Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area

sevendeadlyfun (sevendeadlyfun) wrote in i_wank,
@ 2009-04-04 15:49:00

Nothing says good times like wank
I'm very supportive of a sex positive, anti-censorship world. What I should also be is less wanky. I should continue to take my own advice and SIT ON MY HANDS until the urge to argue with people goes away.

(Post a new comment)

luxshine
2009-04-05 04:09 pm UTC (link)

I knew that rant (The original one) was going to cause wank, I just didn't expect it to be outside the comm...

It's one of those very, very troubling subjects, so... it's not surprising. I'm on the side that wishes kinks like toddlercon and shota didn't exist, but as I'm also a free-speech absolutist, I just turn my head and don't look at it. Until there's no absolute proof that written kink => acting on it on RL,there is no real point on arguing because both sides will end up wanking.

(Reply to this)

sandglass
2009-04-05 04:39 pm UTC (link)

But if we start accepting that reading fictional child porn is okay, that's just the slippery slope into giving real child rapists acceptance in the world, giving acceptance to those who would actually go out there and cause harm.

There is no slippery slope there. It's actually an uphill slope with lava pouring down it. But I guess from the right angle you could get that wrong, if you're crazy.

(Reply to this)

	coffee_mug 2009-04-05 04:44 pm UTC (link)
	Isn't this kind of unfunnybusiness territory? As much as I try to be live and let live when it comes to fandom stuff, I'm struggling to find this wank funny. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sevendeadlyfun 2009-04-05 04:47 pm UTC (link)
	It is indeed unfunnybusiness. But the rules of i_wank don't say it has to be funny. Just personally wanky. Which I was. Sadly. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	coffee_mug 2009-04-05 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	Point taken. I guess it only applies to otf_wank & fandom_wank, then. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2009-04-05 10:06 pm UTC (link)
	Just because it's kind of serious doesn't mean it has to go to UFB. If someone wants to start a tangential discussion about "Your kink is okay, my kink is okay" is a good idea or not at UFB, that'd be fine. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

seiberwing, 2009-04-06 03:03 am UTC

pyratejenni, 2009-04-06 03:23 am UTC

seiberwing, 2009-04-06 03:24 am UTC

waltraute, 2009-04-06 04:59 am UTC

seiberwing, 2009-04-06 10:41 am UTC

pyratejenni, 2009-04-06 02:10 pm UTC

seiberwing, 2009-04-06 04:50 pm UTC

undomielregina
2009-04-05 04:56 pm UTC (link)

... ... ...

I keep wondering why it is that none of the people in the dissent seem to have heard of role-playing with consenting adults in the context of the bedroom. Because that's totally a "takes two" scenario where no one is harmed, but where someone has to put themselves in the role of the aggressor. Would these people find consensually acting out a rape fantasy wrong or immoral? What about daddy/girl kink? This is where my brain stutters to a complete stop over the "it's never okay to identify with the abuser/rapist/etc" comments even more than the "it should be illegal" ones. I'm used to hearing that things I like to do are/should be illegal, but no way in hell do you get to tell my partner that he's sick for being willing to go through with the scenarios I suggest.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	brennalarose 2009-04-05 07:03 pm UTC (link)
	This. Times Infinity. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	frau_eva 2009-04-06 03:58 am UTC (link)
	Very good point. What about the teacher/innocent schoolgirl fantasy? Common to the point of being a cliche slutty outfit, but just about everyone would agree that it's immoral if acted upon. Fantasy=/=Reality. (Reply to this)(Parent)

velvet_mace
2009-04-05 06:41 pm UTC (link)

Chan is one of my biggest squicks. I can only tollerate reading it if it's done for horror and realism with the understanding that it was abuse.

Buuut... no kids were actually injured in this, and I know first hand what is yummy delicious to read about has no bearing on what people actually think would be good in reality. The same girls who are so sympathetic for the poor molesting father would probably not hesitate to call CPS if something like that were actually happening.

So, yeah, squicky squicky fic that is so not my turn on, but I'd be a total hypocrite if I said that it was more horrible than some of the disgusting stuff I gleefully read and write.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

dunmurderin
2009-04-06 01:14 pm UTC (link)

I've heard of age-play and I can get the mindset behind it, ditto for rape fantasies. What two (or more) consenting and consensual adults do in the privacy of their own whatever is none of my damn business. If this was a fic about two adults engaging in age-play? I wouldn't have a problem with it -- probably still wouldn't read it but that's mainly because not my fandom, not my cuppa. But the squick would be less than it is at the thought of a fic about a child and an adult because the characters are clearly two adults, this is clearly a fantasy.

I will always think fics about toddlers/children having sex, particularly with adults and especially their parents, are gross. Because to me adult/child sexual relations are always going to be associated with molestation and abuse, not sexy funtimes. I do not understand the mindset of this being fun to write about or to read about -- but I also don't understand people keeping spiders as pets. I accept that the fic author and the spider owners have every right to their opinion and I support their freedom of speech and, er...spider owning, but I do not agree with it and won't pretend that I think it's a good thing.

I can and do most strongly believe that a person's got every right to their own kinks and fiction does not equal reality, but I don't have to approve of someone's kinks or opinions to believe that they have every legal right to have them. And their right to have those kinks and opinions does not mean I don't have the same right to be squicked by their kinks. Disagreeing with someone is NOT censoring them and I REALLY wish fandom would learn the difference because I am so sick and tired of "Well, this is my opinion/kink so you can't disagree" being used to silence dissent.

And I'll grant I'm saying all this without having read the fic in question so I don't know, maybe it is something that is tasteful and/or well done...but I'm not going to go read it and find out because the plot squicks me and I don't read fics that squick me. No, this is not fair -- but this is about my personal comfort, not about being fair. I won't read those fics and I won't hold your pet spider.

Actually, I'd probably read the fics before I'd hold the spider 'cause...gahhh, spiders...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

velvet_mace
2009-04-06 03:44 pm UTC (link)

First off -- anyone pressuring you to read a fic that doesn't appeal to you (for whatever reason) is a jerk. Fic is for entertainment and fun, not a chore. No one should feel obligated to read things that squick them, and when asking for recs or discussing a rec, it's absolutely okay to ask if things you know you'll dislike will be in a fic, so you can avoid them.

However, just because something exists, doesn't mean that it is there to be offensive to you. Most of the time people don't have to know what squicks you, that information is really only important for your personal decisions, not anyone else's.

Well, I think the problem is that people tend to slop from admitting a squick (which is a personal dislike) to asserting a moral objection (which makes it the person with the kinks problem). And they tend to do this in places where it's not appropriate: like in the comment section of someone's fic, or in a meta discussion where the purpose is to share a squee.

The last thing: Silencing dissent would be to erase your comments or ban you from the forum. It is absolutely fair that if you argue with someone, that they be able to argue back -- including dismissing the legitimacy of your argument in the first place. That's not silencing your dissent -- though it is maybe making you aware that your opinion isn't popular.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dunmurderin, 2009-04-06 11:04 pm UTC

velvet_mace, 2009-04-06 11:40 pm UTC

dunmurderin, 2009-04-07 01:57 am UTC

velvet_mace, 2009-04-07 02:30 am UTC

undomielregina
2009-04-06 03:47 pm UTC (link)

If this was a fic about two adults engaging in age-play? I wouldn't have a problem with it

The thing is, in my experience, people who act out extreme power-differential scenarios (which is often what age-play and rape fantasies are about) are much less likely to write those fantasies down as play-acting and much more likely to write about the event in question as a real act rather than a simulated one.

In this case, I feel like there are a couple of cues in the story (quoted in the discussion, I haven't read it, so take my assessment with a grain of salt) that are more of the "feigned innocence" style of age-play, than in a real pedophiliac vein.

And while you have every right to be squicked by any kink, obviously, I feel like there's a difference between "that thing you like to read/think about makes me want to hurl" and "you make me want to hurl because you like to read/think about that thing". The former is cool and totally appropriate, while the latter rubs me the wrong way. Of course, I'm not innocent of failing to make that distinction at times either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dunmurderin, 2009-04-06 11:04 pm UTC

sevendeadlyfun, 2009-04-07 12:37 am UTC

dunmurderin, 2009-04-07 02:01 am UTC

undomielregina, 2009-04-07 01:07 am UTC

dunmurderin, 2009-04-07 02:11 am UTC

	eleutheria 2009-04-06 12:38 am UTC (link)
	hector_rashbaum is making me very irritated (and I normally really like her posts), but I'll sit on my hands and not add to it. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sevendeadlyfun 2009-04-06 12:41 am UTC (link)
	It took all my hand sitting skills not to reply to the OP of the original post when zhe came ~~trolling~~ calling. But can I ask why hector_rashbaum is irritating you? Not trying to be wanky. I'm just genuinely curious. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eleutheria
2009-04-06 12:59 am UTC (link)

I get being upset at the "there should be a law!" malarkey. But it's "thought policing" to decide who you do and do not want to be associated with based on what they do? O....kay. I'm generally with what

funwithrage said. It should be legal, and I should have every right to not want to be associated with it.

(And the whole idea of never drawing a line in the sand for fear that drawing a line will lead to people lining out your shit also bothers me. I know we're talking about fictional shit here, but I see more than a few people justifying (or at least not condemning) real-life abusive behavior because they're afraid that judging one thing will make it okay for people to judge them. It seems like

hector_rashbaum is saying that drawing lines anywhere is wrong, and I really, really don't agree with that. Besides, my ethics, I can draw them for myself anywhere I damn well please.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sevendeadlyfun, 2009-04-06 01:07 am UTC

undomielregina, 2009-04-06 06:01 am UTC

pyratejenni, 2009-04-06 02:15 pm UTC

undomielregina, 2009-04-06 03:34 pm UTC

undomielregina, 2009-04-06 03:36 pm UTC

	waltraute 2009-04-06 01:29 am UTC (link)
	With delwynmarch's sterling logic, writing about anything illegal or immoral is promoting it, you sicko. (Reply to this)(Thread)

silrana
2009-04-07 10:57 am UTC (link)

To be fair, though, shouldn't they at least admit that they are feeding it? I understand the importance of freedom of expression, but I'd have a whole lot more respect for the argument if I saw truly honest discussion. All I ever see is, "It's fantasy! Fiction! Nothing real here, nosirree!" or "But it's part of fandom, and that means it's harmless."

If there was complete honesty, you'd see posts like - "I know that pedophiles read my stories. I know that the guy who hangs around the playground watching the kids a leeeeetle too closely goes home, fires up the internet and beats off to my stories. But I consider that a small price to pay for my pretendy fun times."

Or

"I'm a pedophile, and I like to write out my fantasies. But I have found that writing a story about Teacher Smith and 12yo Annie tends to raise eyebrows and limit how many places I can post it at. But if I change it to Snape and 12yo Hermione, I can wrap my story with the respectability of 'fandom' and post it more widely. Then if I'm lucky I'll get people interested in my stories, and they'll contact me. Maybe some of them will be young. Mmmmm."

Because if you think there is some bright shining line between pedophiles and this type of story? Think again.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ariadne484
2009-04-07 02:11 pm UTC (link)

How about, "I can write about this thing that happened to me or to a person in my life, and thus process the incident in a relatively safe way?" Or, "I can write about the entanglement of appropriate behavior and desire, about something that I'm glad never happened but found myself thinking about?"

Unlike the horrible words you decided to shove into the mouths of people who write stories about underaged characters and sex, I actually know people who could make the above statements I quoted. Except that then they'd be called pedophiles, which is never fun.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana, 2009-04-07 05:56 pm UTC

sevendeadlyfun, 2009-04-07 07:32 pm UTC

silrana, 2009-04-07 08:51 pm UTC

underwaterowl
2009-04-06 05:57 am UTC (link)

I don't know. Unfashionable as it may be, I'm against child pornography, even when no actual children are involved. I didn't used to be, but then I had to read the whole of R. v. Sharpe for a class, and it was pretty compelling.

So, I like Canada's solution. 'Write and think whatever you want about fictional children, but don't share it with anyone, that's illegal and risks fetishizing children and portraying pedophilia as socially acceptable.'

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ariadne484 2009-04-06 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	So we're taking Romeo & Juliet (Juliet's not quite 14) and Lolita out of the libraries, then? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

underwaterowl
2009-04-06 05:11 pm UTC (link)

That's silly. Romeo and Juliet =/= Galahad at age four sucking Lancelot's cock. It's not as simple as banning everything with a minor in an uncomfortable situation, obviously, and you can't act like that's the inevitable slippery slope, because it hasn't happened. As the law stands in Canada, written pornographic representations of minors are illegal to share, and we're all clearly studying Romeo and Juliet in grade nine and selling Lolita in our book stores.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ariadne484, 2009-04-06 05:25 pm UTC

underwaterowl, 2009-04-06 05:38 pm UTC

ariadne484, 2009-04-06 05:46 pm UTC

underwaterowl, 2009-04-06 05:52 pm UTC

	ariadne484 2009-04-06 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know whether to applaud you for trying (since I completely agree with you -- no, Certain RL Friend, my writing incest in our shared fandom does not mean I want you to get it on with your sister) or to advise you not to beat your head against the wall of SAAAAAVE THE BAAAAYBEEEZ. hands you Internet Fruit (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sevendeadlyfun 2009-04-07 12:44 am UTC (link)
	gratefully noms It's just ridiculous. How is fictional child abuse any worse than anything else fictional, such as murder or rape? I love kids. I have one. But I swear it's like people lose their darn minds when they see anything having to do with kids. I don't understand it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ariadne484
2009-04-07 02:20 pm UTC (link)

So I came back here to agree with you, and got into it again. That whole refraining from arguing thing is not easy.

One thing I notice people decrying these stories seem to assume is that people who write these stories always identify with the adult/older person/person in power/abuser in the story. I wonder if it's a corrollary of the idea that anyone who writes such a story is the same kind of person as someone who'd abuse a real life child, and it frustrates me because I literally know it's not true -- I know counterexamples.

Anyway. Let me not start with my aquamarine elk. :) But, yeah. It's really hard to argue with people who claim one is evil, which is what this boils down to. People really do lose their minds over children.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sevendeadlyfun, 2009-04-07 07:35 pm UTC

Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map