![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It seems ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
faylinn_drake is having fun in L.A. with the CSI:NY gang. She was nice enough to RP a scene with me involving Wasted!Flack. Maybe after she gets back and settles in, I'll nudge her about continuing that scene with a stuffed frog, a can of chicken soup, and a rumpled tie.
In more serious news, LJ has resumed its campaign against fannish endeavors with this post in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
lj_biz, wherein they have decided to ban any works, fictional or not, describing "graphic" sexual contact involving minors, even if that sexual contact occurs consensually and with another minor. What constitutes graphic is dreadfully vague; at one point, LJ mouth monkey burr86 mentioned bodily fluids as an objectionable criterion. By that standard, a sloppy, inexperienced kiss could merit the banhammer. After all, saliva is a fluid.
Since LJ is a private enterprise, they are free to set any rules which they so choose, rules which would not be acceptable if they were operating under the aegis of the U.S. government. However, the sheer underhandedness of the timing of this announcement, coupled with their feeble attempts to shift the blame for this decision onto nebulous, ill-defined "obscenity laws" appalls me. As more learned LJers have pointed out, obscenity has no hard and fast definition; even the U.S. Supreme Court was unable to reach a consensus. In fact, because it is so subjective, most creative work in the U.S., either written or visual, is safe because it has never met all three criteria for the Miller Test, which is used to determine obscenity.
LJ is talking out of both sides of its ass here. In his so-called clarification post,burr86 once again stresses that "graphic" sexual situations involving minors are not permitted, but he then assures us that if a text would be permitted on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, it would be safe. If so, why are we having this discussion? Professional writers depict minors and children in sexual situations all the time. Nabokov has been mentioned, as have Stephen King and Anne Rice. What about Poppy Z. Brite or Gregory Maguire? Or Laurel K. Hamilton, who has all kinds of freaky ass-tapping in her novels? If pro writers can write scenes in which 13-year-old girls engage in a consensual gangbang(Stephen King) or fantasize about being deflowered by a demon with a giant dong(Anne Rice), why can't fans discuss and depict the same topics?
Methinks it's because for all it's chest-beating about being a progressive, free-thinking nation, the U.S. is still terribly prudish about sex. Setting aside the looming specter of kiddie porn, kinky sex in all forms still makes folks squirm. Even in the 21st century, homosexual sex still gets folks' knickers in a knot, and dare I mention furries and infantilism?
We're a dichotomous, hypocritical bunch when it comes to sex. We like it and seek it out, but we don't want anybody to know that we do. It's why the mail-order porn comes in plain, brown wrappers. We wouldn't the mailman to see our copy of Bloomers and Bollocks. Sex is the dirty secret that everyone keeps.
And while we might like sex, we certainly don't want minors liking it or children being curious about it. Sex is considered an "adult" activity, and if adults acknowledge that their child is interested in sex, then they must consequently admit that their children are growing up and forming their own interests and opinions. That's terrifying for parents to consider because it connotes a loss of control, highlights their own lost youth, and foreshadows their own burgeoning irrelevance in the lives of their precious babies, into whom they have poured so much of themselves. Best to bury all evidence of sex and remove all temptation by pretending it doesn't exist, that the desire for sex magically appears under ideal conditions-when someone gets married, for instance. It never works and causes more problems than it solves, but parents keep employing the same fruitless tactics anyway in the hopes that, this at least, they can get this right.
I suspect that writers like King and Rice are less threatening to people because you can pretend not to see them if you don't want to. Their sex and violence is hidden between covers that have to be opened, inside books that have to be found. Out of sight, out of mind, and lalala, can't see you.
But Internet fiction is different. It is readily accessible with the click of a mouse, and you can find it unawares if you choose the wrong(or right) keyword. If someone searches for "Transformers", you might get official websites, but you could also find fics wherein Starscream and Megatron have hot, scraping metal sex with lots of lubricant involved. Searching on the Internet can remove willful agency from the equation for those parents too lazy to supervise their children, and the idea of their little lambs finding "surprise sex" and having questions about it is too much. Rather than modifying their Internet habits by watching where their kids go online, too many parents expect Uncle Sam and Big Brother to Disnefy the Internet. The Internet was for porn; now it's the babysitter so Mommy and Daddy can go into the bedroom and watch theirs. Viva progress.
Many critics have claimed that 6A has no clue about fandom, but I beg to differ. They certainly knew enough about it to know that the fandom with the largest online presence and the loudest voices would be largely absent from cyberspace for fear of spoilers, and they learned enough from the Strikethrough 2007 fiasco to move their shady doings out of the limelight and onto a little-read page. They're working in the dark in the hopes that fandom will be caught sleeping.
But as much as they learned from Strikethrough, they still underestimated the devotion of nerds and Internet junkies to their connections, and of fandomers to their online home. A lot of us are still here, idling in the water and dodging spoiler bullets, and we have very loud mouths and itchy typing fingers. We're going to make noise and let our friends and flist know what's going on beneath the corporate rock.
I have no faith that LJ/6A will be fair and reasonable. The withholding of this change to the TOS until after their Permanent Account sale shows that. Nor do I have the right to demand that they allow me to post my "porn". If they want to forego their common carrier status and admit responsibility for their content, thereby opening themselves to potential lawsuits, be my guest. But I do have the right to expect honesty and a clear explanation of the revised guidelines before I decide whether or not to remain on the site and accept the potential consequences that come with posting here.
faylinn_drake is having fun in L.A. with the CSI:NY gang. She was nice enough to RP a scene with me involving Wasted!Flack. Maybe after she gets back and settles in, I'll nudge her about continuing that scene with a stuffed frog, a can of chicken soup, and a rumpled tie.In more serious news, LJ has resumed its campaign against fannish endeavors with this post in
lj_biz, wherein they have decided to ban any works, fictional or not, describing "graphic" sexual contact involving minors, even if that sexual contact occurs consensually and with another minor. What constitutes graphic is dreadfully vague; at one point, LJ mouth monkey burr86 mentioned bodily fluids as an objectionable criterion. By that standard, a sloppy, inexperienced kiss could merit the banhammer. After all, saliva is a fluid.Since LJ is a private enterprise, they are free to set any rules which they so choose, rules which would not be acceptable if they were operating under the aegis of the U.S. government. However, the sheer underhandedness of the timing of this announcement, coupled with their feeble attempts to shift the blame for this decision onto nebulous, ill-defined "obscenity laws" appalls me. As more learned LJers have pointed out, obscenity has no hard and fast definition; even the U.S. Supreme Court was unable to reach a consensus. In fact, because it is so subjective, most creative work in the U.S., either written or visual, is safe because it has never met all three criteria for the Miller Test, which is used to determine obscenity.
LJ is talking out of both sides of its ass here. In his so-called clarification post,
burr86 once again stresses that "graphic" sexual situations involving minors are not permitted, but he then assures us that if a text would be permitted on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, it would be safe. If so, why are we having this discussion? Professional writers depict minors and children in sexual situations all the time. Nabokov has been mentioned, as have Stephen King and Anne Rice. What about Poppy Z. Brite or Gregory Maguire? Or Laurel K. Hamilton, who has all kinds of freaky ass-tapping in her novels? If pro writers can write scenes in which 13-year-old girls engage in a consensual gangbang(Stephen King) or fantasize about being deflowered by a demon with a giant dong(Anne Rice), why can't fans discuss and depict the same topics?Methinks it's because for all it's chest-beating about being a progressive, free-thinking nation, the U.S. is still terribly prudish about sex. Setting aside the looming specter of kiddie porn, kinky sex in all forms still makes folks squirm. Even in the 21st century, homosexual sex still gets folks' knickers in a knot, and dare I mention furries and infantilism?
We're a dichotomous, hypocritical bunch when it comes to sex. We like it and seek it out, but we don't want anybody to know that we do. It's why the mail-order porn comes in plain, brown wrappers. We wouldn't the mailman to see our copy of Bloomers and Bollocks. Sex is the dirty secret that everyone keeps.
And while we might like sex, we certainly don't want minors liking it or children being curious about it. Sex is considered an "adult" activity, and if adults acknowledge that their child is interested in sex, then they must consequently admit that their children are growing up and forming their own interests and opinions. That's terrifying for parents to consider because it connotes a loss of control, highlights their own lost youth, and foreshadows their own burgeoning irrelevance in the lives of their precious babies, into whom they have poured so much of themselves. Best to bury all evidence of sex and remove all temptation by pretending it doesn't exist, that the desire for sex magically appears under ideal conditions-when someone gets married, for instance. It never works and causes more problems than it solves, but parents keep employing the same fruitless tactics anyway in the hopes that, this at least, they can get this right.
I suspect that writers like King and Rice are less threatening to people because you can pretend not to see them if you don't want to. Their sex and violence is hidden between covers that have to be opened, inside books that have to be found. Out of sight, out of mind, and lalala, can't see you.
But Internet fiction is different. It is readily accessible with the click of a mouse, and you can find it unawares if you choose the wrong(or right) keyword. If someone searches for "Transformers", you might get official websites, but you could also find fics wherein Starscream and Megatron have hot, scraping metal sex with lots of lubricant involved. Searching on the Internet can remove willful agency from the equation for those parents too lazy to supervise their children, and the idea of their little lambs finding "surprise sex" and having questions about it is too much. Rather than modifying their Internet habits by watching where their kids go online, too many parents expect Uncle Sam and Big Brother to Disnefy the Internet. The Internet was for porn; now it's the babysitter so Mommy and Daddy can go into the bedroom and watch theirs. Viva progress.
Many critics have claimed that 6A has no clue about fandom, but I beg to differ. They certainly knew enough about it to know that the fandom with the largest online presence and the loudest voices would be largely absent from cyberspace for fear of spoilers, and they learned enough from the Strikethrough 2007 fiasco to move their shady doings out of the limelight and onto a little-read page. They're working in the dark in the hopes that fandom will be caught sleeping.
But as much as they learned from Strikethrough, they still underestimated the devotion of nerds and Internet junkies to their connections, and of fandomers to their online home. A lot of us are still here, idling in the water and dodging spoiler bullets, and we have very loud mouths and itchy typing fingers. We're going to make noise and let our friends and flist know what's going on beneath the corporate rock.
I have no faith that LJ/6A will be fair and reasonable. The withholding of this change to the TOS until after their Permanent Account sale shows that. Nor do I have the right to demand that they allow me to post my "porn". If they want to forego their common carrier status and admit responsibility for their content, thereby opening themselves to potential lawsuits, be my guest. But I do have the right to expect honesty and a clear explanation of the revised guidelines before I decide whether or not to remain on the site and accept the potential consequences that come with posting here.