble he created, she has no money, home or shelter. As if this isn’t enough, he also denied her an access to higher education and resources she needs for her development as a fire mage. He unreasonably expelled her for disobedience, when she was forced by a very powerful woman to do something against her will.

The remark of "We also look just like a couple! Or a father and a daughter" isn't a coincidence. Even if it's a joke, it's a Freudian slip, only proving that she is self-aware to some extent. And he is too, that's why he wasn't thrilled about it. The term "Freudian slip" refers to the psychological theory that, when a person misspeaks, they are inadvertently revealing repressed or secret desires. In his diamond scene in S1E8, he has a line where he admits that Nikkal trusts him as an authority figure and that a sexual relationship would be inappropriate.

But the father/daughter comment was not the only one that presented these incestuous hints. It also happened when Nikkal asked Niall if he treats her as his sister and he said yes.

Unfortunately, Niall's case is not the only example of inc*st hints or borderline inc*st in her stories. In CY's first season, the player is forced to initiate intimate contact with Dante, the MC's adoptive cousin. Her adoptive cousin Eliza also s*xually harasses her by touching her chest without consent or warning.

This gesture is excused by the cousin's jolly infantile nature. Later we learn about the secret romantic relationship between adoptive siblings Dante and Eliza, who grew up together.

While, as we had already stated, we do not condemn those who pick these fictional romances nor the exploration of serious themes in literature. We, as survivors of similar events, simply couldn’t ignore the obvious pattern across Ursa’s work and not speak up. Family relationships that escalate into s*xual acts, often imposed on the player in the early stages of the story, romanticized and justified by the characters, belittle the seriousness of the actual real life cases. Portraying such themes in media requires careful handling and presentation, and we hope these subjects will be addressed with the care and consideration they deserve in the future. We would also like to reiterate that we are criticizing these stories and statements because we love RC, and want them to do and be better. Thank you for your attention.