Tw Csa Mention - Blog Posts

we seriously need to bring back the concept of “despite its flaws i still enjoy it” instead of ‘cancelling’ every fuckin thing in sight 

BIG BIG TW!!!!!

Important information for RQs

[PT: Important information for RQs.]

**TRIGGER WARNING for talk about nsfw activies with (young children.**

For this post, I will be referring to chrono children simply as children for the sake of simplicity. This does not (always) apply to transage children.

There is a server that I've seen being advertised a couple of times as a radqueer, pro-c server.

This server is called rad.haven, and is run by a user known as hibiscux (also on tumblr, they have the same pfp as their discord pfp).

Here is a series of screenshots of hibiscux and other members of the server, arguing with a member (who, IMO, has common sense. I blocked out their user as I don't believe they deserve to be brought into anything related to this).

As you can see from these screenshots, hibiscux and the other members of this server believe several things

That young children (as young as six, and possibly younger) can consent, and

That sexual acts with children do not harm the child, or

2a. That children understand the risks and possible harms that can be caused by sexual acts with adults, and can consent to those.

None of these things are true. MANY sources can tell you that sexual acts performed with children are harmful and cause mental and physical pain. This server saying that these things are ok, and that VIDEOING and POSTING these acts online is also ok, is absolutely fucking disgusting. This makes me feel sick to my stomach. This is horrendous.

If you are in this server, or support hibiscux in any way, don't ever fucking interact with me (unless it's to tell me to block you).

This is important. If you are in agreement with what I am saying here, please reblog this post to let others in the community know about this person, either so they block them or block me.

I refuse to let this stay in the tags, because it's so fucking good:

#'well I KNOW bad from good so i can't be affected by media!' #'everyone else also knows bad from good and defines it the exact way i do!' #'so if i think this is bad then the author must also think this is bad!' #i have bad news ....

You have perfectly described why I hate these responses when it comes to criticizing romanticized CSA. People will roll their eyes at you as if it's implausible the person writing it might not actually view it as bad. I am genuingely concerned about people who will defend romanticized CSA to their dying breath, all while refusing to acknowledge some groomers and predators write this content because they genuingely view their relationships as cute and harmless. It's usually not even intentional, because these individuals don't even blink an eye at these themes in their work. Not every person who writes this content is a groomer or predator, but that does not mean those who do suddenly poof away like magic. Refusing to ackowledge the writers that are and behaving as if their victims are just "lying puritans", like I see so many folks do, is so childish and harmful.

Like, I really wish people understood breaking away from purity culture is not this magical remedy that makes shitty people suddenly go away. Using the idea that believing the exact opposite of purity culture somehow erases all evil is falling into the same trappings that purity culture does. Like, purity culture refuses to acknowledge predators within their community because, so long as someone has specific beliefs and follows specific rules, they can't be bad. I am concerned seeing people who claim to believe the opposite pushing the same beliefs. Aka "so long as you think fiction never affects reality, you can't be a predator!". It's just purity culture repackaged.

In summary, great post OP. I know this was posted in 2023, but it's still extremely relevant right now.

I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."

I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.

Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.

Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.