I know it's been gone over a thousand times on this forum, but Roach is not in the wrong for writing erotic works where characters are specifically defined as "underage" (as opposed to being canonically underage characters who are aged up to adults) and I am not bad for liking/supporting them, and wanting my perspective to be one in which we are both in the right, right?
And if it is bad what the heck do I do in this instance Like my instinct is to avoid erotic works (that are intended to arouse) wherein a character is specifically depicted as being underage (as opposed to being aged up), is that what Roach is doing? Is that specific instance of the thing bad? Does entertaining that thought make me an anti? Does not entertaining it make me a bad person/underage-sex-supporter or whatever?
I think the general answer is: A lot of what people are talking about here is characters who would be legally allowed to have sex if they wanted to. They wouldn't be old enough to act in porn, but that's at least partially a contract law issue rather than a sexual morality issue. And in general, romance and erotica with characters who are under-18 but still post-puberty are... not really particularly creepy, so far as I can tell. But you're totally allowed to dislike or avoid things like that, if you want! Nothing wrong with that. You're allowed to dislike things. If you're not hating on people for feeling differently, you're not an anti. If you're not encouraging people to think that depictions in fiction are proof that the thing is okay in real life, you're not supporting child molestation. And the rest is just personal taste in art, I think.
