I have NO idea why this person brought up 2 girls 1 cup (I think she's trying to imply that this whole debate is just about children "seeing adult things" and chose an absurdist example?) but she strongly believes it is not common for minors to be negatively affected by fandom content of kids shipped with adults, at least not enough that adults should feel any responsibility at all about where they post it.
I feel like making an example here so feel free to add all the thoughts you want in notes, and if you'd rather be anonymous here's a poll (if you've never seen any such thing happening just skip it)
Oh my god not you dragging this to tumblr too lmao you are so embarrassing
You're over on Twitter saying this never happens, and here you are dismissing a post where clearly many, many people are saying it does?
No. We're saying it doesn't happen any more than any other grooming tool being used, because groomers will use whatever is available to them and relevant to the victim's interests, and we've BEEN saying this for ages. You've just been ignoring our arguments. The point is that grooming is an issue, and that banning the tools they use to groom will not actually stop them. They'll find another tool. And if you ban all tools, they'll make one up. The only way to stop abuse is to address the issue with the abusers themselves.
But even if your point made any damn sense, this is irrelevant data gathering on both sides anyway, because you have your audience of antis, and we have our own separate audience. There's inherent bias, this isn't a random sample for either of us.
Quick question, bogleech: why is your solution to "people can get groomed" not "maybe we should set up better education and resources" but rather "all media that doesn't handhold the reader like Good Christian Moral Fiction should be banned" I asked you this question on twitter, bogleech, but for some strange mysterious reason, you kept ignoring it.
@bogleech 1. I'm almost positive you're lying 2. You haven't given *me* that answer in any way, which is what I care about 3. Answer me in reblogs instead of hiding away in replies where conversations are fragmented and impossible to follow
Adults should not be shipping kids and adults with each other like it's a casual fun genre and I don't understand why you folks repeatedly demand I reblog you to say so. You have this attitude that by dming or @ing I'm trying to hide my opinion, when my opinion is the mainstream one. When I do reblog you, you get mad that it just brings you a tidal wave of hate mail and then ask me to delete the reblog anyway.
Guess we'll just go through that again then!
It's not Christian puritanism to think that specific type of fiction doesn't belong in the open. It's as reasonable as suggesting that racist hate speech be moderated.
You have over a thousand people saying in the poll that yes this is a problem on some level and hundreds answered that they experienced it, feel free to explain in detail why you might feel they're all dumb morons making it up to ruin your fun or whatever you think. Holy SHIT at some of the notes who think a poll like this is like an election and one side "wins" by having more numbers than the other. Literally someone celebrating "the ratio" like it invalidates the 1500+ votes for "yes, this abuse happens/happened to me."
Isn't it weird how you still didn't answer my question and instead went off on an entirely different tangent?
Let's try this from the top, starting with my first question
Why are you advocating for the censorship of art instead of better education for sex, internet, and grooming along with better resources for victims?
And as for the rest of your response...
(1) "Adults should not be shipping kids and adults with each other like it's a casual fun genre"
Why? We have no scientific proof that there is any connection to what we do or explore in fiction to our actions and feelings in real life situations. Even most therapists and psychiatrists agree that taboo fantasies are very common and normal. They only become a problem if they start affecting real life or stressing out the individual who has them.
You seem to think that it makes it easier for people in fandom to be groomed, but, as a CSA survivor, I can assure that's not how it works.
If you took away all the icky ships and fanworks that feature age gap ships, you'd still have a problem with grooming in fandom.
Because abusers and groomers use whatever they can to target their victims. Whatever has their interest. If you take away one tool, they'll simply use another.
One would think, then, that the far better solution would be to better spread educational sources, like what grooming looks like and the process behind it. That way, no matter the tool used, potential victims can recognize the far more consistent method.
It's very weird how you refuse to spread that information, and would rather pedojacket a queer person who disagreed with you by presenting their comments out of context to your legions of fans.
(2) "I don't understand why you folks repeatedly demand I reblog you to say so"
And I don't understand why you felt the need to use the Replies when I started the conversation in Reblogs. My preferred method of communication should have been very clear. It doesn't take a genius to realize this makes you look like a coward.
(3) "When I do reblog you, you get mad that it just brings you a tidal wave of hate mail"
First of all, maybe don't make assumptions when I'm the one who started the conversation in the first place.
Secondly, that's bull for many reasons, because you sure didn't censor the name of the trans person you called a pedophile. If you really cared about trans people, CSA victims, and harassment, you would have done that from the start.
Also, it's naive at best to say I wouldn't get that response in the Reply section either.
Naivete, or willful ignorance.
Hard to say which.
(4) "It's not Christian puritanism to think that specific type of fiction doesn't belong in the open"
What's the specific type of fiction, and why shouldn't it be in the open, to repeat point 1?
And why is it only fiction to do with potentially sexual matters that you act like this over, rather than your preferred genre of horror?
Why is proper tagging not enough for you?
Do you really think that your boogeyman of "groomers will use this!" would be stopped by it not being open?
(5) "It's as reasonable as suggesting that racist hate speech be moderated."
I'm going to give you a few minutes to tell me the difference between
"properly tagged sexual fantasy depicted through fiction"
and
"actual bigotry which reflects the actual views of areal people".
It makes you sounds as though you think that people's erotic fiction is an accurate reflection of their IRL views. Do you think the same of vore artists, eroguro artists, furries?
(6) "You have over a thousand people saying in the poll that yes this is a problem on some level"
And you have even more than that saying it's not, and responding to you in depth.
I wonder why you're ignoring the numbers which don't indulge your very biased, very leading question?
While we're at it, it seems you're ignoring a few different responses, @bogleech, like this one which points out the flaws in your poll:
I'm sure you're asking this in good faith and with the intent to make your understanding as thorough as possible, so how about a follow-up poll? If you were exposed to fandom content detrimental to your mental or emotional health or wellbeing, was it: Directly, from the artist/writer. Directly, from a fan of the content. Directly, from someone who is against the content. Directly, sought it out yourself. Indirectly, through a site's tagging system. Indirectly, through a site's algorithm.
Or what about this one?
- now prove that this is a statistically significant number of people within fandom, given you've been talking about how prevalent the problem is. prove this is happening at a higher rate than people outside fandom.
- provide a sampling of people outside fandom who have seen adult/minor in canon, which will have reached a far wider audience than niche fandom, and prove fandom causes a higher rate of normalisation, given you sure seem willing to give canon a pass.
- provide a definition of adult/minor, given on twitter you've been talking about like, 40+/13- characters and dismissing things like sailor moon, but some of the people in this poll will likely be counting gaps like 16/18, or immortal teenager/human girl.
- provide a definition of "dangerous", and a way to measure that.
- provide a definition of "normalise", and a way to measure that.
- how are you allowing for some people considering "dangerous normalisation" as simply "doesn't care about it happening in fiction"?
- why did you leave out an option to say "I have never seen it happen" when that is, in fact, a relevant statistic to the question of how "common" something is?
- what are you counting as "happened"?
- what are you counting as "I've seen it happen", and are you allowing for the fact that all those responses could have "seen" the same 2-3 people?
- how are you accounting for characters that have no canon age but people assume are one or the other?
- how are you accounting for fantasy characters who may not follow standard human aging, given people are talking about Talking Cartoon Horses and Dragons, or the previously mentioned eternally 17yo vampires?
- are you counting aged up content or content made without actually checking or caring what the canon age is?
- what are you counting as fan content containing adult/minor for the purposes of "dangerous normalisation" given on twitter you've been saying it's okay as long as it's Portrayed As Bad and there will be people who think any depiction is Normalising It Dangerously?
- how are you allowing for people who intended to Portray It As Bad and didn't have the skills.
- how are you allowing for people who misread art that Portrayed It As Bad.
- how are you allowing for people who were helped by the art you're condemning, why do they not get a say?
- given the examples you copypasted to twitter, are you equivocating 4.chan content with regular mainstream socmed fandom, which is what you've otherwise been complaining about?
- how are you separating "a bad actor deliberately groomed me" from "seeing this stuff posted on socmed" given the latter is actually what you've been talking about and the former is not equivalent?
- why are you claiming people take "no" responsibility when many of us advocate for proper tagging and marking the work/socmed account mature/nsfw where that applies?
....And that's just a part of that post detailing all the flaws in your poll.
Is that enough detail for you, @bogleech?
I'm not playing your Reply games. Reblog with your response to all of my points I presented here.
Love you actually demanding I go through and meticulously play your bizarre 20 question quiz, especially when every single point you're asking about has been asked before by your fellow weirdos and answered in detail long ago.
When grown adults "ship" adults with children and post it in public fandoms like it's harmless fun, they are creating a toxic environment desensitized to the framing of CSA as kink. People keep putting in the notes that this lead to their own abuse, but your collective repeatedly ignores that.
All this gives you all the reason you could ever need to agree that such content should be better controlled by its creators than it currently is. CSA fetish content, ie "entertainment" in which adults and minors have "relationships," presents a unique set of hazards not shared by anything other type of content including any other "fetishes," hazards that are easily averted at no sacrifice on your part by simply choosing safer places to share that content with people you KNOW.
The anove covers ALL of your questions in one neat answer, so feel free to just re-read it for every confusion you're still pretending to have. There are no other criteria to go over. There are no hypothetical exceptions to figure out. I laid out clear-cut and easy definitions of the problem and the solution that are not confusing.
Most of your questions even ask about things you just imagine I'm saying or are otherwise bad faith trolling you stole from countless other weirdos before you.
All you evidently want is for me to expose you to my followers so you're welcome, have fun! Happy to indulge your repeated and very weirdly pushy request! You're even going so far as to bombard me with various goading about how I must be "scared" to show my followers your tirades. I think you should be the one a bit concerned about who sees those, but don't come crying that I opened you up to backlash here when you pleaded for exposure like this.
All of your reasoning for everything has been either "It's bad and you're a pedophile," "It's normalizing a bad thing," or "Everyone knows it's bad (you're a pedophile)." You keep directly conflating actual child abuse with drawings of fucking cartoon characters as if that helps anyone and doesn't just water down the definition of a very serious term. I don't understand how you've managed to go so far from "This shit is weird and I don't like it" to the point where you've been tilitng at windmills to destroy the imaginary pedophiles that surely exist behind the idea of 'Fictional characters do not exist and nothing you do with them harms anyone'
It's silly to make a big list of things for you to answer for but when you keep throwing out scattershot accusations and then intentionally misrepresenting every response you get it's hard not to see why people want to narrow down exactly what the fuck you're even trying to say