[ SECRET POST #4477 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4477 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods, season two]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[James Gunn]


__________________________________________________



07.
(Riverdale)


__________________________________________________



08.
[Gotham, Penguin/Riddler]


__________________________________________________



09.
[one direction]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #641.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Note that saying "I'm sorry that you..." is not actually an apology.

Not to add to the dogpile, but here are some other parts of critical thinking you might be missing:

As mentioned, in your original comment you seemed to assume that shipping fictional child characters means being attracted to those characters, a connection that doesn't make sense. You later backpedaled this above by adding "If that person likes those ships because they are attracted to those characters", which is a big "if" that you basically just assumed was true in your original comment.

Second, even if you were right in making that assumption, there are STILL serious issues with your argument. Another assumption you made is that being attracted to fictional child characters is exactly the same as being attracted to real children. This is how you defined pedophilia -- as the attraction to children real or fictional. This is highly debatable because (1) child characters are often not realistic or child-like, and often people are attracted to them BECAUSE they have traits that aren't child-like, and would find real-life children deeply unattractive. To extrapolate from someone's fictional crushes to their real-life tastes is highly questionable in all situations, including this one. You're jumping to conclusions. (2) A lot of people develop crushes on child characters when they're children. As they age, this crush becomes less appropriate (and most people are aware of that!), but it's not like crushes 100% always go away. By your argument, any person who was attracted to a child character and can still remember what that attraction feels like is a pedophile. This is a ridiculous way to define pedophilia. (3) Child characters are fictional and incapable of being hurt by attraction. Conflating people who are attracted to fictional characters with people who are attracted to real children is associating people who don't harm people with a group of people who society views to be one of the most harmful. You were irresponsible in making this connection, as people have pointed out. (4) Child characters are fictional and don't age normally. They can be aged up in imagination or stay frozen in time forever. Due to the nature of their fictionality, even the age of a fictional character isn't a real thing with real physical significance. It is a fictional part of a fictional being. For all of the reasons above treating child characters exactly the same as real children is (IMO) a truly stupid position with very weak justification, and I strongly think you should rethink your position of "things really are pretty black and white". Give me a reason why that makes sense to do.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Thank you.