TharnType: Why Lhong Isnāt Dubcon, and Why He Isnāt 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, āBut he loved Tharn. Doesnāt that mean something?ā No. We need to be very clear here: this isnāt 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. Theyāre written to be provocative, and because itās 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 doesnāt mean everyone has to like it, but it does mean it exists in a gray zone where multiple readings are possible.
3. Why that doesnāt apply to Lhong. Lhong didnāt 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. Thatās not ādubious consentā; itās no consent. Itās not fantasy; itās premeditated violence.
4. Why āloveā doesnāt redeem him. Love that destroys another personās body, safety, and autonomy isnāt love at all. Itās violence dressed up as devotion. And violence doesnāt get to be redeemed.
5. This isnāt about censorship. I donāt think TharnType should be censored, and I donāt think people should be told what they can or canāt enjoy. Iāve said it before: I donāt 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, thatās 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. Heās a perpetrator. You can like a villain and still call them what they are: a villain. For me, as a survivor, I canāt extend sympathy to someone who orchestrated and sustained sexual assault. And even if others can enjoy him as a character, that enjoyment canāt rewrite what he did.











