Hi,
I'm quite late to this discussion as it was posted almost a year ago. I thought I'd make a contribution from the perspective of someone who had several life experiences that are well beyond the denominator "uncomfortable". It may sound like I'm taking it to the extreme and going off-topic, but from all the replies I gather the underlying theme is sensitivity and personal responsibility, so please hear me out.
I do sometimes have a visceral negative response to different topics, which you may easily call a "trigger" (a term that is being thrown around quite liberately these days).
I'm also a social worker by profession and I stand in direct contact with individuals on a daily basis, that have had traumatizing experiences and therefore avoid certain subjects and thoughts because they are, in any degree, difficult or unbearable. The key word here is avoidance as a coping strategy. It is developed to handle daily life and find quality of life. However, complete avoidance is never guaranteed 100%.
As someone who knows how that feels I can say without any doubt that after being shaken by certain (heavy) topics in film, literature, and journalism, I developed the goal to be able to withstand any and all triggers; I wanted to be a person that can deal with a painful subject and not crumble under the weight of its truth.
Firstly, it is not my rightful place to impose any demands on other people that certain subjects are off the table. I don't ask anyone to protect me, because I'm not a child.
Secondly, I feel all the stronger for it. It means that pain (an integral part of life) is not turned into suffering. Not everyone with scars should stay a victim forever.
Like Stacyshubby says, don't bubble wrap everything. Or like AvidlyCurious says: own your issues,dude!
Adding to this, the young man in question sounds immature, thinskinned and is likely projecting, shedding his guilt and shifting the blame.
No need to censor yourself apart from the reasonable guidelines set by the founder. By the way, in that light, the argument that it is fiction and therefore justifiable content is irrelevant, as certain fiction is prohibited on here, ergo not a self-explanatory term.
The question seems to rise if the following statement is true: "blackmail = coercion = non-consent = a form of "? That's a complex debate, perhaps not for this thread. I could send you some links but it doesn't make for light reading. I did read the story, and despite the pressure, the protaganist seems to have options to refuse, but doesn't. A situation like this would probably be viewed differently depending on where you live on this planet. It doesn't read like a morality tale at all, though. The revenge arch is in the mind of the antagonist, the karma seems to be in the colored opninion of the reader.
I hope I made any sense. Thank you for your amazing story telling.