In Case It Wasn't Clear:

In case it wasn't clear:

Yes. Even as a proshipper, I firmly believe every single person creating content that has the potential to be unpleasant, triggering or upsetting should be responsible for making sure it can't be seen as much as they have the right to spaces where it can be seen.

It is your personal choice not to bother with things like tags or applying content markers.

But then you lose the right to be angry or upset when people complain about being exposed to your content with limited or no ways to avoid it.

Again. The Salmon Analogy.

You don't have to eat the salmon.

But its in both our best interests for me to be blatant about which dishes contain salmon specifically so you don't eat the salmon.

(And its in everyone's best interests to start bullying websites and services into giving us better tools to make sure this symbiotic relationship works.)

People do not owe you constant justifications of their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant disclaimers about their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant defence of their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant moral flag signalling about their media consumption.

People do not owe you constantly having to explain how or why they're consuming specific media.

People are not obligated to jump hoops in order for you to validate what they consume in media. You are not a dictatorship on who can consume or enjoy media and how. Nobody has to constantly 'prove' they're consuming media in a 'right' or 'healthy' way.

Someone enjoying or consuming X type of media does not come with the inherent obligation of being expected to perform virtue signalling and grovelling to prove they're not a bad person for it.

Nobody is obligated to defend, validate, police or justify their media consumption.

Rage. In my heart. All-consuming. FUCK AI.

Found you bc of your post a out tony fucking peter at a 24/7 McDonald's and HEY do you have any good starker recommendations ?

I will be fully honest, Starker is more something I ship out of spite and will defend with my last breath solely because I've seen some of the things Starker shippers have to go through. I'm not even sure I have any in my bookmarks.

I'll tag this with Starker though and hopefully some actual shippers can share their recommendations. I wasn't really involved when it was a more active ship, but I do know there were quite a few 'iconic' fics and authors going around.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful on this!

Drawn cp not being classed as csem by the FBI doesn't mean it's okay, you know that right? You understand that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's immune to criticism? Do you understand that "it's allowed by the FBI actually!!" is a very weak and bad response to someone condemning something?

"Drawn CP."

Again. Not actually CP.

Its. Fictional.

By definition. It does not involve any real children. That's the distinction I'm making. Because its an important one, and one that people who share your mindset love to ignore in regards to vehement defence of fictional characters who neither exist nor need defending. Because they're not real.

By all means. Criticize or condemn what you like. If your moral stance is that you can't separate fictional creations from real life actions and intent, then that's your stance. If its equitable to you, that's your opinion.

Where it has to stop is when you begin trying to treat those fictional characters with the same victim consideration as real people and labelling the person who created the content as a rapist/murderer/pedophile/ect.

People like you love to condemn fictional content on the basis that it serves as an alternate, direct reflection of reality, when the simple fact is that it isn't.

OP's post was quite literally: "If you're using the subject of your trauma to create fiction that allows you to heal or exist in the least harmful way, you should feel ashamed and guilty."

My response was. Why?

Genuinely. I would love to know what is so abhorrent about people creating victimless, fictional content because it benefits them.

I, personally, would prefer someone writes 100,000 pieces of fiction over harming a real life child.

I, personally, would prefer someone writes 100,000 pieces of fiction over going out and trying to find an outlet in unsafe sex and making themselves vulnerable.

I, personally, would rather people enjoy or experience dangerous, wild, weird, unsafe, unethical kinks and activities fictionally over doing it in real life and winding up hurt or hurting someone else.

I, personally, would never see someone processing, understanding or finding outlet from their trauma through fiction and demand they scuttle off into some dark corner and hate themselves for it.

I implore you to talk to some actual real life therapists who specialise in trauma. Not just your generic therapist. An actual trauma specialist. Creating fictional content, be it art, literature, music, ect, is a very viable, proven tool for both living with something and moving on from it.

This anti, who routinely reblogs and shows support for sending people death threats, rape threats, infertility threats and other much arguably more harmful content than fanfiction will ever be, broke their own DNI to reblog one of my posts, and when called out on their hypocrisy, blocked me and made this post.

Ordinarily, I'd let it go, but I'd like to use this instance to be blatant about why self-proclaimed proshippers tend to see antis as unreasonable hypocrites who cannot be seen as honest examples of the beliefs they uphold.

Because they don't. Uphold them.

(And, ironically, they use one of the core beliefs of proshipping in their own post attempting to avoid accountability for their own actions. If you don't like something, ignore it.)

@liashxlie, if you're ever open to having an actual discussion about this, feel free to unblock me. You have so much to say when nobody talks back. I'd love to see what you have to say when you're not just spouting violence and running away.