I'm annoyed by caveats.
I see caveats all of the time. I know why they're useful. I know that a lot of time they're completely true.
But I'm annoyed by them.
Someone will say that it's wrong to ban fiction of a certain kind.
And they'll list all of the ways that it can be helpful. It can help us cope to read. It can help us process trauma to write. It can help people avoid harmful ways of satisfying urges.
But it's wrong to ban fiction because fiction isn't harming anyone. That manga or fan art or bit of text involves no real people so it involves no real harm.
Or someone will say that you shouldn't judge people for their intrusive thoughts.
Because those thoughts are distressing. Because those thoughts repulse and sicken. Because those thoughts are unwanted.
But you shouldn't judge people's thoughts because those aren't actions. Only your actions can be harmful.
Similarly someone will defend paraphiles.
Because those disgusting thoughts cause distress. Because they're struggling. Because they're trying to get help.
And again, paraphiles should be defended because thoughts don't cause harm. Actions do.
I am annoyed by all of these caveats. None of these caveats should be needed.
These caveats aren't always true for me. Some of them are never true. Some of them haven't been true for years. So there's always this implicit feeling I get when I see a caveat that the support is conditional. My thoughts are only acceptable if those things are true. When I'm reading fiction for fun or to feel good, I'm hurting someone. If my thoughts don't bother me, then judge away. If I don't need or want help for the feelings and fantasies in my head, then I'm indefensible.
None of this is a dig at people who do struggle with their thoughts. These caveats are true for many people. Hell, those first two caveats apply to me. I read fiction to feel safe. I accepted my own assault from that safety. I get that all of these caveats can be true.
But I'm still annoyed.
