#how you say ~problematique~

[junequeer]

I watched fdsignifier's video on the manosphere a while ago, and it's changed how I look at identity politics and discourse.

He makes the argument that we as a society tend to look at straight, white, cis men as the 'default' experience, but maybe we should instead look at it as an intersection of identities, the way we do with minorities. Instead seeing straight white cis men as the 'control group' to base all other identities and experiences off of, we should look at it as a cross-section of those things--straight, white, and cis as separate things that come together to form a person's experience. The same way we use intersectionality to understand a black queer woman's experience and identity.

And maybe this feels like a rebranded "white men are the most oppressed class" argument, but really, I think (and fdsignifier says) that seeing straight, cis, white men as the Default actually makes other intersectionality less effective. He also talks a lot about how the lack of support and understanding for straight, cis, white men as a class or identity leads to things like mass shooters, but I won't be talking about that (please watch his videos they're amazing)

But I think this leads into the discourse around trans men and transandrophobia.

The idea that straight, white, and cis mean are the Default experience, the un-oppressed experience, means that it is impossible to be oppressed for any of those things. Taking it further, a lot of people seem to act like being straight, white, cis, or a man cannot inform or influence someone's internal identity. It is the 'blank slate,' the thing you are before you know what you are. And if you stay that way, well... you are the Oppressor, and that is the only identity a lot of people seem to assign you. So the idea of trans men being oppressed is ridiculous and insulting, because being a Man is the Default. It is the Oppressor State, not an identity that influences your life in anyway other than rewarding privilege.

But if you take these things as being separate identities, as being separate aspects that intersect, then things change. If straight, white, cis, and man are all separate things that intersect to make a person's life experience, then we're able to see things with more nuance.

It's no longer "Man is an impressive class" and more "Men have a life experience explicitly informed by their maleness, the external perception of maleness that the world perceives, and the cross-section of other identities changes and informs this experience of maleness."

I just think a lot of misunderstanding about trans men-specific discrimination and transphobia would be cleared up if people stopped acting like being a man is the default, net zero, non-reactive identity.

Being a straight, white, cis man is not the default. It is not a yard stick to measure all other experiences against. It is it's own intersection of identities, with it's own experiences. And this means that changing some of those things--not being straight, or not being white, or not being cis--fundamentally changes the experience. And to act like it doesn't, acting like just being a man is close enough, you are ignoring reality. If identities are chemicals reacting to each other, then it's changing one of the chemicals and saying that the results should be the same.

It isn't.

[doctordragon]

That one post that's like "I'm no better than a man" for being attracted to Falin's bouncing boobies is 100% proof of how normalized terf rhetoric is on this awful website

1. The idea that literally just being horny somehow makes you "worse" is such an anti sex sentiment. Being horny isn't a moral failing, it's just a part of having a sexuality. Being horny is good because sex and sexual attraction can be extremely fun and pleasurable for some people.

2. The obvious "women are inherently better than men" sentiment, but not just that. Women are better because they're chaste and wholesome, unlike those gross dirty horny men. Not only is this hateful towards men in a classically terfy way, it's also pinning women's "goodness" on their sexual purity and chastity. This is of course where terf and conservative Christian rhetoric overlap and it's very blatant in this post imo.

3. The intent likely comes from the oversexualization and objectification of women in media. I don't think this is applicable to dungeon meshi specifically because the way the female characters are treated with genuine respect when they are sexualized, in addition to the equal if not greater amount of sexualization given to the male characters. But, even if the media is Problematique in the way it portrays its female characters, there's still nothing wrong with being horny for those women. Again, being horny is a good thing.

4. Specifically speaking as a transgender gay man, I fucking hate the way these people talk about men. I love men. It's kind of my whole thing. I love men so much that I choose to be one every day. Is being a man sexually attracted to other men suddenly making me worse? This post clearly dictates that women are better because of mens' sexualities, so what does that say about their view of gay and transgender men? It's impossible to express hatred for male sexuality without being transphobic or homophobic.

Please stop putting shit like that on my dash. Just say "I love Falin's big bouncy boobies and they make me horny" and stop trying to shit on men's sexualities every time you can.

[olderthannetfic]

I always see people who have never been antis, talking about/questioning how some antis even ARE antis when you look at their taste in media - ie the ever famous joke of "Hannigram is #problematique" "but it's a show where he eats people" or whatever.

I thought I'd weigh in as someone who could, hypothetically, be called an ex-anti (which, thankfully, nothing ever really came out of it - it was just very 2014 keyboardwarrior-esque behavior of me being a chronically online young adult who would share posts in a group chat making fun of certain shippers, or reblog posts about how 50shades is The Most Problematic Media Ever to exist -- basically I was an anti with anti-lines of thoughts, but i never, like, a ran a Shipping Discourse Blog or whatever)

For me, personally, it was a few different things. I can now see how it's incredibly hypocritical that teenaged me shipped Light/L, while still thinking that Dramione was Bad And Abusive. It ultimately boiled down to a) being pretentious, and b) just not understanding media or what proshippers REALLY believed, with a side of c) not realizing that nuance exists. like i was pretty late to join tumblr, I think I immigrated here during PEAK "yourfaveisproblematic" era which definitely did have an impact on my opinions and my tastes.

to elaborate, a.) being pretentious. i mean this one just kinda goes without saying. "I engage in media in a way more intellectual way than you do, don't you know that? You're a filthy and disgusting person who writes Snape/Hermione because you're an actually disgusting pedophile IRL who would probably date your own student that you're abusing if you could. Meanwhile, I'm a very smart, good, and pure person. When I read Uncle Vernon/Harry, I'm doing it in a G-d honoring whump way that clearly condemns abuse, incest, and rape. Unlike YOU who only writes harmful stuff as a way to get people off :/"

(as an aside, i think this line of thinking will ALWAYS be present in fandom and popculture in some way, sadly. ie the recent trend of people hating on booktok bc the books are 'trashy' and how these porn addicts should read real classic literature instead.)

as for b.), not understanding media - i cannot emphasize enough that i was GENUINELY stupid and disconnected enough to think that proshippers REALLY WERE pro-All Of The Degenerate Dead Doves That They Wrote.

why did i feel this way? why did i understand that Lolita clearly isnt pro-pedophilia, but for some reason i thought that someone shipping weecest was? well, first of all, i think that fanfiction is (generally) seen as Less Serious than classic literature, and fandom is a fun place, so i guess i somehow thought that every fanfic/fanartist who wrote Problematic Things, especially Problematic Things that they portrayed as Sexy, really DID enjoy the thought of that Actually Happening To Real People.

and i think THIS is the bulk of why antis ARE antis. i'm not calling them all stupid - i do think BEING an anti is stupid, but at the same time, there are people who are truly smart and good-intended people who just have some really off color opinions about, like, homestuck ships or whatever. Lawlight is okay because notebooks that kill people don't exist so it's IMPOSSIBLE for the Harmful Aspects of Light/L to be romanticized! but schoolyard prejudiced bullies DO exist and are a REAL problem so Drarry is BAD (*truly completely unaware of the fact that there's 'realistic' aspects of the Light/L dynamic and 'unrealistic' aspects of Drarry - such as, for example, Hogwarts arguably being even MORE of a fantasy setting than DN is.*) I know that media literacy is the hot buzzword of the year to throw around in 2024, but, like, i really did not have media literacy.

as for c.), not realizing nuance exists - ok "nuance" might not be the best word here, but i dont know how else to describe it. like, each time ive typed the word "problematic" out in this ask, i've done so in a very tongue in cheek/ironic/retroactive way, but, like, those posts about how Everything Is Problematic, Including Your Fave ARE true. and i didn't like the fact that my favorite media or favorite person might've Made A Mistake! i need to Talk About Its Issues Because I'm So Betrayed That My Dear Sweet Comfort Media Would Do This To Me. I Need To Prove I Clearly Condemn It.

like, i legit morally could not justify reblogging a twilight post without adding in the tags '#this is my guilty pleasure it sucks that the books were so racist though' or whatever. Most people were lucky enough to avoid that line of thinking, but there was an actual group of people who felt a genuine need to virtue signal all the time, partly bc, hey, they WERE passionate about talking abt #issues in media, but also bc of a subconscious fear of If You Reblog A Singular Piece Of Hetalia Fanart, You're Literally A Nazi And Will Get A Callout Post Written About You.

and during all of this i was at the tail end of my high school experience (yes i know im younger than most of your audience, ha). i was going through A Lot emotionally, going through a lot of life changes, and lived in a very . . . interesting household/place where i couldn't do ACTUAL good in the world that i was passionate about. so to make up for the fact that i was genuinely in no place to do legit activism, clearly i had to save the gay community by arguing about johnlock queerbaiting or whatever.

^ and honestly i do think that is the position of most antis. theyre isolated and cant seem to do Enough in the Real Scary World so they have to resort to talking about how bad of a person someone is for "shipping abuse", bc theyre not in a situation where they could, for example, ACTUALLY fight the good fight to end abuse or raise awareness for it.

There was way more to it and way more that I could say, if I wanted to, but this post is long enough as it is and probably doesn't make much sense.

I feel bad for antis, honestly, or at least the ones who are antis in the way I used to be.

--

Oh yes, passionate young fools who think they can at least fix the internet if not their lives make up most of the cannon fodder. Some of the ringleaders are just mini dictators and wannabe cult leaders, but most anti-leaning types are just traumatized or clueless, even a lot of the ones who do serious damage and don't just mock shit in private with their friends.

[genderkoolaid]

Not sure how knowledgeable you are on this but it's always baffled me how some queer people are against the term Achilliean because "Achilles was a pedophile" but like.... wasn't Sappho also a groomer? Weren't the people she wrote about in her poems her students, who were teenaged girls and possibly even younger?

I know it's theorized her poems were to her students, although idk how well that's accepted by current scholars (I think originally it was theorized that they were written to her students as a way of avoiding the homoeroticism, actually, but it's been a minute since I read about Sappho).

Regardless, it's a silly fucking argument. Like there's multiple different things I can say (Achilles very likely was never a real person, I think saying he was a pedophile is probably a reductive way of talking about pederatry within Greek culture, by this logic we should stop saying "Platonic" because Plato was a fucking douchebag, we need to learn to be okay with Greek mythology being Problematique or I'm gonna lose my mind, "Achillean" as a term for gay male love has been around for centuries) but above all else these criticisms are not made in good faith. They hate the term for another reason (in this case, for political lesbianism reasons and also generally hating on anything gay transmascs do literally ever) and then reverse engineer a valid-sounding reason to hate it.

[damnfandomproblems]

Fandom Problem #4374:

It's okay, you can dislike a trope. You don't need to make shit up about how problematique TM it is. (This is about someone who says the love at first sight trope is misogynistic. Because as everyone knows, a trope used mainly in romance novels overwhelmingly written by and for women is misogynistic.)

[problematic-faves-appreciation]

I'm back with another "the haters think this guy is a super problematic male love interest? 🤣" Lore Olympus post!

Before we get to Hades, let's discuss groveling in romance, aka making amends/an act of atonement. It's a highly popular trope because a good deal of MMCs are known for wronging their lovers or letting them down in some way (this is not even a dark romance phenomenon!), making things up to them, and changing their cold/jerk ways.

Now, let's look at Hades and Persephone's relationship: the dude never hurt Persephone! How can he be "very problematique" if he doesn't even behave like your average romance novel hero? These two are such a harmonious couple, that they never had a massive row where Hades ended up saying something incredibly hurtful, and had to apologize soon afterwards. Like, the few arguments they did have resulted in them growing closer as a couple!

Behold, Hades and Persephone overall — sickly sweet (affectionate):

Haters, I would appreciate it if you guys recommended complained about couples who have ACTUALLY wronged each other in serious ways. I'm trying to grow my problematic ships collection, here. Persephone/Hades are too fluffy. Lol

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

Are you still doing song analysis? What are your thoughts on Reckless Love by Cory Asbury? I’ve heard there was some controversy

I was really only doing The Tortured Poets Department analysis, but sure I can analyze Reckless Love (I'm like the only person I know who has neither strong love nor hate for it).

Big points for Biblical pro-lifery in that 3rd line.

Here's the infamous problematique line. Now, I know what Cory Asbury is trying to say here--I think it's a little silly to suggest he literally thinks God is reckless. By the rest of the lyrics, we know he doesn't think that. He believes in a sovereign, all-powerful God. What he is trying to communicate is that by human standards, God's love is reckless. Any human who loved like this would be called reckless.

The problem is that it is unwise to label or define God by human standards. The Bible repeatedly cautions against this. His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts. Constantly, He is reprimanding men (Uzzah, Job, Israel as a nation, Nicodemus, etc.) for "shrinking" Him into our limited capacities.

Those first two lines are good n' solid, and (I think) the high point of the song.

The rest is pretty par for the course in contemporary Christian music, but I would say what stands out is that it is very me-centered (also par for the course in contemporary Christian music). The title may be about God, but the song is really about me. Personal pronoun count: 30

There's nothing wrong with contemplating my standing and relationship with God and everything He's done for me. But when we're worshiping God, our worship should pull our attention away from ourselves and toward God.

Reckless Love has only one unique line about God Himself. Compare that with any given hymn. In fact, I'll go spin a picker wheel online right now: Great Is Thy Faithfulness.

Perfect; it has the same theme as Reckless Love.

No mention of self, but all glory to God for His strong and salvific love.

In the chorus, we do get some acknowledgment of the self (again, not wrong; even the Psalmist does it--the rub is in how the song frames it).

No mention of the self. Points to creation as a testament to God.

This verse is about the blessings I receive from God, so it does concern the self, but never do we get the feeling the song is turning us inward as we do hearing Reckless Love. Personal pronoun count: 10.

Final verdict: I had Reckless Love on my playlist when it first came out. It is a passionate & well-intentioned song with lovely music, but it takes too much artistic license and is ultimately too self-focused.

[dramarising-replacement]

Admins should just scrub all the lore from this site at this point, the userbase very clearly isn't mature enough to handle anything that isn't bluey

aka their comfy uwu stories made for actual toddlers where the highest form of conflict is someone is sad that the other person didnt like their koolaid or was on the phone during a baseball game

Any of you know that show Moral Orel? There's a character that says something akin to, "Everything is offensive if you know how to look at it just right" and that sums up a lot of the users to a T. There isn't a single piece of media that isn't Problematique to some degree that's 100% free from REaL WorLd Parallels.

Or maybe you guys can follow your own advice and if you don't like the lore, don't read it. Ignore it if it's giving you IRL panic attacks or whatever you claim it does, you're obviously not mature enough to handle FRs already childish attempt at lore. You're all seriously so insufferable and obnoxious with how you use social "Activism" (spamming devs) as an excuse to be shitty to everyone you meet and always assume the worst of them.

Oh well. This is the exact community the devs have been cultivating with their choices and i hope they're enjoying it. They need to learn to ignore these users or they'll never have a moment of peace. Guess this is just the natural progression of things when you cater to histrionic middle aged women and socially stunted teens who grew up on twitter/tiktok. Everything is offensive unless it's as creatively bland as rice porridge.

[punkeropercyjackson]

Zutara arguments be like

Dadko is canon therefore Momtara should be too(Zuko being the Team Dad of the Gaang was a sign of character development by healing his inner child and breaking the cycle of abuse while Mom Friend Katara is a compulsive trauma induced trait she's always talking about hating and wanting to be just a kid)

Aang is too immature for Katara so Zuko is better fit for her(See above)

Katara can only like brown guys(Jet and Haru)as a stepping stone to Zuko or it's #problematique and not real interracial rep

They used to hate eachother so it's destiny

Red x blue and sun x moon(Symbolism with zero in-universe romantic connecations and afaik not common irl ones either)

Zuko is a boy and Katara is a girl=Opposites attract because complimentary

"Ugh i wish i didn't try to get oppressed for saying Zuko is STRAIGHT,i hate you STUPID GAYS"

Mai is a girl with the same personality as Zuko and this means she's abusive because REAL girls don't bite back or have non-quirky emotions

"Aang sexually assaulted Katara by kissing her and her and Zuko have repressed sexual feelings for eachother-No i am not a pedophile for refusing to not associate children with sex,why are you such an abuse apologist omg!!!"

Katara was a teenage anarchist with a gnc bf who was previously her first ever and also best friend instead of Zuko's rebellious gf he taught to truly understand him and to not judge a person just by their actions and beliefs but rather how much they fit into beauty standards and how hard their childhood was so the entire Atla crew are self-inserters who hate women

Calling Korrasami forced pandering bs and Asami a badly written character who's inherently colorist and overhyped in the fandom

Completely ignoring Ty Luko both as the most supported non-canon Zuko ship in-text and as a fandom rarepair so they can say every Zutara anti just has internalized misogyny while also being revolted by Aang's femininity and multigender/transfem egg hcs for him and even Zuko ironically enough despite claiming to love them for being 'a female fantasy'

"I'm [insert non native american/indigenous type of poc here] and i had crush on Zuko SO WE WERE ALL ROBBED!WHY DOES EVERYBODY CALL ME A COLONIZER APOLOGIST,ALL I SAID WAS KAT IS A CUTER NAME THAN KATARA!"

[fractualized]

Could you give me any Batman comic(/series) recommendations? Or Joker ones?

(You can pretend I’ve never read any Batman comics)

Man, this got me thinking about (1) the number of extended storylines I still haven't fully read myself and (2) of the ones I have, would I recommend that people read them?? Tough question! Thinking about it in terms of a Batman newbie changes things too... 🤔

Ultimately, my list is mostly one-offs apart from the mainline series, but there's a few multi-issue mainline stories in there. From oldest to newest:

Batman (1940) #1, "The Joker" and "The Joker Returns" — Early comics can feel inaccessible because of their age, but I would still recommend checking out the start of Batman and Joker's relationship for a sense of the longevity and evolution of these characters (You could also read Batman's first appearance in Detective Comics [1937] #27.)

Batman (1940) #251, "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" — Jumping ahead thirty years! After a 4-year absence from comics, Joker returns, and I just love how his dynamic with Batman picks up where they left off like it was yesterday.

Detective Comics (1937) #475, "The Laughing Fish" — The infamous story in which Joker's mad scheme is to… copyright fish.

The Dark Knight Returns #1-4 — TBH, I'm not a fan of TDKR for various reasons. However, it had a huge influence on Batman and you should read it at least once.

Batman (1940) #404-407, "Batman: Year One" — More required reading (but I do enjoy it more than TDKR). Frank Miller's problematique is more acknowledged today, but as I said, modern Batman stems from his work.

The Killing Joke — Controversial-ish recommendation nowadays, considering the much-maligned choice to fridge Barbara Gordon, but I still enjoy the nuance it gives Joker and the meta element of the ending, with Bruce and Joker trapped in their cycle by choices that are informed by the needs of the franchise. Alan Moore may no longer care for it, but I do! (Also, I'd say read it with the original coloring.)

Batman (1940) #426-429, "A Death in the Family" — Another big event in Batman lore: the death of Jason Todd. It's one of those moments that gets flattened in various ways today, so I think it's important to see how everything actually played out. In particular, it's striking to see that Joker is initially nervous about Batman finding out what he did, and just how Bruce struggles with his no-kill principle.

Batman #450-451, "Wildcard!" and "Judgements!" — Joker's big return after Jason's murder, in which we see he's still not all that giddy about it.

Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight #65-68, "Going Sane" — This story takes place earlier in Batman's career, before Robin. When Joker seemingly kills Batman, he tries to start a new life without his instability breaking through. Meanwhile, Bruce recovers from his near-death in a little town in the middle of nowhere and thinks he might actually stay there… but he's plagued by restlessness too.

Joker: Devil's Advocate — Joker winds up on death row, but for a crime he didn't commit! Bruce is set on proving Joker's innocence despite the clown's other sins, and Joker is too captivated by all the media attention to help save his own hide.

Deathstroke (1991) #58, "Bad Blood" — A story in which Joker causes plenty of chaos, but in service of doing something… nice?

Batman: Ego — As Bruce contemplates giving up his crusade, he falls into an argument with… Batman.

Batman (1940) #648-650, "All They Do Is Watch Us Kill" — Part of Under the Red Hood. Jason Todd's reappearance in Gotham City comes to a head when he kidnaps Joker and draws Batman in for a dire confrontation.

Detective Comics (1937) #826, "Slayride" — Paul Dini is one of the writers who consistently remembers Joker has a personality and makes him funny, and this Christmas-time story featuring Tim Drake is a great example.

Batman Confidential #7-12, "Lovers and Madmen" — An alternative origin for Joker. Bruce has been fighting crime for about a year when he encounters a bloody crime scene that he can't make sense of. Meanwhile, the culprit, Jack, is growing bored with his criminal life, until he comes face to face with a vigilante bat.

Batman 80-Page Giant 2010 (Volume 2), "Reality Check" — Is Joker really crazy? Does Joker himself even know?

Batman (2011) #13-17, "Death of the Family" — Not to be confused with "A Death in the Family." Joker tries to convince Batman that all his sidekicks make him weak.

Batman (2011) #23.1, "Time to Monkey Shine" — Joker infamously adopts a gorilla. (It ends badly.)

Batman (2011) #35-40, "Endgame" — After Joker's failure in DOTF, he decides to bring his conflict with Batman to a close.

The Joker Presents: A Puzzlebox #1-7 — The Riddler is dead, but what really happened? A heist story in which the point of view is passed around multiple rogues, but Joker is the ringleader.

Catwoman: Lonely City #1-4 — Alright, this one does revolve around Selina, but the story is deeply tied to her relationship with Bruce and what she comes to understand about him in the end. (And Joker plays a brief but key part!)

Batman & The Joker: The Deadly Duo #1-7 — A recent team-up that calls back to everything I've personally enjoyed about Batman and Joker's dynamic.

Batman: City of Madness #1-3 — Beneath Gotham lies Gotham Below, from which a monstrous mirror of Batman escapes in search of a Robin. In his pursuit, Bruce confronts not only alternative versions of his rogues but his personal demons.

[eff-plays]

Astarion fans really seem to want their cake and eat it too. He's a ~bad boy~ and they're in to that right up until he shows genuine malice and then he's a misunderstood trauma victim who isn't accountable for his actions. Of course they can't just like the character flaws and all because that might be problematique

God yeah, this is basically the cognitive dissonance of fandom male faves. People flock to the "morally grey" and "complex" ones, write essays about how deep and tragic they are, but the moment someone acknowledges their actual negative traits they go "nooo it's just his trauma response, have some empathy, and if you don't you're gross and hate trauma victims!!"

And I don't think you have to like his character flaws (I certainly don't), but they're like ... character flaws? Ya know, a thing a good character has? Sometimes a guy is just a piece of shit. Sometimes they just say really cruel things. Understanding why they do that is a sign of good writing, not that he's somehow justified or correct. I keep saying this!!

AUGH.

I guess maybe people identify so strongly with him and grow so attached to their love for him that they think an acknowledgement of his less savory traits is somehow an attack on them or their taste? I dunno man. I can still like him even when he's garbage. At the very least, I can find him interesting and compelling as a fictional character.

[froody]

I just checked my tag for the first time in forever and I’m guffawing at how late last year someone went though the notes on a post I made about two Iron Age bog bodies found in the Netherlands and sent this message to EVERYONE WHO REBLOGGED IT didn’t message me, a trans person, like “I found your wording on a post about two bog bodies found holding to be problematique” quite literally copy pasted that shit dozens and dozens and dozens of times. THEY’RE BOG BODIES. FROM 2,200 YEARS AGO. WE CANNOT FATHOM WHAT THEIR CONCEPT OF GENDER WAS LIKE. insanity. truly. my original post is here. there is nothing transphobic or radically feminist about saying “these two sets of historical remains were determined to have XY chromosomes through DNA testing and because there are no grave goods indicating they were gender nonconforming, these remains are considered male” archeology is often about speculation, theory and context clues, assumptions like “these sets of remains were likely a married couple due to positioning” and “this person was likely someone wealthy or held in high esteem by their community due to the grave goods” that’s the entire point of archeology, they can’t tell us in their words.

I honestly do not think anon gave a shit. they probably just hate me. if you see someone doing this shit please tell me

[godkilller]

out of character. Frembly remembly that while I may write Gin and Rangiku being soft / cute, that doesn't change the fact that Gin commits a few problematique relationship crimes aside from his canon betrayal... including, but not limited to:

Stalking -- it's not always outright following her around, but keeping constant tabs on Rangiku via locking onto her reiatsu at any given moment is still lowkey stalking behavior in my book.

Possessiveness -- this is mostly my own interpretation and it's pretty subdued at most times, but there have been a few points in my roleplay where I have it flare up nice and ugly; this is the Ichimaru Gin who says he devours his favorites whole, this passion of his can easily become possessive and obsessive lust and fully envelop Rangiku in a strangling grasp.

Honorably mentioning Obsession in its own bullet point because of how potent that can be when blanketed across his entire vow to retrieve her soul piece being based entirely on him deciding, as a child, that this was the hill to die on, to murder for. For a girl he just met, that's a lot.

Murder! Gin killed those Shinigami that assaulted Rangiku as a child, they're shown to be the ones Gin plucks a Shinigami robe from in the blizzard when he tells Rangiku he's going to 'fix things' for her. The following murders Gin dishes out for the Third Seat and many unnamed others aren't directly linked to Rangiku/for the sake of Rangiku alone, so I won't count them specifically here, but those three/four guys? Hell yeah. We can argue they had it comin' and I'll agree, but it's still Problematique that he killed them 'for' her.

Emotional Withholding -- again, not quite in the outright and proper way that is prevalent in toxic and abusive relationships (often used to convey anger/punishment via that withholding), but he's withdrawn from her during the Rescue Rukia arc in a way that is specifically distressing and confusing for Rangiku, who knows Gin isn't behaving like himself, and he's refusing to communicate anything to her during that time. A blanket apology before abandoning her on Sokyoku Hill doesn't cover it.

Abandonment. Because of the lasting effect it had on Rangiku, this is considerably awful and something that could have at the very least been eased via him explaining himself to some vague degree rather than not at all, leaving her to wonder where he was going, what he was up to, and why he didn't tell her shit. The argument could be made that he didn't want to unnecessarily lie to her, but he's already lying to her in other ways.

Deflection via Twisting, turning Rangiku's questions onto her instead of allowing her to properly drill into him when she finally confronts him on the rooftop, which then subsequently leads to guilt-tripping topped with a cherry of "you're in the way," that's overall an awful thing to say/do AND THEN POINTING SHINSO AT HER AND --

Threatening Bodily Harm. This one's getting put on here because at the end of the day, regardless of Gin's intent to skewer Momo and not Rangiku, Rangiku still put herself between them and it still happened where he almost hurt her instead. The second time being on the rooftop, where he pretends to kill her via a well-aimed Shinso with a simultaneous Hakufuku, but the act is so well guised that Rangiku, in that moment, thought Gin was going to kill her.

But joke's on you, Ginran makes me froth at the mouth and howl at the moon before barreling at you on all fours, so... if you can't get past these fictional flaws? Skill issue tbh.

[olderthannetfic]

Hope it's okay to ask here, I love your blog and how you give clear, concise answers to questions without assuming bad faith so hopefully it's ok to throw my own "warning tag" question in here, TIA for the answer! So, childhood friends-to-lovers is like one of my favourite romance tropes to write in fanfic. I've done a LOT of ships with that, but I've never actually written anything more uh...spicy, shall we say. Until after the ship were both adults. I was raised Extremely Fundie and wasn't very sex positive for a LONG time as a result but now that I'm older & out of that environment I've grown a lot. So because of religious upbringing I just avoided writing smut before both characters were 18 "to be safe". In a recent new fandom I'm in I have a character who I feel like very much WOULD have explored her sexuality before she turned 18. The partner in this context is her childhood friend so they grew up together and are probably at most like 3 years apart, if that. So my question is, would I tag that as Underage because, even tho they're close together in age (ie. both "minors" in that sense) they ARE Underage or is the Underage tag on AO3 solely for Adult/Minor ships? (not judging writers of Adult/Minor pairings either, I'll add. It's just not my scene and I don't want to give people the wrong impression in the tags, either way around, whenever I inevitably write & post their First Time fic, yk?) -🌸 (hope its okay to tag this so I can maybe find it later? I don't wanna ask this off anon in case I get blasted by That(tm) side of fandom at large who might see my username and then come into my DMs/inbox to scream "P*do!!" at me, but I DO wanna be able to see the answer when it comes up, esp if I am not on tumblr the day that it does haha)

--

Ah. You're still thinking about that tag in a more cultural sense, but that's not what it's for. If you dig through the FAQs and such, the explanation is in there somewhere, but to summarize, it refers to:

On page depictions of sexual activity including at least one character under 18.

(So if they just kiss or you just say she had sex but you don't show intercourse, oral, etc. on the actual page, it doesn't count.)

AO3's underage tag is actually to protect users who live in jurisdictions where <18 sexytimes are banned from art or banned unless there's ~artistic merit~ or whatever. Around the time AO3 was starting up was when Australia was having a big upheaval over such things, so it was on people's minds in the Anglosphere.

Whether the sex is problematique or age gap or whatever doesn't matter. The actual age of consent or laws around sex in the real world location these characters are in, if any, does not matter. Your 17-year-old UK characters fucking still need the warning or CNTW even though that's laughable in context. 18 tends to be the age most used in international law for... like... porn star ages and such, so 18 is what AO3 went with. Never mind that it's not necessarily the age of majority or that age of consent laws can depend on partner age, etc. etc.

Unlike noncon/graphic violence/character death, this warning isn't there primarily because readers find the topic squicky.

It's a legal ass-covering thing.

[bougiebutchbitch]

I will bite. what's the deeptrain concept?

yes.... come nibble on my bait, my pretties

basically, it's an expansion on that one trans!A-Train fic I wrote

with big ol' warnings for Deep and A-Train both being kinda awful people, misgendering, blackmail, and rape that one party does not realize is rape (but it probably wouldn't stop them anyway)

I just think it would be very fun if Deep had twigged that SOMETHING was up with the way A-Train reacted in that fic. He cracked his two braincells together and got 'trans' as the result.

So obviously, he goes to mock A-Train about it.

Only he doesn't really Believe In Trans PeopleTM so he absolutely treats him differently and acts way more 'horny guy' around him than he usually would - with the intention being purely to piss him off, because they have that sort of fun fucked-up relationship. From his perspective, anyway.

but A-Train is so used to their mutual blackmail/bickering thing that he assumes Deep is saying 'sleep with me or I'll out you'

so he sleeps with him

and like, Deep wasn't saying that, but also.... he's the sort of guy who probably would say that. He greatly enjoys himself. A-Train pretends to enjoy himself out of sheer spite despite not wanting to do this in the slightest. And so, they start a really messed up fuckbuddy thing where Reggie thinks Kevin is blackmailing him into sex but he refuses to let him see how much it's affecting him, while Kevin is slooooowly developing feelings for him (and slooooooowly learning to respect him as a trans man on the way)

I think it would be great fun if Kevin genuinely went on a self-improvement arc and became a much better person but Reggie still fucking hates his guts throughout and maybe flat-out murders him at the end?? But I'm open to options. It certainly won't be a cute get-together fic tho, and there would be A LOT of Problematique Content sldfhglsdhk

[marzipanandminutiae]

had a similar feeling about that photoshoot. i can understand how it is attractive, and i am certainly not about to moralise what one finds appealing. still, upon first sight i did think 1. hmm, this seems to hinge upon stewart being a thin woman, and 2. i do not like that when a queer woman becomes popular enough she begins to be photographed in more misogynistic settings, i.e. the fuckboy, woman pictured only on her back as a body to have sex with, etc? these are neutral if weary observations that i am only sharing as you have mentioned it, but again: i do not want to do the tumblr finding-of-problematics to make some one guilty about enjoying a photoshoot.

Yeah, for me it's like...I don't want to make this deeper than it is. I'm fully aware that, as a feminine queer woman who's more into other feminine women, no part of this is For Me. And that's perfectly fine! It doesn't have to be! I am one of 7 billion people in the world; expecting everything to be What I Like would be selfish and absurd. God knows, in my own beloved Murder Incest MovieTM fandom, I get annoyed enough with people not knowing the difference between "this is not my thing" and "this is morally terrible and if you like it you're a monster who should be pelted with bricks." I am NOT, EVER saying that about the KStew gym photoshoot.

Rather say that, I suppose, parts of it don't sit right with me? Her body type doesn't bother me so much as I was acknowledging that only certain types of women get to have their masculinity seen as desirable in any context, but the shot where she's looming above a faceless, splay-legged feminine woman (while presented like a stereotypical gym bro But Female) did leave a bad taste in my mouth. If that would be cringed at in a photoshoot with a male actor, why is it suddenly super-hot when a female actor does it? Not in the context of individuals' personal fantasies in which they're a consenting participant- good luck policing that; I'm not here to -but in the public eye. There's not necessarily a right answer; it's more a conversation worth having, IMO.

My reaction still isn't moral outrage, any more than yours is. More a mixture of "oh wow this thing that a lot of other sapphists find sexy is WILDLY unattractive to me; I will vent about that on my private blog" and "some aspects of this seem mildly distasteful to me."

I am extremely not saying "this photoshoot is Problematique and the actress and anyone who like it should be Cancelled; all public images of sexuality must be 100% morally correct." Do not willfully misinterpret my meaning, readers.