[ SECRET POST #6342 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6342 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Dune]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________






































06. [SPOILERS for Hades II]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of incest/self-harm]

[Cupid (visual novel)]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of rape]

[Arknights]





















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #906.
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)]

That's been the weirdest part of joining tiktok. Sooooo much fandom purity. *grabs cane to shake* back in my day, Gojo/Yuji ship wouldn't have even caused rippled in the fandom.

Also, has "proship" always meant (in tiktok language) "child porn". I just thought it was being pro shipping and not anti shipping.

[(Anonymous)]

Proship started out meaning (and still does mean) "ship and let ship." It has includes all ships, even the "unproblematic" ones. As long as you don't bully people for their ships, you're proship. Antis say it means "child porn" because "all ships" includes minor/adult ships (which are still not CP/CSEM because child characters aren't real children) and their brains always go there even if that's not even in the conversation.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I think antis trying to rebrand to mean "problematic ship" ie. pedo/incest/etc. is just another way to try and discredit people trying to say "ship and let ship", "YKINMKATO", "don't like, don't read", "fiction=/=reality" and preemptively turn the ignorant against them. Because they feel the need to wield "pedophilia" and "incest" as thought-terminating cliches.

[(Anonymous)]

...because they're guilt-ridden pedos. Their brains go there because they're guilt-ridden pedos.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think most of them are pedos, but I think they believe that they are and are guilt-ridden about it because they've internalized the rhetoric of the antis who came before them whose use of "pedo" was so widespread that it could be applied to practically anything. "If you ship two adults but one of them is short, you're a pedo. If you were attracted to kids your age when you were a kid, you're a pedo because pedophilia is attraction to children -- no no, not just by adults, by anyone!" Now there are antis out there who seriously believe they're pedos because they heard those things and believed them.

[(Anonymous)]

Has anyone ever considered that if kids can't be attracted to kids, only to adults, then that validates much of the rhetoric of actual pedophiles?

[(Anonymous)]

I argued with someone who said that teenagers should NOT be sexualizing teenage characters. So like...what is acceptable for teens to fantasize to? Old men?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

ROTFL, but yeah, it would, wouldn't it?

You're definitely onto something, in that the anti argument relies on the premise that children, ideally, get a sexually responsive body at age 18 on the dot (from what, the adult-body fairy??), and if it weren't for this horrible internet, that would be their first experience with anything. Or at least with the notion that any of what they're feeling, sexually, happens to anyone but them. The very idea that an adult could possibly, even fictionally, be attracted to kids is offensive to them, and the idea that kids could be attracted to adults is just not allowed to be contemplated or mentioned. But as you say, some antis will flip out hard at the idea that a kid is attracted to anyone, ever, or any age. Does it make sense? Not as far as I can see. Are they really expecting people to sit tight for almost two decades and not notice they have bodies? Or masturbate while thinking about god knows what, because it's not supposed to be adults, children, teenagers, fictional characters, or animals. Perhaps plants or attractive rocks would be suitably unproblematic, but somehow, I doubt it. And I'm only half-joking here.

[(Anonymous)]

Masturbating to anything that can't consent is problematic. Plants and rocks can't consent because they're not sentient. Masturbating to them is assault. /anti logic, probably

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Nailed it. I've actually heard that exact argument, but about fictional characters in general: How very dare you take off their clothes, as an author. You are raping them.

I think you can imagine how ridiculous that sounds to me.

[(Anonymous)]

"Proship" didn't even use to be a term. People who knew how to function in fandom without throwing hissy fits over what other people enjoyed reading and writing were identified by traits that were relevant to their finding what they were looking for and socializing happily; i.e., which characters they liked or which genres of fanfic. Antis insist on trying to name this in order to pretend its a rival faction of fandom, instead of "everyone who isn't hellbent on bullying others." And then they promptly tried to turn it into a slur.