I'd Really Like To Address The Jaws Part Of This, Because I Actually Have A Post Regarding That In My

I'd really like to address the Jaws part of this, because I actually have a post regarding that in my drafts ready to go, but OP makes a very valid, brilliant statement:

It didn't cause shark attacks to rise. It caused fear.

Jaws had no actual impact on sharks in terms of what the sharks did. Jaws didn't inherently increase the danger level of sharks. That stayed exactly the same. Sharks did as they've always done; existed in the ocean and occasionally hunted food that turned out to be a person. Because they're sharks and we chose to be thrashing, yummy prey in their natural habitat.

What Jaws did cause is a widespread misconception about that danger. Which resulted in voluntary human action. We, as people, actively chose to decide this risk factor was suddenly tenfold, and we had to mitigate it by immediately going out and killing as many sharks as we possibly could to reduce it again.

Except. It never changed. Because again; the risk was always exactly the same. And likewise; it didn't actually remove the risk at all. There's still sharks. We're still going in the ocean.

You choose to swim in the ocean, there might be hungry sharks that mistake you for brunch.

And that's not even touching on other arguments like intent and indirect influence.

I just feel like Pete Davidson’s SNL monologue shows the whole proshipping discourse boiled down to the most fundament difference between pros and antis.

Because like.

We have his sister, sitting down to watch GoT with him, and she is a person who has a very clear understanding of fiction vs reality. So when Pete starts getting all puritanical over how the villains are twincesting right in front of their eyes, she’s just like “well, it’s not real, you know.” And he jokes that he’s thinking “am I about to bang this chick?”

That is a direct quote from him, btw.

So there we have it. Sister understands that GoT is fiction, and that fucked up things happening in the fiction we consume does not mean we want to do those fucked up things. And Pete goes “oh, she’s ok with fictional incest in a TV show, clearly my sister would want to fuck me.”

And I get it, it’s a joke. But it’s a joke that so clearly shows the disconnect all this shipping discourse and dark themes in fiction discourse and… and it’s just. That disconnect.

And I don’t know if the antis will ever wrap their minds around “fiction isn’t reality” and before anyone brings up Jaws let me say I KNOW. But also: Jaws didn’t cause shark attacks to rise. It caused fear. Which is what a scary movie is supposed to do. It did it well because thalassophobia is fucking real. Not because sharks are wanton killing machines. Because it was tapping into a primal fear that most of us experience to some level.

I wonder how many people would stop telling others to kill themselves if they were actually forced to watch them do it and had to tell their friends and families that they were the direct cause of that person committing suicide.

While I understand how it could seem upsetting to you, as the disabled sibling, that your needs might be considered a source of negative impact, I implore you to listen to the voices of non-disabled people who have experienced genuine neglect and distress because of their parent's inability to properly balance having children of two different levels of need.

You, as a disabled person, do not have the right to speak over and demean the voices of non-disabled people who have been impacted by living with a disabled sibling, however.

If its upsetting to you to think about how your needs might be impacting someone else, think about how upsetting it is to be the person who's needs are dismissed and devalued because of your needs.

Not every sibling to a disabled person is a glass child. But there's a reason that term exists. And those people are just as entitled to help and validation as you are.

It is not your fault you are disabled. And you have the inherent right to care that meets your needs. But sometimes, parents are incapable of providing that and providing an equitable amount of care to their other children.

The term 'glass child' is not just some throwaway term for kids who are bitter their parents missed a football game or two. Your voice has an inherent right to be heard.

But so does theirs.

the term "glass child" makes me incredibly upset. youre not being neglected because you're disabled sibling needs extra attention. your sibling needing to go to a mental hospital or rehab center does not justify you whining about how you get 42% of your parents attention instead of 50%

Hello, @blood-eating-robot's description is incorrect and I was sent this post so I'm here to offer some insight.

No, proshipping is not 'encouraging people to ship siblings.' You absolutely can ship siblings, if you'd like to, because they're not real, but that's not the actual definition of pro-shipping.

Pro-shipping as we know it by term today is actually the evolution of a term from the very early days of fandom-focused spaces which was known as SALS; Ship and Let Ship. To fully understand that there's a lot of fandom-focused space history you'd need to know, which I'd be happy to expand upon, but for now;

Essentially all you need to know is that early fandom spaces were very male-oriented, heterosexually focused and public opinion dominated what was 'acceptable' or not, most especially in regards to sexualised content.

As such; anyone who shipped characters that didn't fit certain 'appealing' criteria were faced with a barrage of backlash (mostly based on homophobia and sexism), prompting the birth of SALS in defence of shipping what was seen as 'unappealing' and 'unwelcome.'

(Its no surprise that queer ships and ships where the woman was deemed too 'unattractive' for the man were the typical focus of people rejecting the idea of anything romantic between them.)

SALS's concept was exactly that; while a ship might be unappealing to you, it isn't to someone else, and you have no right or obligation to engage with it, or try to prevent someone else from engaging with it.

Now alongside this, the term 'anti' actually already did exist, but as a prefix, typically for ships or specific media. Since subjects like incest and kink were still kept very hush-hush and private, it was generally assumed in fandom spaces that you were automatically and inherently against them anyway.

As such, if someone was an 'anti' they would specifically use it in the context of being anti-X. For example; anti-[ship name] or anti-[fandom name]. It was a prefix for disliking and disagreeing with something.

In turn, the usage of 'pro' as a prefix became more prevalent as a natural reflection of this, in the same context.

Now, at the same time as the influx of the usage of these prefixes, fandom spaces began to evolve. TV shows and movies became more popular and accessible. Iconic titles came into being. Technology evolved. Society became focused on media and fandoms as industry and income. Fandom spaces became more accessible, community focused and fruitful than ever. Basic chat forums evolved into social media sites and better formatted websites.

Actual media content and public opinion on certain things began to change and evolve, too. Kinks and fetishes became more mainstream. Laws on sexuality and sex began to change. Porn and violence and shock-factor became prevalent in modern media. This was reflected in fandom spaces, too. Suddenly explicit fanfiction wasn't hidden inside locked threads and fourteen different links. Suddenly it was no longer 'as weird' to draw the hot astronaut woman getting the ten-tentacle special from the alien monster.

As such, the prefixes 'anti' and 'pro' also began to extend to other concepts. Anti-kink, pro-dead-dove, and so forth. Now they didn't just refer to ships and media, but to things like specific kinks, concepts, even plots and individual characters.

Of course, within this boom and evolution, content regarding 'problematic' concepts also became popular, more easily accessible, and produced at an increased rate.

From here, 'anti' slowly stopped being regarded as specific to ships and characters and became more relative to actual content and concepts. It slowly evolved from being a prefix to being an actual noun. 'I am an anti' now became more readily known to mean; 'I am against any type of content that contradicts real life laws and moral values.'

And, again, as 'anti' evolved...

You can guess it. So too did 'pro' evolve to counter the concept of 'anti.' It still retained its original core concept, however:

You have the right to dislike something or disagree with something. You don't have the right to prevent me from enjoying it, or the right to cause me harm over it.

Concepts such as pro/anti-censorship have since been absorbed by the terms, among other things, but that's the core basis of pro-shipping.

And, yes. Absolutely. Pro-shipping does also relate to things like incest and 'shipping siblings.' I'll use the popular TV show Supernatural as an example.

A is a pro-shipper who actively ships Wincest, the two main characters of the show, Sam and Dean, who are blood-related direct siblings. Brothers. A actively creates fanart and fanfiction for the ship. A does not actually condone or support incest in real life, but enjoys exploring the concept in a fictional capacity.

B is also a pro-shipper. B does not ship Wincest nor does B actively enjoy any incestual content. However, B also recognises that Wincest is fictional, that A has the right to make fictional content, and that A isn't actually condoning incest in real life. A is simply enjoying a fictional ship and concept. B simply blocks A so they don't see their content, makes sure anything relating to incest is blacklisted using the available features on all of their used websites, and moves on.

In general, pro-shipping can be summed up as simply recognising that people have the right to create content, even content depicting certain things that as real life acts would be illegal or immoral, and that fictional content does not always reflect the real-life morals and values of a person.

I hope this helps clarify. You can be a pro-shipper and never actually touch things like incest with a ten-foot barge pole. Its a pretty common misconception, especially given that somehow, pro-ship became the umbrella term above pro-fiction, but that's the thick and thin of it. Pro-shipping is actually more about anti-censorship and freedom of creativity than it is directly about shipping and romance.

Hey so uhh. When I made this blog I wasn't particularly aligned in shipping discourse one way or another. But now I have a much more "ship and let ship" vibe, which I believe is generally referred to as "proshipping"? And I know a lot of people have that in their DNI. So feel free to block or unfollow for that.

Celebrities are aware that certain content about them exists.

They're also aware of where it exists.

They know to avoid it.

Your job is to make sure it stays in those places with the appropriate tags/warnings so they can.

I promise you, most celebrities don't think about that kind of thing beyond 'I don't want to see it, so I don't look for it."

And they'd think about it even less if you stopped asking them their opinion on it.

Because pornography is still plot. Plot is merely the actual storytelling part of writing something. Plot is what happens within the story.

If my plot is the fact that my fourteen year old character rides my fifty year old character (hello, Starker) off into the sunset like the Lone Ranger's Silver, then that is the plot of my story.

What matters is that in real life, if I discovered a fourteen year old was sexually involved with a fifty year old, I would call the police.

Because one is fictional and one isn't. And we're capable of separating the fact that something that's enjoyable in concept isn't necessarily enjoyable (or morally sound) in reality.

imo theres a HUGE difference between writing incest and pedophilia as part of a story's plot and writing incest csa erotica, but coincidentally proshippers always seem to cite well known and popular stories that fall into the first category as reasons to be proship while they themselves always seem to write and indulge in the second category. why are those two things assumed to be comparable at all. theyre really not.