I frankly havenāt been active in this account for a while because of college. Iām proud to say I have just reached a milestone of officially becoming a second-year student during my main course in BS Psychology. Itās essentially difficult to find individuals with this form of repulsive mindset in realityā especially in such a fieldā that I forget they do exist.
I've always heard of anti-shippers claiming that āmurder is less gruesomeā than rape (or in this userās termā more ādecentā), as if the act of murdering a person doesnāt require a malice aforethought with the clear intent to cause serious bodily harm or unlawfully ending someoneās life. To say murder is a āquick deathā is not only factually wrong, but also shows a disturbing oversimplification of violence. Murders can involve prolonged suffering as many cases involve victims being tortured; taking time to die from their injuries; or possibly experiencing terror and pain before death. The idea that murder is somehow ācleanerā or āmore decentā than other violent crimes as this user believes, is completely detached from reality. What is with anti-shippers and finding the need to rank violent crimes by supposed "decency"? Both murder and sexual violence cause immense harm, while murder ends a lifeā although, despite some miraculous cases where victims surviveā that would still be a case of atttempted murder, and victims who suffered permanent injuries would also have to live with the trauma the same way rape victims would.
I shall remind you that we were primarily talking about depictions of such topics in fiction, but they're doing so by making callous real-world claims about serious crimes. Itās the kind of statement where it might sound logical (supposedly is why a lot of anti-shippers, especially ones who are underage, arrive to immediately believing) ā until you actually think about what they're saying and itās utter bullshit.
Of course, we are now reaching a portion where this user says, āHaving trauma isn't an excuse to romanticize ___ā. Beforehand, I wanna acknowledge the opposite perspective of why the user may believe this. From a harm reduction standpoint, theyā including pro-censorship individualsā are concerned that depictions of anything taboo could normalize harmful behaviors, especially when it reaches vulnerable audiences without appropriate context or warning.
But hereās the key issue: who decides what counts as āromanticization?ā Anyone can label any non-condemnatory portrayal as romanticizingā others might have completely different standards (hell, to some countries it's anything involving homosexual relationships hence why a lot of LGBTQIA+ books are still being banned from other countries).
When you start policing creative content based on subjective interpretations, you're on a slippery slope towards broader censorship. Even if the censorship was selectiveā it is still censorship.
I have said it before and I'll say it again that no victims are one-dimensional; an unfortunate reality even society canāt accept these days. We have seen it in cases where young men are being perceived as inadequate victim of sexual assault or domestic violence from female perpetrators because people argue āthey easily could've fought backā due to biological advantages, or victims who are physically or vocally defiant towards their abusers are criticized because the masses follow a specified criteria that people who have been subjected to these kinds of traumatic events should be weak and vulnerable, and therefore more deserving of empathy and support in public discourse. Now, we see it repeatā and might I addā in the most ridiculous way possible. Although it's not universal as naturally humans have different coping mechanisms and triggers; a lot of victims who write "romanticized" fiction provide them assistance;
In entangling their trauma and putting it in manageable pieces,
Reclaiming agency as some survivors find it empowering to engage in narratives where they control the outcome or framing (this could also include performing certain kinks with their trusted partners),
Validation of complex feelings, as not all traumatic events can be shared with people considering it may be an uncomfortable conversation for either the speaker or listener.
Fiction is a much safer and healthier option for them as a medium for their thoughts as it doesnāt involve real people or directly engaging with harmful actions.
Art therapy is a form of psychotherapy involving free self-expression through painting, drawing, or modeling encouraged by professionals.
I wouldnāt further elaborate on the following argument, because I am certain we are all mature enough to be aware that it is initially the writers responsibility to provide readers the proper disclaimers of their books (or in online forums; the proper tags) as a construction of āwarning signsā before proceeding. Most adults within a healthy mindset can generally handle fictional content that doesnāt align with their moral values without being ācorruptedā by it, unless they are in a state where fiction from reality is difficult to discernā by then it would be recommendable to avoid those books or any triggering content that may cause you or others harm. Or, a minor who requires a parental assistant to curate the type of content they are consuming and very clearly shouldnāt be in adult spaces that is no longer part of the writerās responsibility to manage, and shouldnāt be obligated to change the subject matter they write about.
This whole situation reminds me of that one redditor who went to therapy and started arguing about this with their therapist. Lemme add a picture: