fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3888 ]

[ SECRET POST #3888 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3888 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think the main message the OP wants to get across was that they think sexualizing young characters and ignoring abusive power dynamics in relationships involving them is bad, including for teenage characters, like 15 and 16 year olds.

I don't think that OP says that there's no difference between a 15 year old and a 7 year old. I think OP thinks that sexualizing a 15 year old is still wrong, and the fact that a 15 year old is not a 7 year old doesn't change that. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between a 15 year old and a 7 year old.

if op had said "sexualizing young characters and abusive power dynamics is bad" then ok sure. i dont agree if its fiction but many people hold that viewpoint, it's not uncommon

what they actually said was drawing a distinction between sexualizing teenagers who are 15 and sexualizing teenagers who are 7, is bending over backwards to defend pedophilia.

thats not the same point. why are you defending someone who literally called drawing a distinction, defending pedophilia? their words are right there.

Well, gosh darn it, I don't agree that's what the secret says. I was also trying to avoid getting into close reading of the text of the secret but I guess that's where we're going to go here.

OK, so OP says that they are getting tired of people "bending over backwards... to try and defend pedophilia." I think there's two parts by this. First, what do they mean by pedophilia? Second, what is the nature of their objection to the arguments they see as defending pedophilia?

In answer to the first question, their understanding of pedophilia clearly includes teenagers who are not yet adults. They say pretty clearly that "they do fall under the umbrella of children." I think this is the only part of the post that you can reasonably accuse of conflating 15 year olds and 7 year olds, and I said that in my first post. I acknowledge that. But I don't think it means that OP is saying that there's no distinction between 15 year olds and 7 year olds. That OP thinks they're in the same category does not mean that they're exactly the same. There are still distinctions between them. In the same way that, although there are distinctions between Fords and Hondas, they are both still cars. I still don't really agree with that argument - I would say that there is a fundamental distinction between 15 year olds and 7 year olds, but that neither ought to be sexualized. But I think that's all you need to agree with to stand by the rest of OP's argument: sexualizing 15 year olds is wrong, and defending sexualizing 15 year olds is also incorrect.

Then we get to the idea of "defending pedophilia", keeping in mind that what OP has in mind (rightly or wrongly) is defending the sexualization of 15-year-olds and other immature teens. And what OP says is that people who say "Oh but were they 7 or 15???" should "gtfo with that shit". Now, the nature of the objection here, especially in light of OP's argument that 15 year olds should still be considered children, seems pretty clear. The problem inherent in asking "Oh but were they 7 or 15" is that it implies that if they were 15, then sexualizing them would be fine. And this is the whole damn thing that OP disagrees with: asking the question "Oh but were they 7 or 15" as a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds. NOT because sexualizing 7-year-olds is the same as sexualizing 15-year-olds, but because both are still bad, and bringing up something worse doesn't make sexualizing 15-year-olds OK. And I'm being honest here, I don't really see any other coherent way to read that. Especially when they literally say "Just stop sexualizing teenagers" in the very next line. I don't know how you can read it as saying that sexualizing 7-year-olds is the exact same as sexualizing 15-year-olds. It's not an irrelevant question because there's no line to be drawn; it's an irrelevant question because talking about sexualizing 7-year-olds isn't a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds.

Their whole argument, as far as I can see, is that sexualizing 15 year olds is wrong. That's what they're trying to say, that's what most of their post says, and you can disagree with their reasons as you like, and disagree with the logic and the underlying arguments they use to reach that position. But when somebody says "Get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers", I really don't see how you're going to fucking say that they're implying what you say you're implying. That really seems like the clear and obvious interpretation of what they're saying in the secret.

And that's a million goddamn words of close reading on the fucking secret and I hope that helps with something in the damn world.

Shit.

"it's an irrelevant question because talking about sexualizing 7-year-olds isn't a defense of sexualizing 15-year-olds"

yes. and in turn, talking about sexualizing 15-year-olds is not a defense of sexualizing 7-year-olds. that's all that needs to be said. op is the one bringing both into the conversation and comparing them and finding them insufficiently different.

personally, i think "there is a moral distinction between the involvement of 7 year olds and 15 year olds and asking which it was for context because they are vastly different contexts" is a valid rebuttal to "get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers, you pedophile defenders"

the only way your argument stands up is if you ignore that they're accusing everyone of defending pedophilia, which you somehow seem to with very convoluted rationalization and apologism that i dont think op deserves.

"get the fuck out of here asking whether they were 7 or 15 and just stop sexualizing teenagers, you pedophile defenders"

But like. The very way that you're phrasing it here gets at the point that OP does draw a distinction between those two things, and is not just saying that sexualizing 7 year olds is the same as sexualizing 15 year olds. because clearly they're not including 7 year olds when they talk about teenagers, because nobody would include 7 year olds as teenagers, because 7 year olds aren't teenagers.

Argue that the OP is misusing the word "pedophilia" if you want, argue that they're wrong on the merits if you want, but please at least stop misinterpreting OP and claiming that they see no difference between 7 and 15 year olds, when they clearly do see a difference.

wait. are you op so that you know that i am "misinterpreting" you? or are you simply so sure that you have read the secret correctly and literally everyone else in the thread who has reached the opposite conclusion is wrong?

if op is drawing a distinction, they are drawing it then saying it doesn't matter. everyone else is arguing that yes, in some contexts, it does matter. that's what it boils down to, tl;dr aside.

I am not OP but I am fairly confident in my belief that your reading is wrong

if op is drawing a distinction, they are drawing it then saying it doesn't matter.

they are saying it doesn't matter with regards to the specific question of whether sexualizing teenagers is OK, because it is irrelevant to the question of whether sexualizing teenagers is OK, not because teenagers and pre-pubescent kids are literally the same

"they are saying it doesn't matter with regards to the specific question of whether sexualizing teenagers is OK"

yes, and when something doesn't matter, you're dismissing it as equivalent for the purposes of the question, and everyone seems to disagree with them in saying that it depends on context and asking such a question to determine whether the character in question was 7 or 15 is relevant to how they would judge something as OK or not.

it's not really difficult to understand. people simply don't agree with op.

yes, and when something doesn't matter, you're dismissing it as equivalent for the purposes of the question,

No. It's not equivalent to the purposes of the question, it's just not relevant to the purposes of the question. 7-year-olds don't have any bearing on whether it's OK to sexualize teenagers. They're different questions.

it's not really difficult to understand. people simply don't agree with op.

I don't think people would agree with the OP regardless of how you interpret the secret, though. I mean, people in the comments are categorically arguing that 15 year olds sleeping with adults in *real life* is fine.

sigh man, dont purposely mischaracterize "people in the comments" to make your point. one person is defending that happening in real life. one other person is talking about a situation in which a 15 year old is dating a 17 year old who then turns 18. everyone else is talking about fictional or hypothetical scenarios.

here, let me provide you with an example conversation.

"oh no, a child is being sexualized"
"are they 7 or 15?"
"omg why does it matter if they're 7 or 15 they're still underage"
"it changes the context of the situation"
"it shouldnt matter. sexualizing teenagers is still wrong"
"i would say for the 15 year old there is much more room than the 7 year old for context to determine that, so it matters"
"you pedophile defender, it's always wrong"
"i didnt say it wasn't wrong, i said it was different"
"it shouldn't be!"
"i disagree"

accurate enough?

But the line is also used as a defense of ships, not just in the specific scenario that you envision here where it's some kind of gotcha

what line are you talking about? i don't see any gotcha in the hypothetical conversation i posted. if you mean the 7 or 15 line, considering it some kind of gotcha question to ask for more information to clarify a situation is a little weird

care to provide an example of how it's used to defend ships? and, is your point that since it is used to defend ships, it is bad? i'm not sure what you're saying here.

+100000 to all of your comments in this thread, anon, and also, have you considered the fact that you're too good for this place? I'm serious. You've made some really well thought-out, well-articulated comments here and I just feel like it's such a waste.

Hello OP.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3888 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject