#Fandom problems

[susanoos-wife]

Some people may consider this controversial, but there's absolutely no reason that certain types of media can't be targeted towards men and there's absolutely no reason that certain types of media can't be targeted towards women. It's okay and fine for men to have certain stories that are catered more towards them (in a general sense, there are always exceptions regarding what people like,) and the same is true for women.

The idea that every piece of media is supposed to appeal to every demographic doesn't create decent, high quality representation, it just boxes people's imaginations into a box where they have to constantly check over their metaphorical shoulder in order to make sure they don't accidentally say or do something that might displease someone. If a story's not for you, that doesn't automatically make it bad, that just means that you're not the intended audience the creator had in mind when they created it.

Stories intended for a general audience are, of course, perfectly fine in and of themselves if the creator truly wants to make a story like that, but nobody should ever feel obligated to restrict their creative freedom by only creating things that they think will appeal to as many people as possible. Different stories hold different meanings to different people and that's part of what makes fandom interesting and engaging.

[deeninadream]

I can’t speak for all of the mohabbot shippers out there, but for me it is not at all about validation for Samira.

I am not shipping them because I think she needs and old white guy to make her existence something others can enjoy and connect to. She is a complex character on her own, and she deserves all the love that people are giving here.

I also believe that if you’re in this fandom to begin with, you certainly wouldn’t be disappointed if she ended you having a female love interest. I would like to believe that if you are shipping Samira and Jack, you are not doing it because you can only like a character if they have a love interest. Like I said before, they are both complex characters and shouldn’t have to be tied to someone else.

I know when ever I say anything about shipping them it’s because we were given a limited amount of screen time to figure what is exactly happening in situation, and we not only see the characters as individuals, but we also are doing anything to look at the relationships between everyone.

And, if this is how everyone is going to react to this ship why don’t we question it for everyone else? Do I also ship Robby and Collins? Yes. But, I still see the story and feeling behind those characters separately.

It should be no different.

​I love this fandom with all my heart. <3 I know it unfortunately inevitable, but I wish we could just stop a sec and actually take the simple ideas others have for literal fictional characters with a grain of salt. I’m not saying that everyone is necessarily soft about each piece of this show, but that doesn’t make everyone you disagree with necessarily wrong.

I don’t believe that people that think differently on this are wrong per se, they just see it in a different light. That’s what’s wonderful about having a community of people that love the same thing. The verity in thoughts and fellings that should be bring us together, not apart.

Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way. I just say a post about this and it frustrated me, so I just wanted to share my opinion. Feel free to disagree, I value individuality more than anything. However, like I said before, everyone sees things in a different light.

Love y’all!

[cchickki]

how it feels interacting with fandoms lately

[pupmkincake2000]

Why do people who are against hankcon always talk about the power imbalance in their relationship? They say it's problematic, since one of them is the boss, and the other is the subordinate… Although yes, in the police, people who are in a relationship cannot be partners and work on the same team but for some reason it doesn't bother anyone in dbh fandom...

What I mean is that this argument assumes that Hank and Connor operate within a strict hierarchy, similar to a boss-subordinate relationship, but that’s not really the case here.

First, Connor isn’t technically under Hank’s command. He’s a CyberLife prototype assigned to assist the DPD, not a formal part of the police force’s internal structure. He doesn’t report to Fowler or Hank in a hierarchical sense, and Hank can’t give him binding orders. In fact, the game shows multiple instances where Connor defies Hank, makes independent decisions, or even directly confronts him, like in the interrogation scene with the deviant threatening suicide.

Second, their relationship is portrayed as a partnership. That’s emphasized throughout the game. They learn to work together, challenge each other, and build trust on equal footing, not as a superior and subordinate.

Lastly, Hank is not the one holding authority in their dynamic. If anything, Connor is the one with greater control. Physically, tactically, and narratively. Depending on player choices, he can lead investigations, override human input, or shape the outcome of the entire story.

So if there’s a power imbalance, it certainly doesn’t favor Hank, and it’s not one that compromises the emotional or romantic credibility of their connection.

If Hank and Connor were to start a romantic relationship and Connor chose to formally join the police force, the solution would be simple: they’d just stop being direct partners.

There’s nothing in police regulations that prohibits two consenting adults from working in the same department, especially if they’re not in a direct chain of command. Plenty of departments allow for romantic relationships, as long as there’s no supervisory dynamic involved.

In their case, Hank and Connor already operate more as equals than as superior/subordinate and adjusting their assignments to remove potential conflict of interest would be a standard procedural step, not a dramatic complication. It’s an administrative issue, not a moral or narrative one.

[cyb3rto4st]

i can't be the only one who thinks that fandom isn't so 'fandom' anymore? like it's no longer fun and it's so strict because of this weird culture or whatever that's blighting fandom spaces...

...or is it just me?

[19catsncounting]

I Got Really Into Anti/Proship Discourse And Read +30 Academic Studies - My Findings

(It’s a Yapfest but the whole post is a very long essay and study on morality and fiction and children’s safety and rape culture with a fuckton of freely accessible academic articles and resources on the subject, and I want to talk to other people about it. For a shorter abstract with all the articles and more easily ignored yapping, see my shiny new Carrd:)

It’s been a little shocking lately to have certain discussions with some parts of fandom. I spoke about shipping/harassment and how that contributes to the death of fandom on TikTok assuming that younger folks are just really, really intense about preventing sexual violence, but the more I saw the words “morally wrong” and “disgusting” and “addiction,” the more I thought about this guy-

That’s Jerry Falwell, and I fucking hate this dead guy. You see, Jerry Falwell was a preacher who hated porn, feminism, and homosexuality. And I'm seeing his rhetoric and reworked quotes a lot.

Jerry would say stuff like:

“Pornography hurts anyone who reads it - garbage in, garbage out.”

“Someone must not be afraid to say ‘moral perversion is wrong.’ If we do not act now, homosexuals will ‘own’ America!”

Jerry wanted people to believe that it’s possible to see so much sexual content that it warps your sexuality, because he was gay and wanted to think that was due to thinking about gay sex too much. Jerry did not have a lot of evidence to prove that homosexuality was harmful, so he relied heavily on how “morally distasteful” it seemed to be to suburban Americans.

I spent the majority of my teen years arguing against Jerry’s rhetoric for the right to live as a lesbian online, and I never thought I’d see morality rhetoric in people I’m otherwise very politically aligned with. And I definitely never thought fandom of all things, in all its beautiful subversive glory, would seriously start advocating for censorship, anti-porn, and to consume fanwork with moral purity.

So, I’d like to have a deeper discussion on it, both here on Tumblr and on TikTok, but that does mean checking a few things at the door:

Personal feelings decide your personal life. What you feel is valid for you, not anyone else.

In general, things that do not cause direct and undeniable harm should not be broadly prohibited just because they’re weird or distasteful to the majority of folks. Ex. Loitering does not cause harm and is a tool of systemic oppression.

The discussion of “fictional CSEM” is the most inflammatory fork of this and it is often used to derail these kinds of conversations. This is all I will say on it - the legal status of explicit visual depictions of minors is muddy. In the US, there is just one dude in Utah who pled guilty for possessing explicit lolicon he bought by mail order without also possessing CSEM with real children, and explicit writing about fictional minors has been settled as protected free speech. Dedicated organizations from the NCMEC to Chris Hansen have asked that fictional content is not reported as CSAM as it is not actionable and clogs up finite resources. 90% of NCMEC reports were not actionable last year. There are studies suggesting that virtual CSEM or other non-victim alternatives could reduce actual child harm, but there is need for further research.

We’re all in agreement that untagged NSFW is not cool, and kids deserve kid-only sections of the internet. People who are triggered by or dislike problematic content deserve to be able to not see it. 👍

 (I’ve seen the argument that blocking tags/people should not be required - sorry, PTSD still requires that you manage your triggers, up to and including swearing off platforms just as I have sworn off bars/soap brands/etc to avoid my triggers.)

I have found a lot of accessible and free articles and studies that I will link throughout so that we can discuss the fact-based reasoning, in an effort to have a civil conversation.

(Also because we are not flat earthers, we are Fandom, and if we’re going to be annoying little shitheels in an “Um Actually” contest, we’re going to have the sources to back it up.)

Minors and Explicit Material

I’m not supporting minors engaging with explicit material. I have such little interest in the subject that I’m not even going to bring in articles, but you can feel free to. I personally engaged with explicit material as a preteen of my own free will and did not find it to be harmful, and the majority of people throughout human history have been exposed to explicit material at an early age with varying degrees of harm. There are undeniable legal and harm-driven differences between a 12 year old girl looking at Hustler on her own, a 14 year old boy being sent nudes from a grown woman, and a 6 year old viewing PornHub. (And I think the guardians of that 6 year old should be charged with grooming just like the woman, tbh.)

Personal Disclaimer

I’m an adult survivor of CSA and incest. I’m a happily married adult. I don’t personally like lolicon/shotacon/kodocon. I don’t like kids. I don’t like teens. I’m personally not attracted to underage fictional characters. I have family, the idea of fucking any of them makes me want to throw up and die, so I don’t write or read RPF of my family.

I am really, really fucking intense about preventing sexual violence, supporting survivors, and fandom, which is where this all comes from.

I read and love problematic fiction - my favorites are ASOIAF, Lolita, and VC Andrews. The most “problematic” thing I’ve personally written are Lucifer/Michael fics from Supernatural back in 2012. They are “brothers” in CW Christ, not blood. They do not have any blood.

Gen Z and Online Grooming

In 2002, a survey of 1500 minors from 10-17 found that 4% had been solicited for sexual purposes by an adult online.

In 2023, that number increased to 20%.

While the linked 2023 Thorn report suggests that the vast majority of these inappropriate interactions happened on platforms that allow for interpersonal communication, which by and large minors were greatly discouraged from and had less access to in the early 2000’s, a trauma-informed approach does not allow for blame to fall on the children. The guardians of those children have monumentally failed to restrict and educate before giving children the means to access those platforms.

It is my uncited but personal opinion that the increased rate of grooming, as well as an increased interest in combating rape culture, has led to well-intentioned individuals to become digital vigilantes attacking those who they hold responsible for their traumatic experiences in a search for catharsis and justice denied for themselves as well as a desire to make the internet safer for other children, whom they are increasingly aware are entering online spaces unsupervised at distressingly young ages.

Is harassment and bullying bad for perpetrators of it?

Before we get into how ship-related hate campaigns do not affect predation or combat rape culture, we should acknowledge that it’s actually pretty harmful for the people who cyberbully. Not just in the legal/social consequences, but people who participate in cyberbullying and cyberhate campaigns have higher rates of depression, estrangement from their parents, self-effacing habits, social anxiety, lower empathy, and so forth.

One study suggests that the treatment and prohibitive for cyberbullying, which contributes to a culture of cyberhate and a lower likelihood to report or confront other incidents of harassment or toxicity online, can be combatted with media competency to increase empathy along with other important life skills.

Some Common Pro-Censorship Myths

“Pornography is Addictive/Consumption of Pornography Leads to Increasingly Hardcore Imagery And Ultimately Real-World Violence” - The American Psychological Association does not recognize Porn Addiction as real and the DSM-5 does not classify it as an addiction. Additionally, many methods used in articles claiming that porn is addictive or causes users to seek out more hardcore material were flawed or biased. There is actually some evidence that compulsive porn use, the closest you can get to a porn addiction diagnosis, is associated with shame and the user’s belief that pornography is morally wrong, which sex-negative attitudes encourage.

“Jaws caused shark culling” - That's unfortunately a simplification that ignores a LOT of surrounding context. WW2’s modern naval battles with an increase of ship sinkings and thus contact with sharks prompted the invention and use of shark repellant by aviators and sailors in the 1940’s. The most deadly and famous shark attack of all time was the USS Indianapolis sinking in 1945, which led to 12-150 deaths. The 1974 book Jaws by Peter Benchley, which was the entire basis of the movie, was inspired by One Fucking Dude who started shark hunting tours and overall seemed to have a really immaculate vibe. The interstate highways that finished in the 1950’s increased beach tourism in the 60’s and onwards, inspiring the American surf culture, further increasing the cultural desire to purge sharks for the new swath of beachgoers and their fondness for using surfboards which make them look like seals to sharks. Additionally, 1975’s Jaws inspired a huge desire for education about sharks, and the relationship between problematic media and education will be the core of this yapperoni pizza.

“The Slendermen Killings/Other Fiction Inspired Crimes” - The ACLU states that “There is no evidence that fiction has ever driven a sane person to violence.” Inspired crimes are indeed no less tragic, and thankfully rare, but people who suffer from inability to discern reality and fiction do not necessarily need fiction to commit violence. The “Son of Sam” murder spree was not inspired by a book or movie, but instead Berkowitz’ auditory hallucinations.

“Violent videogames DO cause violence” - After a great deal of funding and study, the American Psychological Association has concluded that teens and younger may have increased feelings of aggression and not necessarily physically violent outbursts as a direct effect, but older teens and young adults do not encounter statistically meaningful rates of aggression.

“Your brain can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality” - Factually incorrect. Children as young as 5 years old can tell the difference, and they can even be more suspicious about “facts” that come from sources they know also host fiction, such as TV shows.

“This stuff shouldn’t be online because it can be used to groom a child” - While I could not find specific statistics on how often pornography is used to desensitize child victims, nor how often that is specifically used in online grooming, and especially not how much of that pornography is made from fictional characters - out of a mixed group of convicted offenders with adult and child victims, 55% of offenders used pornography to manipulate their victim. I would never refute that explicit fanart or fanfic could be used to desensitize a child, but that is by far not the only tool (asking about sexual experiences/identity, making jokes, etc is extremely common grooming behavior), and there is no evidence to suggest that it is used to a statistically significant degree. In my own anecdotal experience, normal vanilla legal pornography is used with far greater prevalence, and there isn’t a similar movement to shame its production for that possibility. Nor should the creators of any material, pornographic or otherwise, share blame in the actions of a predator.

The Fiction Affects Reality Carrd

(No hate to the person who made it, in fact I give props to them for trying to find unbiased sources, I just want to point out that their interpretations of their articles are kinda flawed and one of their studies is a kind of a perfect example on small and culturally biased samples.)

Reading Fiction Impacts Aggressive Behavior - (I cannot access the full study but this article is the primary source used in the Carrd and it goes into detail) - A study showed that 67 university students were more annoyed with a loud buzzer after reading a short story about a physical fight between roommates compared to a story with nonviolent revenge. However, this study was conducted at Brigham Young University, the same campus where we got a whole video series of hot ethical takes like “I’d rather shoot a kitten than drink coffee,” so uh. Yeah. Kind of a prime example on why it’s important to have large and culturally varied sampling. (Another BYU study with 137 BYU students being odd about moral ambiguity in fiction, just because I’m starting to add Dr. Sarah M. Coyne to my list of “Sarah’s That I Dislike.”)

Your Brain on Fiction - a NYT article that describes Theory of the Mind and how fMRIs captured how readers’ minds would light up centers of muscle control when reading sentences like “Peter kicked.” The quote “The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated” is speaking of motor functions. Emotional centers of the brain were not included in the study.

How Fiction Changes Your World - a Boston Globe article that actually describes how people who read more fiction are more empathetic and tend to believe in a just world. It does not state that the empathy a reader feels for fictional characters extends to corrupting their moral compass. In fact, there’s such a thing as a “fictive license” to explore taboo themes more thoroughly because it is not real - 123 participants were interviewed after watching two actors play the part of detective and murderer being interviewed, and participants who were told it was fake had more varied and inquisitive responses.

The Social Impact of Books - Actually reuses the previous study about the just world, so point remains. Empathy is understanding, not mirroring.

Is Problematic Fiction Good for Survivors of Trauma?

It absolutely depends on the individual.

Writing expressively about traumatic experiences has been shown to be effective to reduce depression, or more effective in reducing dysphoria and anxiety than talking to fellow survivors, and Written Exposure Therapy is broadly prescribed to survivors of trauma, with one study centering on car crash survivors finding that WET resolved their PTSD symptoms and continued to be effective after a year.

In this study, which sadly is not available online but it is too important to leave out completely, survivors of CSA were given fictional novels about CSA and in closely reading and analyzing those stories, were able to understand their own experiences and were indeed drawn to write about their own experiences as well.

Engaging in problematic fiction, like all fiction, allows for consent as well as control. If at any point a survivor does not feel in control or wishes to stop, they can at that instant. They can even rewrite their narratives and take control of their story in fictionalizing and changing the account. They can even try to understand what their abuser felt through fiction, which is helpful considering that the vast majority of survivors had a relationship that had been positive and even loving with their abusers at times.

Is Problematic Fiction Good for Everyone Else?

It again depends on the individual.

Antis might be a little right that most people don't want to read problematic stories. In a study exploring whether fiction can corrode morals, 83% of study participants stated that they would prefer not to read a short story justifying baby murder if they had the choice, even if that exploration isn’t inherently harmful.

This very small sample study of 13 participants discussed how young women interpreted sexual themes in writing, including explicit fanfiction, and how that was beneficial and informative to explore sexual desire and examine healthy and unhealthy relationships in a safe and controlled environment.

This meta-analysis further discusses how problematic and sexual themes in YA literature are useful to illustrate what sexual violence looks like, and begin educational conversations through those depictions to break down harmful myths such as “if she didn’t scream, she wanted it.”

Empowered by the “Fictive License” previously cited, problematic fiction can be beneficial for anyone who desires and is capable of consuming and analyzing it.

This study analyzing abusive aspects of three films - Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, and 50 Shades of Gray - concluded that these abusive themes should be discussed to increase recognition and awareness, not censored based on those problematic themes.

This study of 53 women were asked to read different versions of fictional intimate partner violence flags, or “toxic behavior” like surveillance, control, etc. In every version of the story, whether the female or male had those behaviors either courting or committed, the women recognized the behavior as wrong.

Another study that reading allows for the moral laboratory to explore morality in fiction without decisive impact to corroding moral permissibility.

Is There Ever Any Point Where Fictional Interests Definitively Speak On Someone’s Morality?

In short - not really. Loving Jason Vorhees does not put you at risk of murdering campers as long as you know he’s not real. Writing Wincest does not mean you look forward to family reunions, as long as you know incest isn’t okay in the real world. The real world, where real people are harmed, is where you find the measure of someone’s character.

This Psychology Today article is the best source I could find for quotes from a fantastic book ‘Who's Been Sleeping in Your Head? The Secret World of Sexual Fantasies’ by Brett Kahr regarding taboo sexual fantasies and how they are not only common, but not inherently harmful.

There are people who enjoy problematic media in an entirely nonsexual sense, of course. I myself don’t get off on problematic media - I think it’s just interesting to explore different experiences, and I think that can be revolutionary.

Additionally, fantasies in general have almost always been in the vein of “things you don’t want to really happen in reality.” In a study of 351 asexuals, more than half reported that they fantasize about having sex, but that doesn’t mean that they actually want to. You can fantasize about dating Billie Eilish - it doesn’t mean that you’d be happy dealing with celebrity culture.

(I personally fantasize about the internet being just for adults, but in practice I think that would be incredibly harmful and isolating for at-risk youth and LGBTQ teens) Fantasies always pluck out only the bits of reality that you want to engage with.

If You Get Off On Fictional Kids, You’re Attracted to Something About Them Being Kids

Not inherently, surprisingly. Wearing a schoolgirl uniform is a pretty common roleplay, and it’s not meant to “fool” the participants into thinking they’re indulging in pedophilia. There’s a wealth of emotional and sexual nuance in that specific kink - innocence and virginity play, tilted power dynamics in ‘scolding’ the uniform wearer for dress code violations, even the concept of a sexually provocative “teenager” can be played with without shame, because the world of fetish and fantasy is separated from condonable actions for the vast, vast majority of adults. (The only study I could find on this is this small study of 100 white guys found on Facebook, which itself states it is not definitive, found that while there might be correlation between attraction to children and interest in schoolgirl uniforms, there is no proof of causation. AKA, the rectangular pedophile might indeed like square schoolgirl uniforms, but not everyone - in fact, the majority at nearly 60% in this very survey - that likes square schoolgirl uniforms is a rectangular pedophile.)

Even sexual age play between adults is not indicative of pedophilia because it exists in a setting between two adults who fully understand that the mechanics are completely fake, allowing the power dynamics that would be abusive between an adult and child to be ethically explored.

I don’t have an official-looking study to cite, but I have asked people who like content about underage fictional characters why they do so. Overwhelmingly, a lot of the ones who like underage age gaps like the fantasy of an older and more experienced character taking a younger one under their wing, to have the opportunity to commit violent and blatantly objectifying harm and yet try to create what inevitably does not truly pass as consent, but seems near enough to the characters. Some think that the characters themselves have an interesting chemistry. Some read underage fic and still imagine the characters as adults. Some like to explore the feelings of shame that the older character must feel and how they mentally compartmentalize to go forward with the relationship, and how the younger character found themself in that vulnerable position - which is exploring a harmful situation through fiction to understand how it could play out in real life.

People who like fictional incest like exploring the shameful components of that taboo relationship - and I have seen a lot of works that compare how bad incest could be to other harms, like the Gravecest route in a game with parental cannibalism. And then there are folks who like analyzing the codependency of having one person fulfill every social need - family, friend, lover, AKA Wincest.

What makes a predator if it’s not just sexual attraction?

90% of CSA survivors know their abuser, discrediting the still-entirely-too-popular Stranger Danger myth. And shockingly, only 50% of abusers are pedophiles.

That means 50% of child molesters do not have sexual interest in children because they are children, but they victimized children because they are more accessible in lieu of adult partners, with increased rates of incest.

While I could not find a specific study on the relation between dehumanization/objectification of child victims and child molesters (and if you find one, please send it to me!), this study speaks on dehumanization as a precursor to adult sexual violence.

This study, conducted on convicted child molesters in prison, showed that child molesters tend to fantasize about children while in a negative mood, further contributing to the theory that child victims are dehumanized prior to abuse.

This very small sample study found that in a mixed sample of internet only/contact crime/mixed offenders, offenders who had contact with children had lower rates of fantasizing about children.

In short, half the time a child predator is someone who wants to offend against a child regardless of attraction to the fact they are a child.

Resources To Recognize Grooming/Abuse Victims/Predators

I would absolutely be remiss to not share my collection of resources to help detect signs of abuse/grooming as well as warning signs of a predator who may be targeting elders/women/teens/children:

Darkness 2 Light is a fantastic resource overall, this page details stages and signs of grooming.

RAINN personally helped me through my PTSD journey, and this article detailing the signs of sexual trauma in teenagers is thorough and non-judgemental

Signs of abuse as well as warning signs of predation that does not use gendered language nor play into the Stranger Danger myth.

Education, not Censorship

I think a lot of the energy against taboo content among young people still has a lot to do with the desire to end rape culture. The tools that we Millennial Tumblrinas gave you Gen Z kids were snatches of leftist theory, deplatforming, and voting with your dollar, so it’s reasonable to think that removing taboo content like pedophilia, incest, rape fights rape culture.

It doesn’t.

Rape culture is fought by education. Comprehensive sex education, education about consent. Talking about what consent looks like, what sex can look like, what rape can look like.

There should be more taboo content to talk about these things, to show all the shades it can look like. From a violent noncon to fics that aren’t even tagged as dubcon yet still are in shades that are hard to suss out, we should talk about it.

A Non-Empirical Example Of Good Media Analysis and Education to Combat Rape Culture

Let’s use the example of Daemon and Rhaenyra Targaryen’s relationship in House of the Dragon. Canonically, in both the book and the show, they have a romantic relationship that appears for the most part to be positive (the show being more contentious but I dedicated an aside to Sarah Hess and our beef at the bottom of my Carrd, but feel free to ask how I feel about writing producers with any variation of the name ‘Sarah’) despite an age gap, a sexual relationship that began while Rhaenyra was a minor, and incest - the problematic hat trick if you will.

I have seen anti-Daemyra shippers condemn Daemyra shippers for “Condoning grooming, age gaps, pedophilia, and incest.” Which is not just a broad, inaccurate, and harmful statement, it’s not at all constructive or educational analysis.

It would actually be beneficial to say “Daemon is grooming Rhaenyra as a teenager with gifts, devoted attention that takes advantage of her isolation and vulnerability, frequent nonsexual touches, the extreme desensitization to sexuality in the brothel visit,” etc etc. And even so, it is not useful to say that people cannot still ship the relationship and acknowledge those aspects. They might want to further explore the issues of consent in their dynamic in fiction, they may want to strip away some of them with narrative reimagining. Some might want to ignore the taboos completely and indulge in the fantasy entirely, and some might find the actors hot as hell - AKA, anyone who watches the show.

It’s honestly a little similar to me in how Jerry Falwell would tell his followers not to watch or read or take in any media that dealt with homosexuality unless it was condemning it - even Will & Grace was on Jerry’s shitlist. And so, Jerry’s followers missed out on a lot of media that could have educated them about queerness, could have humanized queer people for them - and that did not make queers go away. Just like ignoring or shutting out media about incest, rape, and other forms of sexual violence doesn’t make those things go away - it just tends to make you less informed, and little less capable of empathy towards people affected by those subjects.

So let’s stop shaming those that ship a complicated dynamic - you get less fanworks exploring those taboos, and less of a discussion overall. You shut down the morality lab of fiction, and to be honest, it’s wet sock behavior.

Some FanFiction Specific Studies

How dubcon fanfiction can flesh out the intricacies and messiness of realistic consent

A review of darkfic written about Harry Potter in 2005 (which, I will personally attest has never been outdone in how profoundly taboo those works were)

Interviews with 11 Self Insert writers who wrote on themes of rape, abuse, control, yandere, etc, and how that was beneficial to some who had experienced sexual violence themselves

Conclusion:

H…holy shit, you actually read all of that?? Congrats dude! That is a lot of time and brain power to dedicate to any one thing!

By the way, I am not really gifted at writing articles or any of that junk, and I tried to make my hyperlexic ass a little more accessible instead of bringing out all the $5 words. I am literally just an autistic who took a couple technical writing classes over a decade ago and really wanted to sort out my thoughts and try to have a platform for discussion. Also, I am really fucking bad at math. I failed two different college level statistics classes twice each. Gun to my head, I could not tell you what a standard deviation is, which is why I worked entirely with the percentages.

And I do want to have a discussion! I would in fact like to not report anyone for sending me gore or death threats or any of that stuff! I don’t think everyone will agree with me, in fact I’m certain that you could find studies that contradict some of mine, and I’d love to discuss them!

I’m sure it will still be tempting to throw around accusations of pedophilia because sometimes, confronting your previously held beliefs is incredibly uncomfortable. If you could not do that, that would be great? I don’t like being compared to someone who profoundly abused me just because I have a different opinion on how to combat rape culture and empower survivors. If you can do that, I’ll do my absolute best to be cheerful and welcoming and respectful as well. 😁

PS - I’m also not really going to be phased if you call me weird or cringe - I am. Always have been. Cringe, weirdness, and autism have made me do and capable of doing some fantastically neat and impressive stuff. But if you try to say something like “proshippers are too yucky and weird to be in fandom” - I’m going to have to refer you to your similarity to Kate Sanders of Lizzy McGuire fame, you “prEpz >:(“ - [My Immortal, legendary author unknown]

[kiwisandpearls]

I don’t really get posts that are like “gentle reminder! Don’t ship these characters together, it’s problematic,” anymore because like…ok, and people have to listen to you because…?

they’re fictional characters. They’re not real people. Someone shipping something that would problematic in real life is not that big of deal because it’s not of real life people.

shipping has been described as just essentially playing with dolls. Would you say “you shouldn’t play with those dolls in that way, it’s problematic?” No? Same thing applies with fictional characters.

[my-castles-crumbling]

Me at age 13, exhausted at school after staying up all night to read fanfic: I can’t wait until I’m an adult and I can stay up reading without any consequences!

Me, an adult, exhausted at work after staying up all night reading fanfic: Fuck.

[ichbinmeltdown]

I just saw a post on Pinterest with a picture of one of the Rescue Bots Academy characters cringing (I didn't know the character's name) and it was captioned "Me when people ship Transformers with humans" and the comments were full of antis talking about how gross it is that people ship robot x human stuff.

I'm pleased to say though that there were also some people with functioning brains there who were asking why this is so bad and saying that there's multiple canon robot x human ships in G1, and that they selfship with the characters so my faith in humanity wasn't entirely destroyed ^^

[theinsomniacindian]

Look, I love family-coded relationships in fiction and all but not every platonic dynamic, especially those with significant age gaps need to be familial e.g. father-and-child, siblings etc.

Sometimes they can be stuff like chaotic coworkers, mentor and mentee, ride-or-die friends, forced to work together, roommates, frenemies, reluctant allies etc.

Saying that every platonic or non-romantic relationship is basically 'sibling-coded' or 'parent-and-child' tend to dumb down complex dynamics into something simpler and easier to consume.

I'm not saying that familial dynamics can't be complex but most of the time, people just tend to follow popular depictions/stereotypes e.g. familial relationships don't always have to be sweet and healthy- they can be messy and even toxic at times- but most people tend to believe all of them are fluffy and unproblematic. Sure, it's a personal choice what you want to depict but for some reason, I've only seen romantic relationships being depicted as messy and/or toxic.

Such assumptions also push forward the idea that any relationship that isn't romantic can only be familial, which reeks of amatonormativity. In a way, it's almost like affirming the idea that romantic relationships are superior to others due to the assumption that they are the most versatile.

Tl;dr platonic dynamics can be pretty interesting and varied without being family-coded in some way.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT saying that you can't enjoy familial relationships or have familial headcanons. The problem is when people start believing that every platonic relationship has to be familial in some way with no other alternative, which is what this post discusses.

[tea-darling1]

crazy controversial opinion right here

hey this might be insane but in light of everything thats happening on tumblr, tt, insta, pinterest, etc etc etc. what if, i know this sounds crazy- we let people enjoy their craft, enjoy their fandoms, their hcs and enjoy the media they consume??? Crazy opinion but what if we stopped being so damn hateful 24/7 and just let people have fun, have some joy and whimsy in their life?!?!?!? This isnt just about epic the musical, this is ALSO about hades (game), its about TSOA, its about Creepypasta, its about SIG games, its about Arcane, its about every fucking fandom im in and i am SICK OF IT. it is also an issue in literally EVERY SINGLE FANDOM RIGHT NOW?? ya'll are creating such a TOXIC and HATEFUL environment on every single internet platform in every single fandom. You cannot enjoy a single damn thing without people being all up in your face as if their opinion is any more superior than yours? I can't even scroll through my favourite ship tags anymore because HALF OF THE POSTS ARE ALL "ship discourse" "ship wars" "why i hate this ship" "if you like this ship you should die" etc etc and the ship is nothing bad or controversial??? I cant even search for my favourite fandom because half the searches are all: "why this thing is so bad and i hate it and if you like it i hate you becAuse you're a horrible human being for liking this thing" Ya'll are creating a space that no one wants to interact with, people are leaving fandoms they once enjoyed because you are going out of your way to hate on people for -- what?? liking a ship (canon or not)??, drawing fanart???, creating headcanons?????? ya'll do realise theres nothing bad about having fun? enjoying media? others expressing themselves in a positive and healthy way? I don't post 90% of the stuff i draw and write about becuase i am scared of being SLAMMED for interpreting stuff how i want to, i am actually terrified. This is something i feel heavily passionate about so im speaking up for once this is the one and only time you'll hear me publicly complain and share my opinion. if you go out of your way to PUBLICLY SHAME OTHERS FOR LIKING SOMETHING, get out and get a fucking life honestly. You are getting NOTHING out of make other people feel horrible for what they like and who they are and what they make you are making fandom spaces which were once comfortable and enjoyable to interact with toxic and horrible. have your opinions and shit i dont give a fuck but dont go out of your way to tell someone off just because they like it and you don't. Especially because ya'll can't have respectful and calm arguments and conversations about things because most of ya'll are self centred and ignorant. DONT LIKE, DONT INTERACT, SCROLL AWAY. and dont be a dick. If you like something, like it, post that fanart, share those headcanons, post those fanfics, animate to those songs, create those playlists, make ocs, make characters kiss eachother HAVE FUN WITH YOUR FANDOMS AND LOVE YOURSELF. DONT LISTEN TO WHAT OTHERS THINK. CRINGE IS DEAD, ENJOY LIFE!!!!

[anneapocalypse]

"Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings" is a warning.

It is a warning that there will be no further warnings. That's what it means. It was designed into the structure of AO3's tagging system for a reason. If you only want to read fic with specific, distinct content warnings, you should not read "Chose Not to Warn" fics. Period. If you choose to read them, that is on you.

Regardless of whether you think the author is an asshole for any other reason, regardless of what you think of the fic they wrote, they're not the asshole for using that tag correctly and as it was designed.

[moon-meteor-star-sun]

“Sirius Black wouldn’t wear skirts!” Jkr has no canonical queer characters. She said Dumbledore was gay after The Deathly Hallows was published and it’s not mentioned in any of the Harry Potter movies. If someone headcanons any marauders character as queer, they don’t care that much about canon, so why do they get so upset over other people’s ideas about fictional wizards? I could say Lily Evans was a trans woman who magically got pregnant and it wouldn’t matter because she’s fictional!

If you don’t like a headcanon, scroll past it. Stop saying “Canon Marauders would beat up Fanon Marauders”. These types of comments make you look homophobic or transphobic and like an asshole.

Anyway, I love Sirius in skirts and think we need more transgender/gender queer/gender non-conforming characters.

[nessahero]

[my-castles-crumbling]

Me: I fucking hate editing. Wife: Oh, so you like the actual writing part of writing better, then? Me: Marginally. Sometimes that's awful, too. Wife: .....then why do you write? Me: Because if I don't, the voices in my head never leave me alone. Wife: ....so when's your next therapy appointment?

[madame-helen]