cdcdrr 
So here's a thought on 'problematic shipping': she says the underlying problems of those ships being overlooked is bad. She also implies that art is telling and revealing of real thoughts held by people. So if you accept Belle and the Beast as a couple, you don't have a problem with a Stockholm syndrome romance in fiction, and therefore don't have a problem with it in real life.
My growing up experience and opinion has always been "there's no wrong way to fantasize" (thought it was a bit on the nose and self aware when Celestia said those words). The way I arrived at this, and let's stop the pussy-footing right here, was when I first did research on rape. Amongst the myriad of questions was "is it okay to fantasize about rape or roleplay a rape scenario?". The answer I received was yes, it is entirely reasonable to explore dark, sexual themes and not be a rapist or less of a victim yourself should it happen for real. And this wasn't from some conservative, sexist place. I grew up in a very socialist, feminist and non-kinkshaming environment.
But by Lily's logic, this does not appear true; if you have thoughts of fantasized rape, you are a menace held back by a thin wall of self image or a victim excusing the behaviour of a monster. And this extends to other more or less extreme examples. Sometimes I would agree that fiction desensitizes us to the negative aspects of what we enjoy. Maybe it is true that video games reduce our reaction to violence, but we do not lose moral agency from that. We still have the power over ourselves to not shoot up a school or nightclub. Similarly, I have to believe that people who watch Beauty and the Beast and enjoy the romance, but recognize the unequal dynamic between Belle and the Beast are not inclined to put another person in a situation where loving them is their way out.
Even if art is a reflection of values as a society, it just feels simplistic to say that what you consume is cause for condemnation of morality or character. And I don't like the logical follow-up question if art should be suppressed or censored when it does not reflect the desired behaviour from humans who might be influenced by it on the unmerited assumption they have no control over how they respond to undesirable expressions.
My growing up experience and opinion has always been "there's no wrong way to fantasize" (though
But by Lily's logic, this does not appear true; if you have thoughts of fantasized rape, you are a menace held back by a thin wall of self image or a victim excusing the behaviour of a monster. And this extends to other more or less extreme examples. Sometimes I would agree that fiction desensitizes us to the negative aspects of what we enjoy. Maybe it is true that video games reduce our reaction to violence, but we do not lose moral agency from that. We still have the power over ourselves to not shoot up a school or nightclub. Similarly, I have to believe that people who watch Beauty and the Beast and enjoy the romance, but recognize the unequal dynamic between Belle and the Beast are not inclined to put another person in a situation where loving them is their way out.
Even if art is a reflection of values as a society, it just feels simplistic to say that what you consume is cause for condemnation of morality or character. And I don't like the logical follow-up question if art should be suppressed or censored when it does not reflect the desired behaviour from humans who might be influenced by it on the unmerited assumption they have no control over how they respond to undesirable expressions.