I think one of many things that gets lost in discussion is that, generally, the author of "Having A Mutually Consensual And Satisfying Sexual Encounter With The Torment Nexus; An Erotic Story About Wanting To Fuck The Torment Nexus And Then Doing So" is generally the person at the very front of the crowd, with a megaphone, saying "DO NOT BUILD THE TORMENT NEXUS." turns out that if you're invested enough in a Problematic Kink to write at length about it you have probably spent a LOT of time thinking about the harm it does in reality, and your work's relationship to that. almost as if, somehow, actually thinking about complex and dangerous stuff, instead of priding yourself on the purity of never letting a thought about it enter your mind, makes you better equipped to understand that stuff. how odd.
bigots in fandom - just like the ones in real life - remain convinced that being called racist is worse than actually enduring racism on a daily basis
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what this is referring to as I haven’t reblogged anything recent about this. And I can barely remember what I’ve reblogged the last week that wasn’t about the otw/ao3.
That aside yeah that is a thing.
But at the same time “racist” gets thrown around too much in fandom. And every time I see it in fandom it’s usually being used to lambast someone for a ship or headcanon they don’t like or don’t agree with or something to shield their terf ideology or puritan-based sex negativity.
I have seen far too many people using racist like THAT than people using it to call out actual bigots in fandom. In the last two years I have seen well over thirty instances where it was being falsely thrown around. And only TWO instances where it was legit calling out a racist and in those two instances, it was a fair assessment.
I would say it’s the circles I run in, but I intentionally go perusing into anti and critical tags to see what people are talking about in fandoms I’m in or adjacent to. So it’s not because of ignorance and or because I don’t follow the right people. I actively go looking to stay aware of situations.
Doing some reading today, and I finally realized what fandom Purity Wank / anti-AO3 discourse reminds me of. The Hays Code.
This was a “morality code” instituted by the American film industry in 1930, based on the assumption that seeing ~naughty things~ in the movies would make you perverse in real life.
--
Transcript of the “General Principles” of the Hays Code (image above):
1. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
--
What this meant, of course, was that all kinds of things got banned under those three general principles. Including, but not limited to, prohibitions on:
Nudity
Suggestive dances
Discussions of sexual perversity (aka, anything but monogamous, married heterosexuality)
Superfluous use of liquor
Ridicule of religion
Miscegenation (inter-racial relationships)
Lustful kissing
Scenes of passion
Text of the code, linked here as a pdf.
It was proposed by a religious Catholic and a Jesuit priest, was based entirely on Christian morality, and instituted “voluntarily” with the addendum that movies which did not pass the code would not be shown in most cinemas. To protect the children.
I’m seeing echoes of the past all over the place these days...
I remember when I used to roll my eyes at everyone squeeing all the time, acting like fandom was some sweet cinnamon roll paradise of rainbows and kittens. It wasn’t. I knew it then and I know it now.
I can’t believe these purity wankers and fantis are almost making me MISS that.
What do antis provide fandom?
Nothing.
I’ve been really quiet for a long time, but I’m so fed up, I’m gonna speak up. Doxxing, sending hate mail, riling your friends up against people who like or ship something you don’t provides nothing for fandom. If anything, it takes away from fandom. People who WOULD be contributing to fandom are no longer there because you and your friends have bullied (and yes, you lot ARE bullies) them away. You are toxic, and fandom does not need toxicity.
I’m a fandom oldster, been in and out of various fandoms since the early nineties. We had a rule back then, a rule that some of you would do good to remember. Don’t like, don’t read (view, interact with, watch, reblog etc.). It’s a simple as that. You’re not “cleaning up” fandom. You’re helping contribute to it’s demise. You bitch and complain that there’s not enough content, but you scared off potential content creators in your self-appointed purity.
In short, fuck off and let people enjoy fandom.
Signed,
A fandom oldster that has had enough of all of your childish behavior.
tonight’s adventure: stumbling across a holier-than-thou post about the absolute depravity of shipping a very tame het ship, clicking on OP’s blog to get a whiff of their righteousness and getting blasted with “the marauders were the sexiest good boys in the world” text posts and AUs about uwu sharing a tea mug with james potter and i just wanna say, this is exactly what mark twain meant when he said you should go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company
One thing that always bugs me is how much leeway straight ships are given while if a lgbt ship isn't perfectly unproblematic then it's devilspawn and shouldn't exist. I think that relationships shouldn't always have to be unproblematic or perfect and fiction is all about exploring different dynamics and stories even if they are unhealthy. Historically cis/het/able bodied romances have been given so much room to be as creative as they like, Romeo and Juliet, Dracula, not to mention so many popular tropes that would be toxic in real life. Recently though there has also been more pushback against straight ships.
It's sad because while yeah, be critical of the things you consume, fiction is about exploring concepts without real life consequences (as long as its aimed at the appropriate demographic and not children), but a lgbt ship needs to be infallable or else it's bad representation and you end up really limiting the amount of stories you can tell. People are often complex and messy and relationships can sometimes turn toxic or a partner can overstep a boundary, but not letting that happen because it's bad rep ultimately just ends up with people getting less interesting and diverse stories and let development in their relationship.
One thing that always bugs me is how much leeway straight ships are given while if a lgbt ship isn't perfectly unproblematic then it's devilspawn and shouldn't exist.
Yes absolutely anon! I’m very upset at seeing caricatures instead of characters so often, often times they’re very one dimensional since they’re not allowed to be a “bad” character or bad person in any way since the character has to exist as “representation”, which makes them about their sexuality/gender, rather than making their sexuality/gender a part of them. Which is kind of the whole thing that were supposed to be against, marketing a character for their sexuality/gender, rather than marketing a book who happens to have a character of a certain gender/sexuality or just be in a certain relationship.
A book I’ve seen a lot of criticism with this issue is “We are Totally Normal” in which there’s a story about the main character, Nandan, who is struggling with popularity, internalized homophobia, and a variety of other issues. He is not always the best person because of this, sometimes using people to his own wants or advantages, or rejecting then accepting then rejecting his queer identity so on and on. That’s led to a lot of criticism of the book, because not only does it paint a queer character with toxic personality traits, but also a character who doesn’t have an easy journey (if you can even call it a journey?) accepting his sexuality.
Historically cis/het/able bodied romances have been given so much room to be as creative as they like, Romeo and Juliet, Dracula, not to mention so many popular tropes that would be toxic in real life.
Personally I think it's important to be conscious of stereotypes/issues affecting marginalized groups, however I don't believe that you should never follow through or create something on the basis of not portraying a certain individual in a bad light- that bad light is not supposed to be a reflection of the whole community that character is from. I think if someone sometimes falls into a negative stereotype with their media it's more important to consider how they execute that rather than the fact that they did it.
I seen a post recently talking about how characters can fall into clichés or “bad tropes” so long as it is a part of active choice on their end and is self-fulfilled. The post (which I can’t find) specifically talked about how never killing off any marginalized characters was also bad, and served as a deficit to those characters; in my example I’ll use the bury your gays trope. If the gay character isn’t being killed in a way that’s framed as a punishment for their sexuality, you’re probably doing okay. The issue is that in certain storylines where the possibility of dying is really high provides stakes the character has to beat, which causes the audience to empathize more with their choices, and care more fully about the character. If this character dies in an act of saving the world or something similar, like saving the life of a sibling, etc, as an active choice on the part of the character- you’ve subverted the stereotype by giving the character the power of their own narrative back. In order to make a more complex 3D character sometimes you do have to play into “negative” stereotypes of commonalities, not only does this do more for the message of the story (See how “Love, Simon” portrayed a stereotypical cis able bodied white male as “just like anyone else”, which plays into a 2D personality for the characters, but also only allows Simon such a high level of comfort in his sexuality because he checks so many of the boxes for an acceptable member of society he’s ‘allowed’ to be gay... (X)), not only does this do more for the message of the story, but it also has the potential to increase empathy in an audience for people they might otherwise write off as “weird” or similar.
Recently though there has also been more pushback against straight ships.
As for the rising instances of this with straight couples, in which they have to be depicted holding a healthy and stable relationship- it becomes toxic as well. There’s a modern problem online with toxic positivity, and also in the idea that a relationship has to be healthy or else it’s “wrong” has a lot to do with current purity policing issues in fandom specific spaces. Just because someone ships something that doesn’t mean they want that same thing in real life, and just because someone ships something “bad” they don’t constantly have to renounce what they ship by discussing their knowledge of how harmful it is. It’s good to be aware of whether or not a relationship being shipped is healthy or harmful if enacted in real life, but it’s not necessary to constantly discuss that, to discuss that in equal measure as shipping the ship, or even to discuss it at all if the person shipping doesn’t want to.
People are often complex and messy and relationships can sometimes turn toxic or a partner can overstep a boundary, but not letting that happen because it's bad rep ultimately just ends up with people getting less interesting and diverse stories and let development in their relationship.
Yes! And the issue that happens here is also that by depicting a “perfect” relationship, you end up once again removing characterization from the people in the relationship. This leads to certain relationships/characters being put on a pedestal, and if being done to a marginalized character becomes tokenizing.
There’s also something to be said about some criticisms of media that I’ve seen going around, and some communities focused on criticism, which pass the BITE model testing for “is it a cult?” - which is extremely, extremely concerning.
