Open Letter to SSS, WSS, Neutrals, and Those who Love Them
Shelby has categorized Wilbur’s treatment of her as abuse and has done so publicly.
The questions that have torn this fan community apart are whether the abuse label is fair and whether denouncing him publicly was appropriate. I will address the first half and save the second issue for another day.
There is a large contingent that will say Shelby is correct regardless of Wilbur’s perspective, because her experience is what matters. It’s abuse because she says so. She says it’s abuse because he hurt her routinely even though she consented to the activity that caused the hurt. They think people questioning the severity are being dismissive and are ignorant of the fact that abuse doesn’t have to involve getting raped or beat up. They think it is disrespectful not to accept her declaration that this was abuse at face value.
I am not part of this contingent.
There is another contingent (within both SSS and WSS) who are picking apart both statements, looking for contradictions, looking for holes, trying to analyze motives, and seeking some kind of evidence to prove guilt or innocence.
I am not part of this contingent.
There can be no proving of guilt or innocence here. The accusation is not the kind that can be better understood with evidence. Many from both SSS and WSS are rightfully exhausted by it.
No one is lying. Two people can be present for the exact same thing and have an entirely different recollection of what occurred. Friends, please stop looking for inconsistencies and evidence. Those things have no bearing on the controversy.
No reason to criticize motives. She isn’t trying to get famous from this (regardless of the result). Right or wrong, she clearly thought sharing it was a good idea. Whether she believes she is helping herself or helping others, she thinks she is on the side of righteousness. Good, bad, or ugly, it was her choice to make.
There is a third contingent that think labeling Wilbur an abuser is unfair or at a minimum unclear.
There seems to be a belief that Wilbur supporters haven’t watched and read everything. The missive from the Discord mods said something urging us to watch and read everything, so we can come to he correct conclusion. Many of us have seen and read everything carefully and still conclude that both Wilbur and Shelby should be shown love and support. It isn’t ignorant or dismissive of victims. It is human compassion.
Much of SSS doesn’t understand why WSS supports him. Saying the issues are “messy” and “complex” have turned out not to be adequate explanations. Maybe there are SSS members who earnestly want to understand why some of us want to see Wilbur happy and healthy. Without asking anyone to change their minds, I want to talk in depth about how I see things as a way of offering an explanation. Flame or dismiss if you want — you do you.
AN EXPLANATION FOR SUPPORT
The fact that this involves consensual activity that inherently involves pain muddies the water. It makes Wilbur’s contemporaneous understanding relevant.
Wilbur’s understanding is not relevant for evaluating whether Shelby suffered. There is no room for questioning her on this. I firmly believe Wilbur’s understanding is relevant when evaluating his level of culpability, and whether you accept the label of abuse or abuser as fair. Once the label of Abuser is applied to a person, it it no longer about the victim. It becomes about the accused. Continuing to consider this from only Shelby’s perspective denies the fact that the forward-looking burden is born by Wilbur. Healing from suffering is personal. Reputational harm causes very real consequences, monetary and otherwise. The jury better be sure they are right before taking someone down like this. Are you right? Is this fair? At what cost?
BITING, CONSENT, SAFE WORDS, Etc.
The biting thing, combined with Shelby and Wilbur’s discussion of consent and limits, is classic S&M. No one seems to be using that language. S&M is consensual. There are limits, but we’ll get to that.
[Edit/Comment: I realize S&M is typically about sexual pleasure, and it has been rightfully pointed out that Wibur/Shelby’s deal may have been just an affection thing. So perhaps it’s not a good label. Either way I think the same analysis applies so I’ll stick with it.]
S&M is when a person derives pleasure from giving or receiving pain, and then agrees with a partner to engage in acts that cause pain within agreed-upon parameters. Biting certainly fits. And it is not considered deviant and is not that uncommon. Both partners may or may not personally derive pleasure from it. It is sometimes practiced for mutual pleasure and sometimes one partner engages in it for the benefit of the other. Both dynamics are fine as long as everyone is on board.
Safe words and limit-setting is part of S&M. Communication is essential. Both partners must understand the parameters, know their own boundaries, and agree on what is acceptable and what is not. The agreement on a safe word was a good start. The term “safe word” is not perfect and gets used differently by different couples. It can mean “STOP, end this now,” or it can mean “you’ve hit my limit, dial it back.” What it means depends on how the couple is using it. Problems arise when it understood differently.
Shelby mentioned something about using the safe word wrong. (I wouldn’t read into that. This isn’t some big piece of evidence, you evidence people!). But it’s less about semantics; it’s about being on the same page over what it means and how the partner is expected to respond when it is used.
Performing acts that hurt someone with their informed consent is S&M. S&M is not abuse. Pain is an inherent part of it.
Can abuse occur in relationships involving S&M? Of course. Someone has been abused when their partner does something hurtful that wasn’t consented to or after consent was withdrawn, or relevantly, when limits were voiced and willfully ignored.
- Biting that wasn’t consented to? No.
- Was consent withdrawn? No.
- Were limits voiced and willfully ignored? Maybe.
It’s murky at best. There are several factors that make it far less clear. If she feels like it is, is that enough? There have been grave costs to Wilbur’s livelihood and reputation by people who think this is cut-and-dry.
Biting causes pain. She says the problem wasn’t the biting, it was the fact that he was hurting her. Hurt is the predictable result of biting. And she said yes to being bitten. So it’s about pain LIMITS.
It sounds like the safe word meant “Ouch, that’s the max.” She said he would clamp down for another second, and she emphasized that it was just a second, and then stop. By her own account, the safe word was not ignored. He stopped, albeit not as quickly as she needed. Did they have a mutual understanding? Were they on the same page about how he was supposed to respond to it? Did he know he was violating the terms of their agreement, if he was? Perhaps he did.
If they weren’t on the same page, they needed to get there and redefine it. If the effort to redefine it failed, it’s unfortunate that she didn’t tell him NO. Withdraw consent. That is how that partner knows that what they are doing is crossing the line.
Don’t misunderstand, this is not blaming Shelby, because it isn’t that simple. It can be very hard in the midst of a relationship to truly advocate for yourself. We all compromise, all of the time. It’s normal. But it is also a reason why a partner may not understand a person’s needs or level of suffering.
She said it got to a point where she was having to use her safe word all the time. Listening to her, it sounds like that is an important factor in why considers his actions abuse.
Is it reasonable to hit the limit often, or even every time? Yes. Think of it as tapping out in a wrestling match. Go until the other ‘taps out.’ If a speed limit is 70, most people drive 70 — not 45. If that was not okay with Shelby she needed be clear. Maybe she was, maybe not. Maybe Wilbur understood it differently. She needed to tell him NO and withdraw consent if the behavior was harming her and the limit-setting was not effective. Why didn’t she? Already addressed. It’s not easy. And we’re always hopeful that things will just improve.
Wilbur said in his statement that he was shocked by the allegations and thought the conduct was affectionate, consensual and mutually enjoyed. It sounds like she doesn’t think that is possible. Listening to everything she said about the relationship, it seems they were out of sync in a bunch of areas. Isn’t it plausible that he was truly surprised by this? Isn’t it possible that Wilbur did not understand that he was out of bounds?
It’s not fair to believe one person’s statement at face value and totally disbelieve the other. Read his statement again. Try watching hers and reading his with a mindset that they are BOTH entitled to be heard. Victims must be heard, but so must the accused. It is immoral to refuse to hear them. No jury makes a judgment based solely on the complainant’s statement. The accused is entitled to a defense.
This was a relationship that became dysfunctional. Communication broke down to the point of causing her harm. Misunderstanding of the parameters for consensual activity can cause pain, but communication failures and lack of clarity that are to blame, not the physical act.
Who gets to decide? Can anyone who is hurt accuse their ex of abuse? And is there any avenue for the ex to address it, if it involves differing understanding and doesn’t involve clear violations of law? If you’ve been hurt by an ex, and you have a megaphone, are you entitled to use that megaphone to destroy the ex’s reputation and career? How far is it appropriate to go? Should you take everything from them— their dignity, their staff, their friends, their fans, their career, their legacy? It’s a personal choice. Some may think so. I do not.
What punishment is appropriate and proportional?
Let’s talk about spectrums. Everything is on a spectrum. SO IS ABUSE. If we go ahead and accept Shelby’s label that this was abuse, what is the severity? There is a whole spectrum of abuse. On one end, of course, there is rape, or being beaten, or sexual assault. There is being degraded and verbally assaulted. There is being denied access to money and outside people. (My aunt is going through this. Her crazy daughter has taken her credit cards, driver’s license, and house keys.) In this instance, we elsewhere on the spectrum. She consented to be bitten. Does it mean he didn’t harm her by pushing it too far? No. Did he abuse her? Maybe. But when we are talking about severity and level of blame we place on a perpetrator, the fact that she agreed to be bitten and never said he couldn’t do it anymore is a HUGE FACTOR.
Severity matters. Consent and murkiness are mitigating factors.
It should be considered by all of you. He is being stoned to death in the town square. Are you righteous when you choose to participate?
Support Will. I believe him.
He deserves the benefit of the doubt. EVERYONE DOES.
Support Shelby. I believe her.
Is destroying Wilbur the right way to do that? Is it required? Eye for an eye? If Shelby’s purpose was to help other women, then talk about how to recognize an unhealthy situation. Talk about valuing yourself. Talk about agency, self-advocacy, and trusting your instincts. Talk about remembering that your needs count, and not to subjugate your needs for his. You need to know how to protect yourself, because life is full of assholes, messy relationships, fucked up power dynamics, and poor communication. Villainizing Wilbur does nothing to teach this.
We’ve all seen posts and banners on Twitch, Discord, and AO3 that say, “Fuck Wilbur Soot,” and then say tritely that they hope he gets the help that he needs. No you don’t. Those two sentiments are in conflict. It’s not kind. It’s not righteous. Is that really the kind of person you want to be? Is ensuring Wilbur is reduced to a shadow of himself the kind of support Shelby needs? I highly doubt it. Is this really what she wants? I doubt it, and I certainly hope not.
What kind of person do you want to be?
