Yeah, yeah, I KNOW.
Okay, I'll honestly do my best for this to be my last post on the subject, mainly because I want to go back to posting porn fannish stuff.
After the last two internetless days and reading some offline philosophy things and talking with my dad* I've decided not to FLock my posts. If I'm tossed I'm tossed, but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by writing NC17 stuff as long as I'm giving proper warnings about what I'm writing. This rant expresses why better than I would ever be possible to explain.
I'm still going to be posting my fiction over the community, mostly because every now and then I am an organization-freak and it's easier to do stuff there. I'm still thinking on crossposting my fiction to my GJ!Fic journal and possibly IJ and certainly over SI.
I do believe, whoever, will likely stop writing posts of the stuff that actually concerns me as a human being in LJ. LJ doesn't make me feel safe anymore about debate* and while I probably won't get that mad if I'm tossed about fanfiction - since I have pretty much everything saved - I WILL create a hellstorm if I'm tossed because someone decides that my thoughts about abortion/drugs/euthanasia/cancer aren't of 'artistic value' or however it is that they're calling it. Stuff about my family have already been mostly FLocked, but it's probably going to go through an even higher filter.
I repeat: I don't believe that writing and drawing means you condone whatever it is you're writing. I don't believe that if you write about murdering, that you're a murderer. I don't believe that if you write about a sociopath, it means you are a sociopath. I don't believe that if you write about minors* having sex, it means that you condone minors having sex or being abused. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me what I want to write or to believe. Even more, I refuse to believe ANYONE has the right to say - or imply, as the case might be - that I'm sick or a criminal for liking what I like, or for feeling curious about it.
* My dad is in no way a lawyer; the discussion was mostly about censorship from a general point of view. My dad said 'if things like Harlequinn and Danielle Steele and the such are published, I see no reason why other people shouldn't have the right to the same.'
* Debate or being able to express my point of view or thoughts however I want them to be and sometimes be able to express my opinion wrong and get called on it so that I can admit that I was wrong.
* The term 'minors' is vague at best. For example, I have two underaged sisters, and I'd trust more the 12 years old about being responsible if she was interested in sex (which she isn't) than I'd trust the 16 years old about it, if only for their general behaviour and level of maturity. Am I condoning them having sex? Hell no; they are my baby sisters and the idea of them having sex makes me want to hire them bodyguards. However, I do know that sooner or later (please dear God, LATER) they are going to be interested in sex, especially in the times we live.
* My dad is in no way a lawyer; the discussion was mostly about censorship from a general point of view. My dad said 'if things like Harlequinn and Danielle Steele and the such are published, I see no reason why other people shouldn't have the right to the same.'
* Debate or being able to express my point of view or thoughts however I want them to be and sometimes be able to express my opinion wrong and get called on it so that I can admit that I was wrong.
* The term 'minors' is vague at best. For example, I have two underaged sisters, and I'd trust more the 12 years old about being responsible if she was interested in sex (which she isn't) than I'd trust the 16 years old about it, if only for their general behaviour and level of maturity. Am I condoning them having sex? Hell no; they are my baby sisters and the idea of them having sex makes me want to hire them bodyguards. However, I do know that sooner or later (please dear God, LATER) they are going to be interested in sex, especially in the times we live.