Triggered by Trigger Warnings

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Triggered by Trigger Warnings

Warning: This installment includes a discussion of trigger warnings, which may trigger those who are triggered by trigger warnings.

Read Full Article

This seemed like a fair and balanced take on the subject.

While I do think some things need a trigger warning, like the scene in Saving Private Ryan, all too often it is attempted to be applied to things that don't need one. You don't need a trigger warning for law school. If you can't handle the mere mention of rape or murder, you have no business prosecuting or defending people. I assure you that what you can see in criminal court can be far worse. You'd be better off taking classes on branches of law or avoiding studying law entirely.

Certainly there are things that are reasonable to do in a classroom to make it a place where people aren't afraid to speak up and take an active part in their own learning. When those things are applied evenly, so that they aren't used as a bludgeon to prevent other people from speaking up, or define particular points of view as impossible to even broach.

But it is not the job of a student to dictate what is and is not appropriate or acceptable to use in the teaching of a subject. That is, quite literally, the job of the teacher or the professor, and a student who believes they should get fiat over what they're willing to contemplate towards learning that subject is a student who is not ready for higher education, and worse, a student who is actively imperiling the ability of their classmates to receive a useful education.

Moreover, while PTSD is a real thing, real triggers tend to be far more specific and less obvious than people who would use the term in an attempt to prevent any confrontation with "sensitive" material choose to believe, and further, confronting traumas rather than avoiding them is key to overcoming trauma, and enabling a strategy of avoidance is maladaptive.

Yes, students continue to learn after they leave higher education, and may not seek to chill any attempt to discuss matters they find sensitive once they leave (a few bloggers writing to the contrary.) That doesn't mean that during that too-brief period where they are gathered expressly to learn, and often pay high prices to do so, they should have to leap hurdles in order to get that education.

Another good article though I definitely disagree with you on the point that college students aren't children. They most certainly are, and my entire experience in college is proof of it because the vast majority were (pardon the pun) trigger-happy special snowflakes who practically shat themselves if you dared disagree with them on anything or tried to talk about anything that wouldn't be included in a post-colonialist poetry slam. In the real world, there is a good case for providing trigger warnings for people with actual, diagnosed PTSD, but in college trigger warnings and the safe spaces they provide are nothing more than a way to shut down actual critical thinking and discussion because it would get in the way of the professors' proselytizing.

I'd like to point out that your decision to use Saving Private Ryan as an example of "media needing trigger warnings" is quite flawed since the MPAA exists, and their sole purpose is to inform viewers about what to expect the film to contain.

Transdude1996:
I'd like to point out that your decision to use Saving Private Ryan as an example of "media needing trigger warnings" is quite flawed since the MPAA exists, and their sole purpose is to inform viewers about what to expect the film to contain.

Which is actually the intent of trigger warnings, which exist in just, a whole ton of media. The ESRB puts trigger warnings on boxes. News stories will say 'get the kids out of the room' for some things. It's just that people have coopted "trigger" to mean anything they don't like because it gives them the fa?ade of a medical condition to hide behind. Meanwhile, another group of shitheads have decided to go on a crusade against all content warnings for, I don't know, reasons?

Which is a real shame because in academia it means a lot. 'We're going to go dark for a while, so prepare' gives people enough time to get in the right state of mind and if someone doesn't want to talk about it in a group setting, they're adults and can not go to lecture with all the detriments that could have.

MCerberus:
Meanwhile, another group of shitheads have decided to go on a crusade against all content warnings for, I don't know, reasons?

Free speech, yadda yadda, censorship, yadda yadda, mostly it's just 'we want to frame being an asshole as something righteous, and/or we've only listened to someone who wants us to believe being an asshole is righteous'.

Honestly a lot of people I've seen virulently against trigger warnings and safe spaces simply want to be able to upset and hurt people, or don't know what they're talking about and have been listening only to the first group pretend what their doing is fighting oppression.

"The idea that university students are intelligent, critical thinkers capable of forming their own opinions and continuing to learn throughout the course of their lives seems to have escaped both sides."

It's because people are able to think for themselves that warnings are used, so that they can make their own decisions about whether they want to be exposed by the content. If they know in advance that the material might be triggering, then they can make their own mind up about it.

Windknight:

MCerberus:
Meanwhile, another group of shitheads have decided to go on a crusade against all content warnings for, I don't know, reasons?

Free speech, yadda yadda, censorship, yadda yadda, mostly it's just 'we want to frame being an asshole as something righteous, and/or we've only listened to someone who wants us to believe being an asshole is righteous'.

Honestly a lot of people I've seen virulently against trigger warnings and safe spaces simply want to be able to upset and hurt people, or don't know what they're talking about and have been listening only to the first group pretend what their doing is fighting oppression.

What's weird is "we want to frame being an asshole as something righteous" is an accusation I frequently hear being made by those very people against those insisting on trigger warnings and safe spaces. Wanting to protect peoples feelings is great, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some have raised the concern that safe spaces will continue to expand to the point that it would be easier to designate the areas that aren't safe spaces as 'free speech zones'. Of course that is just a slippery slope fallacy. What do you mean free speech zones are already a thing and have been for years? shit

I also think there is a difference between wanting to upset people and hurt their feelings and not wanting to face criminal charges if you upset people or hurt their feelings.

There's only a problem when they're stating the fucking obvious. Oh really Kotaku, this child marriage mod for Stardew Valley contains themes of child abuse? Well fuck me sideways, I'd never have worked that one out.

Transdude1996:
I'd like to point out that your decision to use Saving Private Ryan as an example of "media needing trigger warnings" is quite flawed since the MPAA exists, and their sole purpose is to inform viewers about what to expect the film to contain.

This film is rate ETC, for scenes of various content we're not going to get into now, but you get the idea insofar as this example goes. Viewer discretion is advised.

It is true. There has been an effort made to cover that base. It's a fair warning, like a spoiler alert.

I understand the slippery slope of creating a cascade trigger failure, but the elephant in the room must be noted in some way.

Also, I have no time for Saving Private Ryan. It is not on my list of movies to watch.

To some extent we've had trigger warnings for many years, in the form of the MPAA and ESRB. If you can't make educated guesses as to what a movieor Gane or TV show contains based on these ratings, it should not be the responsibility of someone else to add additional al warnings. U suppose to some extent a college discussion which may get out of hand, but college is a place where ideas should be formed and debated, not shut down because someone's feelings might get hurt. I think the best example is colleges putting out trigger warning signs for republican guest speakers. There should be nothing about the words of a politician that could damage these young minds. If so, then maybe they are the delicate flowers that the adults referenced in this articles negatively think they are.

Windknight:

MCerberus:
Meanwhile, another group of shitheads have decided to go on a crusade against all content warnings for, I don't know, reasons?

Free speech, yadda yadda, censorship, yadda yadda, mostly it's just 'we want to frame being an asshole as something righteous, and/or we've only listened to someone who wants us to believe being an asshole is righteous'.

Honestly a lot of people I've seen virulently against trigger warnings and safe spaces simply want to be able to upset and hurt people, or don't know what they're talking about and have been listening only to the first group pretend what their doing is fighting oppression.

Part of that is human nature though; The more you tell people they can't do something the more they want to do it. So of course when you construct a 'safe space' there will be some people that take that as a challenge.

However, I think the inherent problem with 'trigger-warnings' and 'safe-spaces' is they are presented in a very passive aggressive fashion. I mean when's the last time you heard someone complaining about the existence of a support group? In concept it's the same thing, people who have a shared problem go and meet and talk about it while being supportive and respectful of the problems they each face. The difference is that it's presented in a positive fashion; it's about supporting a weakness in the person. A safe space, on the other hand, implies that other spaces are less-safe; that the problem is not with the person using the space but with the rest of the world.

Same thing with 'trigger' warnings; Instead of just a warning or rating to let you know what to expect the 'trigger' portion implies there is something wrong with the content you're about to consume, that it will hurt you in some fashion.

Always seen trigger warnings as further evidence of the infantalisation of modern society and the need to cower behind a protective State myself.

Reading this, I suppose film rating etc are a form, which is interesting, but I guess they aren't presented with the same bullying, politically correctness that ironically so hates everything that doesn't conform to it's bizzare precepts.

ErrrorWayz:
Always seen trigger warnings as further evidence of the infantalisation of modern society and the need to cower behind a protective State myself.

Reading this, I suppose film rating etc are a form, which is interesting, but I guess they aren't presented with the same bullying, politically correctness that ironically so hates everything that doesn't conform to it's bizzare precepts.

They're starting to. On one occasion, a film received and R rating for being "Too scary" for a PG-13 rating, and a lot of people are pushing media containing usage of tobacco or alcohol to be given an R rating, or the highest rating possible. And, over in Europe, they're starting to apply that "Gender Equality test" to films (the Bechdel Test is what I think it's called), and those that do not pass are given the highest age rating possible.

Synigma:
[quote="Windknight" post="6.943557.23807867"] A safe space, on the other hand, implies that other spaces are less-safe; that the problem is not with the person using the space but with the rest of the world.

Same thing with 'trigger' warnings; Instead of just a warning or rating to let you know what to expect the 'trigger' portion implies there is something wrong with the content you're about to consume, that it will hurt you in some fashion.

Because sometimes they essentially are less safe. I mean, look at videogames, where 'rape' is casually used as a term of dominating the opponent. Imagine being a male rape survivor and someone compliments you with 'you totally raped them dude' in a game. There is a lot of casual use of pretty crappy language in general life, and nowaday the response to being told what you said hurt someone else is not the empathic 'oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise' but the defensive 'f*** you, I'm not self censoring.' A safe-Space to get away from that, maybe spend a few minutes composing yourself or dealing with your reaction is not a bad thing.

And trigger warnings it's a way of saying 'we're going to be discussing this as a necessity - those of you who may have a bad reaction to this have a pause to compose and prepare yourself, do whatever you need to feel ok going into this rather than it suddenly jumping out at you when it occurs.' Because oftens that's what people need - just enough warning to brace themselves (or decide its not what they want to go through) rather than being blindsided by their trigger.

Windknight:

Synigma:
[quote="Windknight" post="6.943557.23807867"] A safe space, on the other hand, implies that other spaces are less-safe; that the problem is not with the person using the space but with the rest of the world.

Same thing with 'trigger' warnings; Instead of just a warning or rating to let you know what to expect the 'trigger' portion implies there is something wrong with the content you're about to consume, that it will hurt you in some fashion.

Because sometimes they essentially are less safe. I mean, look at videogames, where 'rape' is casually used as a term of dominating the opponent. Imagine being a male rape survivor and someone compliments you with 'you totally raped them dude' in a game. There is a lot of casual use of pretty crappy language in general life, and nowaday the response to being told what you said hurt someone else is not the empathic 'oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise' but the defensive 'f*** you, I'm not self censoring.' A safe-Space to get away from that, maybe spend a few minutes composing yourself or dealing with your reaction is not a bad thing.

And trigger warnings it's a way of saying 'we're going to be discussing this as a necessity - those of you who may have a bad reaction to this have a pause to compose and prepare yourself, do whatever you need to feel ok going into this rather than it suddenly jumping out at you when it occurs.' Because oftens that's what people need - just enough warning to brace themselves (or decide its not what they want to go through) rather than being blindsided by their trigger.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm certainly not against these as concepts. What I'm trying to say is the names and the nature of how they are approached is what causes the issue. There is an implication the problem lies with the world and not with the individual who needs the safe space or trigger warning.

To use your example of the male rape survivor and a safe space: When people use the term 'rape' to describe his game it gets to him and he needs to feel safe to recompose himself. The real problem is his traumatic experience and how it's having a ripple effect throughout his life not the word that triggered him. The world is not unsafe - it's unsafe for him. ('unsafe' being relative in this case)

Instead of calling them safe spaces maybe we should call them 'retreat zones', 'time outs' or 'relaxation locations'... something that puts the onus back on the person using it and not on society as a whole. As for trigger warnings... it's just a subsection of content warnings so how about we just go back to calling them just 'warnings' and leave it at that. After all, a warning that something may contain rape scenes is just as useful, if not more so, to parents with small children than rape victims who want to avoid it.

Literally the first proper article I've seen that gives a genuinely even handed pespective whilst also offering a real opinion that goes further than simply stating "both sides have a point".

Silly uses of trigger warnings don't invalidate the concept.

Laughing at silly uses of trigger warning doesn't mean you dismiss outright

Failing to give a trigger warning doesn't make you a cruel, heartless, rapist-sympathiser.

Asking for a trigger warning doesn't make you a censorship-loving, thought-policing Nazi.

Personally I think erring on the side of caution makes sense in most cases but what that actually means in a practical case by case basis is difficult to nail down. Most of all I think we need to own up to the genuine conflict that exists between free debate and respectible inclusivity.

Transdude1996:

ErrrorWayz:
Always seen trigger warnings as further evidence of the infantalisation of modern society and the need to cower behind a protective State myself.

Reading this, I suppose film rating etc are a form, which is interesting, but I guess they aren't presented with the same bullying, politically correctness that ironically so hates everything that doesn't conform to it's bizzare precepts.

They're starting to. On one occasion, a film received and R rating for being "Too scary" for a PG-13 rating, and a lot of people are pushing media containing usage of tobacco or alcohol to be given an R rating, or the highest rating possible. And, over in Europe, they're starting to apply that "Gender Equality test" to films (the Bechdel Test is what I think it's called), and those that do not pass are given the highest age rating possible.

Must admit I've seen no evidence of gender equality ratings in the UK, not sure about mainland Europe but I'd have thought that would have been small scale, possibly by one of those weird little "equality charities" that occasionally get headlines sometimes for doing something controversial.

UK students unions are being hijacked by this American "safe space" crap though, the problem is they are run like like political arenas and when you are 18 to 21 most people don't care about union policy, so you often end up with a small group of narcissist "activists" foisting their prejudices (antisemitism is the current vogue) on everyone. Lovely. Recently 3 student unions quit from the overall union because of the far left wing hijack but ironically most remainded because no one is that bothered.

Thaluikhain:
"The idea that university students are intelligent, critical thinkers capable of forming their own opinions and continuing to learn throughout the course of their lives seems to have escaped both sides."

It's because people are able to think for themselves that warnings are used, so that they can make their own decisions about whether they want to be exposed by the content. If they know in advance that the material might be triggering, then they can make their own mind up about it.

Seems like a very optimistic review of a rather sinister process of morally judging others content to me. What about the inference there is something "wrong" with the content? Once we've finished labelling everying for potential "offence", what next? Start restricting access? And who gets to produce the trigger warnings?

I find this post very strange. Is the discussion about trigger warnings an American thing? When I went to college (Belgium) I never encountered either a trigger warning or content that warranted it. Of course, this is my personal opinion, and maybe showing that it differs between individuals is the whole point of this post.

It's not that people view college students as idiots incapable of making their own decisions, it's that some students feel entitled to dictate how things are going to be run as a general policy that everyone else now has to abide by. Great, why not put them in charge of the curriculum also? We're already living in an age where professor ratings by students are actually taken seriously, and bad grades are routinely blamed on poor teaching instead of the individual taking responsibility for a lack of effort.

ErrrorWayz:
Seems like a very optimistic review of a rather sinister process of morally judging others content to me. What about the inference there is something "wrong" with the content?

What inference? That something might be triggering doesn't mean there's something otherwise wrong.

ErrrorWayz:
Once we've finished labelling everying for potential "offence", what next? Start restricting access?

Firstly, offence and trigger are not the same word. Secondly, that's the slippery slop fallacy.

ErrrorWayz:
And who gets to produce the trigger warnings?

The person who content it is can make a good faith attempt to warn people of the content. We've had NSFW warnings, spoiler warnings and "watch out, scary spider pic" wanrings for ages. Society has eaten itself.

Robert B. Marks:

Warning: This installment includes a discussion of trigger warnings, which may trigger those who are triggered by trigger warnings.

Thanks for the heads up! I wouldn't had been able to read through the comments without resupplying myself with booze in advance. :)

I wonder what backlash warning labels would have had if they were only to be implemented today. I mean, they imply that everything is dangerous and that everybody is stupid, surely?

ErrrorWayz:
Seems like a very optimistic review of a rather sinister process of morally judging others content to me. What about the inference there is something "wrong" with the content?

Thaluikhain:
What inference? That something might be triggering doesn't mean there's something otherwise wrong.

ErrrorWayz:
If content is deemed "sexist due to being degrading to women", that is a value judgement isn't it? Once we've finished labelling everything for potential "offence", what next? Start restricting access?

Thaluikhain:
Firstly, offence and trigger are not the same word. Secondly, that's the slippery slop fallacy.

ErrrorWayz:
I don't think I suggested they were? Ah, that old bugbear, yes the "slippery slope" is listed as a logical fallacy but that doesn't mean that precedent is now obsolete because the internet decided so - things can and do snowball, all a logical fallacy means is that it will not definitely happen, it may or may not - and in this case, on balance, I say it was a genuine danger, worth considering at least. And who gets to produce the trigger warnings?

[quote="Thaluikhain" post="6.943557.23808951"]The person who content it is can make a good faith attempt to warn people of the content. We've had NSFW warnings, spoiler warnings and "watch out, scary spider pic" wanrings for ages. Society has eaten itself.

Hmm, on balance, given your answers, I can't help but wonder if I may have entirely misunderstood the nature of trigger warnings, I need to have a further look.

Transdude1996:

ErrrorWayz:
Always seen trigger warnings as further evidence of the infantalisation of modern society and the need to cower behind a protective State myself.

Reading this, I suppose film rating etc are a form, which is interesting, but I guess they aren't presented with the same bullying, politically correctness that ironically so hates everything that doesn't conform to it's bizzare precepts.

They're starting to. On one occasion, a film received and R rating for being "Too scary" for a PG-13 rating, and a lot of people are pushing media containing usage of tobacco or alcohol to be given an R rating, or the highest rating possible. And, over in Europe, they're starting to apply that "Gender Equality test" to films (the Bechdel Test is what I think it's called), and those that do not pass are given the highest age rating possible.

I don't know where you're getting your information from. A cinema chain in Sweden applies the Bechdel tests to movies (giving them an "A" if they pass) but that's it. They don't randomly change the age ratings.

If anything, age ratings are coming down because of producers. Producers love to try and get lower age ratings to expand their market, so they'll scrub out gore and bad language to make lower ratings, or they'll simply badger the rating organisation until they get a lower rating (big movies are more guilty of this, indie movies don't have that kind of clout, and get stuck with dreaded NC17 ratings).

StreamerDarkly:
It's not that people view college students as idiots incapable of making their own decisions, it's that some students feel entitled to dictate how things are going to be run as a general policy that everyone else now has to abide by. Great, why not put them in charge of the curriculum also? We're already living in an age where professor ratings by students are actually taken seriously, and bad grades are routinely blamed on poor teaching instead of the individual taking responsibility for a lack of effort.

In fairness, students (or at least their parents) are paying an absolute fortune for the privilege of being schooled. It would be horrendous customer service to not grant them a bit of a say in the service they get. Some professors genuinely suck at their job, some curriculum are badly organised, and you kind of need the students to say so to even find out.

Besides, this is the exact hyperbole that Garwulf brought up: students aren't actually complaining anywhere near as much as the media makes it look, and the introduction of the occasional trigger warnings for lectures about nasty shit is hardly onerous. I'm in a uni forum and 90% of the time it is students themselves, bitching about articles on trigger warnings in universities.

K12:
Literally the first proper article I've seen that gives a genuinely even handed pespective whilst also offering a real opinion that goes further than simply stating "both sides have a point".

Silly uses of trigger warnings don't invalidate the concept.

Laughing at silly uses of trigger warning doesn't mean you dismiss outright

Failing to give a trigger warning doesn't make you a cruel, heartless, rapist-sympathiser.

Asking for a trigger warning doesn't make you a censorship-loving, thought-policing Nazi.

Personally I think erring on the side of caution makes sense in most cases but what that actually means in a practical case by case basis is difficult to nail down. Most of all I think we need to own up to the genuine conflict that exists between free debate and respectible inclusivity.

That's exactly it. People love to exaggerate the problem, treating every concession as a slippery slope. "Trigger warning on sexual assault? what next, a trigger warning about biscuits, in case someone might be triggered by sugar?"

StreamerDarkly:
It's not that people view college students as idiots incapable of making their own decisions, it's that some students feel entitled to dictate how things are going to be run as a general policy that everyone else now has to abide by. Great, why not put them in charge of the curriculum also? We're already living in an age where professor ratings by students are actually taken seriously, and bad grades are routinely blamed on poor teaching instead of the individual taking responsibility for a lack of effort.

Why is getting feedback and ratings from students about their courses and lecturers a bad thing?

K12:

StreamerDarkly:
It's not that people view college students as idiots incapable of making their own decisions, it's that some students feel entitled to dictate how things are going to be run as a general policy that everyone else now has to abide by. Great, why not put them in charge of the curriculum also? We're already living in an age where professor ratings by students are actually taken seriously, and bad grades are routinely blamed on poor teaching instead of the individual taking responsibility for a lack of effort.

Why is getting feedback and ratings from students about their courses and lecturers a bad thing?

Because it's far too easily abused and lays the teacher open to being force to be "popular" rather than being a teacher. You only have to couple that with some of the extremism students habitually indulge in and you get a counter productive situation.

Annoyingly I can't the link but there was a story in the UK recent where a Corbyn fanatic made vexation complaints and wages some form of social media smear campaign against his economics teacher because the teacher pointed out "neo-liberal" doesn't actually mean anything in a lecture. The lecturer was actually investigated, his job was threatened simply for doing it.

maninahat:

K12:
Literally the first proper article I've seen that gives a genuinely even handed pespective whilst also offering a real opinion that goes further than simply stating "both sides have a point".

Silly uses of trigger warnings don't invalidate the concept.

Laughing at silly uses of trigger warning doesn't mean you dismiss outright

Failing to give a trigger warning doesn't make you a cruel, heartless, rapist-sympathiser.

Asking for a trigger warning doesn't make you a censorship-loving, thought-policing Nazi.

Personally I think erring on the side of caution makes sense in most cases but what that actually means in a practical case by case basis is difficult to nail down. Most of all I think we need to own up to the genuine conflict that exists between free debate and respectible inclusivity.

That's exactly it. People love to exaggerate the problem, treating every concession as a slippery slope. "Trigger warning on sexual assault? what next, a trigger warning about biscuits, in case someone might be triggered by sugar?"

Just as other people also love to minimise the dangers it seems.

What the forumer posted there was double sided, free debate is threatened by "safe spaces", just as much "respectful inclusivity" is strengthed - I don't think absurdum arguments really do much to refute every concession is arguably a step further down the slope.

That's a couple of times I've seen people claiming that all precedent setting argument is a logical fallacy, seems odd.

ErrrorWayz:

K12:

StreamerDarkly:
It's not that people view college students as idiots incapable of making their own decisions, it's that some students feel entitled to dictate how things are going to be run as a general policy that everyone else now has to abide by. Great, why not put them in charge of the curriculum also? We're already living in an age where professor ratings by students are actually taken seriously, and bad grades are routinely blamed on poor teaching instead of the individual taking responsibility for a lack of effort.

Why is getting feedback and ratings from students about their courses and lecturers a bad thing?

Because it's far too easily abused and lays the teacher open to being force to be "popular" rather than being a teacher. You only have to couple that with some of the extremism students habitually indulge in and you get a counter productive situation.

Annoyingly I can't the link but there was a story in the UK recent where a Corbyn fanatic made vexation complaints and wages some form of social media smear campaign against his economics teacher because the teacher pointed out "neo-liberal" doesn't actually mean anything in a lecture. The lecturer was actually investigated, his job was threatened simply for doing it.

Did you see my comment earlier pointing out that a negative anecodote doesn't invalidate a general policy on it's own? (especially when that anecdote might not tell the full story or even be true in the first place)

Any time when someone is given power over another this has the potential to be abused and I think it shows an unfairly cynical attitude towards students to assume that a large enough number of them would habitually pick on decent teachers, as well as not giving University faculty much credit for being able to see through egregious examples or that they don't use several different sources to judge their teaching staff.

I myself have only given one very negative student appraisal and the lecturer earned it by being a really inadequate teacher. In fact his "I'm like one of you guys" attitude was part of why the class thought he was so shit. He kept trying to spark pointless debates and squash opinions that none of us actually held while virtually never managing to actually get through the topic he was supposed to be teaching.

Lecturers are employed to teach as part of their job and there needs to be some kind of evaluation going on to keep up the standard of teaching. It seems really bizarre to not include students in that process since they are the beneficiaries and at University are all adults who are there by choice.

Hi all!

For those who are looking forward to the Reddit AMA today, I'm afraid that's been postponed - there turned out to be a conflict with a family function we had committed to, and it had to be moved to tomorrow (Sunday, October 16th), at 1:30 PM Eastern Time.

Apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

I like trigger warnings. If you're looking at porn, watching some busty woman get herself off, you don't want her to suddenly bend over and drop a deuce. Unless, for some reason, that's what you're looking for. But a trigger warning makes sure you won't accidentally stumble upon something like that.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here