TharnType: Why Lhong Isn’t Dubcon, and Why He Isn’t Redeemable
The Difference Between Dubcon and What Lhong Did
While writing these reviews for TharnType, I kept stewing over Lhong. I need to express my feelings on him and him alone, and why he is different from someone like Kinn in KinnPorsche.
Some people look at Lhong and say, “But he loved Tharn. Doesn’t that mean something?” No. We need to be very clear here: this isn’t morally gray dubcon like we see in KinnPorsche or Love in the Air, where fans can argue about interpretation, fantasy, or consent blurred by power dynamics. Those stories leave space for debate because they play with the idea of control in a fictional, stylized way.
1. What dubcon actually is. In BLs like KinnPorsche or Love in the Air, we sometimes get dubcon (dubious consent) scenes. These are messy, morally gray moments where power, desire, and consent blur. They’re written to be provocative, and because it’s fiction, fans can interpret them in different ways. Some people love it, some hate it, and some read it as consensual after the fact. The point is, dubcon lives in the fantasy realm, where debate is part of the appeal.
2. Why people sometimes excuse dubcon. Because dubcon is staged inside a stylized, fictional play, it can be interpreted as roleplay or as a character arc where dangerous desire eventually turns into trust or love. That doesn’t mean everyone has to like it, but it does mean it exists in a gray zone where multiple readings are possible.
3. Why that doesn’t apply to Lhong. Lhong didn’t blur the line. He erased it. He deliberately arranged for Tar to be sexually assaulted, not just once, but as a system of ongoing abuse. Then he kept Tar trapped for over a year through blackmail. That’s not “dubious consent”; it’s no consent. It’s not fantasy; it’s premeditated violence.
4. Why “love” doesn’t redeem him. Love that destroys another person’s body, safety, and autonomy isn’t love at all. It’s violence dressed up as devotion. And violence doesn’t get to be redeemed.
5. This isn’t about censorship. I don’t think TharnType should be censored, and I don’t think people should be told what they can or can’t enjoy. I’ve said it before: I don’t need you to censor me. We the people can do that just fine on our own. If you love morally gray villains or want to explore stories about sexual violence, that’s your choice. Fiction gives us room for that.
But choice requires clarity. And the clear truth here is that Lhong is not a misunderstood romantic. He’s a perpetrator. You can like a villain and still call them what they are: a villain. For me, as a survivor, I can’t extend sympathy to someone who orchestrated and sustained sexual assault. And even if others can enjoy him as a character, that enjoyment can’t rewrite what he did.