#purity wank
Text
You know how a pretty obvious majority of kinksters are submissives? You want to know a big part of the reason why it's hard to find a dom that's into the same hard kink you are?
Ask a hardcore masochist what they think of being whipped.
Then ask a hard sadist what they think of whipping someone.
Do you notice that the sadist/dom will often either dance around an answer or try to use soothing language/euphemism not unlike the way how in many places people are still expected to discuss sex if at all. Gentle, calculated language.
The issue is, especially with a new surge of purity culture overtaking so-called "leftist" online circles, is that fantasy becomes a moral judgement.
Sub with a noncon kink: "I want to be raped" (cnc but like. People can talk ab it how they want don't cancel me fr.)
Response from Normies: "well that's weird and kinda dark but ok"
Dom with a noncon kink: "I want to rape"
Response from Normies: "I'm calling the police and you should kys and you're also a sexual abuser and even though you haven't said anything about kids you're also also a pedophile :)"
Not only does the attitude of murderous hatred against doms/tops with hard kinks/fetishes/paraphilias make it difficult for them to practice those kinks (safely and ethically) out of fear of social backlash if it's ever found out even if both they and their partner[s] had a great time and are fine-- but, it actively puts innocent people in danger by equating thoughts and attractions of ANY KIND to the act of hurting others against their will. It equates fantasy, which can oftentimes be played out safely if in a modified way with real harmful actions.
Also, kink is still illegal in many places, so don't "its illegal" me about harder kinks. Law is not morality, none of us are free until all of us are free, etc. You get the gist.
You want to see more doms? Meet someone who can indulge your "scary badwrong" sexy feelings? Then maybe don't actively promote a culture where you put ANY kind of attraction or kink under fire. It doesn't matter if it'd be unethical to act out in real life. Some of the most common kinks worldwide are unethical as fuck to act out irl, including rape. That's why we have cnc, come on, guys.
You know what? In fact, you SHOULD actively shun people who shame others for their sexual feelings. EVEN if you think it's gross. EVEN if it wouldn't be ethical to act on irl. Let these types know that their puritan ideals are NOT accepted here. Let them know that if they want to go to church they can do that but not in your space, not forcing other (non consenting!) people to listen to their hateful and repressive ideology.
Like, hey, I'm not into ABDL, for example. But I will defend to the death other people's right to be into that. To think and feel whatever they think and feel. You think diapers are sexy? Great! I don't personally see the appeal, but you do you boo. There is no Correct Way to be sex/kink negative. Either you believe in thought crime or you don't.
And yes, this post includes "harmful" paraphilias (I put it in quotes because they're only harmful if acted on), sadomasochism, mutilation fetishism, etc etc. Every "gross" or "evil" kink, fetish, para you can possibly imagine. The stuff that makes you horny is just stuff that makes you horny, and being horny is normal. Being "weird horny" is also normal. No one deserves to experience shame, let alone public harassment or hate over feelings they most of the time don't Choose to have. Be mindful of puritan rhetoric and strike it down when you see it.
#important#psa#hard kink#nsft topic#pro para#pro kink#the 'dom shortage'#obv there are other factors but this is just a connection I'm pointing out#purity culture#purity wank#puritans#sex and sexuality#tw r@pe mention#p3d0 panic/the trend of calling everyone you don't like a p43d0phi13 despite that that's as i said before#NOT the same thing as csa or ANYTHING like that and simply an experienced attraction#attraction is not r@pe; foot fetishists r not going to randomly hump ur foot and same w ever other kink#thought crime#puritanism#the purity culture wave#discourse#except if you disagree pls block me this is a pro kink blog forever and ever#thoughts are thoughts#anti para people scare me bc if u think someone cant help but have sex with someone/something theyre attracted to...#what EXACTLY are you going to do if someone romantically rejects you????????????#turning the argument around here. if this is your belief then i do not trust you around me and my loved ones#because if attraction is action then i am scared for the people you are attracted to#because it isn't. and the fact that you think it is says more about you than anyone you hate for their attractions
6K notes
·
View notes
Text
Ok, I'm gonna be REAL controversial for a second:
Saying "incest and underage fics are ok because it's usually CSA survivors recontextualizing/processing their own experience" is just purity culture lite. It's like saying "Birth control should be legal because some people use it for non-birth control related purposes" or "abortion needs to be legal because women can die without it."
Yes, these are TRUE and IMPORTANT things. But kind of... not the point?
Kind of giving way to the antis, the puritanical right, the misogynists who just want to control women (because you KNOW they aren't thinking about trans men or nonbinary people when they legislate abortion).
Lemme see if I can explain: by saying "look at this VALID and IMPORTANT reason someone might have for doing the thing you don't like," you are saying that there are invalid reasons for it. That some people shouldn't do it.
You are saying that it is objectively wrong, and that exceptions must be made for it to be okay. And putting aside the fact that NO ONE should have to disclose their personal trauma for judgement, that no one should have to disclose their personal medical history to a judge or legislator before receiving treatment... you are conceding the point.
I refuse to concede anything on this.
I like fucked up fic, I like being able to fuck without getting pregnant, I like that if my birth control fails I can still make a choice about whether or not I want to be pregnant and give birth. I WILL NOT go into my reasons on ANY of this. Because YOU do not have a right to that information, and I am also protecting the privacy of everyone else who does not want to share their reasons.
650 notes
·
View notes
Text
Addressing Common Arguments Against “Consuming Harmful Content”
Challenging purity culture in online spaces and their fears of “problematic media”.
Read this piece on Medium. / / Leave a tip.
Photo by Ethan Will via Pexels.
Constant and continuous arguments endure on social media about the dreaded and frightening spectre of problematic media — from television shows that supposedly “glorify” unhealthy relationships or “sexualise” and “excuse” abusive relationships; to erotica, adult books, and 18+ fanfiction that supposedly teach teenagers bad life lessons and impact their ethics; to anime and manga that surely must be the cause of child abuse the world over.
I wrote an in-depth essay about the intellectual flaws in these reactionary assumptions, delving into their roots in lacking media literacy and rising anti-sex attitudes here:
The above essay discusses at length many of the fears and anxieties that lead to this reactionary thinking, but does not challenge or explore the echo chambers that can arise in online spaces, particularly in aggressive environments such as Twitter/X, and for young or isolated individuals who are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure and fears of ostracisation if they admit to the “wrong” opinions.
Many of these arguments are used by “anti-shippers” within fandom and online spaces, the term commonly shortened as “antis” — if you’re unfamiliar with the term, these are people who define themselves as opposing one or more specific ships, fandoms, tropes, or kinks, often due to what they perceive to be their “problematic” or inherently “harmful” elements when engaged with or portrayed in various forms of media and art. Because of the virulent and highly aggressive nature of these online communities, these people — many of them young or isolated, often marginalised and disenfranchised from in-person, supportive environments — can become radicalised, and can experience great fear and anxiety at the premise of others holding different opinions or perspectives from the ones these online communities have impressed upon them should be held immutably by all.
In this piece I’m going to be addressing common arguments and assumptions seen on social media one by one — it is not really intended to convert the above, often radicalised individuals, but to provide support and guidance in understanding why their perspectives can be flawed, and how to engage with and deconstruct those arguments.
It is also intended to provide support and structure to begin to engage with and potentially challenge or affirm your own beliefs and ideas about fiction, art, and other forms of media, and the extent of the impact it can have on you or others — this piece is me addressing these arguments with my own perspective, but I would encourage people to disagree with and critique my rebuttals!
The goal here is always more critical thought, analysis, and understanding, and that doesn’t come from automatically following another person’s line of thought or argument just because it’s well-poised or you particularly respect or like them — no matter who that person or people may be.
--
“Depicting [a theme] in media is the same as glorifying it!”
Let’s first engage with what people might be discussing when they panic about “harmful content” and “problematic” ships or pieces of fiction.
They might worry about people reading or watching works that discuss or depict anything from violence, incest, sexual assault, age gaps, BDSM, kinky sex, child sexual abuse, trauma recovery, rape, rape recovery, drug use, bestiality, to abusive relationships or anything else, will encourage people to think positively about those acts, those traumas, and those experiences.
You might look at the list of things I just wrote there and go, “Um, there are big differences between some of those things and the others!”
And yet the same consideration still applies.
Just because a theme or idea is present in a work, or is depicted in it implicitly or explicitly, doesn’t mean it’s being “glorified” and portrayed as overwhelmingly positive — and even if a theme or aspect is being glorified, this does not mean we shall simply unthinkingly absorb that perspective.
Reading a story that contains something doesn’t mean I’ll automatically think that thing is good or bad, regardless of how it’s portrayed in fiction — the media and art we engage with doesn’t wholly change and adjust our own ethics and morals as soon as we’ve interacted with it.
We might play a videogame and disagree with the way some themes are presented, have criticisms of them, whilst enjoying and appreciating others; we might read a piece of erotica and find some parts about it very hot, but find others disturbing and a little uncomfortable; we might watch a TV show and just think it’s in very poor taste, despite theoretically being up for the premise.
Engaging with media does not turn off and on switches in our brains that make us completely “pro” or completely “anti” one premise or other.
People are more complicated than that.
We have complex and layered feelings about every argument and perspective there is, every experience there is, because human beings are social animals, and we experience very few things through an uncomplicated, binary lens.
For me personally, I often seek out works that cover the same traumas and harms I’ve experienced — why? Because seeking out those themes helps me process and better understand what has happened to me, and how I’ve felt about it, how I’ve responded.
“I don’t have a problem with people writing about certain harmful topics to show them as bad, but some people sexualise or fetishise them!”
I’m sure you’re right.
Some people might write about rape to work out a complex trauma recovery narrative — others might write about rape in a work as kink. An author might well write with both goals in mind in the same work.
A traumatic event doesn’t become less traumatic because it sexually aroused us or brought us physical pleasure — in fact, those feelings can add to the impact of a trauma and the inner conflict we experience in the aftermath.
Some people undercut victims of sexual abuse by saying they “enjoyed” it, pointing out that they orgasmed or showed signs of arousal as signs they “secretly” wanted it, and these feelings can contribute heavily to shame and fear as a victim.
Sexual arousal is a bodily response. It is not consent, and it’s not an excuse for assault or abuse. Moreover, some people might feel arousal or pleasure but not be fit to consent — for example, if someone is underage, or if someone is drugged or insensible with drink.
These people cannot give knowledgeable consent, but abusers might still say after an assault that they “enjoyed” it.
This is purity culture at work — anti-sex attitudes use people’s “enjoyment” of something to undercut their autonomy and right to consent, by implying they “deserve” that abuse — abuse is abuse whether it’s sexualised or not.
But the thing is, the obverse applies.
Just as someone’s mixed feelings or sensations of pleasure during a sexual assault does not mean they consented to the assault, or because someone’s feelings of happiness and love for their abuser does not mean they deserved the abusive treatment they experienced from them, a person writing sexually or erotically about a topic, or engaging with art and narratives about that topic, does not mean they actually want that thing to happen in real life, to real people, or to themselves.
Fiction is not real life.
We watch a horror film, and it doesn’t mean we want serial killers or demons to run amok, killing teenagers or possessing their victims — similarly, just because we engage with porn or erotica that sexualises certain topics doesn’t mean we’re pro- or in favour of those topics for real people.
Rape fantasies are incredibly common, despite being highly stigmatised, and just because someone fantasises about this sort of control fantasy does not mean they actually want to abuse someone or be abused.
“It’s harmful to depict abusive or immoral characters as sexy or desirable.”
If you have never experienced abuse, manipulation, or otherwise poor treatment from someone you thought was attractive, charming, or admirable, if you’ve never been groomed by someone with whom you were enamoured, I’m very glad.
I’m happy for you, honestly.
But many of us have.
People want to believe that all abusers are evil, are ugly, are obvious from a distance, are blatant from the out. People want to believe they can “tell” someone is abusive just from a glance, and write them off — and that anyone who would or might spend time with that person is therefore “asking for it”, or “letting themselves” be abused.
In actual fact, many abusers aren’t.
Many abusers are beautiful and charming — some of them draw you in, slowly bring you closer and closer until it’s very difficult to untangle yourself from your need and craving for their approval. They ruin lives, ruin psyches, and they cause unspeakable damage to their victims.
And yes, victims often feel conflicted in the aftermath of their abuse.
Many of us hero worship or greatly respect our abusers, love them very deeply, crave their good opinion, because we are carefully groomed and manipulated, over time, into relying on their praise and their attention. For victims isolated from other sources of care and support, and especially for young children and teenagers, it can be very difficult to recognise what is happening and has happened to us.
Even after we know and understand exactly what has happened to us, and also internalised that it was wrong, we can still feel conflicted.
We are not retroactively deserving of our abuse because we crave our abusers’ good opinion, or their love, still. This instinct does not excuse or justify the abuse we’ve experienced. Victims of abuse are still victims of abuse even if we go back to our abusers, even if we “accept” or attempt to justify our abuse to others, if we try to excuse it, if we don’t ask for help.
Abuse is never the victim’s fault, no matter how imperfect we are as victims.
“Writing queer characters as abusive is bad representation!”
If we exclusively write queer characters who are perfect and unimpeachable, we’re not letting ourselves write queer characters who are fully human, with all the flaws and complexities humanity comes with.
Queer people are not less deserving of this complex representation than cishet people are — and in any case, the purpose of art and media is not exclusively to provide good representation, or to show good moral examples for others.
We create to express ourselves, to reflect the world, to critique it, laugh at it, commiserate over it, to feel our feelings, to connect and communicate with others through shared stories.
If we only let ourselves do things that might be seen as “good rep”, we rob ourselves of the ability to express ourselves as completely as we might wish to.
“If you write abusive queer characters, you’re just contributing to homophobia and bigotry in art and media!”
Queer people writing queer stories with queer villains is not the same as cishet people including queer people or queer-coded characters just to be villains. The power dynamic is completely different.
Queer writers’ writing of queer villainy is often inspired by their own experiences, including of bigotry, and the harm they might do reflects harm by society, the ways harms might be felt more keenly by their victims.
Writing queer villains as villainous because their queerness makes them (or is used as a shorthand for them being) predatory, cruel, or callous, is homophobic and is often shitty, whether people intend that or not.
But just having queer villains, having queer characters do bad or abusive things, or just have flaws?
That’s as much a part of queer humanity as having queer heroes and having queer characters do good and helpful things.
Why would you read about rape when you could read consensual non-consent?
[Consensual non-consent being a kink wherein partners agree to roleplay a non-consensual situation.]
Rape in fiction is a form of consensual non-consent.
The fictional characters, who are not real and do not have real feelings, are not consenting, but the reader choosing to read is.
In the same way that two people playing a CNC roleplay game in the bedroom might be a safe and fun way of experiencing or re-experiencing the fear and trauma of assault with an escape clause (a safeword), a reader can do the same — they can stop reading.
If a television show, film, or videogame becomes upsetting, again, one can stop watching, stop playing. It is a person’s own responsibility to set safe boundaries for themselves and protect their own mental health.
“Why would someone write about trauma and abuse when they could write fluff?”
Why would someone watch a horror movie when they could watch a romcom? Why would someone eat cheese when chocolate is an option?
People do not have to choose one or the other — many people like both horror films and romcoms, cheese and chocolate, and reading about both horrible shit and positive things.
“You mentioned that people might engage with media about dark topics to work through their feelings from their own abuse. How do I know if someone’s actually been abused?”
Why do you think it’s your right to ask that?
Why are you prioritising your personal comfort and curiosity over that person’s privacy? If your instinct is to try to license who is and isn’t allowed to engage with a piece of art or media, why?
You are never entitled to the details of someone else’s abuse. Your validation is not important enough to potentially trade for someone’s private traumas and experiences.
“If you write or create about certain topics as a survivor, you’re just perpetuating abuse and you are as bad as your abuser!”
Creating works of art or fiction about people who are not real experiencing fictional harm that is also not real, is not in any way equivalent to real people doing real harm to others.
If your support of abuse survivors hinges on how palatable their reaction to their abuse is, and you believe that some abuse survivors “deserve” their abuse for depicting their abuse in art and fiction, you’re not actually supporting survivors.
If you believe that all abuse survivors do or should act the same way, or respond the same way, to their abuses, you are mistaken.
If you are effectively angry at someone for not looking enough like a victim, for being “impure”, and therefore the same as their abuser, that is a form of victim blaming.
Do you hold artists who create media about non-sexual trauma or violence to a different standard than those who write about sexual trauma or violence?
Why? What is the difference to you?
If someone writing about sexual abuse in media is equivalent to real life abuse, is a fictional murder?
“People shouldn’t write or engage with media about traumatic things, they should just go to therapy!”
Therapy is not a moral machine where bad people with bad thoughts go in and good people with good thoughts go in.
Good therapy and counselling provides us with the tools to manage our own mental health, our own emotional and psychological needs, heal from our traumas, and so forth.
Many therapists will actually recommend safe re-exposure to frightening or upsetting topics, and also encourage self-expression on the subject of one’s most impactful experiences, which might include creating art and media to explore and discuss their feelings.
With that said, therapy is as flawed as any other tools for emotional catharsis and healing — therapy and mental healthcare can be very expensive or inaccessible because of one’s working schedule; some therapists and mental health professionals are abusive or bigoted; some people may not be in the right place for MH care or therapy at this time, et cetera.
Therapy isn’t a catch-all for anything you disapprove of in someone else, and it’s also not a punishment to force someone to repent for their sins.
“It’s okay to write a story to cope, but you shouldn’t publish it in case it upsets others!”
So long as the work has appropriate content warnings and/or is published or screened in an appropriate space, it is not inherently harmful. In fact, reading narratives and engaging with those narratives can be valuable for us.
Engaging with media that bears similarity to our own lives, reflects our own experiences, written by other people who we know understand the complicated emotions of survivors — whilst still condemning the actions of abusers or not — can be extremely validating and offer a lot of assurance.
This is especially useful in regards to media that shows victims having a codependent relationship with or still loving their abusers, or where their abusers are shown as sympathetic, whilst the narrative still shows the toxicity and pain caused by the relationship.
Moreover, there can be a sense of reclamation and security in exploring stories about similar harm as we’ve experienced whilst knowing we are now in a place of safety and are free from those past experiences, or that other survivors have escaped and we can too.
“If children read this work or watch this show or play this game, they might think that the things depicted in it are okay!”
Is the work rated G or PG?
Is it shown on a children’s TV channel, or appear in a section that is marked for children? Is it put on a children’s website, where the primary audience is children?
In short, is the work aimed at kids?
If no, then it’s not for kids.
Particularly if a work is marked for adult audiences only, if it’s labelled erotica, if it’s marked M or E or NC-17, if it says it’s for adults or asks people to check a box agreeing that they’re an adult, then the work in question is most definitely not for children.
Everything in the world doesn’t have to be child-safe just because children exist.
It is the responsibility of parents and guardians to appropriately supervise their children’s online use, and to teach children and teenagers internet safety, some of which includes setting appropriate boundaries for themselves and not seeking out content that might distress them, or to know what to do if they stumble across content that does distress them — namely, to speak with a trusted adult about their feelings and what they can do to manage them and look after themselves, and be looked after.
It’s not the responsibility of random other adults in the world not to make horror movies or watch porn or play adult videogames or anything else, just because a child could potentially learn of their existence.
“But someone else engaging with that work might think the things depicted in it are okay!”
You’re right, they might do.
They might also engage with the work and think things depicted in it are bad. Fiction does not exclusively exist for our moral education.
“It makes me feel uncomfortable or unsafe that people are writing about [a topic] with a tone or in a manner that seems wrong to me!”
Yes, many of us feel uncomfortable with some topics being depicted in fiction, and might find them viscerally disgusting or triggering, consider them to be in poor taste, badly considered, or similar.
This is normal and okay.
It’s perfectly natural to have limits on what one can handle in fiction, or to find your ethical considerations don’t match up with the things other people make.
But it’s our job, as responsible adults who look after our own mental health and consider our own boundaries, to avoid that content.
You cannot control what other people think about, feel about certain topics, or how they portray them in fiction. You cannot control other people.
You can only control your environment, your boundaries, and the works you choose to engage with.
You can limit your time on social media, mute tags or keywords, block particular users or sites, or simply look away or leave the room / close the tab.
“What about rampant problematic works on Ao3!?”
Works on Ao3 are not a real issue.
They are not representation. Fanworks and original works on Ao3 are not the mainstream. They are being read exclusively by members of various internet subcultures who read fanfiction in those specific fandoms, after reading the tags.
This doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t discuss certain tropes and norms in various fandoms — we might address our own biases around race, sexuality, religion, disability, and other characteristics, and how these biases and bigotries can come across in people’s approaches to fandom, the characters and ships they concentrate on, their headcanons, et cetera.
The same can be said of people’s original creations.
Ao3 has a robust tagging system, and allows people to mute and block tags they might be upset or triggered by — and in the event one clicks on an explicit work, a window will come up asking people to consent explicitly to moving through to read the work.
It is people’s own responsibility to set their own limits as to what they can handle in reading fiction — and not to obsess over what other people might or might not be reading, which we cannot control, and is also none of our business.
“What about loli and shotacon? Isn’t that the same as child pornography?”
“Child pornography” is generally not in use as a term — many people who have been victimised find that terms like “child porn” and CP grate, because “pornography” is work made with willing, adult participants.
Videos and images produced of children are instead referred to either as CSAM — child sexual abuse materials — or CSEM — child sexual exploitation materials. CSEM is evil because it involves the unspeakable and agonising victimisation of a real life child or children, being abused and manipulated by adults around them, and worse than that initial victimisation, the recording their abuse is another victimisation in itself.
With every share of a piece of this material, that child or children are victimised another time, made vulnerable to more people, and the creation of this material can create more market desire, meaning that other abusers will encourage further abuse and recording of these children’s victimisation, or for the recording abusers to seek out other children to abuse.
Victims of this sort of exploitation live in terror of the pictures or videos of their worst moments being shared to those they know, of being found by their loved ones, shared to workplaces, disseminated in any community they try to live in and be happy with — it is difficult enough to recover from one’s own abuse without the spectre of it constantly hanging over one’s head.
People’s cartoons or art of fictional children is not equivalent to CSEM, because there are no real children depicted in it.
It’s understandable to find these works disgusting or upsetting, triggering, unsettling — but to say that underage art or fiction is the same as or counts as CSEM is patently untrue. As a victim of CSA, it is galling to be told that choices my abuser made to harm and exploit me are equivalent to an abuser choosing to draw or read a comic about a victim that doesn’t actually exist.
Some final questions to ask yourself:
None of the above rebuttals are intended to imply people shouldn’t critique or criticise different media or their depictions.
As well as the initial essay I linked, I actually wrote a big guide on how to approach close reading of text, and I’m working on another about analysing television and film.
In my opinion, it’s really important to be aware of different tropes and themes that you feel are harmful in fiction and art — racist tropes, sexist ones, homophobic ones, and all the rest.
It’s worth considering how works are harmful, and what you actually want to be done about it.
I personally have criticisms of various tropes in media — I have particular dislike, for example, for the ways in which teacher/student relationships in TV shows and films are portrayed as “forbidden love”, with issue of their positions of power being depicted as one of bureaucracy or technical rules rather than a real power imbalance — I don’t care for the “sexy schoolgirl” trope, and the “barely legal” porn genre unsettles me.
All of the above three tropes often coincide with people’s thinking of teenage girls, especially those in school uniforms, as sex objects, and portraying school uniforms themselves as sexual or deserving of this sort of sexual attention.
Not all depictions are the same — some works subvert the sexy schoolgirl trope by having those schoolgirls be secret monsters than punish abusers, and some works exist that critique teacher/student dynamics.
It’s also important to note audience and outreach — a work that’s put on mainstream television channels or put in movie theatres by huge studios have a very different range of impact than an indie published novella, or one person’s fanfic on Ao3.
Note where you’re holding individual or small studio creators — especially those who are in some way marginalised and are already facing adversity in their work — to higher account than large studios, or fixating on imagined harm their work could potentially cause.
Is a work harmful, or is it just uncomfortable? Is it harmful, or is it just personally triggering to you?
Can the work you’re concerned about do as much harm as you’re envisaging? Is it actually reaching the individuals you are worried might be vulnerable to harm as a result of it? Does the work intend to do that harm or hold those harmful views, and are the authors or creators working to address or apologise for that harm?
Is the work discussing, critiquing, or exploring the emotional impact of the dark themes within it? Does it have warnings or disclaimers before the work begins?
If you’re worried about a work “normalising” or “glorifying” a troubling subject — does the work actually do that? What is your evidence for this, having engaged with the text? Is that thing discussed in the text, argued, explored in-depth, or merely mentioned? Do characters show inner conflict and interpersonal conflict over it? Is it actually portrayed as good or normal? Is your concern the characters’ perspectives within the text, or the authors or creators’ opinions?
Does the work carry ideas that are bigoted or feel like it includes apologism for some shitty ideas or ideology? Is the work a piece of propaganda, or function as propaganda? Do you feel the work is being advertised or pushed to an inappropriate audience for its subject matter?
If you do consider the work to be either likely to be personally distressing or upsetting to you, or potentially harmful because of its troubling or bigoted or just shitty ideas, how do you want to respond?
If it’s the former, you should set your own boundaries — you should use your mute and block functions, you should avoid the work, you should seek out things that will comfort you, and perhaps discuss the distressing topics with someone you trust, whether that’s a friend or partner, a loved one, or a counsellor or therapist.
If it’s the latter, you should absolutely deconstruct the piece in question and analyse the ways in which it’s shitty or harmful, or read essays by those who’ve done that work. You can maybe warn your friends about it, or if it’s a work of political concern — if the harm is being done because the work provides financial support to a hate group or a bigoted public persona, for example, you might perform a boycott, or involve yourself in acts of protest in response to the work or its creators.
If it’s important enough to you and your beliefs that you feel urged to do those things, perhaps you should — if all you feel urged to do is to harass or shout at people online, though, it might be better for your own mental health to take a step back and do something more positive for yourself.
Sometimes, a piece of work or media will be shitty, and shitty people will love it, and that will kinda suck — God knows I’ll see work that’s really transphobic or homophobic or antisemitic, and it’ll upset me that people I otherwise love and respect seem to be enjoying it so much.
I can talk to my friends and my family about it, and I’ll do that — and I can mute and block the topic, and critique it in the right circles, or write essays if I’m really inspired to, responding to the work and what I feel its impact is…
But if my instinct becomes to just snipe at people for enjoying it when they really don’t know what the problem is, or have a go at them when they’re doing so unthinkingly, that’s not really helpful to them or to myself. It’s not addressing the harm I feel is being done, and nor is it really constructive.
I’m an adult, after all — as I’ve said a few times already, it’s our own responsibility to set our own boundaries and consider what we’re doing to safeguard ourselves, and if in setting those boundaries and personal safeguarding limits, whether they’re in line with our own ethics and morality.
We cannot control other people and their feelings, or the works they create, but we can take care of ourselves, including breaking ourselves out of obsessive moral spirals or anxieties about other people’s thoughts — and personally, I think that’s actually a very revolutionary thing to do given that we exist in a world that constantly tries to encourage (and monetise) that sort of aimless outrage.
536 notes
·
View notes
Text
When people shame women for enjoying romance and erotica I want them to know they're being an ally of sexist prude evangelical men like this
604 notes
·
View notes
Note
Stop misappropriating the abuse and trauma cults use through purity culture for your stupid fucking shipping discourse? Holy fuck no wonder everyone hates this whole discourse.
Since when is "priests getting shuffled around after raping kids and kids being told they're sinful because they had bodily reactions to being SAd" comparable to "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe"
I'm not gonna answer this with The Aristocrats, as a I threatened, because I want to make a very serious point to this anon:
Purity culture isn't just religious abuse. It is most widely connected to religious abuse. Including actions in the Catholic Church and all fundamentalist Christianity. It's entire existence is about terrifying and indoctrinating people into being fearful of their own actions and bodies so that they feel certain that moving out from the "umbrella of safety" (to use a fundamentalist term) will result in them being harmed in ways they can't imagine. This is generally happening at the same time as they are being harmed by those who are supposed to be keeping them safe from all those terrible, worldly evils. Like speaking up when you're being abused. Believing you are not responsible for the actions of a rapist, and many, many other things that any person with an ounce of self-worth and good sense (two things not allowed in fundamentalist circles) knows are true in abuse situations.
But the point of the purity culture as identity in the above-mentioned circles is to teach people from birth that they aren't to have their own feelings, ideas, or instincts. They are only to follow the feelings, ideas, and instincts on the approved list in order to stay within the structures they know and feel safe in even as they feel very unsafe.
That being said:
Purity culture can also exist WITHOUT a religious structure while still being about controlling the thoughts, feelings, and actions of everyone within it. In terms of fandom, purity culture is groups of people stating that if you write something uncomfortable or gross or immoral, then YOU must be uncomfortable or gross or immoral and therefore, not worthy of the safety and moral superiority of the group.
Purity culture without religion teaches black and white thinking, encourages thought policing, and shames anyone who steps outside of a very narrow definition of good and bad by turning an entire group of people against them for being "bad".
Just like in religious circles.
Just like in the cult of fundamentalism.
Purity culture is a term taken by fundamentalists and turned into a whole way of life because the goal of fundamentalism is to make people too scared to leave. Purity culture in fandom does the same thing. It uses fear and threats of abandonment/harassment to control the way people act because a group of people decided they didn't like something, so they must try and wipe it out rather than simply ignore it.
I am not mis-using the term because "Bobo the clown said my ship was cringe." My use of the term is intentional and precise because what is happening in fandom spaces now is non-religious purity culture cult thinking. My use of the term does not invalidate or water down the use of it in conversations about religious abuse and trauma. With or without religion, purity culture is a dangerous cult of "us vs them" that is built to demoralize and eradicate those deemed unworthy.
#purity culture#purity wank#religious trauma#religious abuse#it's all the same shit#just wearing slightly different hats#ask#anon#answer
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
It's not pedophilia or inherently predatory to ship an adult woman character with an older adult male character.
It just isn't.
You can be grossed out about it all you like, and you don't have to ship it.
No one is saying you have to like age gaps.
But every time you call it "pedophilia" or "illegal" what you are doing is you are infantalizing adult women and removing them of their legal and social agency.
Calling an adult woman being shipped with an older man inherently predatory is misogynistic.
#fandom wank#purity wank#purity culture#shipping#shipping dynamics#misogyny#ace attorney#narumayo#cykesquill
286 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hey. There's something I think a lot of my friends need to hear.
When someone online does something, or expresses an opinion that makes you feel uncomfortable, upset, or unsafe, it is normal and okay to want to talk about those feelings and tell people what happened.
It's totally normal to get that off your chest. its normal to tell someone close to you. It's normal to gossip about it with your friends.
Its good to express yourself when you're feeling uncomfortable and unsafe!
But expressing those feelings doesn't have to take the form of a moral crusade.
You don't have to be "spreading awareness" or "calling out" someone when you express the feeling that that person made you feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
There's no benefit to turning those feelings into a crusade, because ultimately, while your feelings are valid, mass harassment campaigns are always a negative.
You don't have to keep your feelings to yourself or hide it when you're feeling hurt or scared by another user.
But don't feel like you need to turn those feelings into a crusade against them in order to feel justified in expressing your upset.
146 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm done with your purity
I'm fucking done with all of you westerners fucks who take your freedom for granted. AO3 was banned in china because pissy fans reporting RPF TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER FALSE REPORT OF PEDO OR WHATEVER thus making life a living hell for Chinese writers and fans. ALSO LET ME TELL YOU that fanfic and AO3 is a safe space for many oppressed LGBT people outside of the west
I can't fucking say that I'm trans and bi without having people beating the shit out of me, but I can fuckin' write that I'm gay as fuck in fanfic or writing gay shit about my fave with fanfic
Imagine some people defending state wide censorship over fanfic, because they don't like icky fanfic, that's a sign that either you are brainwashed or fucking privileged and taking your freedom for granted. You know why Asian and other non western USA-European are more chill with fanfic and fandom?
Why we are less prone to make some stupid callout over fanworks?
Because most of us doesn't have the same information and expression privilege like the west, we take any freedom that we can have
That's in 2017... There's probably more than one million websites being censored rn. I cannot even buy pride pin here because NO ONE outside of internet selling it! The censorship always begin from "banning information to protect children and moral from nsfw" down to censoring Spongebob Squarepants
You don't like something? Just don't fucking read it, it wouldn't stop the author to write and when they do stop writing usually after they are harassed so bad to the point of mental break down or suicide. What the actual fuck...
Defending and supporting state wide censorship because you want to feel superior on the internet is beyond stupid and it showing your privilege... Also yah fuck you who defend china aggressive state wide censorship because adult x adult RPF icky or whatever, I like reading Tom Hiddleston x Reader, because I'm lonely and it's fun. Don't lie that you never thinking of marrying your favorite celebrities or dreaming about dating Gerard Way.
What the fuck you gonna do about it? Crucify my ass? So long you are not shoving it to the person's face, who give a fuck? It's not a justifiable ground to cheer for government mandated national wide censorship. A lot of westerners are so privileged and terminally online to the point their mind revolve around online discourse 24/7 I'm not saying discourse has no damn merits but you get what I said...
Some people particularly white westerners are so privileged they have the chance to goes back 180° and agreeing with conservative mindset they claim to hate so much... Also your kink critical bullshit and your bullshit crusading over dark stories? Yeah. Heavily influenced by TERF and conservatism. Newsflash...
I'm not a person who agree with all ship or stories, i don't claim any moral high ground. I was so scared of getting cancelled due to the hostile neo puritan fandom culture, but seeing people defending China great firewall and aggressive censorship finally broke something inside of me and I cannot stay quiet
I don't give a fuck about your fanfic discourse, If i don't like something i just wouldn't fucking engage with it and wouldn't read...
I'm done, I'm tired. Fucking tagging this shit as anti vs pro because i need to get the message out there and LET THE CHAOS begin
( When you want to escape your country censorship to the internet but then you see the supposed liberated westerners people wanting censorship because they want to feel moral. Yes there are even westerners who don't want to see anything even remotely 'problematic' example: they will attack Zutara or fuckin' Reylo shipper whatever. See? You are terminally online and so privileged... Congratulations... Here's your fucking medal and gold star)
#ao3#fanfic#shipping#shipping discourse#terminally online#puriteens#puritan#china#censorship#SEA#Indonesia#fandom#fandom wank#purity wank#fandom discourse#fandom critical#rpf#archives of our own#lgbt#politics#antis#vs#pro ship#asia
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
i got blocked by someone over this but critiquing media that has sex in it/critiquing the sex itself is not automatically puritan. Sex negativity is not pointing out that most popular pieces of media that have sex in it are overwhelmingly white, straight, cis, and able bodied. Sex negativity is not pointing out that it is a problem that swathes of people (usually younger women) cannot read fictional books without there being some sort of ~spicy~ scene in it. What IS puritan is someone saying all sex is bad INHERENTLY/there shouldn't be sex depicted anywhere in media at ALL.
#anti booktok#booktok#booktube#media talk#media critical#media criticism#purity culture#purity wank#might expose them for being unable to read my argument after they accused me of not being able to read#and go off about what my actual argument is#but i need to keep to the art of being an ethical hater
247 notes
·
View notes
Text
I also heavily resent the ever-present implication in mainstream media that at all touches on trauma that we cannot have any sympathy for Bad Victims. That it's evil to write a sympathetic Bad Victim. Hell, that it's bad to portray one at all at times. Writing a victim of trauma who's an addict or self-destructive is already an edge case-- writing trauma survivors who end up actually hurting someone else, being chronically "treatment"-resistant or having inconvenient ptsd, perpetuate the cycle, or are just kind of a total dick is considered an evil move. Instead of like. An actually complex and interesting artistic choice.
Idk. It pisses me off a lot how often Bad Victims[TM] are brushed under the rug and if you dare to speak of them/make art of them, let alone SYMPATHIZE with them you're an irredeemable monster. And that's just fictional characters. Don't even get me started on the way people treat actual people who have ptsd in a way that's at all inconvenient and problematic in their opinion.
#bad victims#trauma#purity culture#cultural christianity#cycle of abuse#the invisible victims#trauma survivor#ptsd#purity wank#freedom of expression#dark topics#media criticism#trauma in media#please can i get one traumatized blorbo that isnt purity poisoned#like you're not writing a moral guidebook for small children. you're allowed to write anything at all forever
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Teenagers saying stupid stuff about sex or being uncomfortable with certain sexual content doesn’t make them "puriteens” and doesn’t make them at fault for censorship being enforced by legislation, school boards, and companies.
Firstly, teenagers' thoughts on sex will change as they grow older and become adults, which is when they’ll be free to explore sex and develop a better understanding of it. Secondly, teenagers have no control over adults banning pieces of media and censoring websites, who often do it under the false guise of “protecting” them.
Lastly, stop obsessing over teenagers and their sexual opinions, because it’s unhealthy and extremely creepy to care this much. No adult should be harassing teenagers or bragging to them about their sex lives while also shaming them for not having one. It’s fucking weird.
If you dislike what teenagers are saying about sex, then block them, and while you’re at it, quit blaming them over ADULTS censoring certain media.
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
Every time someone reblogs a post of mine on Tumblr that is like 'actually reading what you want in fiction like incest / rape etc. is fine' with something like 'yes because incest in fiction shows you how wrong it is' I want to scream and shake them like *you missed the pointttttt.*
People can just enjoy it in fiction because it's hot. They can enjoy it because they find it hot and enjoyable. It doesn't have to say anything about a moral compassion, it doesn't have to be huge and meaningful, and it doesn't have to reflect on any real world values re: incest and rape.
Please don't reblog my posts and try and do your thought policing, moral crap with what I'm writing.
When I wrote incest in Strange Sights, I wrote it to be HOT. That's why I tagged and used liberal warnings for it. So that people who find it squicky or triggery can avoid it. When I write noncon, most of the time, I write it because it's hot, because the majority of human beings have had rape fantasy.
We seem to have a genuine issue with folks no longer being able to tell reality from fiction due to a profound lack of media literacy, and a need for opaque, black and white thinking with no nuance, and it's so incredibly dangerous re: the health of our minds.
Like, I genuinely fear for any moral puritan and the people around them, that they don't simply stop and recognise the difference between reality and fiction, that they do not have a 1:1 relationship with each other, that you don't have to be like 'it's okay in fiction because it is wrong there too' or w/e.
Knowing this is going to get worse before it gets better, having come so far down the slide of 'golden age of the internet' to here, is like... deeply unpleasant to say the least.
#anti anti#moral puritanism#purity wank#the reblog happened a few days ago#but i've been thinking about it ever since#like how profoundly people miss the point on these posts#or how desperately they need to be like#'no i'm not like these moral puritans i can accept this stuff in fiction'#'because it's always shown me how wrong it is'#like... i'm concerned#anyway i have to go cook dinner now
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
fandom service announcement
reminder to anyone it applies to: just because you don't like or agree with certain ships, or think they're 'wrong' or 'weird' or 'gross' or whatever, doesn't mean you can dictate how other people interpret characters and who they choose to ship. and it certainly doesn't mean you have the right to shame others for enjoying those ships.
shipping fictional characters hurts no one, but you know what does hurt people? ostracizing them from a fandom on the basis of some arbitrary moral high ground.
so can we please all just be nice to people no matter their shipping preferences? thanks
#redacted asmr#redacted audio#redacted caelum#redacted memes#redactedverse#fanfic writers#fanfic#fanfiction#writers on tumblr#purity culture#purity wank#fandom things#fandom police#redacted fandom
123 notes
·
View notes
Text
Going forward if I see you use "weird" as a synonym for immoral, harmful, illegal, disgusting, or unacceptable, I am just going to treat you like you're Becky from the middle school mean girls club.
#🦇👁️#freak positivity#goth#fandom wank#purity wank#fanfiction#fan fiction#fanfic#ao3#archive of our own#dead dove#darkfic#dark fic#furry#furry community
80 notes
·
View notes
Text
Well, I just got confirmation that just like last time this "isn't a situation that can be addressed through reddit."
Which means this wasn't just a mass spam report scenario.
Someone at tumblr has actually decided my @blackheartbiohazards account should be fucking banned, and they won't respond to me via support tickets.
Tumblr is not a safe place for free discussion.
There was nothing remotely TOS violating on my account.
This is due to my being outspoken about freedom of speech.
66 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
atemins
Atemins
h-eavensnight
Heaven's Night
theaceace
Asexual and occasionally cool
minimarvelh
IRONDAD
noxwithoutstars
reqs open -- q'd on weekends