case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2012-12-28 07:00 pm

[ SECRET POST #2187 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2187 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [repeat]


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














06. [SPOILERS for Once Upon a Time]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for amazing spiderman]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Nu52 Stormwatch]



__________________________________________________















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]















09. [WARNING for rape, sexual assault, gore]

[SCP Foundation wiki]


__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for child sexual abuse]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for violence, RL deaths]



__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 (not broken, but being reported as malicious?) - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - personal attack ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

[personal profile] fscom 2012-12-29 12:09 am (UTC)(link)
09. [WARNING for rape, sexual assault, gore]
http://i.imgur.com/X6eH9.jpg
[SCP Foundation wiki]
visp: (Default)

[personal profile] visp 2012-12-29 12:40 am (UTC)(link)
Well, society doesn't have the same problem with widespread cannibalism (or any of those other things you mentioned) and people trying to justify it and shut up the victims of it. As such, you're not going to see the same responses to it.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
This.

One thing I've noticed about the SCPs -- and please someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- is that they might go into some pretty horrifying visceral nightmare fodder, but they avoid things that would be sensitive socially unless an object or a report is trying to be true to a particular time period or society or unless it relates to psychological issues. (They seem very fond of objects that induce all kinds of fun things on the minds of people who come in contact with them.)

But then again, that's most of the point. The archive is meant to read like a pot full of creepypasta; it's not meant to touch socially heavy subjects. In the world of creepypasta, visceral and psychological horror is okay because every creepypasta contains one or the other. Going into them and not knowing that would be like going into any horror film and not knowing that someone is going to either die or get mindfucked massively. But rape isn't present in the objects because that's not the kind of thing you find in them. Creepypasta are, after all, meant to be escapism for horror fans. Watching a rape happen on screen pushes things a little over the edge because you know that's something that can and has actually happened to someone, so it has no place compared to something that would either be too fantastic or too rare to happen in real life. No, I don't believe my soul will be sucked out of my face via a possessed CD, and I don't believe I'll be eaten by my neighbor after they're infected with cannibalism-inducing demon worm. Sure, a person could be infected with horrifying parasites, and cannibalism is something that exists. But the fact is I don't walk down a street worried that I'll encounter either and then be silenced when I try to get help. Well, not a street in quite a few countries, anyway.

Tl;dr, I agree with you and am offering up an addition in the form of "the reason why no one talks about these things is probably because those subjects would definitely require a lot of intense thought and care, so it's just easier to write about and accept cannibalism-inducing parasitic demon worms."

OP

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:41 am (UTC)(link)
Mmmph, you're probably right. If it was explained that way, instead of people responding to a proposed sexual-violence article by immediately condemning the writer as human slime, I wouldn't have lost my temper.

The anon above you (because I suck at acronyms)

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-29 17:28 (UTC) - Expand
hypnotic_patter: (Default)

[personal profile] hypnotic_patter 2012-12-29 01:06 am (UTC)(link)
And this is why I stopped reading SCP.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
If it hadn't specified "convicted sex offenders", I might even buy it. I was imagining much worse things than gang rape until I got to that part, but if it was something worse than gang rape you wouldn't specifically want sex offenders.
maverickz3r0: trainer riding a flygon in a sandstorm (Default)

[personal profile] maverickz3r0 2012-12-29 02:39 am (UTC)(link)
See, it does. And this is why...I can't buy it as anything else. It's not necessarily gang rape, but it implies to me something horrific and sexual. So the author's bullshitting, because there's not a whole lot of things 'make sure they're convicted sex offenders' can imply.

And they do treat it as a horrific thing. The entry even mentions extensive special conditions for handling it. Calls it a monstrous act. Says 'emotional response' is necessary.

The author is bullshitting, plain and simple. I mean, they do not mention explicitly, which is nice of them, but trying to pretend it's implied to be anything else when this is the page is not...realistic.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:48 am (UTC)(link)
This. It even says violent criminals are not allowed, due to possibility of death. The author was definitely pushing the reader towards thinking horrific and sexual.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 01:59 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, but here's the thing.

Being eaten from the inside out? Kids turned into mindless wraiths? Consciousness trapped in a video game? Instantaneous impregnation by weird non-human spawn?

Does not happen in real life.

Rape and sexual assault?

Happens in real life.

A lot.

This is why it needs 'special handling'. Because I doubt anyone there would have specific triggers related to that time their consciousness was trapped in a video game, but plenty of people would be triggered by casual mention of rape.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
This, seriously. Not to mention, a lot of the SCP items aren't actually horrifying, just cool sci-fi/fantasy concepts. It's not like inducing fear is the one and only goal of the site. Even if it were, I'd say it takes a lot more creativity and skill to come up with something supernaturally scary instead of falling back on "girl must be gang-raped repeatedly because reasons."

OP

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:44 am (UTC)(link)
You're right. It's a lazy way to go for horror, and if they didn't have an unofficial policy against it, a lot more people would probably try to take it as a lazy route to horror.
morieris: http://iconography.dreamwidth.org/32982.html (Default)

[personal profile] morieris 2012-12-29 03:17 am (UTC)(link)

I'm not familiar with the wiki in question, but this expresses what I was thinking while reading the secret.


I am also now interested in going and reading some of these torture devices.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:18 am (UTC)(link)
I think it's interesting (in the disgusting sense) that the most common interpretation of 110-Montauk is gang rape. It goes to show you how horrific most readers find it, but also how disturbingly common gang rape has become in contemporary media -- it's pretty much the go-to way of torturing a female character.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 02:46 am (UTC)(link)
Give me another plausible option when explains the "sex offenders" proviso. Please.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 04:19 am (UTC)(link)
The emphasis is on "convicted," so it could be a combination of SCP and governmental protocol. It's implied that a lot of Class-D personnel have criminal backgrounds, but the switch to sex-offenders was only made after a failed 110-Montauk procedure on SCP-231-5 (I've got the article open in another tab). You can interpret that two ways: 1) only convicted sex offenders can carry out the procedure without fail (110-Montauk is gang rape), or 2) only convicted sex offenders are disposable enough in the event of another procedure failure (110-Montauk isn't gang rape). Other violent criminals are exempt from it out of fear that they'll kill SCP-231.

It's not "punishment detail" for regular SCP employees, but it could be for Class-D personnel.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-29 05:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-29 06:40 (UTC) - Expand

Reason

(Anonymous) 2022-02-07 02:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Some offenders are sadistic monsters capable of mental psychological and physical torture beyond anything that most people reading this could understand or even consider.
Reason two.
To scare you but 110 Montauk procedure is literally to disseminate horrifying documents to generate fear in staff members the Scarlet King feels the fear of the procedure and since he's not omniscient he is satisfied by the torture of a bedtime story red to his bride

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 03:29 am (UTC)(link)
So what was your interpretation, given the 'required to be sex offenders', 'need for emotional response', 'no extreme violence or the subject may die' and 'need to reset their memory so they don't become desentiziced to it'?

Whoever wrote it can insist they weren't thinking about rape, but they put all the clues there and just didn't write the word rape so they could imply people are shitty while the author makes themselves look clever.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
My interpretation was "the worst thing I can possibly think of, so I don't want to think about it." I think that was the whole intention of the article, since spelling out 110-Montauk as the gang rape of a child would have removed the "eerie, disturbing horror" element while making the text explicitly vile and disgusting. The monstrosity of 110-Montauk is supposed to creep up on the reader, not smack them upside the head.
feotakahari: (Default)

On the whole "social issues" thing . . .

[personal profile] feotakahari 2012-12-29 02:57 am (UTC)(link)
Isn't there a knife in this setting that has the power to make people ignore whatever you're doing, and that's pretty heavily implied to be the one that killed Kitty Genovese? I don't know what the community reaction to that SCP was, but allowing it seems like a pretty big no-no if you want to avoid SCPs that relate to real-world issues.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 03:43 am (UTC)(link)
This is the kind of double standard I can't stand. It's okay to have all kinds of gruesome horror, but no, we can't possibly talk about rape, despite the fact that rape IS a pretty damn gruesome horror!

Shoving rape and sexual assault under the rug in fiction and making it some sort of untouchable subject is just as bad as overusing it for drama. That just contributes to making survivors feel like they can't talk about it rather than helping anyone.

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 05:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Keep in mind, though, that the difference between gruesome horror that the SCPs portray and rape is that rape actually happens. Pretty frequently too in some societies. So it requires a level of tact and care that not a lot of people want to touch because how do you portray rape in a way that respects the actual victims, especially when it's not unlikely that there could be some reading the archives? SCPs don't come with trigger warnings, after all, and not every SCP writer has those experiences.

That's why it's generally discouraged in media too. Because more likely than not, if you never had the experience of being raped or assaulted, you run at a risk of portraying it in a way that will rub the actual victims the wrong way -- or worse, triggering them badly.
silverau: (Default)

[personal profile] silverau 2012-12-29 08:22 am (UTC)(link)
Can someone please explain the context behind this?

(Anonymous) 2012-12-29 10:27 am (UTC)(link)
The SCP Foundation (http://www.scp-wiki.net/) is a collection of articles, short stories, and other works centering on the wild and wacky world of supernatural phenomena. The core of the wiki is the archive of numbered SCP subjects, which range from the completely harmless (a cat with its hindquarters stuck in another dimension) to the bizarre (a staircase that descends with no end) to the dangerous (a massive and ancient lizard that despises humanity).

The secret is referring to SCP-231 (http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-231), which is one of the more disturbing articles on the website.
fuchsiascreams: (Default)

[personal profile] fuchsiascreams 2012-12-29 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's probably because your average person reading fanfic has most likely not had any traumatic experiences with cannibalism or mind-control, but the odds of someone who has been raped coming across a fanfic with rape as a central plot point is probably like, 1/10.

(Anonymous) 2022-02-07 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm sure it is but most actual fanfic on most websites is not trying to create an ambience of you just stumbled into top secret files and the cops might be at your door any minute for reading them those do not and should not have any kind of warning because the whole point of the website is you shouldn't be reading this most of the articles start with that but in normal fanfiction and I've seen many in the very beginning of the story it lists what kind of sex and what the combinations in the stories are be it human animal or Digimon