The issue here is that you’re judging a historically framed story almost entirely through a modern moral lens, without fully accounting for the social norms of the period it’s meant to reflect. In many historical societies, child or early marriages were not only common but institutionalized, tied to survival, politics, inheritance, and alliance-building rather than modern concepts of romance or individual choice. Applying contemporary understandings of consent, adulthood, and psychological development to a pre-modern setting risks flattening historical reality into a purely moral condemnation rather than an analysis of context.
That doesn’t mean those practices were harmless or ideal but it does mean that stories set in those periods often depict dynamics that were normalized at the time, not because the author is endorsing them, but because they are portraying a world that operated under fundamentally different assumptions. Power imbalance was the default structure of most historical relationships between nobles and commoners, rulers and subjects, men and women, adults and children.
Regarding the claim of grooming: while readers understandably interpret certain tropes through that framework, grooming as a concept is rooted in psychological understanding. In historical narratives, relationships were often arranged or politically imposed from the outset, with no pretense of mutual courtship.
As for the “child bride” trope, discomfort is valid but discomfort alone doesn’t automatically mean the text is advocating for that practice. Many historical and fantasy works include morally disturbing elements precisely because those elements were part of the reality being depicted. Acknowledging that child marriage was once normalized is not the same as defending it; it’s recognizing that history is full of practices we now reject.
Ultimately, criticizing the story is fair, but declaring that anyone who engages with it is “morally bankrupt” shuts down meaningful discussion. Readers can understand that something was historically normalized, recognize its harm by modern standards, and still engage with the work as a depiction of a different time not an endorsement of its values.
I have to push back on this perspective because it seems to excuse or sanitize practices that are inherently abusive, regardless of historical context. While it’s true that child marriage and extreme power imbalances existed in many societies, that does not make them morally neutral or acceptable, nor does it mean stories depicting them are free from ethical scrutiny. Claiming that discomfort is a “modern moral lens” risks dismissing the real harm inherent in these situations, including the exploitation of children and the normalization of abuse.
Historical context can explain why something happened, but it doesn’t erase the trauma or the exploitation that occurred. The fact that a story is “accurate” to historical norms does not absolve it from critique, especially when it involves minors and sexualized power dynamics. Grooming, coercion, and abuse existed in those societies just as they do today, calling it a matter of “different assumptions” dangerously minimizes real world consequences.
Understanding history isn’t the same as romanticizing or excusing it. Depicting abusive relationships in historical settings can still perpetuate harmful ideas, and readers’ discomfort is not just a modern moral overreach, it’s a legitimate response to exploitation, regardless of the era being depicted.
clock it is the child had been the one on a trip to be given to the man that would an issue, I am also a big bwat fan but some of the works kinda follow this pattern of tethering towards pedophillia
Respectfully, your response misses the point entirely.
It’s important to distinguish between the story’s actual depiction and the assumptions readers bring to it. The reason some may interpret the relationship as romantic or even grooming is because, from a reader’s perspective, we know the child will grow up and eventually end up with the adult. That knowledge creates a retrospective lens that can make early interactions seem suggestive or intimate but within the timeline of the story itself, the adult is consistently portrayed as a protector, not as a romantic partner, and there is no sexualized manipulation or seduction.
Grooming requires intent: deliberately shaping a minor’s emotions or boundaries for sexual advantage. In this story, there is none. The adult’s role is one of guardianship, guidance, and protection, and the child’s trust develops naturally out of necessity and circumstance, not because of manipulation. While it’s valid to acknowledge that real abuses happens in today’s society, applying that framework to this story misreads what is actually happening in the narrative.
The story does not depict sexualized power dynamics or grooming. Readers’ discomfort often comes from projecting future knowledge (that the characters will eventually end up together) onto the story’s early events. This creates the illusion of romantic tension or inappropriate dynamics, but within the story’s timeline, the child is not being seduced or exploited. Historical context and narrative intent matter.
Claiming that a “modern moral lens” is dismissive ignores the fact that critique should always be based on what the text actually depicts, not what readers imagine it will lead to.
think you missed the point of my comment. You keep focusing on the adult, but I was referring to the child taking on the role of the adult/groomer. That’s why I mentioned reverse psychology in my original comment. This is a common trope in BL content, where authors flip the roles to make the situation appear less problematic and more acceptable to the audience.
-While it’s true that grooming involves deliberate sexual intent, that doesn’t mean a story is automatically free from problematic dynamics just because the adult doesn’t intend sexual manipulation. Fictional narratives can normalize or eroticize relationships with significant age gaps even without explicit sexual coercion. The adult’s consistent portrayal as a Protector does not erase the fact that placing a child in intimate, emotionally dependent or romantic adjacent situations can still create an exploitative dynamic especially when the audience knows the child will eventually become the romantic partner. Intent is not the only measure of harm in storytelling. The way the story frames closeness, trust and dependence between a minor and an adult combined with physical proximity, emotional intimacy, and shared private moments can reproduce the structures of grooming even if the narrative claims innocence. Claiming that discomfort comes purely from Projecting Future Knowledge ignores how such storytelling subtly trains readers to accept adult child closeness as normative or acceptable. Even if the text doesn’t depict overt sexual manipulation, the emotional power imbalance, the adult’s authority and the child’s vulnerability are central to the narrative. That combination alone makes the story ethically and psychologically fraught, regardless of narrative intent or historical context. Saying There Is None oversimplifies the nuanced ways fiction can model harmful dynamics.
Thank you for understanding
I understand your concern about the child potentially taking on a more “adult-like” or manipulative role, but I think this interpretation still relies heavily on projecting narrative outcomes and tropes onto the text rather than what is actually depicted. For the chapters where the male lead is a kid, his behaviors, initiative, or testing boundaries stem from necessity, survival, and the circumstances he’s in, not from calculated manipulation or sexualized intent.
Additional acknowledging the adult’s authority and the child’s vulnerability doesn’t automatically make a story ethically troubling. These elements are present in nearly every narrative involving children and caregivers; they describe relationship structure, not moral judgment. Power imbalance in itself is descriptive, not prescriptive it tells us who holds responsibility or capability, not who is exploiting whom.
Even in the absence of overt sexual manipulation, the story’s focus is on guidance, protection, and situational dependence, not psychological harm. Emotional intensity or shared private moments at this stage are part of establishing characters and setting the groundwork for later development. They reflect the stakes of the narrative, not coercion or grooming
Ethical concern should arise from specific behaviors, not structural or situational asymmetry alone while I can agree that narratives can normalize problematic relationships but It’s also important to note that the story has only just started, so there is no clear depiction of trust, dependence, or emotional intimacy between the minor and the adult at this point. Any claims that the narrative is reproducing grooming dynamics are therefore based on assumptions or projections, not on what the text actually shows.
I like this author and some of their other works but pertaining to this story, I’m among the many readers find this story troubling because, while it may not explicitly depict pedophilia, it relies on tropes that closely resemble grooming dynamics. The relationship is built on extreme power imbalance through political coercion, dependence, and protection framing. Innocence and naivety are presented as romantic traits alongside an older, more powerful partner, which normalizes exploitative dynamics rather than mutual adult desire. This reflects a broader BL industry pattern where infantilization and dominance are used in place of healthy, equal relationships, making the discomfort readers feel both understandable and justified.
- Some people argue there’s no grooming involved, but there absolutely is. The author simply flipped the dynamic and made the child appear to be the one initiating it, using reverse psychology to make the story seem less problematic to the audience. This framing functions as a common defence used to excuse pedophile shifting blame by claiming the child “came on” to the adult. In reality, placing an adult and a child in the same bed and deliberately building romantic or sexual tension between them is itself a clear form of grooming, regardless of how it’s portrayed.
-Now on the topic of child bride
Offering a boy as a child bride is not okay because it involves the exploitation and abuse of a child who cannot legally or emotionally give informed consent. Children are still developing physically, mentally, and psychologically, and placing them in a marital or sexual role exposes them to harm, trauma, and power imbalances that strip away their autonomy. Child marriage regardless of gender often leads to disrupted education, long term mental health issues, increased risk of violence, and lifelong inequality. Framing it as tradition, romance, or consent does not change the reality that it prioritizes adult desires over a child’s rights, safety and well being.
-The comment section is basically saying, “It’s fine to offer a child to an older man in marriage, and it’s fine to push the trope that a child can seduce an adult.” You can downvote me all you want, but all that does is expose how morally bankrupt you are.