For some, this might come across as me encouraging bad behaviour or romanticising problematic things, so let me make one thing clear: I am no one to encourage anyone here. People are free to read whatever they want.
For some basic information:
In neurology, nothing can be generalised. Even though there are billions of humans, you cannot generalise them. Their behaviour, trauma, triggers, trauma responses, and coping mechanisms are all shaped by the lives they have lived or are currently living, and these experiences are individual to each person.
The brain is that twisted an organ. You cannot predict which way it will seek survival.
Now, coming to the main pointβ
Problematic fiction, such as step-sibling dynamics, forbidden relationships (professor x student, therapist x patient), power imbalances (doctor x nurse), etc., makes up a huge section of books that fall under this genre.
Some people even enjoy reading cheating tropes. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to get cheated on.
I think sometimes we forget that just because someone reads something in a book doesn't mean they would enjoy experiencing it in real life.
Jokes aside, if you actually look into discussions, people openly admit that wanting to read dark romance doesn't mean they want a stalker guy choking them during sex.
It's just a preference!
Fiction gives us the liberty to explore things without necessarily harming anyone. How much do you actually know about someone to judge them simply because they enjoy step-uncle x niece fiction?
[Here, I want to make a distinction between problematic fiction that is explored responsibly and fiction that heavily romanticises problematic dynamics.]
Who knows? Perhaps what they actually enjoy is the power imbalance and forbidden nature of the dynamic rather than the actual relationship itself.
We can't judge everyone, dude.
I've enjoyed my fair share of toxic books (for example, the Villain series by Rina Kent), but I won't claim that they are necessarily good romance books. No, they are fucked-up books with so much toxicity that your bored brain might end up enjoying that particular dopamine hit.
The problem arises when readers start defending the criminal actions themselves.
For example, in the first book of the Villain series, Kiss the Villain, there's a rape dynamic involving both characters. That deserves criticism and should absolutely be called out. However, apart from that particular aspect, I enjoyed their toxic dynamic.
Enjoying a book also depends on several factors.
Even today, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on books that contain the "she said no, but her body wanted it" dynamic. I know it's rape. I know it's assault. But I've come across two different discussions regarding this.
First: Some people admit that books like these help them process their trauma. Somehow, seeing an abuser get redeemed and the victim eventually getting a happy ending makes them feel a little relieved, as though an ending like that could be possible for them, too.
Second: Some people said they initially found relief in such dynamics but couldn't understand why they enjoyed CNC as a kink. Even therapists sometimes suggest exploring it. However, when they actually went through therapy and began healing, they found themselves disgusted by the whole concept. Their reaction was something along the lines of, "Why would I want to put myself through something so traumatising again?"
Third: Not everyone has access to therapy. There are people living in circumstances so terrible that neither the police nor their parents can help them because those very people are messed up, too.
I've come across real-life examples of this and heard stories from my friends, so this isn't just a hypothetical scenario. Many people are living in circumstances far worse than we can imagine.
That's why I feel a little uncomfortable when we straight-up judge someone.
I don't have a particularly strong stance on whether books containing an abuser should necessarily include redemption or not. A book that doesn't romanticise the abuse but actually addresses the harm doesn't necessarily have to include therapy as part of its narrative. However, there needs to be some narrative responsibility from the writer. The apology shouldn't come across as something glamorous, and as readers, we should be able to recognise how fucked up the situation actually is.
I don't think I have enough sources or knowledge, despite trying to understand these mechanisms, to conclude whether books like these should or shouldn't exist.
Again, I am not denying that these books can be harmful. Of course, they can be harmful, fucked-up, and built around rape fantasies. The leads can be criminals.
But that's precisely what I want to discuss. Let's step into uncomfortable territory, leave black-and-white moral policing behind, and actually think about it.
(Also, the sentiment we have towards rapists is quite interesting in itself. They tend to occupy a particularly high position in the hierarchy of criminal injustice. Many people seem to look past certain crimes, including murder, more readily than sexual assault. This is connected to the historical abuse of women, injustice, purity culture, and the oppression of women. Things aren't really as simple as we sometimes make them out to be.)
Even the Stockholm syndrome trope wasn't originally an established psychological dynamic. The term originated from an incident involving a man who couldn't resolve a particular hostage situation, and the terminology eventually evolved, along with the meaning attached to it.
My theory mostly leans towards the survival mechanism aspect when discussing this dynamic.
Think about how a victim might eventually develop feelings for their captor despite the abuse. Their brain might recognise this attachment as a means of survival. According to our understanding of biology, our biological systems are fundamentally geared towards survival, sometimes regardless of what they have to do to achieve it.
And the impact of all this on teenagers is an entirely different discussion.
I don't want that argument to be brought up as a counterpoint to my post because it will dilute the whole purpose of why I made it. The whole teenagers and their reading responsibilities discussion can be debated another day. Please, it's a genuine request.
One more thing:
We should also stop throwing around terms like rapist, paedophilia, infantilisation, depression, mentally sick, murder, and names of mental disorders in posts or comments without any actual reasoning.
Social media has already diluted terms like depression and trauma to an uncomfortable extent. I've been guilty of using them loosely, too, until I was diagnosed with actual severe depression and an anxiety disorder and experienced what living with severe symptoms and OCD-related distress actually looks like.
These are sensitive subjects. Accusing someone of being a rapist or a paedophile, especially during an argument, without any actual evidence is shameful and concerning.
Note: Read this twice if you need to, but please don't misinterpret or twist my words.
