Questions for "proshippers" for academic research

I am not involved with the online debate of shipping culture, but I've recently learned more about it and the topic fascinates me that I've taken to it being a focus for my current research.

I've already made a post with some questions in the antiship sub, but I also have some questions for proshippers to keep my research as informed as possible. Thank you to the mods of this sub for reminding me to be clear about being open minded, so I'd like to warn that the wording of my questions might be blunt, but they are purely hypotheticals on how you might answer if faced with a certain argument.

I hope I don't come across as insensitive or biased. Also don't feel the need to answer every single question in one go, any specific pointed answer/s are fine.

1.1.) Why do you personally feel that it is important to label yourself one or the other (anti or pro)? Do you find the pro-ship label still applicable to you when it has a reputation of being associated with being a potential space for abusers, and promotes unsavoury topics that you might not want to be associated with. Has there ever been an instance where you agreed with an anti-shipper (and what reason did you have to hold onto the proship label).

1.2.) Compared to this sub, where users are very outspoken, on r/ antiship most users claim to be not as "extreme" as others. Some even mention that they enjoy "dark" content, or read fiction involving incest/rape etc., but still subscribe to the anti-ship label. What do you think are the reasons for why there is a noticeable disconnection between different anti-ship groups and ideologies?

1.3.) If it can be argued that the reputation antis have for harassment are perpetuated by the few loud bad actors, in your experience, have there been other ways the anti community has campaigned for their beliefs, that do not involve targeted callouts of "problematic" creators?

1.4.) In the instance where someone once self-identified as anti, but now labels themselves as pro-ship, I read overwhelmingly that people changed their mind about being anti because they themselves enjoyed "problematic" content (thus feeling like a hypocrite). I'm wondering if there are instances of someone who started off neutral/anti, but subscribed to the pro-ship label, without any interest in "problematic" content? Why might they feel the label is still important for themselves?

2.1.) A common argument proshippers have in defence of problematic content is that if can be used as a coping mechanism for victims of abuse. One may argue that it has the potential to be a harmful and unhealthy coping mechanism, or that publishing these works contributes to unsafe spaces. How does one distinguish what is healthy and what is not (in relation to using fiction to cope unmonitored).

3.1.) The sexual depiction of fictional minors is a common example for "fiction is not reality VS fiction reflects reality". Antis may argue that finding arousal/sexual gratification from fictional underaged content would make one a paedophile. If the proship argument is the opposite, what reasons do you think someone would take interest in this topic if they are hypothetically not attracted to children.

4.1.) Do you think the evolution of pro-ship advocacy has (unintentionally) cultivated a community where predators and abusers (who have always existed in online spaces) feel that they are enabled and more emboldened? Are there ways the pro-ship community is trying to combat that whilst staying true to their beliefs?

4.2.) (Sorry if this is insensitive) I have read that a reason against "problematic" fiction is that it can be used to "groom" young children. I understand that each instance is a private issue, but are there any published examples of how creative content has been used in such a way? If "problematic" content was not available to these predators, would they still be as emboldened in fandom spaces?

4.3.) Another argument that commonly gets brought up is the potential of children being in unmonitored online spaces. Do you feel like "shipping wars" would still be at this scale if the internet still had safe spaces for children (instead of social media). If you became involved in shipping discourse at a young age, do you think you'd still be as invested if you had access to child-only online spaces?

5.1.) I've observed that the most repeated argument in anti spaces is against the sexual depictions of fictional minors. Why do you think this topic gets more attention compared to content that involves (the glorification/romanticisation) of violence, gore, rape, or abuse etc. (between fictional adult characters).

5.2.) A common example is violent movies/games influencing real world violent behaviour, and is used as an example for anti or pro censorship. (Related to the previous topic) I have seen the argument that violent media isn't a fair comparison, because it is not intended for sexual gratification, implying that it is "worse" (quotations used for general quote, not to trivialize). I think it can be agreed that both violent and sexual content promote a certain kind of fantasy. What is the quantification that makes the perception of a sexual fantasy worse than a violent fantasy (under the assumption that we compare 2 examples that similarly exploit a fictional character)?

I think that's all the questions I have. Again, no need to answer every single one. I hope I didn't step on any toes, I'm new to this topic and looking to learn. Thanks.