Is There A Difference Between Someone That Writes Rpf And Someone Else That Has A Parasocial Relationship?

Is there a difference between someone that writes rpf and someone else that has a parasocial relationship?

I really wanted to know, because I throught that they were the same

Well, yes, because you could write RPF about someone you know absolutely nothing about aside from a quick googling. A parasocial relationship is not intrinsically linked to writing RPF.

Parasocial relationships are just a state of relationship and existence. They are, by definition, one-sided relationships where one part is totally unaware or only peripherally aware of the other's existence.

In all honesty parasocial relationships are often being painted in a bad light by the media. They're often referred to when talking about obsessive fans, the inherent lack of privacy in the celebrity world, ect.

But, in reality, every single person who is a fan of a celebrity no matter how in-depth that goes, has a parasocial relationship with them.

For example, I am very much a fan of Henry Cavill. I don't actively try to seek out information on him—I follow his Instagram and I passively obtain information about his life from scrolling past some posts or articles here and there, but aside from admiring his talent and wanting to climb him like a tree, he and I exist on very separate planes of existence.

And yet, our relationship is parasocial. Because while I admire him and respect him and lust for him, he has literally no idea I exist. Absolutely buttfuck none.

In countries like China and Korea, parasocial relationships are often used to refer to stalkers and obsessive fans.

While writing fanfiction, particularly RPF, can certainly be a contributor to how you engage with your parasocial relationship and foster it, its entirely plausible to have a parasocial relationship and not write RPF.

Its also entirely possible for the reverse. Of course, in specific situations. Its not common, but its not impossible. That said, typically the people writing RPF are part of a parasocial relationship. They're writing the RPF because of their interest and investment in that person/those people.

Omegle Alternative: RoleChat

RoleChat.org

Similarities

Anonymous chatting

Ability to match by and save tags

Same chat page layout

Online users counter

Free to use

Easy navigation and layout

Differences

Ability to change your name

Limited to 30 tags

Ability to block and/or report chats and users

Ability to save names and cache tags to easily switch

Ability to use a starter prompt without having to constantly copy/paste (Type your prompt into the box. You or the other user can then send or view it by clicking the '/starter' button.)

Ability to use bold text, italics and underlined text

Ability to roleplay in either the 18+ or >18 chats

Current daily users averages at 350 at any given time. Active with multiple fandoms including Marvel, Genshin Impact, DC, animes, RPF, The Witcher, Teen Wolf and many more.

I've browsed multiple fandoms and so far haven't come across any of the issues that began cropping up with Omegle with the racist and homophobic copypasta bots. I'm not sure what if any infrastructure the site has in place for that if it happens, but so far in the fandom tags there doesn't seem to be any bots or spam at all for the ones I've browsed.

No issues with the site itself forcibly dropping your connection after a certain amount of time, either.

All in all, a 10/10 alternative and actually far better than Omegle itself.

I lost all respect for antis the day that one said outright said that I, a disabled, fully mature adult was 'basically a child' and any person who was attracted to me was basically a pedo. Because telling disabled people that others being attracted to them is inherently evil is a totally normal, non infantalizing thing to do, right? There's nothing ableist about saying disabled people are 'basically children' right??????

Antis and the media have watered down the meaning of pedophilia to basically nothing. Its a defunct term at this point. It just means anything and everything that anyone wants it to and it makes me so, so angry for the actual victims of true pedophilia and the actual people who are being victimised by the trend of using it as a battering ram.

Neurodivergency and disabilities being weaponised, too, is part of the problem, not a contribution toward a solution. The more you tell people that disabled and neurodivergent people are vulnerable and open to risk the more risk you actually expose them to.

And, frankly, the more you piss them off.

You're allowed to feel sad, disappointed or lose some interest in a character because its no longer played by a specific actor or character.

(Obviously not talking about blatant racism here. Derail this and I'll scream.)

But I mean like. I see people shitting all over anyone who is losing interest in The Witcher because Henry Cavill is no longer Geralt, but at the same time actors will all have very unique ways of portraying the same character, and its perfectly fine to not feel the same way about how a different actor portrays or visualises the same character.

If you prefer the story and portrayal of Steve Rogers' Captain America over Sam Wilson's Captain America, that's fine! They're two completely different stories under the same mantle. You can absolutely respect the story and message of Sam Wilson's Captain America while still preferring the one Steve Rogers' Captain America told.

If you're in love with the way Henry Cavill depicts Geralt, you're not a bad person who holding onto that and choosing not to devalue Liam Hemsworth's interpretation by forcing yourself to consume media you no longer have a vested interest in.

Spider-Man is another prime example. While the core values and details of the Spider-Men stay the same, the specific stories and characters of each Spider-Man are supposed to be different. They're supposed to fit the narrative being told and the larger framework of the universe they are set in.

So many people hated on Tom Holland's Spider-Man because he wasn't the 'OG gutter rat broke bitch' but like. For one, we do actually see those aspects in the story still (Peter taking dumped items off the sidewalk, his small room, stressing about money and replacing things, ect) and for another, he's meant to be different because Spider-Man with The Avengers is different to Spider-Man alone.

Its meant to be a different depiction of the same character.

Its fine not to like one or to prefer the other but it doesn't make it bad media or a bad thing either way.

"Proshippers shouldn't be around children." If antis were on the internet as much when I was growing up I would be a lot more bruised by being hounded into thinking my natural dark imagination made me gross and awful...

"Proshippers shouldn't be around children."

Buddy. My bro. My dude.

The children are the proshippers.

When I was as young as eight I would've been classed by modern antis as a proshipper because of my views on fiction, which boiled down to;

Its not real. Reading or writing about murder doesn't make me a murderer. I don't care if someone writes about murder because I know it doesn't make them a murderer either.

As a child I can promise you I did not give a single fuck about the kinds of things antis cry about. Because I was a child. And even as a child I knew the difference between fiction and reality.

Children need to be protected from predators. From overexposure. From exploitation. From damaging societal standards. Children need to be protected from the real life things that are causing them harm. Not from literature.

Characters do not have to be redeemable.

I'm so, so sick of people absolutely trashing media and characters because they never get reformed or redeemed or become 'good.'

That's the whole fucking point, sometimes. That that character is bad. Characters who are genuinely, down to the bone, rotten to the core bad are part of the narrative too. They're valid too.

You're meant to hate them. You're meant to think of them as awful, evil people, because they are.

Narrative and story and development you disagree with doesn't inherently mean its bad or wrong.

Characters who balance between good and evil and ultimately choose evil are not storytelling failures. They're a narrative and story in their own right. They had the choice. They chose evil. That's the story. That's the narrative.

Media is predictable enough as it is. Pigeon-holing it even further by dictating that characters can't simply be bad or become bad is not the solution.