Yeah last year I attempted to have a discussion about clarifying Trigger Warnings and was booted out of r/RomanceBooks. Basically I wanted to talk about how when a TW said non-con or rape that it should clarify which. Is it non con that is treated like a crime, or non con that is romanticized. To me, as a survivor of rape, there is a huge difference. Believe it or not, I have zero qualms reading novels with SA that is not romanticized. But it triggers me greatly when I read the kind that is not. I get that it’s a kink, one I personally don’t find sexy. And I know that other SA survivors find these kinds of themes healing, there those of us who don’t.
So my post, which was taken down and got me banned was asking if we should perhaps have an industry standard trigger warning system that differentiates between the non cons. Those being CNC, non con, dubious consent and romanticized non con. Because for people like me (and I know I’m not alone) have to sift through Goodreads reviews to see what the author means by non con or rape. I shouldn’t have to do that. There should be a distinction. And Reddit shouldn’t muzzle people like me who are unbiasedly asking these questions. Because we should have this conversation. In fact I’m honestly going to be surprised if this comment not only stays up, but that dark romance fans who like romanticized non con don’t attack me for the audacity of asking for some responsibility from authors. Because dark romance does not mean only the sexualization of non con. It means dark themes which includes but is not exclusive to romanticized non con. And telling people they should’ve have read the TW knowing TW generally don’t differentiate is victim blaming.
Well now i get to see if I get censored again lol
by Somalikes1979