Thoughts on protecting the porn
I've been reading around about the whole journal deletion thing I asked about earlier. Two conclusions come to mind:
1) Livejournal was probably too harsh. Removal of the posts would have been enough for a first offense.
2) The prevailing fandom opinion seems to be in support of artwork that condones a 40 year old man sucking off a fifteen year old boy. (As a side-note: I don't think the issue is whether or not Harry in that picture really is 15 or 16 or 20. I think the picture is actually pretty ambiguous; he could as easily be a boyishly built man as he could be a teenager. I also think that the ambiguity is what sunk the artist. However, I haven't seen--possibly due to not looking in the right places, possibly not--any opinions that the art would have been problematic if there'd been a birthday cake with 15 candles on it included in the picture.) (Second side-note: 15 is the youngest I could imagine the Harry in that picture being, hence picking that particular age.)
I have trouble getting behind #2. I know that's really not a popular opinion throughout much of fandom. Cries of "freedom of speech" and "it's just fantasy" and "don't oppress the porn" drown out any questions of "what the hell are we actually doing here?"; "protect the children" is the punchline to a joke. And, really, an artistic work about fictional characters doesn't harm the subjects of the artwork at all because they don't really exist, so it's definitely a different issue than if real people were being depicted; it's an even bigger difference than if real people were physically doing the act that's depicted. On the scale of "morally despicable" vs. "problematic", I'd say artwork like that is way more toward the "problematic" end.
What disturbs me is that a large, very vocal portion of fandom ignores the "problematic" in favor of "protect the porn". I'm in the process of trying to figure out where I personally stand on this issue, so these are more thoughts than concrete beliefs. I'm an English major, and I specialized in literature rather than grammar, so I spent a lot of time discussing fictional works both in classes when I was in college, and then later with my students as I was (am) teaching. One of the opinions that's grown out of those discussions is that literature--and by extention, other forms of artistic expression--have the ability to reflect the human condition. It comes as news to no one that "the human condition" is flawed; for every act of heroism and compassion, there's an equal act of horror and base selfishness. The ability to express all of these things, and the millions of other facets that make humans the complex creatures that they are, is what makes any sort of artistic endeavor come alive. That, to me, is what "artistic or literary merit" is about: the ability to illuminate in some fashion the complexity of humanity (and the natural world, but that's not really the issue at hand here).
It goes without saying that depictions of various forms of sexuality can fall under the umbrella of artistic/literary merit. IMO, it shouldn't need to be said that some illuminate nothing about humanity except that certain individual humans' genitals and reproductive systems are in full working order at that particular time. Which of the two a person is viewing depends somewhat on the content of the actual work of art, and somewhat on the interpretation of the viewer. To me--and that specification is important here--the Snape/Harry artwork (NSFW) in question actually does have that element of "illuminating the human condition" due to one factor: Snape and Harry's clasped hands, a touch of emotion and human connection that transcends mere sexual gratification. **Footnote on this at the bottom**
That's one side of the coin. The other comes when you view the Harry in that picture as 15, or to make it more universal, when you consider the case of any work of art/literature that depicts 40-ish Snape in sexual relations with 15-ish Harry. (You could substitute "40-ish adult with 15-ish teenager" if you don't want to get into the whole Snape/Harry thing.) For the following comments, I'm assuming that the adult and teenager in question are not real; I'm not looking at the specific damage that might or might not happen in that type of real-world relationship. I don't think anyone's debating that the potential for harm is there. I also don't think that the large, vocal "protect the porn" section of fandom is advocating as a general rule that 40 year olds have sexual relations with 15 year olds. In fact, I strongly suspect that many, if not most, of them would object to such a thing happening in real life. So, no, I'm not calling anyone a pedophile or pedophile-wannabe.
What I am saying is that, IMO, there is a problem with the implicit suggestion that a 40-ish adult engaging in sexual relations with a 15 year old is okay. In fact, not only okay, but something to be celebrated, and the right to celebrate it should be fought for. I can't twist that around in my head to be a good thing. I'm not going to get into a big, detailed discussion here, but research shows us that the teenage brain isn't fully developed intellectually or emotionally; in addition, there is a power differential between adults and teens. Those factors make any adult/teen relationship potentially abusive in a way that teen/teen or adult/adult relationships usually aren't (allowing for, of course, the inevitable individual exceptions and "adult"/"teen" relationships where they're really only a year or two apart in age.)
So, we have the "illuminating the human condition" factor on one hand, and the "condoning the sexual exploitation of teenagers" factor on the other. For the second factor, btw, I'd like to emphasis the word condoning, just to be sure that everyone understands that I'm not under the impression that the sexual exploitation is really happening; what's happening is that it's being given a seal of approval within the context of the fantasy/fiction/pick your word being depicted. Many would argue that the fantasy/fiction aspect makes all the difference; as long as it's not really happening, anything goes. That position obviously favors the "illuminating the human condition" factor; the morality of the action being fantasized isn't as important (or of any importance, maybe) in comparison to the fact that the artist is depicting something that is an aspect of human behavior. Some would add that the sexual gratification they get from such depictions gives the depiction its own intrinsic value entirely aside from what it shows about humanity.
I'm not certain I agree with that. If art/literature depicts an act that would, if performed in reality, harm some/all of the participants, and if the act is being shown in a way that condones the act without irony, is it possible that the art/literature A) loses its "artistic or literary merit", or even if it doesn't, B) should be condemned or at least not supported and fought for? That was a complicated sentence. Let me try again: Is it possible that what's morally right should trump pure, unevaluated (unjudged? not sure of the word I'm looking for here) freedom of expression?
This is the point where the slippery slope argument comes in, I'm sure. Yes, there are people who would go to that Snape/Harry picture, assume Harry was at least 20, and still think it was wrong due to the fact that it was two men involved. However, I'm not sure they'd have a lot of success arguing that the people involved, if real, would be harmed by the act in a measurable way ("burning in hell" being a fairly unprovable style of harm). Ample evidence, on the other hand, exists to prove that sexual exploitation of children--including teenagers--does harm them both psychologically and often physically. I think that criteria could be set up where, as I said above, A) harm would come to some/all of the participants if the acts occurred in reality; B) the harm is measurable/provable; C) the act is obviously shown in a positive light. Under those criteria, do we want to support the artist's freedom of expression and/or "protect the porn" over taking a stand that the acts depicted are wrong?
(Let me note here that I'm not saying the picture I keep referencing fits the criteria I just listed. At this point, I'm talking about works in general.)
Truthfully, I don't know the answer to this question. Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that I'm not confident, from the posts I've been seeing, that the "protect the porn" section of fandom is even thinking about the question at all. From what I've observed over the years, the minute someone starts implying that something involving sex might be problematic, there is an immediate dogpile of "you can't tell me what to write/draw/make shadow puppets about". Sometimes, this happens to the exclusion of any discussion about the specific problems that were brought up--it's like, you imply anything sexual isn't good, people read it as "everything sexual is bad". The defensive, knee-jerk, "protect the porn at all costs" attitude gets in the way of rational thought.
Now, in general, I'm for protecting the porn, although in a responsible manner (clear labeling, for example, which manages to protect the porn and the children to the extent that they'll allow themselves to be protected). I'm just questioning whether all the porn needs to be protected with the same level of ferocity. Obviously, I will have to think more on this.
**Promised footnote: I'm in agreement with the argument that sexual gratification is, in and of itself, a reason for viewing art/literature/porn. I'm not convinced that sexual gratification trumps moral responsibility, however. It's my opinion, and I'm very aware that it's an opinion and many don't share it, that sexual fantasies about children/teens are not a place that people should allow their minds to go. Yes, that is a judgment on some people's fantasy life. Please keep in mind the difference between judging something as wrong and having any power to stop it whatsoever.
1) Livejournal was probably too harsh. Removal of the posts would have been enough for a first offense.
2) The prevailing fandom opinion seems to be in support of artwork that condones a 40 year old man sucking off a fifteen year old boy. (As a side-note: I don't think the issue is whether or not Harry in that picture really is 15 or 16 or 20. I think the picture is actually pretty ambiguous; he could as easily be a boyishly built man as he could be a teenager. I also think that the ambiguity is what sunk the artist. However, I haven't seen--possibly due to not looking in the right places, possibly not--any opinions that the art would have been problematic if there'd been a birthday cake with 15 candles on it included in the picture.) (Second side-note: 15 is the youngest I could imagine the Harry in that picture being, hence picking that particular age.)
I have trouble getting behind #2. I know that's really not a popular opinion throughout much of fandom. Cries of "freedom of speech" and "it's just fantasy" and "don't oppress the porn" drown out any questions of "what the hell are we actually doing here?"; "protect the children" is the punchline to a joke. And, really, an artistic work about fictional characters doesn't harm the subjects of the artwork at all because they don't really exist, so it's definitely a different issue than if real people were being depicted; it's an even bigger difference than if real people were physically doing the act that's depicted. On the scale of "morally despicable" vs. "problematic", I'd say artwork like that is way more toward the "problematic" end.
What disturbs me is that a large, very vocal portion of fandom ignores the "problematic" in favor of "protect the porn". I'm in the process of trying to figure out where I personally stand on this issue, so these are more thoughts than concrete beliefs. I'm an English major, and I specialized in literature rather than grammar, so I spent a lot of time discussing fictional works both in classes when I was in college, and then later with my students as I was (am) teaching. One of the opinions that's grown out of those discussions is that literature--and by extention, other forms of artistic expression--have the ability to reflect the human condition. It comes as news to no one that "the human condition" is flawed; for every act of heroism and compassion, there's an equal act of horror and base selfishness. The ability to express all of these things, and the millions of other facets that make humans the complex creatures that they are, is what makes any sort of artistic endeavor come alive. That, to me, is what "artistic or literary merit" is about: the ability to illuminate in some fashion the complexity of humanity (and the natural world, but that's not really the issue at hand here).
It goes without saying that depictions of various forms of sexuality can fall under the umbrella of artistic/literary merit. IMO, it shouldn't need to be said that some illuminate nothing about humanity except that certain individual humans' genitals and reproductive systems are in full working order at that particular time. Which of the two a person is viewing depends somewhat on the content of the actual work of art, and somewhat on the interpretation of the viewer. To me--and that specification is important here--the Snape/Harry artwork (NSFW) in question actually does have that element of "illuminating the human condition" due to one factor: Snape and Harry's clasped hands, a touch of emotion and human connection that transcends mere sexual gratification. **Footnote on this at the bottom**
That's one side of the coin. The other comes when you view the Harry in that picture as 15, or to make it more universal, when you consider the case of any work of art/literature that depicts 40-ish Snape in sexual relations with 15-ish Harry. (You could substitute "40-ish adult with 15-ish teenager" if you don't want to get into the whole Snape/Harry thing.) For the following comments, I'm assuming that the adult and teenager in question are not real; I'm not looking at the specific damage that might or might not happen in that type of real-world relationship. I don't think anyone's debating that the potential for harm is there. I also don't think that the large, vocal "protect the porn" section of fandom is advocating as a general rule that 40 year olds have sexual relations with 15 year olds. In fact, I strongly suspect that many, if not most, of them would object to such a thing happening in real life. So, no, I'm not calling anyone a pedophile or pedophile-wannabe.
What I am saying is that, IMO, there is a problem with the implicit suggestion that a 40-ish adult engaging in sexual relations with a 15 year old is okay. In fact, not only okay, but something to be celebrated, and the right to celebrate it should be fought for. I can't twist that around in my head to be a good thing. I'm not going to get into a big, detailed discussion here, but research shows us that the teenage brain isn't fully developed intellectually or emotionally; in addition, there is a power differential between adults and teens. Those factors make any adult/teen relationship potentially abusive in a way that teen/teen or adult/adult relationships usually aren't (allowing for, of course, the inevitable individual exceptions and "adult"/"teen" relationships where they're really only a year or two apart in age.)
So, we have the "illuminating the human condition" factor on one hand, and the "condoning the sexual exploitation of teenagers" factor on the other. For the second factor, btw, I'd like to emphasis the word condoning, just to be sure that everyone understands that I'm not under the impression that the sexual exploitation is really happening; what's happening is that it's being given a seal of approval within the context of the fantasy/fiction/pick your word being depicted. Many would argue that the fantasy/fiction aspect makes all the difference; as long as it's not really happening, anything goes. That position obviously favors the "illuminating the human condition" factor; the morality of the action being fantasized isn't as important (or of any importance, maybe) in comparison to the fact that the artist is depicting something that is an aspect of human behavior. Some would add that the sexual gratification they get from such depictions gives the depiction its own intrinsic value entirely aside from what it shows about humanity.
I'm not certain I agree with that. If art/literature depicts an act that would, if performed in reality, harm some/all of the participants, and if the act is being shown in a way that condones the act without irony, is it possible that the art/literature A) loses its "artistic or literary merit", or even if it doesn't, B) should be condemned or at least not supported and fought for? That was a complicated sentence. Let me try again: Is it possible that what's morally right should trump pure, unevaluated (unjudged? not sure of the word I'm looking for here) freedom of expression?
This is the point where the slippery slope argument comes in, I'm sure. Yes, there are people who would go to that Snape/Harry picture, assume Harry was at least 20, and still think it was wrong due to the fact that it was two men involved. However, I'm not sure they'd have a lot of success arguing that the people involved, if real, would be harmed by the act in a measurable way ("burning in hell" being a fairly unprovable style of harm). Ample evidence, on the other hand, exists to prove that sexual exploitation of children--including teenagers--does harm them both psychologically and often physically. I think that criteria could be set up where, as I said above, A) harm would come to some/all of the participants if the acts occurred in reality; B) the harm is measurable/provable; C) the act is obviously shown in a positive light. Under those criteria, do we want to support the artist's freedom of expression and/or "protect the porn" over taking a stand that the acts depicted are wrong?
(Let me note here that I'm not saying the picture I keep referencing fits the criteria I just listed. At this point, I'm talking about works in general.)
Truthfully, I don't know the answer to this question. Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that I'm not confident, from the posts I've been seeing, that the "protect the porn" section of fandom is even thinking about the question at all. From what I've observed over the years, the minute someone starts implying that something involving sex might be problematic, there is an immediate dogpile of "you can't tell me what to write/draw/make shadow puppets about". Sometimes, this happens to the exclusion of any discussion about the specific problems that were brought up--it's like, you imply anything sexual isn't good, people read it as "everything sexual is bad". The defensive, knee-jerk, "protect the porn at all costs" attitude gets in the way of rational thought.
Now, in general, I'm for protecting the porn, although in a responsible manner (clear labeling, for example, which manages to protect the porn and the children to the extent that they'll allow themselves to be protected). I'm just questioning whether all the porn needs to be protected with the same level of ferocity. Obviously, I will have to think more on this.
**Promised footnote: I'm in agreement with the argument that sexual gratification is, in and of itself, a reason for viewing art/literature/porn. I'm not convinced that sexual gratification trumps moral responsibility, however. It's my opinion, and I'm very aware that it's an opinion and many don't share it, that sexual fantasies about children/teens are not a place that people should allow their minds to go. Yes, that is a judgment on some people's fantasy life. Please keep in mind the difference between judging something as wrong and having any power to stop it whatsoever.