SCP-166

 

Note: This article deals with mature themes. Reader discretion is advised.

SCP-166 “Teenage Succubus”, currently titled “Just a Teenage Gaea”, was an article of containment fiction about a female succubus between the ages of 16-18, who has the ability to sexually control males upon eye contact, and who requires sperm as sustenance.[1]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-series It was written by an initially- anonymous author and originally posted to EditThis. The author was later identified as Ross Fisher-Davis.[2]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166 It became a controversial article for its depiction of sexual themes and social issues, such as alleged rape-apologism. It was rewritten several times, with each rewrite continuing the controversy and debate. SCP-166 was and continues to be a discussion point on the SCP Wiki for the role of sexuality and eroticism in containment fiction writing, the use of sexuality as a vehicle to convey horror and/or potential literary merit, and to what extent such uses are permissible on-site.

History

SCP-166 was first posted to EditThis between June and August 2008.[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20080614163913/http://www.editthis.info:80/scp_wiki/SCP_Series[4]https://web.archive.org/web/20080806084747/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Continue_on Its author is not listed on EditThis, however later discussion confirmed Ross Fisher-Davis as the original author.[5]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166[6]https://twitter.com/RossFisherDavis It was ported to the SCP Wiki on WikiDot by user far2 on July 26, 2008.

SCP-166 was initially rewritten in November 2008 by Dr Clef as a result of the article being perceived as low quality.[7]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166[8]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-303075[9]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.5 The rewrite added requested items, a clause for occasional outdoor release from containment, qualifications regarding subjects’ sexual preferences, an incident regarding unauthorized male contact (Dr. Clef the author avatar), justification for the object’s persistent nakedness (anomalous susceptibility to pressures ulcers), and more complex characterization of the anomaly, noting that the anomaly’s effect on males caused it distress due to its desire to follow a monastic life. The initial rewrite increased the article’s word-count from 412 to over 1,000.

The first rewrite of SCP-166 by Dr Clef in November 2008 changed the object class from Keter (initial) to “Euclid/Keter”.[10]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.5 This was reverted by Dr Clef in December 2010.[11]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.21

The article received additions in 2008 by WikIDot user Slate, who added notes about the anomaly’s increased strength and nutritional demands. A request for additional female personnel support was requested, followed by an in-universe response from Dr Clef (avatar) by Dr Clef (the author), though this was removed shortly after.[12]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.8-12

In January 2013, Dr Clef again modified the document, removing a joke addendum about “feeding 166”, a cross-reference with SCP-682, confirming the anomaly’s age as 16, and adding a note from SCP-166’s father, who by redaction and context, suggests SCP-166 is the daughter of the Christian depiction of Satan. This note replaced the prior ending, which featured Dr Clef’s author avatar inappropriately meeting with the anomaly.

The article was submitted to rewrite team in February 2014,[13]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1958327[14]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1960991 and again in 2018 to include links to derivate tales.[15]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3704064

A Wikiwalk crosslink was added in March 2018, linking to a 2014 tale by author Ihp that involved the SCP’s events.[16]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.45[17]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/a-suicide-note

In 2018, Dr Clef commented, authorizing a rewrite on the basis that SCP-166 was “justifiably considered fapbait, and a subject of a lot of lewd fanart,” and asking authors to preserve the main themes but reduce the “fapbait factor”.[18]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3824841

The second rewrite was done by WikiDot user Cerastes in October 2020, with permission and approval from Dr Clef.[19]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807682[20]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807686 This modified the article in several major ways. The succubus character was replaced with a reindeer-like Gaea (the Greek personification of the Earth as a goddess), drawing on the nature-goddess qualities of the SCP’s mother. The title was changed to reflect this. The rewrite increased the word-count to >1,700, added two interviews, included an homage to Dr/Site Director Sophia Light, re-introduced clothing to the anomaly, increased the complexity of the containment chamber, removed the SCP’s prior nutritional demands, introduced several ritualistic powers introduced through a new (“recovered”) GOC documentation on the anomaly, and amplified the backstory of the character as the daughter of Dr Clef (author avatar).[21]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.47

Additional rewrites were called for, including detailed discussions and proposals on how to address the issues with the original article while not doing away with its conceptual premise.[22]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4979238[23]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4923629[24]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5787214

Controversy

“Sex is part of life and existence and trying to “sanitize” it for the sake of being “serious” is… maybe a little ridiculous.”[25]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4139538 — Count DVB, Feb 2019

Prior to the 2020 rewrite, SCP-166 was controversial due to the sexual and political nature of the anomaly. Debates argued the literary merit of the work as an interesting character study and its classical themes of primal nature and animality, and later, whether or not the article was politically problematic with respect to rape and gender identity. Discussion of SCP-166 attempts to address whether the article is inherently sexual, or if sexuality is superimposed by the subjectivity of the reader.

Numerous early commenters disagreed with the use of the SCP format for what was regarded as a mere fetish. Similarities to SCP-071 (“New-Age Succubus”) were noted.

The 2008 rewrite was praised for its twist on the standard succubus cliche, namely the conflict between her monastic upbringing and her more obvious nature.[26]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952211 However, it was still criticized for being a mere fetish, and a “boring mix of sexy tropes”.[27]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-951431, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952430[28]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4216255 Counter-argumentation focused on identifying SCP-166 not as a sexual character, but a tragic one.

There were general wishes to see the article more de-sexualized/de-fetishized, with debate taking place as to whether or not the sexualization was justified for the subject matter, and what fixes — if any — would help.[29]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952615, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-955229, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-955239, … Continue reading

By 2012, the Dr Clef insert was seen as tacky by some.[30]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1375344 Author Djoric called for a rewrite in November 2012, citing the standards and self-insert embarrassing for the modern site. However, the article was rated positively, and so another rewrite was not done at that time.[31]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1617403 Dr Clef considered a rewrite at this time, but declined in early January 2013 (the rating had stabilized at +10). DrClef rewrote it later that month.[32]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689197

The 2013 rewrite was generally lauded, though several perceived issues remained to some users.[33]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689320, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689333, … Continue reading[34]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807716[35]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807726[36]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807822[37]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807863[38]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4809811[39]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4810951[40]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812497[41]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812742[42]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4818197 Many celebrated the removal of the more questionable content and the incorporation of the nature goddess elements into the anomaly, while others criticized the patchwork feel of the rewrite and a lack of emotional impact in its attempt to incorporate past and new material. Critics claimed that a narrative about a celibate succubus was conceptually intriguing and did not have to involve underage sexualization,[43]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4986592 but that the 2020 rewrite abandoned the original SCP, and was “a total rewrite that threatened the core narrative conflict of the original”. Other commenters claimed the rewrite did not resolve issues of “sexploitation”, as it replaced a fetish of “jailbait” with one of “furbait”.[44]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4934858[45]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4911193

After the 2020 rewrite, there remained debate regarding the existence of an SCP article that focused on the sexualization of a young girl.[46]e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4985024. However, controversy primarily shifted to a general debate about over-sanitizing (or “watering down”) potentially problematic articles for political purposes, in order to cater to the preferences of a small group of opinion on the SCP. The debate grew to include a larger discussion of new vs. old emphases in writing on the SCP Wiki. Points were also made about the inconsistency of said sanitization when applied to the SCP Wiki as a whole, with numerous other adult-themed works having questionable premises or characters, these going unexamined up to that point, such as DrBright’s “Doctor-Doctor-Doctor”.[47]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922537[48]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4911193[49]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4858740[50]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863206[51]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922625 Requests to retain an “-ARC” version of the original SCP-166, such as with other rewrites (e.g. SCP-049-ARC), were met with denials and dismissal.[52]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4809811

 

Staxx

In August 2013, a Wikidot user by the name of Staxx posted a critique of the article that cast it as an endorsement of rape:

“Personally, I see this SCP as nothing but a thinly-veiled personification of Rape Culture victim-blaming / slut-shaming (“I raped her, but I am absolved of any agentic responsibility for my vile actions because it is all HER fault“). Thus, I find it highly offensive and devoid of any merit save that of sparking polarized and incendiary argument. -1″[53]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1827617

This prompted a lengthy response from Dr Clef (author) which debated whether or not the compulsion effect exhibited by SCP-166 constituted rape (of males), but notes that no one is implied to be absolved of their deeds, as SCP-166’s effect is not unavoidable. Dr Clef concluded that even if it were “a thinly veiled personification of Rape culture victim-blaming/slut shaming”, it does not make the article a bad one, as the focus of the site at that time was on horror. Dr Clef went on to argue that “… SCP-166 also illustrates the danger that this complex holds not just to the females that are forced into the roles of Madonna or Whore, but also the way that it debases the men who operate under this mindset… In this manner, SCP-166 can be considered a cautionary tale against a destructive and incorrect mindset in regards to female sexuality and the male relationship to such.”[54]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834171

When the article was submitted to the rewrite team in 2014, a user working on a rewrite draft (Vivax) highlighted portions that were perceived as sexually/socially problematic. These included: the nudity,[55]“… make[s] her into a vulnerable girl who needs protecting from physical abuse it also make her a sex object” the mandate that someone maintain direct visual contact with the SCP at all times, the ingestion of semen as nutrition, the SCP’s long hair and accelerated hair growth (citing Western European mythology),[56]“there’s no way for her to reclaim her head as her own space, robbing her of even more agency”, a repeat of Staxx’s critique of themes of rape & victimhood,[57]“We have a woman who makes men want to rape her. This is unacceptable. It invokes common, blame the victim, tropes… Which means that the victim of these acts is actually to blame. It … Continue reading the skin sensitivity as evidence of any physical touch constituting battering and physical abuse,[58]“People can’t possibly touch her without beating her and I doubt the rape-bot men are being gentle… For this person every man is a predator and every sexual act is abuse.” the SCP’s history and discovery section,[59]“Great. Now we have attempted rape and murder and psychotic episodes excused by this skip.”  The commenter had non-social criticisms as well, such as the illogic of extra-containment vacations, the progeny of Dr Clef (implied) and a spirit resulting in a succubus, as well as general clichés, such as the giving away of a powerful infant.

The commenter concludes their post with the following, with recommended changes:

“This skip invokes and relies on problematic aspects of rape rhetoric, rape tropes and rape culture. This skip presents us with a helpless, sexualized, physically vulnerable victim who in turn makes victims out of others. Only in this case it’s really her fault and not their terrible impulses that cause the rapes. This article also implies that the Foundation repeated exposed her to men for the purpose of testing out her rape-inducing qualities. In all cases the succubus character is voiceless and defined by her physical qualities, her faith and implied relationship with one of the more popular characters on the wiki. She has no agency.I’m not happy that this was the direction that the skip went with the succubus myth. Succubi are personifications of very real human fears namely sleep paralysis and fear of sexuality… In no cases did they eat sperm…  it takes the powerful sorceresses and tricksters of myth (problematic for different reasons by trope standpoints) and turns them into an underage, helpless girl that is bruised by clothes. I’m not saying that the succubus needs to be an X-Man with seduction magic but this take on the succubus is too far from the soul and the fear of the myth.”[60]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1960991

The discussed rewrite in February 2014 had not been performed by September, to the displeasure of some users.[61]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108074[62]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4764621 Further sentiment argued that the article was rape-apologism, while others (some identifying as women)[63]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4402153 accepted the presence of rape themes, but interpreted them as effective horror and a sympathetic character, as opposed to problematic content.

In October 2014, Dr Clef noted that the article was at +46, and so would not be performing another rewrite at that time.[64]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2122817 Later in 2018 however, Dr Clef authorized a rewrite to anyone who could preserve the main ideas of the work while reducing the “fapbait”. This was met with discussion over other SCPs that have generated lewd art, such as SCP-1471 (“Mal0”), SCP-811 (“Swamp Woman”), and even SCP-682 (“Hard to Destroy Reptile”).[65]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3824906 Other users asked why the apparent lewdness of SCP-166 was unacceptable, while mind-affecting SCPs like SCP-2662 (“cthulhu f’UCK OFF!“)[66]wherein Cthulhu forms sex cults and SCP-1359 (“Indulgence in Flesh”)[67]wherein visualization of the anomaly causes desires of cannibalization were deemed acceptable.

Circa 2014 onward, SCP-166 became increasingly problematic for users with respect to modern ideas and attitudes to gender roles and sexual orientations (or a lack thereof).[68]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2054557[69]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2142842[70]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3650172[71]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3843594[72]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3923333[73]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4281815 For example, some users questioned what effect the SCP would have on lesbian, bi women, and transwomen. Initial answers highlighted the passage which stated “males… regardless of their sexual orientation”, pushing the discussion to what constitutes a “male”.[74]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2526599 The semantics turned to biological anchors of sex as defining characteristics, such as the production of sperm.[75]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4235595

 

SCP-0166

“This being a metatextual exploration of 166 canon (if that word is appropriate here) is fascinating to me. It is very helpful for understanding what problems people have with 166, as I don’t really have any – perhaps I am not mature enough to find the piece largely problematic. The article explores (as I interpret it) the development of wiki’s standards and can be used as an essay on that, of sorts.”[76]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4388682 —PrLosash, on SCP-0166

In September 2019, WikiDot user and author UraniumEmpire posted a tale titled “SCP-0166” (“I Was A Teenage Succubus”), a re-imagining of SCP-166. In it, the anomaly is designated “SCP-166” (without the leading zero), and the existing SCP-166 is referred to as “SCP-166-ARC”. The article rewrites the initial SCP-166 as a Semetic woman now in her late 20s who regards her past self as “a fetish piece, an ornament of sexual fantasy” which the anomaly had no control over, and who calls her (pataphysical) creator a pervert. It does away with the anomaly’s past dietary requirements and encourages the assignment of asexual and neurotypical personnel to the anomaly.

The author uses pataphysics to reduce the controversy over SCP-166 into a more palpable tone of abuse and mistreatment, and to make the IRL original anonymous author of SCP-166 into an antagonist. The author speaks through the character, noting: “There are many ways to depict a ‘young succubus’. Really, I just changed my genre, one where I don’t get leered at like a piece of meat.”

Much of the backstory of SCP-166 is preserved. The new anomaly is capable of manipulating reality and among other effects, increases libidinal appetites such as hunger and sexuality. It retains its Catholic upbringing, its dermal sensitivity to clothing (though the anomaly wore bedsheets in attempts to self-harm), and its ability to compel subjects (“SCP-166-ARC leveraged the possibility of romantic attention.”) The new characterization injects misandry, a rejection of Catholicism, and a non-compliant, calloused attitude towards the Foundation, its containment, and any attempt to help. The re-imagining maintains themes of forced activity, such as when Dr. Whateley is forced to interact with SCP-166 despite asking to be reassigned, and the inevitability of a pataphysical narrative arc.

The article is generally praised for the same reasons SCP-166 is generally criticized, but is also criticized for making SCP-166 from a thought-provoking piece of literature to being a blatant mouthpiece for the author’s political reactions. The reception of the article on the SCP Wiki and in the outer fandom was met with some debate, recreating the discussions of SCP-166.[77]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166[78]https://www.reddit.com/r/SCP/comments/d6pjz6/new_scp_scp166_i_was_a_teenage_succubus/

SCP-4116

“I made a deal to make him pay. For a price, of course. But I was, pardon my French, a fucking slut back then.” — SCP-4116-1

SCP-4116 “(Former) Teenage Succubus” was written by user DolphinSlugchugger in August 2018.[79]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4166 It is a re-imagining of SCP-166, recasting several components of the original, including the religious iconography, the anomaly’s backstory, and its dietary requirements. The humanoid anomaly, SCP-4166-1, is a deeply traumatized individual who, in her desperation to escape her abusive past, made a pact that she believed would grant her control and power. She is characterized by her aversion to men and religious figures, her struggle with guilt and self-loathing, and her ongoing battle with the manifestations of her reality-bending abilities, which serve as constant reminders of her past and the deal she made.

Summary

SCP-4166 is a Euclid class entity consisting of three parts: SCP-4166-1, a female human class-C reality bender; SCP-4166-2, a mute shadow-like humanoid figure; and SCP-4166-3, a three-phase mental illness. SCP-4166-1, who has a strong aversion to men and religious figures, is responsible for the creation of SCP-4166-2 and SCP-4166-3. SCP-4166-2 is a shadowy figure that manifests every seven days or during times of increased distress for SCP-4166-1. It attempts to approach SCP-4166-1 and can counteract previous containment methods, including manifesting with weaponry. SCP-4166-3 is a mental illness affecting those who have observed SCP-4166-2, with symptoms ranging from increased irritability and discomfort with being alone to hallucinations and fear of eternal suffering after death.

SCP-4166-1 was raised in a Catholic orphanage and was later involved in the hospitalization of a priest due to spontaneous combustion. The first manifestation of SCP-4166-2 occurred six days after this event. SCP-4166-1 was found alone in a room with a pistol, leading to its containment by the SCP Foundation.

In a therapy session, SCP-4166-1 revealed a history of abuse and trauma, which led to her making a deal with what she believed to be the devil. This deal involved her seducing and sleeping with a man once a week in exchange for the power to make her abuser, a priest, suffer. This deal, she believes, led to the manifestation of SCP-4166-2 and the symptoms of SCP-4166-3.

The SCP-4166 article presents themes of trauma, abuse, and the struggle for control and power. It portrays the emotional turmoil of SCP-4166-1, her desperation to escape her past, and the unintended consequences of her actions. The story also highlights the SCP Foundation’s efforts to understand and contain the manifestations resulting from SCP-4166-1’s reality-bending abilities.

 

The general reception of SCP-4166 in the discussion section is mixed, with some readers appreciating the depth and complexity of the character, while others criticize the article for its similarities to SCP-166 and its reliance on certain clichés, e.g. “deal with the devil”.[80]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166

Quotes

“It’s true…and the pretty SCP girl who lives off semen seems like a send-up for a erotic fan-fiction. not saying there’s no hope for it, but our other succubus is pretty darn good…i’ll be interested to see what editing can do.”[81]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-302997 — Dr Gears, Nov 2008

“Basically, this article uses the Foundation as the setup for a porno, and I’m not cool with that.”[82]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952060 — tunedtoadeadchannel, December 2010

“I can’t believe I’m having to find the words to explain why I think a beautiful teenaged SCP who can’t wear clothes, must drink semen, and drives all the men crazy is a bad idea. And it has nothing to do with prudery. Sorry, but I had to say it.”[83]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-994813 — littlecrow, Feb 2011

“I think that the SCP could be saved if it were re-written for more horror, but seeing as Clef himself wrote this, and even he couldn’t pull it off, maybe it’s beyond salvaging.”[84]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106450 — DStecks, April, 2011

“Why are we still talking about this SCP?” — Dexanote

“Because nothing actually came of the last discussion about perceived issues with it.”[85] — Adam Smascher, April 2011

“Also, it bears repeating: everything is a fetish to somebody. If we got rid of all the articles that could potentially be fetishized, there wouldn’t be any articles left. (Even if we only got rid of the easily-fetishized ones, that’d still leave… what, about 20%? 10%?)”[85]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106648 — Quikngruvn

”If there is anything that should be removed I think it is the connection to Clef and the punishment for joking about her. Sure, I know someone somewhere gets a woody over 166 but those that do are missing the point and those that are so horribly bothered by the thought of someone somewhere getting a woody over 166 should stop worrying about other people’s hypothetical boners.”[86]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106831 — Sorts, April 2011

“Ah, but why is it evil? In days of yore, this creature would have been called a nymph, a creature of love that lived in the wilderness, showing men a night of indescribable pleasure and sending them off the next morning. It is because of our “modern” society that the old gods and creatures of myth have been demoted to demons. The idea that sex is “dirty” is a relatively new concept, and the nymphs and satyrs have been changed into succubi and incubi. The night of pleasure has been replaced with the theft of your soul. Love is displaced by lust. It’s a sad story, really.”[87]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1403522 — The Septet, March 2012

”Fetish fuel with a bunch of cutesy comments and an unnecessary interaction with Dr. Clef, which appears to be a relic of the past. The fact that the girl is underage adds a bit of nausea on top of it all. Downvoted.”[88]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1543503 — WretchedIncite, Aug 2012

”I’m sure there are people who would fetishize this entry, or any and every article in this wiki; I feel a little pity for them, too. I would bring her age up a few years, for comfort’s sake. That said, there’s a strangely dismissive antisexual tone in this thread.”[89]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1614006 — salvagebear, Nov 2012

”I like the article, and I like that is makes people feel uncomfortable. I didn’t sign on to this site to read the details of 110-Montauk, but I didn’t sign up for Mr. Rogers story time either. But the Clef reference is pretty much an auto-downvote.
Add to that the “Oh he broke containment protocol but whatevers” and it’s an extra hard downvote.”[90]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1614066 — Dr_Adams, Nov 2012

”It needs some weening off of the old senior staff shenanigans in order to meet current site standards. I kind of get an odd sense of nostalgia for those Dr. Clef footnotes, though. I am torn.”[91]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1688852 — Salman Corbette, January 2013

“I actually like this one, except that the LOLfoundation 682 reference needs to go.”[92]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689237 — eric_h, January 2013

”Though, to be totally honest, I like the article as it is now. Yeah, lolClef and lol682 and other lolfoundation bits need trimming, but ultimately I like this one.”[93]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689242 — CryogenChaos, January 2013

“I like the fact that after several years, this one is still bringing up sensible discussion with no name calling or flame wars. I tend to think that while it’s still in positive figures it should be left well alone. Yes, the subject matter is a bit porny, but we deal with so many other facets of the human condition over the thousands of articles and tales on this site, I don’t understand why people are still so wary over an SCP that eats spaff.”[94]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689155 — deValmont, Jan 2013

“Succubi as a concept are inextricably linked with male fantasy, it is impossible to touch the idea without it being at least partially either wish-fullfillment or fantasy-turned-nightmare (which is really just wish-fulfillment with a dash of guilt). Having said that, I also don’t see why people are so dubious about this particular treatment. A little wish-fulfillment is not neccessarily [sic] a bad thing, and this at least adds a decent twist to keep it from being truly pornographic. Downs suggestion up-thread would also be good, but my personal inclination is against major revisions of these older entries.” — wishun

“I see [the nudity] as an integral part of the article. This is a girl who wants to live a clean and pure life, but who can’t wear clothes and causes men who see her to immediately attempt sexual contact. The conflict between her desires and the realities of life for her is what gives this its impact, I’ve always felt. Removing the cheap jokes from the article was necessary I feel though.”[95]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689310 — RhettSarlin, Jan 2013 (post 2013 re-write)

“Succubi, at their core, are sex eaters. They sustain themselves via intercourse and that is their defining characteristic. Wether that feeding is spiritual, emotional, phsyical, etc. varies by mythos. If this is going to stay true to the core idea, there needs to be something linking to that universal theme. The bit qouted seems to me to be the most clinical and least pornographic way of establishing the neccesary point.”[96]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1698849 — wishun, Jan 2013

“-WHAT- There’s a knife SCP that makes you kill people, but I sincerely doubt the author was making an argument about how knives need to be regulated. You’re looking wayyyy too much into this.”[97]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834135 — Anonymouse99, Aug 2013, in response to Staxx’s comment, see Controversy)

“My final point, however, is this: even if SCP-166 were “a thinly veiled personification of Rape culture victim-blaming/slut shaming,” does that make it a bad article? SCP Foundation is a horror wiki, and the focus of horror is often to take small societal ills and expand on them to an extreme extent: hence the use of the zombie as a metaphor for mindless consumerism in horror fiction. Perhaps we could view SCP-166 as a metaphor for the male gaze in popular culture: the female figure reduced to a purely sexual object, and males defined solely by their lust for said object.”[98]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834171 — Dr Clef, Aug 2013, in response to Staxx’s comment (see Controversy)

“This SCP does seem to glorify the female body. I am female. However, I do like this SCP. She does need more backstory, though. But she is one of my favorites.”[99]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2080965 — Dr Haruna Kazima, Aug 2014

“This is the SCP equivalent of “Yes, I raped her, but she was asking for it”.”[100]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108319 — Ihp, Sep 2014

“… the whole tragic setup is based on the fact that instead of being this powerful nethercreature that uses it for whatever ends some undersexed inquisitor imagined, she’s psychologically a fairly regular person that doesn’t want it the least, and suffers as a result.”[101]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108358 — VAElynx, Sept 2014

“Something that Clef once explained to me and that I don’t think a lot of people understand is that one of the central tenets of 166 is the existential horror of having been raised as a devout religious adherent only to discover that you are something that your faith has taught you is an icon of sin. It’s something that people who have not had a rough childhood may not be able to sympathize with, but I absolutely believe that there is a place for this piece of fiction, no matter what final shape it has to take before people stop hating on it.”[102]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108423 — Aelanna, Sept 2014

“I would like to know as to how SCP-166 affects transgender men/women.”[103]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2142842 — TheLovelyVocal, Oct 2014

“I rather like the idea of this SCP, a demon that doesn’t want to be a demon. Any creature that needs to fight against its own monstrous nature is instantly a sympathetic character, maybe even a terrifying one. But there are some details that just made me have to downvote this. I understand how the semen-eating detail was necessary, I just think it could be worked out better.”[104]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2323545 — BlueHighwind, June 2015

“Also, the whole thing with the succubus controversy: I think it was just used for lack of a better word; I mean, how else would you describe someone who causes immediate sexual desire in males who have visual contact? Any ideas? I got none.”[105]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2502811 — Zorthon, May 2016

“I appreciate this SCP for taking something which has the trappings of a very prurient state of mind, and treating it rationally, calmly, and as a detriment to be worked around. It is a good execution of the ‘the Foundation is clinical’ genre.”[106]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2799963 — Pythy, April 2017

“Okay, I know the concept of having a semen-drinking succubus is really weird and kinda over the top, I’m not completely against this SCP. It’s at least something different from the typical ‘scary monster’ SCPs people tend to gravitate more towards. And I’m not saying that because it gives opportunity for some people to wack off to, believe me. But with a few tweaks, I’m sure this SCP will make a lot more sense.”[107]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3598518 — Xoloitzcuintli, Sept 2017

“Honestly, I think this SCP entry is fine. Might not be the most memorable, but the idea of a being that wants to become a chaste nun but can’t because of her sexual anomalous properties intrigues me somewhat. Would make a good tale, a character study on 166 from 166’s point of view. 166 differs from the succubus archetype in that most succubi are depicted like sirens, luring victims via seduction to have their way with them. 166 doesn’t want to be a succubus, and furthermore, I found the note from her father very interesting.”[108]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3617983 — ChrispyShizzles, Oct 2017

“There are though valid questions with gender variations. Trans people, other gender orientations, and even some conditions like the ones collectively known as hermaphroditism, they put twists to the very concept of male and female… But regardless, since the Foundation seems focused on keeping her good behavior, and those are out-of-the-ordinary cases, theyb  [sic] probably won’t bother her with tests on the subject. At least it isn’t on the spirit of this particular text.”[109]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3789687 — Monteparnas, May 2018

“If they can produce sperm they’re probably affected”[110]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4235595 — RRTheEndMan, May 2019

“Yeah, people would fap to this but that’s just how they’ll be. This article doesn’t glorify the sexual themes or go out of its way to do so to be a fantasy for people. It is written to be a succubus and that is a part of it.”[111]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3824906 — Baronjoe, June 2018

“No matter what, people will make lewd of an SCP.”[112]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3831220 — Kn1feShift, June 2018

“I notice that it says 166 affects “males”, while other (more recent) articles often clarify something about biology or chromosomes. While this might be better left up to tale material, I wonder how she might interact with someone who identifies as male but would be considered biologically non-male, like a MTF trans individual or someone non-binary.”[113]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3923333 — TechSorcerer2747, Aug 2018

“Can someone please make this less horny?”[114]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4094193 — softchara, Dec 2018

“You know, I see a lot of complaints about this one in the discussion and a lot of people seem to criticize her for being a straight forward succubus. The thing is though, most succubusses (Succubi? Eh, whatever) usually wish to lure men into a trap that usually involves the death of the male. However 166 is completely NOT IN CONTROL of her ability clearly. If ANY man makes eye contact with her, they’re just already fallen for her and on top of that she wants to live a life with chastity. Say what you want about the article not being the greatest, but I don’t understand all of the “this is just a straightforward succubus” comments.”[115]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4131094 — TheMM, Jan 2019

“It’s this romantic notion of returning to a state of primal desires and contentment manifested into a human form through Ms 166 here. She has to be nude because originally humanity was nude, just like every other animal. Her hair grows longer possibly for that reason, or perhaps liveliness. Whether because of her mother’s side or her father’s own problems, her causing men around her to go nut burgers around her is likely because of a supernatural appeal to primal urges, the animal side of people. Had 166 been a boy or had a brother, he’d likely have a similar effect on women (though whether he’d feed on breast milk is something to be figured out.)

SCP-166 is a curious case. She was raised as devout Catholic, worshipping the Abrahamic God yet her own mother was a pagan nature goddess, one that would’ve been shunned and prosecuted. She wants a simple life of chastity and piety yet her very nature incites primal passion and desire in men. She is a contradictory being… perhaps another she got from her poppa. Never really saw her as something overtly sexual. Sex is part of life and existence and trying to “sanitize” it for the sake of being “serious” is… maybe a little ridiculous.[116]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4139538 — Count DVB, Feb 2019

“The writing is good. Since this is more of an early SCP, I can’t complain about the premise being overdone. The rewrites helped, and this is still distinguishable from a “normal” succubus (or SCP-071 for that matter). But the majority of it still just seems like forcing common succubi tropes for fanservice.

She’s a slender teenager (actually a succubus born from a nature goddess) that sexually brainwashes all males (not even those with, say, a psionic resistance lower than 50—-just 100% of all males tested). She’s nude all the time because of ultra-sensitive skin. She survives by eating semen.

You may recognize every one of those traits as being stereotypical of a sexy succubus, even the nature goddess one to an extent. All it lacks is lust and the ability to drain life energy. The rest is still very openly sexualized, with perhaps the only real ‘creepy’ trope (as might more suit this wiki) taken out.

Even the main attempt at differentiating this SCP is somewhat overdone. It’s hardly the first time someone has sexualized a devout Catholic nun. I’ll concede that it’s at least better than just going all-out soul-sucking seductress, but even then it’s nothing particularly new, creative, or interesting in the least.”[117]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4216255 — Anyr, April 2019

“No offence, but what I feel people aren’t getting is that 166 isn’t a sexy character. Its a tragic one. She is basically cursed with something she desperately doesn’t want. She is a stereotypical succubus, but I don’t know anyway you can look at this article and think its supposed to be hot. She isn’t a nun because Dr. Clef has a nun fetish/is trying to appeal to those people, because her being an involuntary succubus is more upsetting if she is devoutly against wanting sex.”[118]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4286364 — DrPopius

“You’re telling me that an article about a 16 year old girl who walks around naked and craves semen is okay to have on the site? How is this allowed?”[119]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4360649 — Henzoid, Sept 2019

“It seems you are upset because something on this site troubles you. There are plenty of articles that are supposed to make you feel uncomfortable or make your skin crawl. Complex and controversial themes if well handled should never be off limits in my opinion. The fact you have such a strong opinion about it and that it is well written means it is already a success.”[120]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4363901 — Jabal

“People say this SCP is sexualized but the article just says she is often naked, and there is no physical description of how unnaturally attractive this teenage girl looks. It’s implied by the way the men act after seeing her just once that she is insanely beautiful but there are no lewd descriptions. The article is not written to view 166 in a perverted way. When he hits the reader with sexually suggestive details, Clef softens the blow with innocuous facts. She drinks semen but its from a sperm bank. There is no direct contact with men required, and she eats normal human food whenever possible. For another example, it says she is naked most of the time, but she can wear clothes if she does not stay dressed for more than 45 minutes at a time. Besides, it is because of a medical issue, and she has plenty of privacy. Unless the reader is intent on seeing 166 from the point of view of one of the love-struck men, they do not have to read this as a perverted fantasy. The article plays it so safe in fact that it leaves little lasting impression. There are plenty of edgy mind effecting SCPs like 2662 or 1359 on the wiki that have not generated any backlash. Cthulhu starts sex cults and 1359 causes anyone that looks at her to become a canabal [sic] intent on eating her.”[121]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641612 — Zender Lassiter, May 2020

“As a woman, I find this to be absolutely terrifying, imagining myself in her place. It’s the “stranger danger” rape fears turned up to 11 and above.

She can’t control it, she can’t protect herself. Half the population become maniacs around her. That’s… utterly horrible. Add to that the inability to even wear clothing, the simplest and barest defense, is denied her. Her body and mind are at odds, and if I was in her place, it would utterly break me.

Don’t think of her as fetish fuel, think of her with pity.”[122]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4402153 — ajehy, Oct 2019

“A lot is done in the article to make me feel sympathy for her. She is described as vulnerable and sensitive. She has allergies and sensitive skin, is in constant need of haircuts, and has special dietary needs. She cannot defend herself from her crazy suitors and she gets no joy from the effect she has on them. The author makes me feel that she needs to be cared for and protected. I just wish her dad were around to protect her.”[123]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641616 — Zander Lassiter, May 2020

“This is…amazingly bad. It’s pretty blatant fetish fuel and I’m surprised its even allowed on here, let alone highly upvoted.”[124]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4638528 — Meulincing, May 2020

“I only wish 166’s relationship with her female handlers had be explored especially Agent Beatrice Maddox. Clef made the effort of giving her a name but forgot to give her something to do in the story.”[125]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641636 — Zander Lassiter, May 2020

“This is a poor way of handling a subject that has a lot of emotions tied to it for many people. I know its an old article but that dose not change the fact that the title of this SCP is almost enough to get a downvote from me. Not only dose its theme revolve around a topic that is extremely hard to read about for most people. But the way its written almost makes it seem like its not even a bad thing.”[126]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4763768 — Agent Whitney, Aug 2020

“I don’t think this is good. In fact, I think it is disgusting. It’s the kind of article I always worry about people seeing when I recommend they read the wiki. I wish it wasn’t here.”[127]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4764562 — djkaktus, Sept 2020

2020 Rewrite

“I also don’t really feel the anomaly is utilized at all. It seems just sorta tacked on, and isn’t really central to the rest of the story. At least from where I’m standing… I suppose the anomaly isn’t that important for the story you want to tell, but it just felt inconsequential. “[128]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807710 — (account deleted), Oct 2020, on the Cerastes rewrite

“This rewrite is better than the original, but only because its issues aren’t rooted in misogyny and fetishization. Its biggest problem is still that its women aren’t characterized. SCP-166 doesn’t do much except restate bits of her backstory we already got in the description. She and Father Davis both needed more screentime to be compelling or sympathetic. Worse, the mother goddess isn’t even a character. She gets fridged to make Alto Clef more morally complex because he loves his daughter but killed her mother… This article needs to be rewritten again to actually characterize SCP-166 and The Goddess… There’s potential for a compelling tragedy about family, religion, and ideology here, but what’s presented is an extremely superficial tragedy that doesn’t effectively use its religious elements or develop its characters in a compelling way.”[129]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807863 — A Random Day, Oct 2020, on the Cerastes rewrite

“I don’t think an SCP article has to tell a complete story. I think it’s better for an SCP article to inspire stories, like seed bombs thrown into the mind. You bring up some good lines of thought, and I’d like to see them explored in a tale, fanfic, fan comic, or other work.

There have been a lot of SCP-166 rewrites that have crossed my desk over the years. There are even a couple on this site I’d endorse reading: SCP-0166 by UraniumEmpire for one, SCP-4166 by DolphinSlugchugger for another. I feel they’re both very worth reading. But with the core article, I wanted to trim off some of the more noxious bits that have clung to it over the years, while invalidating as little else as possible.

(For instance, the original draft that came across my desk canonized SCP-166’s first name and appearance: I asked that both be relaxed a bit to allow for a wider range of existing interpretations of the character to remain canonical).

The end result of that might be that this is the least interesting version of the character that exists. That’s my fault. Cerastes might like some of the ideas that have come here and decide to incorporate them. If so, I’d encourage them (and you) to touch on these ideas lightly. I think acknowledging that 166’s Catholicism informs her personality is fine, but saying “THESE ARE THE EXACT WAYS THAT CATHOLICISM INFORMS 166’S RELATIONSHIP WITH HER FATHER!” is the domain of longer-form storytelling than I feel SCP articles should be.”[130]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4808945 — Dr Clef, Nov 2020

“I honestly don’t like both. The old one was obvious fap bait and the new one is the classic ”Destroy man-made stuff because we are bad” That I have seen way too much.”[131]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812497 — Djlototis, Nov 2020, on the original vs Cerastes rewrite

“I must say that this is a horrible surprise. One of the most interesting SCPs from Series I just died. I have nothing against this new 166… But this is really sad.”[132]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812742 — BinaryCube, Nov 2020

“The main idea here is still the same: the anomalous daughter of Dr. Clef and her discovery. The only thing that’s “died” is the creepiness, which you should definitely not describe as “really sad.””[133]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4814797 — PlaguePJP

“To me, the main idea of SCP-166 was her being sin incarnated while being deeply religious. If the problem was she being a teenager and eating semen, change that, not the entire concept.”[134]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863027 — Hammock_Chi, Jan 2021

“No, I think the problem was that all the drama in this piece was related to sexual abuse of a minor. She compelled people to assault her, and since they were being compelled they were technically being assaulted too. While that might be an engaging story, it’s also entirely inappropriate. Worse, the fact that she was a teenager who had to walk around naked made it seem like the sexual assault business wasn’t even there to create narrative tension, but rather to fulfill some disturbing sexual fantasies. The whole thing was just very unpleasant in a whole range of uncomfortable ways.”[135]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863055 — Kothardarastrix, Jan 2021

“When someone mentioned the number 166 to me, I got shivers. The old version had some sickening stuff and I really didn’t want to read something like that again. I’m incredibly glad that got fixed and the character depth stands out more in the rewrite. Please have my +1.”[136]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4813043 — Sirslash47, Nov 2020

“Well… you managed to knock off my downvote. I’m having a hard time critiquing this piece, because… all the ingredients are here. You’ve got clean prose, solid dialogue, clear characters — but for one reason or another, by the end… I find myself just shrugging.”[137]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4817919 — The Great Hippo, Nov 2020

“This iteration is the best version of this article that has ever existed, a clean break with the past that stands head and shoulders over what came before. Outstanding even if only for how far it comes from what it is replacing. Probably one of the most necessary and important rewrites of this coming decade I can’t imagine an article with this prominence that needed it more.”[138]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4818197 — RJB_R, Nov 2020

“This article is kind of… eh, to me. The point of 166 was the entire “succubus” concept, and that’s what made it an SCP. I feel like that concept shouldn’t have been removed, but an actual storyline should’ve been added.”[139]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4822427 — CanOfSoup, Nov 2020

“Eh, while a touchy subject I think people should grow a thicker skin, particularly as is was not graphic in any way. And if it needs to go because a new site policy says “NO”. Then, fine, remove it… Adjusting it like this is just confusing, and obviously tied the writers hands, where he had to still incorporate the original as much as possible instead of making a new interesting SCP. Interesting stuff is there but instead it feels like a lazy Frankenstein of an article.”[140]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4827695 — Aeon Cor, Nov 2020

“Disappointed. I rarely ever downvote. -1″[141]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4836223 — Gatemansgc, Dec 2020

“Came to recheck ol’ 166 because I heard it got changed For the worst unfortunately. Changing my vote.”[142]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4848607 — Natwaf_akindna, Dec 2020

“The old version was better. This version seems sterilized. Downvoting. I don’t appreciate this trend of sterilizing old articles. This rewrite doesn’t add anything to the article and instead takes away the original impression it left on the reader.”[143]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4852723 — Liberonscien, Dec 2020

“Y’know, the rewrite does a lot of things more effectively than the last one. It tells the story of a young girl who has to be secluded from society for a reason that’s not creepy or perverted, and effectively shows the contrast between the girl’s nature and her religious upbringing. Cerastes’ rewrite humanizes 166 in a way that the old 166 didn’t bother to, and it’s a much better article for that. Another thing the new 166 does well is bring various scamps and miscreants out of the woodwork to defend the sexualization and objectification of a child, and whine about its “sanitization” and “censorship.” Looking at this discussion page is a pretty good way to determine who on the wiki just isn’t worth interacting with.”[144]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4857562 — Tyumen, Dec 2020

“She has a watered down version of SCP-1440’s capabilities and a knock off version of the spell used in SCP-4971 in her head…

We went from a girl living a cursed existence due to the nature of her parents, to an OC. I’m not looking at a SCP, this is an example of X-Man syndrome. Was the whole succubus thing weird and kind of fetishistic? Definitely, but it made sense, especially with the religious aspects involved with the story. That being said this also strikes me as fetishistic due to the whole animal parts thing she has going on (we both know that is furry bait), plus she still has the issue with clothes that she had before.

As a side note I notice people tend to defend mediocre works with the excuse that if it is disliked that the reason for the dislike isn’t the writing quality but for *insert nebulous social reasoning*. Not here to judge, but frankly it is getting tiresome. I basically left the site after the whole tumblr planet debacle, but recently there has been some amazing content and I am proud to see what we have accomplished. I don’t want us to get dragged down into that dark era again.”[145]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4919757 — mastermindartemis, March 2021

“I wasn’t really married to the old article, but the context added with the witches vs patriarchy vibe makes this very noxious. Every aspect of the article seems to serve one of two purposes; to ensure that it’s seen as a replacement/undermining of the old scip instead of it’s own thing, and to push that psudo-pagan, earthy ‘wholesome’ aesthetic we’ve all come to associate with a certain clique.

Void of that context, I don’t mind it. I don’t really prefer either variation. The contradiction presented with her being a devout catholic worked better in the old one as it also added to the tragedy of the situation and worked her anomalous traits into the actual story. Her dialog is more believable and personal here.

I doubt anyone would have written this entry had there not been moral pressure to replace the old one, and it shows. And Ironically it will remain posted thanks to the legacy upvotes of the old article. After reading the entry and the discussion page the only words I can think of are “victory lap.” As plainly obnoxious as all this is, I’m going no-vote.”[146]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4858740 — Puffinmasta, Dec 2020

“I always disliked the old one anyway. The “succubus” aspect had nothing at all to do with the “daughter of a nature goddess who tried to destroy civilization” aspect, so the piece felt incoherent. Now her properties are in line with her origin, and the story is focused on development of her character and Clef’s attempts to protect his daughter instead of weird sexual stuff. The whole thing is more cohesive and just makes a lot more sense now. Regardless of how you feel about the change in content, I think this one is definitely better from a purely literary standpoint.”[147]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4860923 — Kothardarastrix, Jan 2021

“I dunno. The old one was fapbaity, sure, but it delivered the tension between her faith and her body better. This one could probably be punched up a bit to match it but it’s not there yet. There’s no sense of the frustration with herself that I liked in the old one. Even if it was done somewhat clumsily all those years ago.”[148]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4861669 — keiya, Jan 2021

“Muy verdadero…

I have to admit that the original article had many, many flaws. I know it was from the time of the tumblr self inserts, (insert writer) and as we know, that hasn’t aged well. This re-write is suposed [sic] to appeal to modern sensibilities and to improve and elevate the concept of the misterious [sic] teenager, removing all senstive [sic] topics and correcting everything that was considered wrong or poorly written. Sadly the re-write fails completely.

…

Censorship, if we change something that was somehow broken with something that came already broken, well then I have to asume [sic] that improving the article was never the intention, just to appease a part of the community, a small part of the community I may add. Since the re-write, there hasn’t been a susbtancial increase in votes, so my educated guess is that there was never a real intention to change the core of the skip to something new or better, it was simply censorship.

It’s really sad that articles like this are constantly changing up to the point they are unrecognizable, and yes, the succubus had obvious problems, problems that could be corrected, but this isn’t about corrections, this is something else.

I know my opinion may not be popular, but I didn’t like that the direction original author and re-writer took.”[149] — (account deleted), Jan 2021

 

“Clef wanted this rewritten, and Cerastes’ version fulfilled what Clef was looking for. The rewrite is not an unreasonable reinterpretation of the article — certainly, it’s leagues better than extrapolating from the original source material1 some idea about a teenager with a powerful magic succubus compulsion effect that affects all males. It remains faithful to the more defensible parts of the original and improves on it immensely by tying back to the nature goddess aspect (that Clef introduced) in a way that’s organic. No radical artistic liberty was taken. Personally, that’s about as much as I could hope for when it comes to rewrites.

The strange, conspiratorial line you bring up about censorship and appeasement, and finger-pointing at some nebulous small part of the community, is what really has me confused here. What point are you even trying to make?”[149]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863261 — Lt Flops

 

“I know it may sounds conspirational, [sic] but to be honest this reinterpretation doesn’t add anything substantial to the table (for me), and I think that’s my problem with this article.

I’m not sure what was the reasoning behind the rewrite. I share the concerns about the original article and I really wanted them to be changed but instead, we received a cervid like creature that in my humble opinion doesn’t have any resemblance to the skip from the original article. (I know we got hints of the nature of her mother and the teenager in the previous iteration of the article)

I think that another thing that bothers me about rewrites (specially old articles) is that this kind of skips would never have as much upvotes as this one has right now. I don’t even think this would be greenlighted (The Gaea) if a new writter tried to pull this thing off.

And that leaves wondering about two things

1.- As I said before, if the reinterpretation of the article was really to portray a more coherent or perhaps a more sensitive version of the succubus, why not changing the things that were disturbing? and perhaps construct the anomaly from there.

2.- I don’t think this anomaly is better in any sense than the previous one, I think the original was not that particularly good, but it was series 1, so… hell, but this re interpretation doesn’t feel as an improvement at all. I think it doesn’t have any remarkable aspects that may better from it’s previous iteration.

So… Why bother? Who asked for this? I think my issue here, is that this looks like as an article rewritten because it needed to be censored.

Well, that being said, this is an opinion though, take it as such, the author is always gonna be on the right in this kind of things.

For me this rewrite is a -1

btw: What happens with the people that upvoted this article for the succubus?”[150] — (account deleted, same)

“Though I like the sensitization of the article it’s now just a mediocre article, loosing the charm of the old article, it is generally not the familiar 166 that most people know.”[150]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863454 — GreenBlob, Jan 2021

“Finally worth reading… There’s less squiggly squicky horror, less uncomfortable tension, but it’s better for it”[151]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863873 — Aindriahhn, Jan 2021

“… even if there is “censorship” I think it was justified. The original 166 was a minor who has to walk around naked and eat semen, and compels men to sexually assault her (which, since they were being compelled, meant that they were also being sexually assaulted). Regardless of any writing quality or character depth surrounding this concept, that concept is fundamentally not okay. It was disgusting; not horror-movie disgusting like 610, but real-life disgusting like Jeffrey Epstein. That isn’t appropriate now and it wasn’t appropriate then.”[152]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4911193 — Kothardarastrix, Feb 2021

“Congratulations you replaced her with an underage furry… who still can’t wear most clothes. You really made the upgrade.” — mastermindartemis, March 2021 [It should be noted that the rewrite describes the anomaly as in its “late teens”.]

“I don’t really like this rewrite. There’s no horror aspect here. It’s just a weird girl who does a thing, only different from the infamous ‘thing that does a thing’ SCPs of days gone by because she’s a person. Sure, the old version could have been read as an oversexualized fantasy by the simpleminded, but in my opinion it was far better. (And yes, I think you’d have to be simpleminded to read it as fantasy. Frankly I think it was very much the opposite: a tale about a girl who had less-than-no interest in sex being hyper-sexually-objectified by her very nature was horrific, not stimulating.)

This is yet another example of how the newer standards in the wiki are far inferior to some of the older standards. Sure, way back we had some really bad SCPs, but all the best SCPs are also from way back and some of them (this was one) wouldn’t make the cut under the new standards. It’s a crying shame to see SCP fall so far.

Anyway, downvoting this tripe.”[153]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922537 — siskulous, March 2021

“Pretty much every SCP can be boiled down to “thing that does a thing” like this and used as justification. The current 166 has depth, forms of character development, narrative, and even if you don’t think that these facets go far enough to make it enjoyable, it still can’t really be boiled down to “thing that does a thing” with all this considered.

… [the old SCP-166] was a teenager that had to specifically be fed semen as part of its containment procedures, among many many other things. The framing, the execution, just the general way in which the old 166 was written, all work against your interpretation, IMO. If it wanted to pull off something like your interpretation, then it didn’t do it well at all. Sorry my simple brain didn’t come to the same conclusion.”[154]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922610 — Lamentte

“So, the article was rewritten and it became basically a totally different SCP just because the original was… controversial? Meh. Pretty stupid. Not judging the quality of the writing and not saying the original was, like, my favorite entry ever, but it’s pretty lame to basically rewrite history just because it doesn’t appeal to a bunch of people. It could have just been another SCP connected to this with no problems.”[155]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922625 — Lowrence Russell, March 2021

“I agree completely. I also liked the rewrite by itself, but the idea that this article was changed for being too inappropriate isn’t a good approach for me. A lot of horrible events, gore stories and intelligible suffering is ok, but teen succubus crosses the line?” — Lucius_D_Cross

“For me, the most interesting part about the original 166 was the internal conflict between What she was (an embodiment of the deadly sin of lust) and Who she wanted to be (a faithful, and celibate, nun). But now that her succubus/lust powers are removed, her Catholic upbringing no longer creates any internal/narrative conflict, nor does it appear to inform her character/personality, and now seems almost superfluous.”[156]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4923580 — Avalon3131, March 2021

“… I always had a gross feeling about this SCP, mostly because the article claimed that she had to survive on human semen. This fact was made even more disturbing when you considered that the article also stated that she was once a baby (the implications of which were horrible)

I have mixed feelings about this article’s past and current revisions. While The older version grossed me out, this newer revision feels like a completely different SCP entirely.”[157]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4924093 — DrLaughsalot, March 2021

“I have to point out that there’s a difference between bleeping out swear words, and banning child porn. It’s not just that one is more extreme, it’s that it needs to be more extreme due to how much more wrong the thing it’s censoring is. The original wasn’t the fun, fake kind of disturbing like a gory Halloween costume. It was the bad kind of disturbing that hits too close to home, like a school shooting. Yes, the rewrite could be better, but that’s secondary to making it acceptable.”[158]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4934082 — Averagemoe, March 2021

“I… don’t want to start a fight, but I don’t think the original was bad.

The original version was a horror story about a tragic character who was victimized by her powers in a disturbing way. She was involuntarily a threat to both herself and the people around her, robbing her of her ability to have a normal life. And, throughout the article, it was painfully clear that she wanted to be the opposite of what she was, which added to the tragedy. The original wasn’t glorifying her situation, it was depicting it in a very bad way and made the audience sympathize with her.

And, I would argue that the tragic nature of the original prevented from being “over-sexualized” like some people have said. Literally the whole point of the original was that the sexual stuff was bad and needed to be resisted.

That being said, I don’t dislike the new one either. The new one just kind of feels… bland?

For one thing, we already have numerous SCPs that destroy modern stuff. Like World Without Man and that one mammoth that reverted the world to the Stone Age. Now there’s a girl who destroys modern stuff, how original.

Plus, the principle conflict behind the original article, the fact that she hates her own anomalous nature and is in conflict with it, has been abandoned. And, to replace it, we have… daddy issues? It feels more boring.

This rewrite isn’t truly bad, per say, but it seems bland, which feels wrong since this has replaced a well-known Series I article that I didn’t think needed to be replaced in the first place.

I don’t know, though. Maybe if this article wasn’t a rewrite of a classic Series I article, I wouldn’t be this harsh on it?

If it wasn’t for the fact that this was not only being marketed as being a better version of the original 166 but also outright removing the original from the database, I probably would have just overlooked this article as being one of many Series V/Series VI articles that I never look at. This article would have just been some bland deer girl that basically no one would be thinking about if it wasn’t rewriting a famous Series I article.

“[159]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4936406 — DCEmperor, March 2021

“While I totally understand the motivation behind this rewrite, at the end of the day it’s a version that needed to be watered down for people who found the concept disturbing and hard to stomach, which I believe was the original intension of this SCP. It was meant to be disturbing, just like countless other entries in this wiki, and (at least from what I could see) made no attempt to normalize the things in it or claim that they were ok. This is one of the oldest entries in the site and while it’s not as popular as some others, it makes me concerned about the possibility of this “watering down” happening to other SCPs, which would really be a shame.”[160]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4938679 — Zombiegg101, March 2021

“This isn’t a rewrite of SCP-166. This is a brand new SCP. And that’s exactly what a rewrite should never be.”[161]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4939002 — Iara Ipenza, March 2021

“I’m sorry but I think changing 166 to make a teenage succubus more “palatable” to readers is a terrible idea. At the core of this, before anything else, I’m wondering what the reason is. Why should we continue having an article whose premise is the sexualization of a young girl? Why should that be worth preserving? And considering how much the rewrite has been (comparatively) lauded by the Wiki’s current member-base — more than anything I’m baffled, and a bit concerned. I do not understand the fervent push for this.

Why should this be the goal of an article on the Wiki? Convincing people not to be horny is so far out of left field, I can’t even wrap my head around why this is mentioned. It’s a solution in search of a problem. If a person is having trouble in this area, I would strongly agree that they need help. But the Wiki is absolutely the wrong place to go about getting that help.

I’m also confused as to what the motivation is. Are people really coming to read smut here in such profuse numbers that we’re forced to cede some of our content to teach sex ed and basic responsibility?”[162]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4985024 — Lt Flops, May 2021

“I’ll assume that you haven’t read my previous comments on this forum, in which i explicitly say that the core premise of the original-166, which made it interesting for readers (& which is the main criticism of the current rewrite), is the inherent contradiction between what 166 is (a succubus) and who she wants to be (a nun); this is not intrinsically tied to 166 being a teenager, and is therefore why one of the main changes i suggested was “age up”. You can have the interesting conflict caused by this contradiction, while still avoiding needless undertones of teen-sexualization.

“Why should [an article about the sexualization of a girl] be worth preserving?” – As i said, the concept of a succubus resisting their inborn nature is interesting in itself. Not only that, but the idea of “everyone sees me as sexy” being played for horror/tragedy is also a compelling subversion of reader expectations. And the exploration of how this contradiction + this horror can take its toll on a character can make for a fascinating narrative that makes readers stop & think.

While i wouldn’t call my post a “fervent” push (maybe you’re talking about the general resistance against new-166?), my purpose is simple: You can have a story about a celibate succubus without it involving teen sexualization, and you can change the distasteful aspects of the original article without needing to make it unrecognizable from the original.

“Are ppl really coming to read smut in such profuse numbers?” – Not sure about now, but in days past, the sheer number of reality-bender SCPs being used for sexual wish fulfillment meant that, yes, there likely were. It got so bad that the removal of such articles was “canonized” with the Tale Termination Order . -And besides, even if “ppl coming to read smut” are no longer in such large numbers, the number of “ppl disgusted with (implied) smut” on this site are now so numerous that their calls for “i can’t even look at 166’s title” can no longer be ignored, necessitating the current rewrite. -I’m simply taking the backlash of “the rewrite didn’t have to be that drastic” and giving both sides what they’re looking for.

And i guess my final response to “that we’re forced to cede some of our content to teach sex ed & basic responsibility” would be to say: Are our readers so thin-skinned about sexual content that we’re forced to cede some of our content to remove any mention of sexual content, including the horror that can be caused by sexual assault?” — Avalon3131

“I dunno. Does it really count as a rewrite if someone just deletes like 90 % of an article and writes something else entirely? Don’t get me wrong, this is not really bad, but I feel like it would have been better as its own completely new scp. Maybe this site has a different understanding of the term but to me a ‘rewrite’ would be an attempt to preserve as much of the original author’s work as possible and only change stuff that actually doesn’t meet certain quality criteria or goes against some recently updated site rules or whatever. So, like, just change her to adult, remove the need for her being naked 24/7 (and maybe also change her required nutrition) and that should be good enough. Kinda like what Avalon3131 suggested.

Unless, of course, you wanted to make this entry entirely sfw and child friendly, then I can certainly see why it needed to be all but deleted and replaced by something else entirely. But I don’t really see why someone would want to do this on a site which is by nature not exactly child friendly or sfw, so that can’t have been the reason for rewriting replacing it.

Good suggestions btw, Avalon, now that’s what I’d call an actual rewrite. Changed a bit of stuff to improve the actual quality of the article as well as adress the issues that have been brought up against the original, gave a bit more background information while still keeping it ambiguous enough to fit the general tone of articles on this website and still keeping most of the original intact. Very well done.”[163]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4980858 — Luzilyo, May 2021

“This probably says things about me that I might be better advised to leave unsaid, but the idea of this irresistible feminine presence that’s trying to suppress her own nature through religion is very interesting to begin with; the connection with Dr. Clef’s story is what makes it truly excellent, though. Unlike a lot of my favorites, I probably won’t ever write about this one, since the existing story would be hard to improve on; still, fables like this are absolutely what I come to the SCP universe for.”[164]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5040995 — Pachelbel, July 2021

“I don’t think I really like this one the way it is now. I’m not sure I can put it into words, why I thought the previous version was better, but it just feels kind of generic and boring to me now, I guess. I didn’t even realize it had been rewritten, I just saw it mentioned elsewhere, went back to read it again to refresh my mind on which SCP it was, and didn’t remember it at all until more than halfway through when I realized it used to be different. I definitely understand the reasons people had for thinking it should be changed, but I feel like the underage portions could have been altered fairly simply, while still keeping the article mostly the same.”[165]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5063499 — DaemonCaedo, Aug 2021

“Just found out that this was rewritten a while back after watching the Detective Void video. Judging from all of the replies, many people did not like this revision because they liked the dilemma of someone being born a demon loving church; the replacing of this conflict with being a pagan creature and an increased focus on Dr. Clef did not resonate so well.

I feel like that line [“They may want a fresh face to represent the church…”] was a reference to why the old version was replaced, with the molestation allegation controversies of the [Catholic] church being allegorical to how people believed that the old version was sexualized. This does not seem to be aggressive towards that past version in the allegory, and just talks about how things needed to be replaced. Even if it might loose its meaning as more users join the site, and even if I still prefer the original, I can respect how the lines leading up to this slightly honors Benedict (who is the allegory for the original version).”[166]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5098426 — Fwachiza, Oct 2021

“But can we find some middle ground between the original and the rewritten? She can be a pagan demon who attracts men unintentionally, but just write out her drinking semen and that will be fine. I know the anomaly itself isn’t the focus it is about Clef but why not have both? This version feels too sanitized.”[167]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5175479 — Yitzchaqdionysusgrei, Jan 2022

“This is my main beef about the new 166, it got no substance for it to become a standalone scp. It wasn’t able to provoke any particular emotion out of me, whether it is sadness, fear, curiosity, joy or disgust. Linked with 4231, this could have very well be an exploration of trauma and how it could be passed down from generation to generation. Instead we got a bland article, a relic of the past that the author didn’t want to preserve, but also didn’t put enough creative effort into, in fear of being turned down by some. P/s: This whole 166 rewrite remind of how tomatoes were modified for the general consumers. Homegrown tomatoes have very a strong taste and smell that is absolutely delicious, but are repulsive to some. In order to sell them for a wider customer base, those taste and smell are tuned down through genetic modifying, creating bland, yet profitable tomatoes.”[168]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5550974 — Real_Lotto, Aug 2022

SCP-0166

“you took what mattered, what mattered the most
AND THIS IS ME TAKING IT BACK. A while ago, I got the phrase “I was a teenage succubus” stuck in my head. Before that, I didn’t like SCP-166. I guess this is killing two birds with one stone, then.”[169]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369077 — UraniumEmpire, SCP-0166 author post

“This was so incredibly necessary, it’s maddening that it hadn’t been done sooner. The dialogue is very well crafted, and the emotion felt and expressed by 166 is very VERY complex and yet present. We feel for her, even though she’s really mean and unhelpful.

Extremely well done, and no, I swear I’m not biased just because I hate the original with every bone in my body.

(or maybe I am, who knows?)”[170]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369087 — Henzoid, Sept 2019

“The original version always bothered me. Your version advances the narrative and critique the original brilliantly.”[171]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369570 — Technician Sourwell

“… the antagonist here is the author of the original SCP-166, or at least their fictional analogue. This isn’t a defence of the original by any means; it’s just that this blurs the line between in-universe fiction and out-of-universe fiction in a way that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. But, then again, I suppose that’s the point.”[172]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4370727 — MaliceAforethought

“The original 166 was a reasonable-in universe response to the existence of an entity with the traits 166 displayed, this however comes across as someone having interpreted the original article in a radically different way, then putting their response to that interpretation in the SCP’s mouth.
Essentially, this has moved 166 from shallow but still sympathetic to yet an other [sic] thing that kills people for no other reason than it wants to, promptly justifying every precaution the Foundation ever took in universe.
Just an other [sic] evil in a box we’re supposed to pity but can’t, because it rejects empathy via its own characterization.”[173]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4371432 — Yamatto

“I can’t say I totally understood everything this story was doing, but what I can do is say how it made me feel. It put into words everything I thought about the original but couldn’t articulate. Like having my discomfort validated.”[174]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4373861 — Melissanoma

“Having her be raped to build character development is, in my opinion, 100x grosser than anything in the original article. That, the way that she’s blatantly stating the author’s opinions in a way that’s completely out-of-character, and my general dislike of “pataphysics” = -1″[175]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4388502 — Runic

“This is genuinely fantastic. The original 166 is just… unthinkably gross, and I think this is a great answer to it that really plays well off of the original article’s flaws. Realizing that this wasn’t, in fact, the new holder of the 166 slot was a massive disappointment.”[176]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4399743 — amindele.

“I’m having a hard time phrasing what I felt about this piece, but it feels like a necessary and humane treatment of this character. I’ve at times taken long breaks from the SCP fandom due to encountering a tale or article which took a far too nonchalant, in my opinion, approach to the subject of rape or pedophilia, though thankfully not for a few years now, as the general tone of the writing here has matured. I just appreciated the agency granted to the character, and the feeling, not of overdramatic emotion, despite her gothic trappings, but just …tiredness, which I found realistic and surprisingly moving. Good work.”[177]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4446507 — Gabriel McQueen

“0166 is such a dark tale. It takes the least generous reading of the original 166 article and runs with it to make a bitter revenge story. After reading I felt like I had taken a class F anti nostalgia amnestic. What ever I used to feel about scp 166 is forgotten. It takes significant effort to remember why I still like it.”[178]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4641652 — Zander Lassiter

“I don’t see really how this is impressive. From what I gather, it’s some sort of attempt at trying to be a meta-example at tackling SCP-166 by taking it in the usual dark direction and so on.

Honestly, I just got the vibe of it being angry ragey fanfiction. Honestly, it does also reflect certain phenomenon and traits within the SCP community so I suppose that’s something worthwhile. Even if that reflection isn’t good.

I guess it’s pretty well-written and mildly fascinating, but it just comes off as mean-spirited. Past the well done prose and format, what is this exactly?”[179]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4795097 — Count DVB

“I, uh, really don’t get what you meant with this. Was UraniumEmpire not justified in writing this story in response to the (now-defunct) SCP-166, an article whose main selling point was the objectification and sexualization of a teenager? Is perceived “mean-spiritedness” not an understandable response to such a flat-out disgusting article as the old 166?”[180]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4875336 — Tyumen

“This is probably one of my most favourite articles on the site. It both satirises the original very well and also creates an intriguing story. You should publish this as an SCP of its own right, it deserves to be on the main list. +1″[181]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4870939 — Person1871

“I saw this on a list of SCPs that someone wanted to share, they said that it “manages to very thoroughly deconstruct the original piece and everything that was wrong with it” and I decided to give it a read. I’m glad I did.

This is the story that I wish the original 166 told— that poor child is finally represented in all the horror she should have been. Not as some oversexualised minor, but a person who has her own thoughts and feelings.”[182]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-5809669 — tiredsn0w

SCP-4116

“i chose the title not just as a deliberate call to 166 (and shorthand connotations thereof) but because it *is* unfortunate. it perfectly captures the image and self image of 4166 and it’s horrifying. however if there are any particularly distasteful other interpretations i’d like to hear them, and if necessary change the title.”[183]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3919147 — DolphinSlugchugger (author)

“I wouldn’t say that you used the barest of skeletons – you used the skeleton, several organs, and some of the nervous system as well. You kept the dietary requirements, the religious iconography, several lines were pulled verbatim (including from the Special Containment Procedures), and the circumstances of retrieval. Not to mention the direct reference in the article title to the original.

All of which might STILL be fine, except that the references back to the original 166 are holding this article back! For instance: the 1cc semen dietary requirement is never referred back to again and doesn’t follow from the core concept here. The SCP is forbidden to have religious iconography, but they are allowed a bible? And the title just has a bunch of unfortunate implications when associated with a gut-wrenching article about abuse and guilt.

Downvoted for now, will revisit when the article can stand on its own two feet, but damned if I don’t want to see that happen.”[184]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3918949 — Dr Clef

“I think that some of what your complaints are, as the original author of 166, stem from the fact that you want this to be more of a different rewrite and not hew so closely to the original. That’s valid and certainly a reason to dislike it, but I think this article is doing a lot of this on purpose in order to highlight something about 166 that the author feels strongly about and point out. It seems to be intentional, and trying to go too far off what this article is doing may just have the article be a different concept altogether, rather than more raw and thematic.”[185]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3919653 — Decibelles

“Minor criticism aside, however, I think I like this article a tad bit more than the original. I like that the “succubus” is treated as a serious and vulnerable human character with a very fucked up, yet grounded backstory, as opposed to the mythological sex fairy that she originally was.”[186]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3921430 — TheMightMcB

“Like most of these re-writes this struggles to stand on its own, the original 166 was not particularly powerfully written in either of its incarnations, this struggles with both that legacy and an over-reliance on eliding exactly what’s going on. I appreciate you’re trying to write around a previously existing article without making direct reference to it, but what you have here is scaffolding, not superstructure, and it’s scaffolding for a concept that wasn’t particularly engaging the first time around.”[187]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3927107 — Yamatto

“I liked it a lot! There are others that seem to think that it’s leaning too hard on old 166, but I personally really enjoy that aspect! I like the fact that it’s not its own new thing with zero ties to the old one.”[188]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-5017799 — ShockSword

 

Trivia

On the original SCP-166, the original author, Ross Fischer-Davis (@Rosferatu on Twitter) says: “I was a young and an amateur writer when I did it, and likely not capable of getting across the goal of it, which was meant to be creating this pathetic creature that could not engage in human relationships regardless of her intention or hope to do so, and that she would be seen as a sexual creature regardless of her actions. A sort of ‘we are what people believe we are’ sort of statement.”

Ross Fischer-Davis has kept elements of the original SCP-166 character concept in a character he still writes in over a decade later; Thekkla, a Quasi-catholic coded nun character, a figure of great and awful pasts attempting to make amends by taking the suffering of others onto herself. In Twitter DMs, the author states: “The idea of nuns, or indeed any heavily secular religion organization harboring figures traditionally associated with evil, figures trying to become something better, is a big part of what I enjoy writing. The idea that anyone can become more than what they were born into, is the heart of it. I myself spent years at a convent school taught and operated entirely by nuns.”

The original SCP-166 was vandalized in the HAGGAR raid.[189]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.2

The “sexual” tag was added to SCP-166 in January 2017.[190]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.40

SCP-166’s text has been changed for April Fool’s day to feature dog facts.[191]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.33

In the 2020 rewrite of the article, the recovered GOC documentation features an “Agent Ukulele”, an homage to Dr Clef.[192]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166

The WikiDot user who first accused SCP-166 as pro-rape, Staxx, was a pro-misandry radical feminist who supported the S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto, believing that “All men are pigs, indeed. Tasty, dry-cured, smoked bacon pigs to be specific.”[193]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-671108/scp-509#post-1827597

The discussion resulting from the above commenter was one of the first on the site to mention transwomen. In postulating how SCP-166’s effects might impact lesbians and transwomen, the commenter added “Obviously those are some complex and uncomfortable thoughts, ones this site might not care for, but you would think a more objective-based SCP would delve beyond binary concepts.”[194]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834587

The reaction to Staxx’s comment on SCP-166 was largely neagtive. A reaction comment that was later edited read “Even if I didn’t think you are reading a lot into this that isn’t there (I do). Even if I thought you’re interpretation was supported by the text (I don’t). Even if this was the time, place, and forum for a discussion of psycho-sexual culture and gender politics (it isn’t). Even in those ideal conditions, I would still find your comment highly inappropriate because of the hostile way you have phrased it.”[195]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834156 A staff member replied with a mod post stating “You’re reading too much into it, and the tone of your post is inappropriate. Please calm down and read more of the material on this wiki before jumping to conclusions.”[196]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834157

The tale linked to on the signature line of the last note of SCP-166 was changed from Ihp’s “A Suicide Note”, written in 2014, to Captain Kirby’s “The Tombstone of Alto Clef”, written in 2019. The former’s narrative insights were incorporated into the 2020 rewrite. It at one point featured a scrapped line where Dr Clef kills the scientist who put the line in the SCP-166 file about having her eat semen for nutrition.[197]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108319

One user drew a comparison between SCP-166 and a previous version of SCP-343 called “The Saddest Necrophile”, which was about a man whose semen reanimated people, and who was forced to have intercourse with cadavers “in order to revive them for things like post-mortem interviews”.[198]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108319

User Aelanna rewrote SCP-166 in 2014 that received input by Dr Clef.[199]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108423 This replaced the concept of a succubus with “pagan fertility deity” and removed most of the contentious content of the existing 166. This rewrite was praised by those who read it, but never utilized. The draft still exists, can be viewed, and currently has a rating of +9.[200]http://scp-sigma-9.wikidot.com/draft:166, archive

In 2018 and in the comment section for SCP-166, a user (account deleted) hid white text in an otherwise benign comment, which read: “But DAMN, I WANNA FORCE THIS SCP ON THE GROUND AND SPANK HER ASS WITH MY BDSM FLOGGER UNTIL SHE’S ALL BROKEN AND CRYING.”[201]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3700898 The comment was removed by the Staff with a note of disapproval which generated more discussion and attention to the original post. The contents of the comment are arguably less egregious than adult-themed content posted to the SCP Wiki at that time.

Due to in part complaints of promoting lewd art, the “fapbait” qualities of SCP-166 were modified in the 2020 rewrite from a succubus to a nature goddess with the attributes of a reindeer. This did not deter pornographic artists from making lewd images of the updated SCP-133 in addition to the previous version.

In 2019, a role-playing user in the comments asked if SCP-166 could be cross-tested with a new anomaly “in order to truly prove how much it dislikes sexual activity.”[202]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4414333 This was responded to by an administrator advising against this.

In 2020, a commenter asked “So the biggest difference is… she isn’t horny now?” This was met with reprimand from a staff member, who issued a stop order for the comment thread. The next month, a different user replied, writing: “This site has TWO dildo SCPs yet this comment crosses the line?!?!…”[203]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4852916

User UraniumEmpire, who rewrote SCP-166 in tale form as “SCP-0166”, novoted the 2020 rewrite of SCP-166.[204]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807701

Dr Clef downvoted SCP-4166, citing that the article relied too heavily on SCP-116 and couldn’t “stand on its own two feet.” This was later changed to a no-vote (as of writing).[205]https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3918949

References

References
↑1 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-series
↑2, ↑5, ↑192 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166
↑3 https://web.archive.org/web/20080614163913/http://www.editthis.info:80/scp_wiki/SCP_Series
↑4 https://web.archive.org/web/20080806084747/http://www.editthis.info/scp_wiki/Continue_on
↑6 https://twitter.com/RossFisherDavis
↑7 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166
↑8 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-303075
↑9, ↑10 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.5
↑11 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.21
↑12 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.8-12
↑13 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1958327
↑14, ↑60 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1960991
↑15 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3704064
↑16 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.45
↑17 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/a-suicide-note
↑18 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3824841
↑19 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807682
↑20 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807686
↑21 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.47
↑22 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4979238
↑23 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4923629
↑24 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5787214
↑25, ↑116 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4139538
↑26 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952211
↑27 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-951431, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952430
↑28, ↑117 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4216255
↑29 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952615, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-955229, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-955239, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-994882, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106144, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4094193
↑30 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1375344
↑31 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1617403
↑32 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689197
↑33 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689320, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689333, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689586

The 2020 rewrite (Cerastes) produced mixed reviews.((https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807710

↑34 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807716
↑35 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807726
↑36 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807822
↑37, ↑129 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807863
↑38, ↑52 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4809811
↑39 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4810951
↑40, ↑131 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812497
↑41, ↑132 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4812742
↑42, ↑138 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4818197
↑43 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4986592
↑44 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4934858
↑45, ↑48, ↑152 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4911193
↑46 e.g. https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4985024
↑47, ↑153 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922537
↑49, ↑146 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4858740
↑50 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863206
↑51, ↑155 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922625
↑53 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1827617
↑54, ↑98 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834171
↑55 “… make[s] her into a vulnerable girl who needs protecting from physical abuse it also make her a sex object”
↑56 “there’s no way for her to reclaim her head as her own space, robbing her of even more agency”
↑57 “We have a woman who makes men want to rape her. This is unacceptable. It invokes common, blame the victim, tropes… Which means that the victim of these acts is actually to blame. It doesn’t matter that the men might be ordinarily nice guys or normal people they are driven to rape by this person and therefore it is her fault.”
↑58 “People can’t possibly touch her without beating her and I doubt the rape-bot men are being gentle… For this person every man is a predator and every sexual act is abuse.”
↑59 “Great. Now we have attempted rape and murder and psychotic episodes excused by this skip.”
↑61 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108074
↑62 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4764621
↑63, ↑122 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4402153
↑64 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2122817
↑65, ↑111 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3824906
↑66 wherein Cthulhu forms sex cults
↑67 wherein visualization of the anomaly causes desires of cannibalization
↑68 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2054557
↑69, ↑103 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2142842
↑70 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3650172
↑71 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3843594
↑72, ↑113 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3923333
↑73 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4281815
↑74 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2526599
↑75, ↑110 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4235595
↑76 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4388682
↑77 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166
↑78 https://www.reddit.com/r/SCP/comments/d6pjz6/new_scp_scp166_i_was_a_teenage_succubus/
↑79 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4166
↑80 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166
↑81 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-302997
↑82 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-952060
↑83 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-994813
↑84 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106450
↑85 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106648
↑86 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1106831
↑87 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1403522
↑88 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1543503
↑89 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1614006
↑90 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1614066
↑91 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1688852
↑92 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689237
↑93 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689242
↑94 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689155
↑95 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1689310
↑96 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1698849
↑97 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834135
↑99 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2080965
↑100, ↑197, ↑198 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108319
↑101 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108358
↑102, ↑199 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2108423
↑104 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2323545
↑105 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2502811
↑106 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-2799963
↑107 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3598518
↑108 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3617983
↑109 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3789687
↑112 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3831220
↑114 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4094193
↑115 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4131094
↑118 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4286364
↑119 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4360649
↑120 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4363901
↑121 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641612
↑123 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641616
↑124 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4638528
↑125 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4641636
↑126 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4763768
↑127 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4764562
↑128 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807710
↑130 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4808945
↑133 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4814797
↑134 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863027
↑135 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863055
↑136 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4813043
↑137 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4817919
↑139 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4822427
↑140 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4827695
↑141 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4836223
↑142 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4848607
↑143 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4852723
↑144 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4857562
↑145 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4919757
↑147 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4860923
↑148 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4861669
↑149 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863261
↑150 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863454
↑151 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4863873
↑154 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4922610
↑156 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4923580
↑157 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4924093
↑158 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4934082
↑159 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4936406
↑160 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4938679
↑161 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4939002
↑162 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4985024
↑163 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4980858
↑164 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5040995
↑165 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5063499
↑166 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5098426
↑167 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5175479
↑168 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-5550974
↑169 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369077
↑170 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369087
↑171 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4369570
↑172 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4370727
↑173 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4371432
↑174 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4373861
↑175 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4388502
↑176 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4399743
↑177 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4446507
↑178 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4641652
↑179 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4795097
↑180 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4875336
↑181 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-4870939
↑182 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-12560787/scp-0166#post-5809669
↑183 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3919147
↑184, ↑205 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3918949
↑185 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3919653
↑186 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3921430
↑187 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-3927107
↑188 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-7059861/scp-4166#post-5017799
↑189 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.2
↑190 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.40
↑191 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-166, rev.33
↑193 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-671108/scp-509#post-1827597
↑194 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834587
↑195 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834156
↑196 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-1834157
↑200 http://scp-sigma-9.wikidot.com/draft:166, archive
↑201 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-3700898
↑202 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4414333
↑203 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4852916
↑204 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-79819/scp-166#post-4807701