"I Dont Support It In Real Life!"

"I dont support it in real life!"

Then why write about it? If for coping purposes, why post it online for others (especially actual predators) to see and consume? Then why portray those things in a positive light instead of condemning them?And you're seriously going to tell me that just because as an adult you want to see a fictional minor (that mind you, is usually designed to resemble an actual child) depicted in sexual situations doesn't mean you don't share that same view concerning children in real life? You find fictional minors attractive but not real ones? Why does the line between finding someone who is (and usually also looks like) a child sexually attractive get drawn at whether the child is real or not? I'm not calling anyone pedophiles, but if the shoe fits... And also no, I am not talking about 18 y/os finding 17 y/os attractive. Use your brain. Creating content of underaged characters is still questionable regardless of age, however.

"I'm not calling anyone pedophiles..."

Proceeds to send in a ridiculous essay calling people pedophiles for the kind of fictional content they consume, for whatever purpose.

I swear, you'll all scratched CDs. If you genuinely cannot comprehend why there is a line between fiction and reality, frankly, you should not be trying to provoke or dictate discussions on that line.

You said 'use your brain.' In a pretty assumptive argument, by the way, but I'm going to uno reverse that advice. There are already plenty of resources available both on my blog and elsewhere if you'd actually like to educate yourself and not just try to use me like a sounding board for your superiority complex.

This post is about hypocrisy, ethics and censorship and is not nor will ever be anti-RPF.

We're entering this strange era of fannish existence where we are simultaneously trying to censor everything into oblivion and also be as invasive as we possibly can to celebrities and people of interest.

Like god forbid someone writes smut fic about Henry Cavill on their silly little Tumblr account, but its considered normal that "insider sources" are selling telling you all about his private relationships and paparazzi are photographing him buying groceries.

I can't say 'sex' on TikTok but Daily Mail can take photographs of female celebrities half-naked in their own backyards and talk about their weight and their breasts and how appealing they are or aren't.

We are obsessed with consuming real life, often invasive content about real people, but god forbid we start creating our own so we don't rely on exploiting them and their privacy.

If you're an anti but you watch and enjoy Disney you should legally change your name to Hypocrite McDouble-Standards.

Bit of a reflexive rant, hope you don't mind. I'm starting to believe that anti-shippers just, genuinely, do not understand you can enjoy or have your interest piqued by taboo in fiction, and not endorse it in real life. Does that mean everything they watch, read and listen to is stuff that they morally approve of? In which case, if they happened to enjoy: Breaking Bad, South Park, 50 Shades of Gray, Mindless Self Indulgence, etc. ("problematic" media); wouldn't it indicate, by that line of thought, that they (consumers) are "bad" people?

And if any dare respond to this with: "well, there's nuance to that!"; I will be sorely disappointed, and not at all surprised, with the hypocrisy.

I can also smell the: "but what about (paraphilia)". I do not care. My main point still stands.

The thing that trips most antis up is the involvement of sexual gratification or arousal. Its why they'll always skip things like murder and go straight into pedophilia or sexual/romantic relationships with a serious imbalance.

Its also an aspect where you'll find they are most hypocritical.

Hello there! I wanted to show an article that I found, but i wanted to confirm if you can like...analyze if the article is correct or wrong, so...can you do that? If you don't, it's okay

I can reasonably discuss and fact check an article alongside investigating if there's any author or sponsor bias.

By the way, its been proven over and over again than you are not protecting people by isolating them from information and truths. In fact, you're often doing the opposite. Ignorance is far more harmful than knowledge.

What you should be fighting for is for that information, truth and knowledge to be obtained in safe, healthy manners and understood.