stunt_muppet

Fandom's managed to fail hard again in my absence, so let's just go over this one more time:

1. Rape, dubious consent, graphic violence, violence against children, torture, and other common triggering content needs to be warned for. Period. A trigger is not the same thing as a squick. Someone who is triggered doesn't just feel disgusted or upset; being triggered can be akin to a flashback for people with personal experiences with that kind of content. And there are many readers who have personal experience and don't want to expose themselves to that kind of content. Refusing to warn for triggering content is not edgy. It is not telling people to grow up. It's saying that you don't care if a rape survivor relives their experience. Your fucking artistic integrity is not more important than that. Spoiling your story is not more important than that. Have some fucking consideration for other people. It takes maybe three minutes to type a warning.

1.a. If your story is so dependant on shock that it's ruined, RUINED I say! if you warn for surprise rape, it's a pretty fucking weak story. Learn to construct a compelling narrative and then come talk to me.

1.b. If you're a survivor and you're okay with reading noncon/dubcon/violence/whatever, good for you. That doesn't mean everyone else is okay with it. Warning still required.

1.c. Warning for triggering content is not the same as warning for, say, character death. Yes, I understand the argument that warning for character death would in some cases spoil a story, and I personally don't like warnings for character death. But a warning for graphic violence doesn't spoil the story, and still alerts people who might be triggered. Furthermore, it is possible to code warnings in white-on-white so people who don't want to read them don't have to.

2. If Person A performs a sexual act on Person B, and Person B says no, pushes them away, or otherwise refuses, and Person A continues anyway, and there is no prior agreement between the two with regards to safewords, safe spaces, established relationships, et cetera, then Person A is committing rape. The gender of the people involved is irrelevant. The physical strength of the people involved is irrelevant. No means no.

2.a. Men can be victims of rape. Men do, in fact, have the ability to turn down sex. The idea that men always want sex, will never refuse it, would just love to be woken up by a blowjob even if they say no, is an ugly gender stereotype, part of the same rape-apologetic mindset that propagates the "she must have wanted it"/"she shouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to put out" excuse. After all, if men constantly crave sex, simply can't help themselves, then of course they can't be blamed if a woman leads them on, right?

tl;dr: Yes, you do need to warn for triggering content. Yes, no means no. I really don't get we need to cover this again. Is it so hard to think of other people?