Perhaps you're not getting the point of the original post, so I'm going to back up a bit. You may not have been in fandom spaces for long enough to know that "proshipping" is a term created by antis so they could carve out an "us vs. them" space in fandom.
Proshipping was the default. "Live and let live" was the motto most fans lived by, at least when I first got into fanfiction in the 90s. This is how I (and a lot of people) define it.
Proshipping is anti-censorship. It says nothing about being unable to criticize said media. It says nothing about romanticizing, normalizing, sexualizing, etc. It only means "you shouldn't ban and persecute artists and those who consume their art."
That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with having fantasies, no matter how dark and taboo. Thoughts are not actions. Literature will not "poison" the mind or the soul. "Getting off" on dark content is not a sin. These fears and talking points are steeped in conservative Christian values. Perhaps you are a conservative/Christian, but that has nothing to do with me, or with anyone else.
Allowing "bad" content to exist doesn't mean you can't criticize it. The problem is, many antis seem to think stalking, harassing, and doxxing someone until they disappear off social media is the socially acceptable way to criticize fellow fans and artists.
By stating proshippers don't want you to criticize or scrutinize anything, you either don't know what proshipping is, or you're moving the goalpost.
"Antis are trying to cancel me!" We aren't afraid of antis cancelling us. We're afraid of being stalked, harassed, having our workplaces called on us and accusing us of being predators, etc. (Yes, this does happen, I have real world examples of it). I don't think you realize what a toxic, unsafe environment fandom has become because of this fanatical obsession with "good behavior" when it comes to literature.
How do you define romanticize? Who gets to decide what is romanticizing and what isn't? What if you think I'm romanticizing something, while I believe I'm writing it in a non-romantic way? Who gets the final say?
"Authors need to be watched" Authors are not here to teach you moral lessons, let alone need to be watched (whatever the hell that means). If you want moral lessons, go to church. I'm not being facetious. If you want your literature to "teach right from wrong" (and I say that very generously because I'm no longer religious), then controlling authors is not the way.
"We're not against dark subjects, we're against romanticizing and getting off on it." Got it. No one is allowed to be horny from sinful fantasies.
"So long as they only do it behind close doors and doesn't effect me I don't see the problem" I'm not sure what you find wrong with this statement. What do you care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? These talking points you're coming up with are reminiscent of right-wing, historically anti-queer language. Whether intentionally or not.
"We're not against writing/exploring dark topics!" That's. That's exactly what antis are against. Because they can't agree on HOW to explore those topics "tastefully" or "correctly." They can't even agree amongst themselves what content is problematic. It's a goddamn train wreck of hypocrisy.
I know exactly why antis think they way they do. I was Mormon once. You don't get more pro-censorship, thought-policing than that. So, yes, I have years of personal history and critical thinking when it comes to considering the media I consume. Don't worry about me, I'm doing just fine.
What I worry about are young people growing up in this environment where fantasies aren't only considered sinful, they're considered harmful, and they're being told to purge them from their thoughts if they want to be a good person. I can't even begin to describe how harmful that is to children and adults alike.
germansingergirl
romaincrisis
gummygunk
discoholicmusic
theartofmadeline
ellievsbear
