![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01My first flame! Anonymous, of course, and from someone who clearly hasn't got a clue about slash.
ETA: There's some interesting discussion in the comments on this post about the morality of reading and writing chan, FYI.
It gets better -- they replied to the mod's comment:
My point is about more than me "not liking this type of writing." Referring to my previous comment, here are those who do like this type of writing, and who will go out and shag a fifteen-year-old, and this encourages them. That is unacceptable.
Don't get me started on the bizarre pseudo-logic involved here. Ignorant self-righteous people crack me up. Why click on the link and READ my fic, and then accuse ME of being perverted? Pot, meet kettle. *rolls eyes*
ETA: There's some interesting discussion in the comments on this post about the morality of reading and writing chan, FYI.
It gets better -- they replied to the mod's comment:
My point is about more than me "not liking this type of writing." Referring to my previous comment, here are those who do like this type of writing, and who will go out and shag a fifteen-year-old, and this encourages them. That is unacceptable.
Don't get me started on the bizarre pseudo-logic involved here. Ignorant self-righteous people crack me up. Why click on the link and READ my fic, and then accuse ME of being perverted? Pot, meet kettle. *rolls eyes*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:05 pm (UTC)And this was set in 7th year, no? These blokes aren't minors.
And the troll who suggests you seek professional help didn't see fit to leave his/her name or email so you could get advice on a good counselor.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:10 pm (UTC)XD
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:17 pm (UTC)I think it's just the shock of finding HP slash for the first time.
Her arguments will break down eventually, but I do know a lot of people, myself included, that were a little reserved about HP fic because it *was* seen as a children's book, and the characters were more often than not, children.
I wonder what she will think when she realises your fic is not an isolated occurance.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:23 pm (UTC)While you may find this innocuous, posting this work publicly veritably ensures that people of a truly sexually immoral persuasion will find it; and the graphic depiction of pedophilic, objectifying sexual behavior in this post and others like it can only serve to enhance the immoral and potentially tragic urges of sexually criminal elements of society. Sexual conduct of this nature must not be condoned, even in fantasy, and doing so, especially publicly, is selfish in the extreme and blatantly irresponsible.
Y'know, I love to listen to myself talk, but even I'm not that bad. Anyway, pedophilia is sexual contact between an adult and a child. How can sexual contact between two people over the age of consent be pedophilia? News flash: it can't. *rolling eyes*
The closer, which was the classic "seek professional help; you obviously have issues" wrapped up in way too many words, was the perfect finishing touch. I give this an A- for effort, a C+ for style, and a B for overall effectiveness. There's defintiely room for improvement. I suggest that it spend a few minutes Googling some FAQs or tutorials on effective fLaming, or how to break the habit of being a totally pretentious dumbass.
Seriously, I'm not interested in the new community, and reading about rimming is kinda gross, imo, but give me a fucking break! This person needs to get over it, and get over itself in the process.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:27 pm (UTC)In short: IDIOT.
*snicker*
I've only gotten one flame as well but it wasn't half so articulate. Couldn't even spell "suck" correctly. You should feel somewhat proud that you got a flamer that can do real sentences with punctuation! *hugs Emma*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:27 pm (UTC)Anyway, lovely story. I've often wondered exactly how Draco would have delt intellectually with shagging Neville, and now I know. Very cool!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:30 pm (UTC)(Not that I thought you did anything wrong in the first place. I just thought I'd mention it.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:32 pm (UTC)Puh-leeze. I know the difference between fantasy and reality.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:35 pm (UTC)Ah well. To be honest, the idea of HP slash squicked me at first, I don't really remember why. Anywho, I got over it rather quickly.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 08:36 pm (UTC)I know it's not everyone's kink, and that's why we all put warnings on stuff, you know? I just don't understand how s/he (a) stumbled on my post in the first place and (b) decided to read it. *shrugs*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 09:29 pm (UTC)What bothers me is her/his assumptions about fiction: that writing about an "immoral" act is the equivalent of committing an immoral act. The argument she/he makes is the exact same one that was made to justify censorship of Madame Bovary, Lady Chatterly's Lover, and many another classic book.
While I do believe that writing always has both a political and a moral dimension, I do not believe that writing about something is the moral equivalent of acting on it. The moral dimension of fiction comes in how we reflect upon ourselves and society (or how we do not reflect on it.) Fiction itself does not do direct moral harm, which is why I will never be in favor of censorship. A story might be racist, sexist, homophobic - but writing or reading such a story is not the same thing as commiting a racist, sexist or homophobic crime.
And as for the claim that some sex offender might get hold of your story and read it -- hell, a sex offender can get turned on by all kinds of things. We should NEVER advocate censorship on the basis that some wacko might get their kicks from it.
Ack, I don't know if I'm making any sense here. But this person's moral pretensions are deeply disturbing.
DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP! THE IMAGINATION MUST ALWAYS BE FREE!
[/manifesto]
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 09:59 pm (UTC)For example, does that mean people who write graphic violence, murder, and torture (in mainstream fiction, no less) are disturbed, even psychotic and dangerous? That's ridiculous! And would it further imply that people who read such fiction are similarly disturbed? What about books protraying rape? Are they written by people with serious issues who need help?
I agree with what a few other folks have said: I think it's a reaction of ignorance and shock at discovering that some people have a different view of human sexuality than "you" do.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:09 pm (UTC)And so what if they are? Is there some law somewhere that people with serious issues who need help are not allowed to write fiction? Didn't Coleridge write "The Lotus Eaters" while high on opium? And I've heard an argument that the Bronte sisters may have been abused or even molested by their brother. So should they not have written their novels?
The movie "Quills" (starring My Future Wife) is such an excellent exploration of all these issues. That movie, and "Reading Lolita in Tehran," are my manifestos.
And *squeee* the icon!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:20 pm (UTC)Excellent ficage BTW!!! *grins*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 10:41 pm (UTC)Your point is still a good one, of course. The Supreme Court ruled that fabricated or animated images depicting (not real) children in sexual situations were not "kiddie porn", and could in fact be a safe and legal outlet for pedophiles.
Now, I don't write chan, though I will read it every now and then. in general, what I write just doesn't involve kids in sexual situations like that. I don't write about things that I didn't do myself when I was that age. And -- TMI -- the fic I just write really does fit into that category!
Do you think chan blurs the line? I'm talking about real chan fic, where the child is younger than 15.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-07 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 12:34 am (UTC)The line is already blurred, I think. So much depends on the situation and the milieu and the maturity of the characters.
I would never advocate for censorship in any form, but personally I find chanfic disturbing, even if the kids are with other kids. I am talking pre-adolescent stuff, like, younger than 13 even. When they get to be 15 or so I am not so squicked. It depends on the situation. I've read a fic where Qui-Gon was with a 13-year-old Obi-Wan (though not all the way) and I thought it was beautifully done, because there was a lot of love and no exploitation. Plus, I guess it bothers me less in the Star Wars milieu because it's so alien; the mores and rules can be anything you want them to be. With HP it's a little more problematic, since they are living in 1970's (?) England with that society's set of standards.
But I don't believe slash inspires pedophiles. I think pedophiles are 1) interested more in images than in fiction and 2) not drawn to literary works so much as pornographic works. If that makes any sense.
I think your point about fiction actually being a good outlet for inappropriate sexual fantasy is right on the money. I know it is for me. I can write about a lot of issues in fanfic that I am dealing with in RL and work through my own sexual kinks and frustrations that way. After all, no matter how good your partner, there are bound to be a few areas where you are not getting exactly what you want. Fantasy and fanfic fill the gap. Most women just read racy romance novels. Our turnons are a bit less conventional and a lot less socially acceptable. But I refuse to believe they are criminal.
Of course, there could be a bunch of pedophile lurkers here right now for all I know. Anybody here want to come out of the closet? *G*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 01:46 am (UTC)luv & hugs
The Drow
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:58 am (UTC)"How can sexual contact between two people over the age of consent be pedophilia? News flash: it can't. *rolling eyes*"
Besides, your fic is rather tame - not just compared to some of the other things in the HP fandom (and I must admit some of the fandom's darker aspects squicks me - but I stay away from them), but also to other fanfic (don't click on some those links - it's not even fun).
For heaven's sake..
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 04:22 am (UTC)Actually, I'd like to correct that -- there's nothing funnier than going on Google to resolve their IP address and then using THAT in your public mod reply.
That was a very well-spoken troll, eh? Wonder how s/he got to the comm in the first place...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 05:26 am (UTC)anyway sorry again for putting this in you LJ
Jillian
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 06:48 am (UTC)Oh, I know. I went off on a tangent - what I think becomes the logical extension of his/her argument. My point is that people write for all kinds of reasons, and that may include all kinds of serious issues.
And no, I don't think chan blurs the line. "Lolita" would fall under the chan category. (I really ought to read that book some day, since I use it as an example so much.) "Lolita" really *is* about a sexual predator, but that doesn't mean the book advocates pedophilia, or that Nabokov was a pedophile. Neither reading nor writing that book constitutes an act of pedophilia.
Take another example, "American Psycho." Do you remember the controversy when that book came out? (I've never read it, but I saw the movie.) Some feminists were up in arms because they saw the book as totally misogynistic. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. In the movie at any rate, I thought it was an exploration into this guy's sicko mind. But the book itself does not constitute a crime against women.
People freak about chan because that's a rather basic taboo built into our psyches. But I don't know that they freak out this much over books that involve murder or torture. Rather, it's books about sex that are more likely to get the label "immoral." I think that has more to do with how fucked up we are in general about sex. That's why people *think* it blurs the line, whereas the reality is that it just pushes our taboo buttons.
The power of fiction is that it can take us any place our imaginations can conceive, even into the darkest reaches of the human soul. Some people find that frightening because they don't want to admit those dark corners exist, or those dark corners should never see the light of day. They argue, "The thought is parent to the deed." But I say thinking about killing someone, even imagining it in graphic detail, does not constitute murder.
There are certainly fics that disturb me and that I find morally objectionable. But I have never been able to imagine a situation where I would ever advocate censorship.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 06:57 am (UTC)Consider this: can a story about graphic murder be held accountable if some psychopath reads it and decides to copy the murder?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:13 am (UTC)And the way the person kept saying, "meaning no disrespect" sheesh! If you mean no disrespect, then you shouldn't have to hide behind an anonymous post.
But the drama stuff does add spice to fandom. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:15 am (UTC)Second, I'm right there with you on quibbling about the chan thing. I made a decision a while back that I would never depict an underaged person in a sexual situation that I myself wouldn't have willingly been in at that age. And I've stuck to that, including the RPS I've written and this new fic.
The thing is, I prefer to write and read about sexually mature people, as I know the vast majority of us do. That might mean a character is 15 or 16, and that's okay, because I remember what it was like to be that age! And exploring sexuality does not have to mean having sex. I mean, is there really anyone out there who wasn't fantasizing about their favorite rock star or movie idol while masturbating in their room at night from the age of 13 on? Or who wasn't experimenting with kissing and touching a few years later, leading on to various sexual acts that seem less intimidating than actual intercourse, etc...
This article about the age of consent in Europe (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/sawyer.htm) is very interesting, btw.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:53 am (UTC)And that tells me that what I'm interested in is NOT a scene depicting a child in a sexual situation, but a scene in which two consenting, sexually mature people desire each other, despite the social boundaries that make a relationship between them taboo. And isn't that what slash is all about, when you think about it?
Part of what is appealing about it is the taboo, I think. This is why there's so much twincest fic out there, right?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:10 pm (UTC)There isn't. He's in prison the whole time, so the movie is more about how he continues to write and why he writes. There's not even much sex in the movie, as I recall. Really it is an excellent movie, and I highly recommend it!
What if it idolizes murder?
What if it does? Anyway, people can have different interpretations of a story. One person may see it as idolizing, another may see it as an expose. Look at Lolita or American Psycho.
Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation both laud the Ku Klux Klan as the defender of white women's virtue. Some people today object to Huckleberry Finn as perpetuating racist stereotypes, even though Mark Twain was (arguably) trying to combat racism.
I still say no matter how objectionable the content, writing about something is not the moral equivalent of committing the act. And the price of censorship is far too high to justify suppressing freedom of speech.