Honestly, as an avid student of history, I don't quite get the hate for bilibili and similar. If they allow authors to depict actual sapphic/gay romances as long as they censor the kisses and avoid explicit r18+...
...
If the girl gets the girl in the end, and they get to unambiguously depict them living a happy domestic life together? Censor away.
This may come as a shock to you but gay people kiss and have sex as a part of their happy, domestic lives.
Saying censorship is good because I got baited one time is certainly one of the most opinions I have ever seen I'm honestly astounded.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Censorship isn't good, and it'd be wonderful if it wasn't a thing, but if self-censoring kisses and sex is the cost of remaining on the platform and giving artists a viable way of making money in order to continue doing their work, then I think that's an OK compromise.
Yes, there's a strong argument for slippery slopes, i.e. "it began with just censoring kisses", and treating sexual minorities as second-class citizens, but the point I wanted to make was that it's far preferable to what has usually been the case in the vast majority of human history.
And regarding "getting baited" - I think you're missing the point. It's a different kind of (self-)censorship, which is imo more insidious; it's essentially conveying that lgbt relationships aren't "real" -- it's "a phase", or "they're just friends". Like it's something you grow out of, or that it's a choice. That's real erasure of sexual identity. Compared to that, censoring kisses but permitting meaningful depictions of lgbt romantic relationships is less harmful imo.
last edited at Feb 3, 2025 11:42AM
