I have not posted this one here? How have I not posted this one here, yet? I posted it during inktober last year on instagram but shamefully not here, it seems. Ah, well... it fits pride month. Hooray to all you bisexuals (and aces, because we know how Kal is...) out there! Sandra has something for you, too!
Young, handsome people on a daring mission. Will they find their way through a besieged city and a dark strange world (and into each other‘s heart)?
We lovingly refer to October 10th as „Shakadolin Day,“ as it’s the six-year anniversary of Brandon tweeting „I could see a world where Shallan and Adolin would go for it, but Kaladin is as prudish as I am, so I doubt you’d persuade him. 🙂 For now, we’ll have to leave that to the imaginations of the fanfic writers.“
Prompting many to ask „Wait, is this confirmation that Adolin is Bi?,“ „So Kaladin’s obstacle is his prudishness, not his orientation?,“ and „What do you mean ‚for now‘???“
And in Sandra’s series being prudish is just a challenge not an obstacle 😉
Cheers to all of you! And extra cheers as always to the amazing @priscellie who created the beautiful cover mock up with my illustration 🩷🩷🩷
ID by the wonderful @cosmereplay with additions by me
Star Wars Fan art (romance novel cover style, more specifically a tribute to the cover of the mid-1980's first edition of Johanna Lindsey's Tender is the Storm) by @gutlesswunder (2020). Source
i'm sure you know well but a common thread amongst people looking to censor works for any reason is that they romanticize, normalize, etc problematic themes. And now i'm curious what examples exist of this actually happening, particularly with themes of incest, rape, or pedophilia.
I'm sure this is gonna be something that's heavily opinion based but given your experience I figure you'd likely know some actual credible examples to compare against (VS the lay-person listing [artist name who draws porn of underage anime characters])
It's funny because I kind of disagree with everyone on this.
I mean, I hate to always play into the stereotype of being some centrist "um akshually, both sides wrong" idiot but hey, if the shoe fits lol.
Yes, it is absolutely possible for media to "romanticize" or "normalize" themes that are "problematic" (even if those terms are kind of stupid).
Of course media can affect people. It can shape public taste, flatten moral seriousness, make certain things feel glamorous, dull, funny, sexy, normal, tragic, whatever. Media is meant to affect the audience.
But just because a work romanticizes something ugly does NOT mean it should be censored.
There are SO MANY reasons for this:
The minute you start banning fiction for possibly having a vague, indefinable negative influence on people, the standard becomes hopelessly vague and infinitely expandable. What counts as "romanticizing?" How much impact is too much? On whom? According to whose moral framework? Does the author's intention matter?
Once you hand that power over, it will not stop at the most extreme examples.
And even under "ideal circumstances," I strongly believe that even the most extreme examples should NOT be banned. I enumerate more specific reasons for why this is in this post.
...but I hate avoiding direct questions, so in the sake of thoroughness, let's also answer your original question really specifically:
i'm curious what examples exist of this (romanticizing, normalizing, etc problematic themes) actually happening, particularly with themes of incest, rape, or pedophilia.
In 1972 a random historical romance book geared towards female readers came out called The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. I know, you've probably never heard of it - almost no one nowadays has. But at the time, it was radically different, with the male lead being a gruff and lusty sea captain who repeatedly rapes the protagonist, starting within the first 30 pages. The protagonist eventually softens towards him and they fall in love. This book started the subgenre we now call the "Bodice-Ripper" which followed a similar very rapey structure, and quickly became extremely popular.
It's tough to say how much this new genre (and the tropes it established, which became embedded in our popular culture) ended up influencing society's views. But more than a few people have observed that there seemed to have been a shift in attitude amongst women starting around that time, where more women seemed to enjoy or at least excuse the concept, in real life, of a partner who just "just couldn't control himself" and "took charge," essentially forcing himself on her.
I have no idea how widespread this sort of attitude change was, or how causal the relationship here was - in fact it seems impossible to ever know for sure. But the point is that it seems plausible, or even likely, that media can, in fact, have the effect of making certain unethical sexual things seem more "normal" or even potentially viewed positively.
Again, this in no way means that any of these should be banned.
so I'm reading a straight historical romance (don't @ me) because the author is good at clothing history, for a wonder
and the male lead sees the female lead for the first time after her offscreen makeover montage
and he's predictably dazzled...until she takes off her cloak and he's Personally Offended that she, a redhead, is wearing magenta (because he's a ladies' tailor and his aesthetic sensibilities are wounded)
nothing like a scene with Charged Yet Chaste Brushes Of Hands undercut by the hero sternly telling the heroine what colors she should and should not be wearing. not because he's controlling and it's passed off as love because the story hasn't the guts to call it kink openly.
no
because he's just that good at fashion and she asked him
