The Problem with writing Sentient Characters that Like being considered as Pets, Objects, Owned, etc.
TW for discussion of slavery, oppression, suicide, mentions of SA, and abuse.
It took me some time to really admit out loud to someone why this troupe is so bad and harmful, and now that it’s finally off my chest, I want to make a post about it.
I don’t have much influence in the writing world, but this is the least I can do to get people to hopefully understand.
As the title states, there’s a big issue with writing sentient characters (sentient as in on par with humans or whatever creature is ‘owning’ them) that like being pets, objects, owned, etc because it touches far too close to slavery or oppression acceptance.
As in people that like being enslaved or oppressed.
Now, I am not saying that this is every circumstance of a character liking this, nor am I talking about trauma writing, kink writing, or consensual objectification. Characters who know it’s wrong but are too broken down to fight back and the narrative treats it as something bad, dystopian writing, the character is choosing to be loyal but pet/object is used as an insult rather than them actually being a pet/object, or even a character of a different species not knowing the other character is sentient and later fix how they treat them, don’t fit into this category.
What I am talking about is writers who merely write this sort of thing because it's 'not real and it's fun' or it's 'interesting to play with' and have not faced this sort of trauma and don't see or care for the very real harm it can cause and the historical context of treating someone like this. Or those who also then proceed to go on in their notes, interviews, or whatever else, and say this treatment of someone is okay and fine or call it cute and infantilize the victims and abusers.
Characters who know they’re being kept like an animal or property or used by someone or by a corporation like they're an object for entertainment and are fine with it because they ‘they’re happy with it eventually and get to do whatever they want’ or ‘they’re treated well as long as they obey their ‘owners’!' or even 'but they're loved by their 'owners'!', and the narrative treats it as something good and it's very blatantly not consensual objectification, are a problem. This adds up even more when everyone in the story and, again, authors outside of the story, dismisses it as something that isn't bad. Like the Fifty Shades of Gray author.
You cannot treat someone or something that's as sentient as you, like this. It's abuse, it's extremely damaging, and even if you say you 'love' them, you don't. Because if you did, you wouldn't be treating them like this and thinking it's okay or it's fine because they eventually start liking it. Sentient creatures on par with humans (or whatever sentient creature you're using as the 'owner': like a fae, god or alien 'owning' a human, dragon keeping another dragon as an object in their hoard, witch forcing sentient familiars into abusive contracts against their will, etc) cannot handle this kind of treatment. Historically they have often killed themselves, or others, because of it.
It's literally excusing fantasy racism/slavery/dehumanization to a T.
There's a difference between species having different morals amongst themselves, or rival species disliking each other, compared to being racist and oppressing/enslaving or owning an entire species (or even their own species) that's just as smart as them.
Whilst I understand that this writing is fiction and people like writing dark subjects (I do too, believe me, you can see my work), there are limits to what you can write that can be dismissed under fiction/dark fiction and this 'character is fine with being a pet or property' subject is not one of them.
This is very different from stuff that's messy, or toxic; or something like enemy to lovers, dysfunctional, Stockholm-like relationships, etc.
Why? Because being treated like a pet or property has massive and historical ties to slavery and oppression, (look up the disgusting 'breeding' they'd do create more enslaved people or the 'human zoos' that only ended in the 1960s) and as I said before there is a lot of historical and current context to treating people, especially minorities, like animals. Writing a character who’s okay with being treated like that, because they come to like their position eventually and are 'treated well and 'loved', or get what they want', is damaging to a large group of communities and it is something that continues to affect them to this day.
Enslaved people were not the only ones to be treated like this, either. Many communities (people with disabilities, people of color, and people with genetic conditions) were treated like this constantly and still are.
It's harmful to write like this. Especially when writing characters in such position (pet, object, etc.), to be in a sexual relationship with their 'owner'. (And not in a kink or consensual objectification way, that's not what I'm talking about here.)
Do not do that. It is literally SA. There are many real life stories of enslaved people and people without power being forced to please their abusers in such a way and, almost always, whatever children they unfortunately had were still enslaved and owned like property or sent away or killed. It's not cute, it's not some dark interesting thing to write and play with just because it's fun, it's extremely harmful and should not be something written and toned down with different words or portrayed as 'fine' or 'they're a different species so it's not the same' or 'they like it eventually' in any sort of way.
This goes double when you're writing from the abuser's perspective and are actively humanizing them (the abusers) and having them dismiss what they're doing or talking about it like their victims are just cute little things they keep for fun and that 'it's fine' or 'it's different because they're not the same (species, skin color, clan, etc.)'.
There are limits to what can be romanticized, and this behavior is not one of them.
Just recently there was a large creator online, on TikTok, spouting off bullshit about how they’re sure that ‘some slaves liked being kept as slaves’ and writing content where a character likes being kept as a pet or object is only adding to that rhetoric.
Especially when literal governments and hate groups are actively trying to rewrite history to make slavery and this type of 'ownership' and oppression not seem as bad as it actual was.
And what a lot of people don’t understand, or don’t know about, is that victims of slavery, oppression, people with disabilities, etc, were kept as pets and animals (human zoos, slavery 'breeding' done on plantations, court dwarves, etc.) because they weren't viewed as equals and being a slave already dehumanized them into an animal or property.
People have too specific of a view on what slavery and oppression actually is and as such, don't point it out when it's being shown.
There are multiple accounts in history of slavers or kings keeping people who were 'different' as pets or items of entertainment (like Eugenia Martínez Vallejo, Sarah Baartman, etc.), and perpetuating the idea that someone is ‘happy’ or ‘fine’ with that just because it’s fiction or under a different name than slavery or oppression and ‘they like it eventually’ or 'they're loved though' or 'they're different species, they think differently', is wrong and harmful.
It’s literally like writing the house elves in Harry Potter. It’s saying the same thing. ‘They’re happy to do everything in a house, they don’t need money! They like it!’ or 'They're not human though, they think differently so they like it!' Those are slaves, they are talked about like property, like animals, and have you noticed so many people defending it because J.K. Rowling doesn’t outright call it slavery? Yeah, that’s why writing someone as a pet, object, etc and having them genuinely like it, or 'it’s normal for them', or 'they’ll be okay with it eventually', is a problem.
And you are a part of the problem if you can’t accept that some of what you’re writing does have an influence on people and that it’s damaging and hurtful to many communities. (Like, look at what Fifty Shades of Gray did to the BDSM community.) Especially when it comes from, and is reflective of, a very real and disgusting practice that killed millions of people and still does.
Again, I'm not talking about writers who portray this to help with their trauma or write it in a kink type of fashion.
But if you are someone who's doing this just because it's 'fun to play with' and 'it's not real' or 'it doesn't affect anyone'? Well, it says far too much about you if you’re comfortable with this cute 'master' and their happy 'pet/object' and cannot see how dangerous that sort of writing is. Or at the very least, how it is far too close to slavery and oppression than anyone should be comfortable with.
Obviously, I’m not saying it’s you’re fault if you just don’t know. Unfortunately our world is full of biases, people who have not lived through this trauma, and is more intent on erasing history instead of teaching it. But these kinds of subjects (pet, object, etc.) are things that you have to tie into the real world, they do not exist in a vacuum, and you have understand the consequences and impact it can have on readers.
This kind of dehumanization is happening in the real world to many communities who are at risk because of rhetoric like this. You can’t negate the affects and damage of doing this to someone just because it’s ‘fiction’ when this fiction is dangerous. There are certain subjects in writing fiction where you can’t just ignore the huge historical and current context they have.
It's like trying to write a character enjoying SAed (Not talking about CNC) and that should never be written as something 'okay' because it's 'fiction' or 'fun to play with' when it's such a prevalent and disgusting issue in the real world.
Fiction has been well documented to affect people's perception of reality for a very long time. It is a well known phenomenon. It's quite literally why there is so much backlash whenever people stereotype ethnicities in books, shows, media, etc.
So why is it different to write other dark/messy themes as fine but not stuff like this?
Because toxic, dysfunctional, Stockholm-like relationships do not have the historical and current context that are specific to oppressing many communities like pet/object does. Nor do these themes reflect and spread the rhetoric that a large groups of people, even fucking governments, in real life genuinely want slavery, oppression, and dehumanization to return for people of color, people with disabilities, people with genetic conditions, houseless people, etc.
They do not continue to normalize something that is already very normalized and perpetuated against many marginalized communities to this day.
Other dark troupes are not normalized like this is real life.
Murder, kidnapping, Stockholm Syndrome, hostage situations, etc, are all things the majority know are bad and are taught to be bad. Some of them can even have good reasons for why they're being done. However things like slavery, oppression, keeping someone as a pet/object, and treating someone as an animal or object, are things many people don't believe are bad nor are they taught that it's bad and are typically targeted towards marginalized communities. There is also never a good reason to treat someone like this unless it's their personal accommodation (kinks, mental health, consensual objectification, etc.) and something they agreed to rather than something they like 'eventually'.
These kinds of abuse are things that our own governments condone and even help support. To the point where the people who want to see these communities as 'less than' are, as I stated earlier, actively trying to change history to say the communities forced into this position had 'benefited' from their abuse.
It's extremely dangerous and extremely tone deaf to write like this when it's a growing thought process of many people in real life.
It's why no one thinks Debbie Grayson and Omni-Man's relationship from 'Invincible' is 'fine' and is actively treated with disgust when he admits to loving her like a pet, even when he treated her well. Especially when you tie in the historical context of how Asian women are often fetishized and dehumanized into objects for pleasure because they're 'obedient'.
It's just not a something to write as 'good' or 'eventually liked'.
Again, troupes like enemies to lovers, forced proximity, fake relationships, kidnapping, hostage situations, villains/heroes, Stockholm syndrome, etc, are not as problematic to write because all of them do not help spread rhetoric and carelessly diminish the very real harm and historical context of treating people like animals. Especially when it's something that is still affecting communities today.
In fact, for those who don't know, Stockholm syndrome actually originated in a 1973s bank robbery, because the victims of it got their attackers to humanize them. To be equals. Their attackers even protected them from getting hurt, once they got to know them, or accidentally shot by police, even when their hostages were freed.
The police in Stockholm made up the entire syndrome as a way to blame the victims who were, rightfully, pissed at their incompetence and having to be protected by the robbers instead of the police. Stockholm Syndrome is not even a real syndrome yet people often mischaracterize it anyways lol.
Though note, this does not mean I agree with their actions, this is merely to point out the difference between Stockholm syndrome and treating someone like a pet/object, because some people assume they're same thing, when they're very much not.
This is just to show how one of them (obviously Stockholm syndrome) didn't and doesn't continue harm entire communities. Because while yes, Stockholm syndrome is often used in dehumanizing pet/object stories, the two actually should not coincide. Which is why it's not such a problematic issue to write Stockholm syndrome or dysfunctional relationships/dark topics similar to it (Forced proximity, etc), like it is to write a character that enjoys being treated like an animal or property. It's not spreading rhetoric, especially when it's based on learning to view someone as an equal in a poor situation.
This is even a direct quote from one of the attackers who had a hand in creating the term:
'--They [the hostages] made it hard to kill. They made us go on living together day after day, like goats, in that filth. There was nothing to do but get to know each other.’
This is humanizing someone. It is not the same as keeping someone as a pet or property because the abusers/'owners' in those situations do not humanize their victims. That is literally why they're treated like that, they're not viewed as equals no matter how many 'luxuries' or 'privileges' they get. No matter the fact that they're 'able to do whatever they want' for obeying, or how much 'love' they're given.
They are not equals to the ones 'owning' them. They are viewed as objects of pleasure and amusement. To them, it is literally like spoiling a dog by giving them gifts or letting them run around.
Pet literally means: 'a domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure.'
You do not tame people. That's an absolutely crazy thing to say.
As I've stated before, just to drive the point home, this isn’t like writing other dark/messy themes (true enemies to lovers, Stockholm syndrome, fake relationships, etc.) and you should be checking the historical context when writing about certain subjects (like you would when writing goblins or ogres or gnomes because of the historical context of antisemitism, racism, and the fetishization of little people in fantasy).
Other dark, messy, toxic themes do not have historical ties to such a specific abuse and dehumanizing multiple marginalized communities that still damage those groups to this day.
Writing someone that likes being a pet or property and is clearly not writing Consensual Objectification/kinks is like writing 'The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas'. No character would have fun or enjoy being in a concentration camp where they killed the children first, nor should you humanize Nazis. Just like you shouldn't humanize slavers and oppressors. And by humanize, I don't mean talking about them like they're human (they are and that's a scary truth), I mean using instances like 'it's normal in their world so it's not bad' or 'it's how they love they can't help it' or 'it's from their trauma so it's not bad' as a reason to excuse and diminish the awful thing that they're doing.
Hundreds of thousands of people have killed themselves because they’ve been treated like animals and property. Don’t ignore that and say ‘the character likes it!’ or ‘they’re okay with it because they're loved and can do whatever they want as long as they listen!’ or ‘they’re being treated well though so it’s fine!’ or even ‘but they like be treated like this later! They just didn’t like it in the beginning!’ just because you’re reading or writing fiction. All you’re doing by saying this or writing it into the story is perpetuating a harmful thought process that we’ve seen convince people that it’s fine (the house elves from Harry Potter).
Especially because it's a dehumanizing rhetoric that, again, is spreading rabidly in the real world right now.
Obviously I don’t think this will get very far nor will everyone agree with my opinion, but I do hope people who write this stuff in my community and other communities, realize the damage they’re doing by writing this and dismissing it because the character ‘likes being a pet/object’ or ‘they’re being treated well by their 'owner' so it’s fine’ or 'they're a different species though, it's not the same.'
Treating someone like a pet or an object stems from extreme, generational abuse, oppression, and slavery of many marginalized communities, something they're still feeling the affects of, and it shouldn’t be dumbed down into softer words and dismissed or brushed off because ‘it’s fiction/dark fiction’ or 'but they're different species so it's not the same' or even ‘everyone in the story treats it as fine and the ‘owned’ character is treated nicely/loved so they’re okay with it.’
Humans, minorities, are not animals. They are not property. There is a difference between something like treating someone like this for their own personal accommodation, and treating someone like this just because you can or because you think it's 'interesting' or 'fun' to play with. Again, you need to remember the historical context of things like this.
Your writing and your thought processes are hurting a large group of people. You are not in a vacuum.
It is my hope that by talking about this and pointing it out, we can start to notice the damage we may be causing without realizing it and hopefully write in a way that isn't so reflective and promoting of a harmful rhetoric that has been growing.
So please, do research before writing topics like these.
Even if you think writing this does no harm, that just unfortunately isn't the case.
Also, again, to clarify just in case: this is not talking about trauma or kink/fantasy or consensual objectification writing in any sort of way. If you write this subject because of a kink or trauma you are valid and not who I'm talking about.
As usual, do not attack anyone who does write this, this post isn't for that intention nor censorship. It is merely to spread awareness and discussion to grow as a community. People are more than free to write what they want, but sharing how some plots and ideas can be harmful is important to learn.
Remember, just because something isn't censored, doesn't mean it's free of consequence or harm.
(EDIT: Also I tend to edit this often so the wording isn't censorship promotion or too reactive and/or personal (as someone who is disabled lmao), so this is just a PSA!)
