Anti-fanfic Bingo, redux

[mirabile-dictu.livejournal.com]

All right! Our first round of Anti-Fanfic Bingo went beautifully, and we have plans for your responses, but let's move on to the second row of the card:



How would you respond to these accusations? Just like last time, please tell ComRel!

Graphic by the wonderful Ciderpress.

Ithiliana's post that started it all is here.

-- femmequixotic, bethbethbeth, ciderpress, mirabile_dictu, shrift, svmadelyn
Community Relations Committee

Comments

Re: Furthermore...

[anextropian.livejournal.com]

How could it not be child-friendly? It certainly does not harm children. I have read such things since I was 12 - where is the harm there? Moreover, it is important to note that not only is it not harmful, but it is actually a universally good thing to understand such things. Whereas arachnophobia does not tell of reality well, sexuality of fiction tells of an essential thing in reality.

There may be some things that are "harmful" to minors, but it is very important to note that reading about sexuality is not among them. It is actually beneficial.

The importance of this in noting that one never needed to abstain from mentioning arachnophobia in public. Just talking about it could not possibly harm minors. So why should there be a standard that sexuality in fiction never be spoken of? If indeed there is no shame, then it should be talked about in an open space. And if indeed, reading and writing about sexuality in fiction is something constructive rather than destructive (like Arachnophobia), then why should one concede otherwise? I note that not only is sexuality in fiction is okay for there to be, but it actually is GOOD for it to be there, where Arachnophobia has no such redeeming value.

Re: Furthermore...

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

You know, I really think we're talking across each other here.

The problem is that what we think doesn't matter. What matters is what concerned!soccermom thinks, and she thinks that discussions of sexuality are not at all child or even teen friendly. And until you've convinced her that it's not bad and harmful to her kids, she's going to do everything in her power to make sure we can't talk about it. At all. The Think of the Children! demographic is a very powerful political force.

By flagging up front that we are talking about sexuality, we are saying that we don't think it's a bad thing and we're not going to stop people from joining in if they want to, while, at the same time, we're removing TotC!'s tools to stop us from talking about it and promoting heathly human sexuality as a good thing. The onus falls back on to them to 'protect' their children from the evil world if they really do feel they need protecting.

And also...

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

We don't actually have to change anything we do already. This just takes something we do as a matter of course (rate, warn, write summaries) to attract people to our work and find a secondary use for it: a neat counter to a silly argument. "Think of the children!" they cry. "We do," say we. "See our rating system? We do as much as, if not more, than a host of commercial interests! Next question!"

Re: Furthermore...

[anextropian.livejournal.com]

The main reason why I think that these concerns should not be respected is in self-respect again.

To admit that sex should not be mentioned is in saying that it is essentially bad that a child even knows of sex. This is different from Arachnophobia where the more the child knows, the more suitable Arachnophobia is for them. In the case of sex, for the child do know anything is the main objection. And to respect that objection is to say that not only is it bad without knowledge, but it is ESSENTIALLY bad. It is to say that it is not good at all. Surely any self-respecting person would say that it is a GOOD thing rather than bad.

I think that this cou

Re: Furthermore...

[hector-rashbaum.livejournal.com]

To admit that sex should not be mentioned is in saying that it is essentially bad that a child even knows of sex.

No one's saying sex should not be mentioned, unless I'm missing something. What dr_jekyl is saying, as far as I can see, is that we'll talk about sex all we like thank you very much, but first we're going to put up this sign saying "sex discussed here".

There's no shame in that, and it's an entirely true statement. Concerned!soccermom can look at the sign and determine it's not somewhere she wants little Johnny to go - and whether or not I agree with her belief sex is a badbadwrong thing for her child to talk about, I'll not deny her the right to determine that for herself and her own family.

Re: Furthermore...

[anextropian.livejournal.com]

All right, so I understand it as "if the soccermom wants to, she can go through the fanfiction for her sun looking for labels and picking out the ones as she sees fit," but it is troubling that it if this argument shall be used, that it seems to imply doing more for the soccermom in segregating or obscuring such labeled material from the rest. I understand it as respecting the soccermom and not forcing her for anything, which is not tantamount to respecting her ideas, but at the same time it would be troubling if one did more than just labeling it which can be nothing other than respecting her ideas.

Re: Furthermore...

[hector-rashbaum.livejournal.com]

And I should add - that "sex discussed here" sign isn't just good for the concerned!soccermoms of the world, it's pretty handy for those who wish to seek out sex discussions for themselves.