Let's Talk - 18+ Censorship

There's a very concerning rise of fascism and so all kind of censorship lately, so let's talk about that. I'm not gonna talk about the Jimmy Kimmel kind of censorship because why you shouldn't censor satire is obvious enough for everyone (including fascists, that's why they censor it).

(if something is clumsy, poorly worded or if you have questions about something I'm talking about feel free to send a DM on the place you found this post). I wanna talk about the "ok to censor" part, instead. Becuause I see a lot of people who are like "I'm not into censorship but what about this ? What if I feel bad about this?" So I'm gonna try to explain all point of view and how it always lead to an anti censorship mindset. Lately online there's a huge war against 18+ arts, specifically non-consensual and violent arts which are heavily censored. "Violence" is usually the first thing censored in fascism because people won't stand against that. I mean, what kind of person would defend the right to draw sexual abuses? But there's something you need to understand here. In a world where persons of colors are called rapists, LGBTQ+ are called groomers and women are forced to hide themself because they're "sexual", what do you think will happen if you allow a censorship on anything non-con? I saw someone yesterday saying "but how can you be so sure the non-con you allow isn't meant to be harmful?" and that's a good point (non ironically a good point, please stop shaming people for asking this kind of important questions), it's a good point in the way that if you can't tell if something is harmful then certainly you can't tell if it's not, which will undoubtedly lead to some misbehaviors. Before I go further and explain why it's important to allow people to express their dark fantasies, I want you first to understand the reason behind these censorship isn't to protect your children (you're supposed to protect them yourself, by the way, if your kid is seeing shit on social media I'd rather ask you why the fuck is your kid on social media to begin with), the reason behind this is total control and censorship of people who are against your politic. For exemple, terrorism apologism online is forbidden and every normal person who isn't a terrorist will tell you "GOOD". Now in USA being anti fascism is literally terrorism, meaning you're ipso facto not allowed to stand against fascism anymore because it's terrorism. That's why these "non-con" rules are made, not to protect you but to protect the powerful. It's the opposite of protecting, it's about prevent you from speaking out. You had a good exemple last month with mastercard and stripes starting at "we're censoring non-con content in video games" which led to censoring SFW (by SFW we mean anything that doesn't have sexual, violent, horror themes) furries (and I want you to understand furries include stuff like Star Fox or Zootopia, it's furry yes) and SFW LGBTQ+ romances. Now you're supposed to already understand the dangers of such a censorship already but we'll go farther and even explain how depicting such dark themes is, in fact, important. Alright let's stick to non-con depictions. Censoring non-con depictions means you're not allowed to share Game of Thrones anymore, it means I'm not allowed to talk about one of my fav book (City of Blows by Tim Blake Nelson, read it) anymore because it's a book about toxicity in Hollywood which involves rapists. There's a few reason you might want to allow people to represent dark themes even if you're strongly against it and this is one of them : denounciation.

Now before we go on we need to address this nasty anti-art and lazy-thinking notion of "this is just fiction, who cares".

Just because something is fictional doesn't erase the context and the reason you represented what you represented. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean you can't feel real shit about it, why else would you cry over it? Fear over it? Get upset over it and ultimatly get aroused over it? Instead of throwing "it's fictional so I can do whatever the fuck I want" rather explain WHY using fiction to express very dark fantasies and thoughts can be very healthy and even beautiful. We started with the non-con fictions argument so we'll keep using it but really it works for every fictions. Drawing or writing a fictional character in a non-con context doesn't change the fact you feel the need to draw a non-con context. So instead of going absolutly fucking brainless about it rather explain why you had this need and how healthy it can be, even when romanticized, to express dark pulsions. There's something people gotta understand, we're all different in front of traumas. We don't react the same way. Some reproduce the violence they've been through, some are absolutly disgusted and hurt by any depictions of it (we will go back to it) and some need to romanticize their abuses in order to be able to cope, because they can't go on without making it somewhat "acceptable". Not like it can ever be acceptable but I'll expend on that last point : You have people who enjoy the violence against fictional characters because it's their way to express the hate and anger they have inside of them and to reproduce it, to avenge themself without actually hurting anyone because they're still strongly against it IRL (hopefully). There's also a lot of people who draw violent sexual relationships and who doesn't project on the oppressor but on the victim. Like I said above, as a mean to make it "acceptable", depicting their traumas in a more consensual and more importantly safer way (thus the "they're forced but secretly enjoy it" very popular fantasy) through characters they love in order to recover from it, as a way to convince themself to go on and to erase the guilt they feel over their traumas by making it "more ok". And like we said, you can't tell if the reason someone is drawing non-con is because they're coping or because they're dangerous. Hell, most of you can't even make the difference between consented BDSM and non-con relationships and you think you can properly filter who's harmful and who's coping?

Censoring fiction won't make dangerous people less dangerous, but it will certainly lead to the censorship of fictions that are needed because they either denounce or are used to cope with/express the violence some went/still go through. It's very human to explore what is forbidden through the prism of fiction. How many of us killed a Sims just for fun? And it didn't turn us into serial killers. But it was fun, because it gave us this forbidden absolute power of life and death without hurting anyone. It's the same with forbidden desires, being into non-con fictions and abusives fictional relationship won't make you a rapist or whatever. It's a safe way to explore something forbidden. Like I said, there's something very arousing about transgressions, there's a reason the forbidden fruit is a metaphor for sexual pleasures after all. You need to learn to engage with disturbing arts even when you're not into it, because forcing a "I'm only into cute arts that make me comfortable" is not just a lazy mindset, it's also a dangerous one. Now let's go back to the "some are absolutly disgusted" because that's one of the most important part of this post. Just because you don't approve something, just because it makes you feel utterly disgusted and hurt you doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. And it works BOTH WAY, it means you don't get to tell what should exist or not based on your own feelings and history, BUT it also means you don't get to force people into supporting or accepting what you're into. When people show discomfort around your kinks, you always have people throwing "they're fictional characters". Do you know the strawberry test? Well, it's simple, now that you read the word "strawberry", your brain just activated the part that are responsible for taste and smell because your brain is preparing you to actually taste a strawberry. And yet, it's merely a bunch of letters in a certain order, but your brain still interpret it as a strawberry and prepare yourself to eat it. You cannot unseen a dark topic and pretend it's not here because or can't impact because "it's fictional". This whole mindset is deeply anti-art because it means you cannot feel shit nor have a moral through Art as Art is fiction by essence. You don't know what people have been through and it works both way, you can't assume someone is a predator or a rapist or groomer or whatever and isn't just coping with dark themes, you can't just assume they're into something harmful in real life because they have fun and/or comfort with a fictional version of this harm. But you can't assume you don't have in front of you another victim who get really hurt when they see these themes either, even fictional. Fiction is different from reality, in the way that even if you interpret fictional things like a real thing, it's still fictional. Which is why your brain allow you to have fun over awful shit like drowning a Sims while you would be absolutly horrified at the idea of drowning a real person. It's, once again, not manichean. It's not "just fiction" but it's "a real murder" either. That's why we have TW, CW, 18+ consenting etc... Because their discomfort is real, even over fictions.

Fiction is kind of like trauma in that matter, we all engage with it in a different level because it's an intimate level (and intimate doesn't necessarly mean sexual, it means it's unique but also important to you, personal).

That's why there's A WHOLE WORLD between "I don't support this" and "I'm totally ok with the censorship of this". We're being vocal and spent these last hours explaining the difference between "supporting" and "censoring" and why just because you're against something shouldn't lead to its censorship.

So, again : YOU DO NOT NEED TO APPROVE SOMETHING AND ENCOURAGE IT TO BE AGAINST ITS CENSORSHIP.

JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE AGAINST SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU WANT IT CENSORED, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT SOMETHING CENSORED DOESN'T MEAN YOU APPROVE IT.

I hope it's big enough for you all to understand it. The right to create anything include the right to feel uncomfortable by it. Trigger warnings/Content warnings are a marvelous things because they allow you to post everything while preventing people who can get hurt by it or utterly uncomfortable to see it. NSFW DOES REQUIRE CONSENT, just not the consent of your fictional characters. It requires the consent of the person who will see it, that's why filters and TW/CW exist, so you can express it without shoving it in people's face. Because a drawing of a fictional topic is still a depiction of that topic. Like I said, just like fictional pornography is still pornography. If you want to stand strongly against censorship, you need to also stand for proper filtering. Because forcing NSFW into people just because "it's fictional" is the reason people support censorship. So they don't have your shit forced down their throat.

"But what about illegal arts? Some stuff need to be censored", I don't personally believe in the necessity of making fictional stuff you can ignore, not buy and prevent from hurting you by yourself illegal but even though, I mean, it's in the name, it's illegal already. More censorship won't change shit because it's ALREADY CENSORED. The point isn't to make what's already not allowed even less allowed, the point is to add to it in order to not allow you either with time. Dark arts should and MUST exist, even the one I personally don't agree with. Because it's a way to denounce. Because it's a way to lash out and express our frustrations, pain, angers. Because it's a way to recover. Because it's a way to explore forbidden feelings, which will lead to understanding why it must stay a fictional fantasy. Because it's a way to exteriorize. And most importantly because the censorship of dark fantasies will lead to censoring the existence of minorities. I don't go in a porn website and go through their very visible warnings and shit and type exactly what I'm not not into and then complain I saw it therefore it should be censored. You can complain about people who don't put warning and ask them to put one or just block them and you can even feel disgusted by them while you do, whatever, but you don't get to tell them "you're not allowed to do this because it makes me uncomfortable", that's not how things work and that's the mindset that lead to literal fascism. It's YOUR ROLE to keep yourself safe, it's not up to people to censore themself for you, their role is to properly tag their stuff so you can keep yourself safe, they don't owe you more than that (which include how they don't owe you an explanation as to why they're into dark shit). That's also something a lot of you fail to understand, the difference between censorship and filtering. Having a "18+ ONLY" mention on a porn website isn't censorship, it's filtering. The content is still visible and allowed for people who are over 18 and who want to see it while censoring would make it totally invisible for them as well.

But you can't force people to accept your kinks either, as it is also fascism, so you don't get to blame people for feeling uncomfortable around you and for "not making a difference between fiction and reality" because it doesn't matter if your art is fictional, their disgust is as real as the fun you had while drawing it. Fighting for the right to make disturbing content include the right to feel disturbed.

What you can do and SHOULD do, however, is fight for the right to exist and to have proper filters through cw/tw, for exemple. Because that's also the thing with censorship, which happened on Tumblr when it went full 18+ censoring, people just stopped tagging their NSFW so you had big-ass porn showing up in every research you made because people didn't want to tag it anymore to avoid getting banned. That's what you'll get through the censorship of dark kinks, you ain't getting less of them, you're making them less filtered.

Censoring something doesn't prevent it from existing and it won't stop people from creating and sharing it. It will prevents you from filtering it, however. So you should rather fight for a proper labelling and to get that labelling you need to allow this label (again, we're only talking about fiction here, this fuss is about fiction, not real non-con or violent relationship, it's obvious but internet being internet a reminder won't hurt).

Fighting for Art means allowing disturbing Arts which means fighting against censorship which means fighting for the right to feel disgusted and uncomfortable around some kind of arts and artists. You cannot fight for one and dismiss the others. Because I talked about non-con here but there's a lot of dark topic that are targetted by these censorship which include graphic violence, dismembering and stuff like that so it means censoring most horror stories (let it be painting, movies, games, books etc...).

Censoring artists because what they do is "degenerate" to you isn't how you protect Art and freedom. If you ever opened an History book you understand why through that word only.

Because back then, it also started with the censorship of porn, violence and disturbing "degenerate" arts.

Emil Nolde - Nudes and Eunuch: Keeper of the Harem (1912)

Otto Dix - The Skat Players (1920)