From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search
Synonyms: antonym of kink
See also: Kink, Squee, Bulletproof Kink, Trigger
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Squick is a term commonly used in fannish discussion about fanworks or professional media that describes anything that is a deep-seated, visceral turn-off for the fan.

Squicks may be shared by many fans or be specific to one; one person's kink may be another person's squick. It is more frequently used when discussing sexually explicit works or ones involving forms of violence.

For example, some fans may have an embarrassment squick, and do not enjoy works where a character is embarrassed or in an awkward situation. To quote User:Vee,
Among my kind, "watch from the hall" is what we call the embarrassment squick, because it's so bothersome you can't even watch it through your fingers and have to leave the room when it's happening.
Although squick in its original use conveys an intensely adverse reaction, through fannish drift its meaning has been diluted so that today it may also be used to mean "stuff I don't want to write, read, or receive in a gift exchange."

In the 2010s, the term seems to be less popular, to the point where a 2016 Tumblr post lamented the loss of the "old fandom term".[1] On the other hand, the post generated over 25,000 notes, so maybe rumors of squick's death are greatly exaggerated.


According to The Foresmutters Project, the term was coined on the Usenet group alt.sex.bondage before 1995."[2] Fail_Fandomanon cites alt.tasteless.jokes in 1993 as the source of the term;[3] alt.tasteless.jokes describes it as an onomatopoetic word for a particularly gruesome variation on skullfucking[4]. The Foresmutters Project states that, "There are various revolting descriptions of 'what is a squick' floating around the 'net (many propogated from alt.tasteless), but my research indicates that the original usage was, 'someone else's kink.'"[2]

It is difficult to know when the term attained enough popular use to be recognized in larger fandom spaces, but a fan in August 1993 used it when she stated: "I also love violence [in fan fiction]. Not all kinds -- some of it squicks me — and not all the time --sometimes I like a happy ending and romance and all that even if it does violate the series atmosphere..." [5]

The term must have been widely enough used in early spring of 2000 because a journalist used it in a fairly knowledgeable way in the article Gross encounters: on the way to writing a profile of Paul Gross, the author discovers his fans are the real story. Reflections on celebrity worship, Internet love and Canada as the Holy Land: "The women seem tolerant of each other's "squicks" -- what turns one on grosses out another."

According to Fail_Fandomanon, another early use was in a Harry Potter incest fic posted on LiveJournal in 2003[6] was "the fic that defined squick. The term was around [before fandom got hold of it], but this is the squick fic that made the usage of the word common and widely understood in fandom."[7] The fic included the sex act described in alt.tasteless.jokes's definition of the word squick, though it cited the FictionAlley Park forums as its source.

Some Definitions

From Tumblr, 2016:

So what, you ask, is a squick?

A squick is an old fandom term for something that makes you supremely uncomfortable and you absolutely do not want to read it. It can be a trope, a ship, a concept, or just an event that happens within a fic or in canon. For me, abused animals are a definite squick. I don’t like it, and will generally avoid reading any graphic descriptions of such. (That includes tumblr gif sets and such too, people! Tag that shit, will you? Even if it has a happy ending.) Another deep, deep squick of mine is infant age play. Don’t like it, don’t get it, don’t want to think about it.

Now, neither of these things are dangerous to my mental or emotional state. I have never experienced either in my life, and they do not bring about any sort of PTSD, dissociation, or spiral of depression, anxiety, etc. They are simply things I prefer not to think about in my daily life, or read about in my escapist hobbies. Therefore, they are not triggers. Triggers are very real, very bad things for some people, and to label things we choose not to read because we find it disturbing or gross or weird is to diminish the very real danger of actual triggers.

I love the term squick. It perfectly describes the concept without assigning any negativity to the thing you dislike, or to people who do like the thing you dislike. It is something you personally do not care for and wish to avoid, simple as that.[1]

The Differences Between Triggers and Squicks

Squick is a fun term that was often used as both a noun and a verb. Either X was one of your squicks, or X squicked you, or squicked you out, or squicked you hard. It was often used in fic exchanges. They would ask for a list of your squicks so that the gifting author would know not to include any hint of them. It was also used in casual conversation with fandom friends, authors, artists, etc. It could be left in comments, or as a reason you just didn’t read your best fandom friend’s latest fic. “Sorry, bff, you know I love your writing, but you have X tagged at the top, and that just squicks me out.” “Hey, no worries, best reader friend! I totally get it. Give this one a pass, but I’ll send you a note when I post my next one! I promise it will be totally X-free! ”Here’s the thing though. In your example, you explain why X is your squick with Y. But the beauty of squick was that (at least in my experience) no explanation was necessary. Not only was it not necessary, it was rarely asked for. A squick is a squick, and there doesn’t have to be any rhyme or reason. In fact, why would you have a rational, bullet-pointed, well-thought-out argument as to why something squicked you out? Very often it’s a visceral reaction, and if you don’t like the thing, you’re likely not going to sit and do deep meditation on why not. Squicks were respected by fandom. You don’t like the thing, okay, we will tag the thing appropriately, you do not have to read the thing, no judgments on either side. There was no fandom policing, only respect. And this, I think, is super important, because fandom policing is a problem, especially when it comes to triggers. “Trigger” has become so overused, so all-encompassing, that people feel they have to defend their legitimate triggers. If X triggers you, it triggers you, and you DO NOT need to provide an explanation. But because “trigger” is so often used in place of “squick,” some people feel they have the right to “call out” those who use the word. They want explanations, they want you to tell them what that triggering concept does to you, so they can call bullshit and feel superior. You don’t have to explain either your squicks or your triggers, but using the correct word stops the fandom police from feeling as though they have the right to ask. Bring “squick” back, people. Don’t devalue triggers, which are horrible, nasty, dangerous things.[8]

Meta/Further Reading

External Links

  • Squick on the tvtropes.com wiki


  1. 1.0 1.1 What's a squick?, Archived version ask answered by desert-neon, 8 February 2016. (Accessed 14 June 2016.)
  2. 2.0 2.1 Squick page at The Foresmutters Project (accessed December 9, 2009)
  3. 2017-04-14 comment at fail_fandomanon
  4. Contrary to popular belief, it does not involve eyesocket fucking, but does involve trepanning. "Geoff Miller comments: I posted that a year ago, and I *made it up!*" Welcome to alt.tasteless! (Monthly Posting), posted by James Limmer on 19 April 1993.
  5. from a fan's trib in Strange Bedfellows #2
  6. *squick* Squickfic, Archived version, posted by nostrademons, 7 May 2003. (Don't read it if you are remotely sensitive. It is written deliberately to be disturbing.)
  7. 2017-04-14 comment in fail_fandomanon
  8. How was squick used?, Archived version, ask answered by desert-neon, 18 February 2016.