[ you must chill ]

[winterlive]

everybody knows i love freedom of expression.

this ain't it. (link is nsfw and also pretty despicable, imho.)

maybe we'll all pick up and wander off or whatever. maybe fandom will decide to go all haywire and make their own space on the web, maybe we'll all have to uproot ourselves and exodus from the reign of stinky stinky six apart. but let's not make martyrs out of molehills, okay?


eta: in case i was somehow unclear, the following two things are true:
1. i find that image repulsive. personally, ethically, ugh. i also find rapefic, bestiality and torture to be by and large repulsive.
2. i cannot fault lj for banning it because it's illegal. i do not support the banning of any user over the perceived offensiveness of their material, only its legality.

eta II, much after the fact: i see that people are still keen to talk this one over. good for you. it's good to keep informed. but just so you know, a lot of information came out between the time this was posted and the three days later that some of this conversation is happening in. we know more things now, things have been confirmed, proven false, proven different. i therefore stand by two things i said in the original post: 1. sixapart stinks, and 2. you must, MUST chill. i stand by all things said in the first ETA.

Comments

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

well, that's your prerogative, of course. what i find despicable is another man's treasure, so the saying goes. i'll attach "imho" to it, to make it clearer.

[fodian.livejournal.com]

Please.

Obviously ,it's "imho". I don't think you have to label it as such. This is just the way LJ works. You said something, I'm responding to it. I don't pretend we have to agree or that my opinion is more valid than yours.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

i'm not trying to be clever with you, man, i'm just trying to respond.

in your first comment, you said you didn't think it should be banned or deleted. now you say you were addressing just the despicable part - which is a difference of opinion that i was trying to address.

i know you and kita have a longstanding thing about how nobody should tell you what you can and can't get off on, and i have long agreed with that. i won't say it's easy for me to make a call like this, to draw a line where i haven't had to before. i feel like i've made the right call, but i'm open to discussion about it.

i do get the sense that i've offended you by calling it despicable, though, and so i apologize for offending you... but i still do think it's depicting something awful. you're entitled to disagree, of course, and i certainly don't pretend any authority either.

[fodian.livejournal.com]

But I think those things go hand in hand; I don't find the picture to be despicable, ergo I don't think it should be banned or deleted. On top of that, I feel very strongly that it shouldn't be banned or deleted for other various reasons as well.

You didn't offend me. I'm upset, though. It's hard to have something that you find hot to be labeled as despicable. I don't take it personally, but it did hit a chord with me. I apologize in turn if I'm being curt as a result. I'm not upset *at* you...I'm just. I like that picture.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

wrt your post below to cee, i understand the value you described and i support it. you're right, all those things are worthwhile and good.

i think, though, that that context provides a respect for the subject that is otherwise missing. just shoving it on the internet, blah, porn, that's bad - but i think if it had been accompanied by the idea that it was there to push those boundaries, there to spark discussion, that it might not have been gotten ponderosa suspended, y'know?

and i think there's a reasonable expectation that some context should be provided, given the content. i mean, you shouldn't have to excuse yourself or hide, but at the same time i feel like a certain respect needs to be extended to the subject in order to give it any legitimacy. the trouble with what we usually think of as "kiddie porn" is that the viewer can't distinguish between fiction and reality, that they don't respect real children and the limits and boundaries that are around them for, i'm sure anybody would agree, very good reasons. so i feel like LJ might have found that imagery defensible if there was some indication that the interest wasn't purely prurient. see what i mean?

[fodian.livejournal.com]

I do understand what you mean. I couldn't disagree more.

First of all, let me reiterate the first part of my repsonse to Cee. There is intrinsic value in a piece of art that is designed to get you off. That may have been the only reason why Ponderosa drew that picture. And if it was, that in an of itself would have been -- should have been -- enough. Whatever else we as consumers of fannish content take away from fannish creations is gravy. When I write porn, I'm thinking at least in part of the things that I find hot and hoping that other people find it hot, too. If a specific piece of my work makes people examine themselves or their sexuality or gender issues or power dynamics or what have you, that is awesome. If someone takes what I've written and prints it out and takes it to bed with them and uses it to get off and then throws the piece away and never thinks about it again, that, too, is awesome. Is one ore worthier than the other? I don't think so. "Purely prurient" is a pretty good reason to create something. I'm pretty sure you've created for that reason more than once yourself. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, yes, as far as LJ is concerned, they're acting with the information they're given. I uderstand that. I'm really not here to discuss whether or not LJ was "right" or "wrong" in deleting Ponderosa's journal. I'm speaking very directly to you and your opinon of the art, including, now, this: i feel like a certain respect needs to be extended to the subject in order to give it any legitimacy. the trouble with what we usually think of as "kiddie porn" is that the viewer can't distinguish between fiction and reality, that they don't respect real children and the limits and boundaries that are around them for, i'm sure anybody would agree, very good reasons.

What I find really disturbing is the sense that I get that you're saying that an artist should be limited by how their art work may be abused or misconstrued. In essence, you are saying "Judas Priest should not be able to sing about suicide because there are disturbed people who will kill themselves after listening to it." Obviously there are people out there who are not able to distinguish between reality and fiction. There are also people out there who are able to do so. Who comes first?

But *especially* when it comes to fannish creations, the idea of context is very loaded. Because we assume -- all of us -- that our audience is bringing a certain amount of background knowledge with them. I personally assume that readers of my RPS will come in to the story knowing full well that Vincent Kartheiser is not, in fact, taking it up the ass repeatedly from James Marsters. I assume that my audience will come into an Angel/Connor piece understanding that incest is, in fact, a terrible, soul-sucking, life-upsetting, permanently-scarring act that should in no way be condoned or supported. I am not, however, responsible for ensuring that all of the members of my audience believe this before they click on the link. I am not reponsible for ensuring that my work "respects" incest or real persons or even children -- I do respect those things and I assume that my readers do as well. But to bring it back to fannish creations in particular -- this Snape/Harry piece doesn't exist in the vaccum. Just like all fannish creations, it comes with it an understanding of what the Harry/Snape sexual-relationship-during-detention entails -- mostly, an abuse of power and this piece is depicting that abuse of power at it's most extreme. To suggest that Ponderosa should have attached a summary of why this dynamic is attractive, or an explanation of what this attraction Means. No. No, I don't think so.

[traveller.livejournal.com]

But to bring it back to fannish creations in particular -- this Snape/Harry piece doesn't exist in the vaccum. Just like all fannish creations, it comes with it an understanding of what the Harry/Snape sexual-relationship-during-detention entails -- mostly, an abuse of power and this piece is depicting that abuse of power at its most extreme. To suggest that Ponderosa should have attached a summary of why this dynamic is attractive, or an explanation of what this attraction Means. No. No, I don't think so.

As much as I would like believe that all fen who click on a link to a story or a drawing (reserving the word 'art' here, because frequently it's NOT) are doing so with full awareness of all the ramifications of what that piece is saying, I think you're giving the punters too much credit. Most people do not click on something rated NC-17 because they are interested in thinking about consequences, responsibility, and meaning.

Now, I've seen your point that titillation alone is a valid end, and that's perhaps possible, to a degree. But there are consequences when disseminating items like this picture. One of the most loudly shouted defences when folks are tearing up other people's work is "it's out there in public, they should expect the consequences." If you are putting out in public a drawing of a crying come-covered nine year old, then you must be prepared for the consequences. Art cannot exist without responsibility, and what you seem to be arguing is that it MUST exist without responsibility. That is, frankly, bullshit. To claim that just because it gets you off it should not be subject to the same technical, and ethical scrutiny as any other publicly shared work is beyond irresponsible.

You are taking a stand in support of a depiction of a child being harmed. That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter that the child is fictional -- it is still an image that has consequences. It is still an image without redeeming social or cultural value, and that is why it is not art. It doesn't matter whether or not you get off on it. Its right to be shared with the public is contingent upon its holding up its end of the social contract, and this piece fails in that regard.

[fodian.livejournal.com]

It is still an image without redeeming social or cultural value, and that is why it is not art.

Art does not have a responsibility to have redeeming social or cultural value and what is and is not art is certainly up for debate at perhaps an infinite number of levels. I get that *you* do not find value for this work and consider it harmful. I disagree.

I never said that it doesn't matter if the child is fictional or not nor did I say that the image doesn't have consequences. I said that it matters that the child is Harry Potter, that as a fannish creation, it is not meant to exist outside of fannish context. If this were a depiction of a random child with a random adult, I wouldn't find it titillating at all and might, in fact, find it incredibly offensive. If this were a depiction of two fannish characters that I'm unfamiliar with, I wouldn't find it titillating at all and might, in fact, find it incredibly offensive. Of *course* the image has consequences -- actions have consequences. I'm saying that negative consequences do not negate the value of a piece of art. A song about shooting cops may lead to someone actually following through with said action. But I can not agree that the song should not be recorded, nor can I agree that the song has no value because of the consequences associated with it.

[winterlive.livejournal.com]

well, what DOES give art value, if not that?

you say that people come to fannish creations with a shared understanding of context. how, then, is it that some people imagine underage harry/snape to be true love? how is it that characterizations can vary so widely, that the idea of abuse of power is completely absent in so many of those fics - and in john winchester/his sons, in giles/teen-buffy, and more? fannish context is subjective. there is wide interpretation, and it is most assuredly not the same for everybody.

is there ANY line at which something is simply irresponsible? misogyny, racism, child pornography - all fine?

[fodian.livejournal.com]

well, what DOES give art value, if not that?

I. Okay, I don't know how to respond to this because it seems like such a fundamental point that I really feel like I must be misunderstanding you. Art doesn't have a responsibility to *do* anything. Sometimes art does have redeeming or cultural value and that is fantastic. But sometimes art is just a representation of a perspective. As a fannish person in particular - I mean, do you imagine that every single piece of SPN RPS has a socially or culturally significant value? I'm not asking this question facetiously; I'm genuinely curious now. What is the cultural significance of a story in which Jensen gets drunk and gives Padelecki a sloppy blowjob? (I'm making this up, I haven't read any SPN RPS so I'm not pointing to any particular story). But maybe you would say that a story like that isn't art either, in which case, okay, let's drop the lofty modifiers. Let's say that Ponderosa's picture is just that - a pornographic drawing. Let's say it's not, in fact, art. That doesn't mean it stops being meaningful or important for other reasons, even if they're purely personal ones. As I said before, even if I am the only person in the world that looks at that picture and asks myself questions about my own sexuality, my own kinks, my own issues and my own pleasures (and I am not) -- isn't there value in that?

fannish context is subjective. there is wide interpretation, and it is most assuredly not the same for everybody.

I think you're conflating input with output here. I'm not talking about all the different interpretations that come *out* of a piece of fannish work, I'm talking about the communal input that goes into appreciating a fannish work. It's absolutely true that out of 5 different Snape/Harry shippers who look at this picture, 5 different interpretations and reactions may arise. What I'm talking about is what *does* bind those 5 people -- that they are, in fact, Snape/Harry shippers. Let me put it another way -- when I look at Stargate vids, I feel nothing. In fact, what I probably feel is annoyance and confusion that people cry over someone with hair that funny and his little chubby geek friend. I'm looking at the vids without any context. Context is important in fandom. It's certainly subjective, but the differences within the context is less important than whether you have that context or not to start with. But let me be clear: it's important to *me* that that picture depicts Harry and Snape and not some other random, unfamiliar characters. I find it hot particularly because because it's the two of them and because of all the attendant background surrounding those characters that *I* bring to the picture.

is there ANY line at which something is simply irresponsible? misogyny, racism, child pornography - all fine?

Well, those are very good questions. And exactly why pictures like this should not be banned. If just so that we can kick up discussions like this one in which we can hash out what is and is not objectionable. You know as well as I do that there's a large faction of gay men in fandom who find slash written by women to be extremely objectionable. You know that there are factions who think that men writing femmeslash to get off on the idea of two women is incredibly misogynistic. You know that there are people who would find the act of writing only white characters from a TV show to be representative of the racism in our culture. The answer is not to stop writing slash or to stop writing white characters or to stop men from writing femmeslash. The answer is to keep writing, to keep creating, to keep asking ourselves those questions. I ask myself, when I look at this picture, "What does it mean that I find this hot?" Without the picture's existence, I couldn't ask myself that question. We couldn't have this discussion at all.

[scarletscarlet.livejournal.com]

This is a wonderfully thoughtful exchange, and I've been finding this thread in particular, quite fascinating. The "context" part is quite a big deal for me, I think; I find Snarry incredibly appealing and engaging, and iirc, really liked the Detention Served story (I don't remember the picture very well, although I know I've seen it, and I don't believe I've ever taken offense over a Ponderosa image).

But. Yeah. Context - the same story with different characters might just be upsetting. Snape and school-age Colin Creevey, for example, or a young Padma Patil - the idea of that is rather disconcerting. I don't have an interpretation of Hermione that works with my interpretation of Snape, so for me, Snape/Hermione very rarely gels no matter the age or situation (maybe once or twice, in a threesome situation with Harry, older). I once read a Lucius/young-Ron that had me reaching for the brain bleach. And even then, I have this huge net of context for the characters that imbues any interaction with more significance than just the absolute act. Lucius/Ron is an act of revenge against Arthur. Even so - doesn't work for me. But that's just me.

I've read the odd SPN story, and for me, they read as nearly pure porn-with-plot - I've seen one episode, and have barely any context. The effect was even more pronounced for a Final Fantasy (er - I don't know which number) story - the characters could have been named Bob and Jim and it would have had just as much effect as reading about (iirc) Reno and Rufus.

Snape and Harry have this long-running, complex and antagonistic relationship that fascinates me. I've read all kinds of explorations of it, from complete gen to NC-17, purely parental (reluctant parent/accepting caregiver) to abusive teacher to wartime-comrades to post-war-veterans finding common ground... and even the stuff when Harry is too young (and believe me, there is always the awareness that he is *too* young) is similarly fascinating for me, because while Voldemort is this fairly nebulous threat, Snape is almost a personal bogeyman. I'm not explaining this very well at all, I think :-/.

I have friends who adore Harry/Draco and squick over Snape/Harry, because the only label they attach is teacher/student or inter-generational.

Still. Sometimes it *is* just porn :). But even then, I'm very much aware of who's involved and their history.

[traveller.livejournal.com]

No, the possibility or even likelihood of negative consequences does not negate the value of a piece of art -- but refusal to accept responsibility for your actions as the creator or consumer certainly lessens your value as a member of society.

[fodian.livejournal.com]

I do not refuse to accept responsibility for my actions as a creator or consumer. But I can not, as a creator, accept responsibility for every consumer of my work. I can only accept that my work may be offensive or harmful and question my own motivations and act accordingly. As a consumer, I can not be held responsible for all the other consumers out there. I can only accept that I enjoy something that may be offensive or harmful and question my own reactions and act accordingly. I will never, ever agree that the solution is to stop potentially offensive or harmful works from being created. And I think supporting the ban of creative endeavors merely because you find them offensive or harmful lessens your value as a member of society.