admin post from daily-deviant; interracial as a kink? really?
Admin Post from the mods of daily-deviant.
Short version: removal of term, reversal of earlier stance, etc.
ETA: the below cut was more than I thought it would be. So it's less mod-actions at this point and more the concept of kink defintion.
This is vague--thoughts. I'm not sure it's even organized enough to be considered meta.
1.) I'm glad they made the reversal. Full stop.
2.) I'd like it far more if I hadn't read the mod's comments here. Not taint so much as--reading it with an eye that tends to be more cynically inclined.
3.) Yay reversal!
4.) I'm still not entirely comfortable. This could be just me, though, and not a particular judgement on this or any post.
5.) Clarifying. Well, a little. What makes me wary is not that they didn't know the word's history. Got that. Not that they didn't do an instant reversal. Though I wish they had, since knee-jerk sometimes can be a really *good* thing. I'm not even sure that they were *that* slow--all the idiotic comments prove a little known subtheory of relativity--the stupider something is, the slower time goes.
I seriously, seriously do not like the idea of interracial as a kink in fandom. I just don't. As a general fic topic--got it. Kink. Associating that with interracial relationships feels wrong. I can't quite articulate at the moment, due to all the headdesking last night, but it feels fundamentally wrong. A fic prompt on sga-flashfic that encouraged exploring interracial relationships wouldn't--I think--ping me quite like this. But--the concept of it.
Granted, at the time of the protests going around lj yesterday, it would have deflected from the issue at hand, so I'm glad it didn't--much. On one hand, it is a separate issue, but on the other--it's there now. It's a labeled kink and both my initial knee-jerk (are you *kidding me*?) and my secondary think-through to see where I was getting the squeamish vibe and if it was a.) reaction or b.) something that would have bothered me if miscegenation had never re-entered my active vocabulary--and it's yes. Yes, that does bother me. It bothers me in less of a "Jesus, that is some stupid there" and in the way of "Are you seriously stating that the act of having sex and/or procreating with another human being is kinky when there is a difference in pigmentation?"
Which I'm perfectly aware is simplifying the issue, yes. Just go with it for the sake of argument.
I think the question that occurs to me at this point is, is that so common in general that, should the kink term have *been* interracial, there wouldn't have been a blink of any kind? Or would the reactions have been considered oversensitivity? If witchqueen or witchwillow or liviapenn or pretty much anyone had stated that the concept of a prompt fetishizing race was perhaps a bad idea, would it have hit this level of discussion?
We lost the word, but the concept is alive and well and *there* now. And under any other word, I'm find it very, very hard to swallow. And by that, I mean, no. I don't think it's acceptable as a listed kink. I cannot, *cannot* find it any less *wrong* and *not* something that I can think of as anything other than obscene. Jesus, I'm using dramatic language. But it just is.
6.) One day, as group, we are going to *have* to discuss tone. So far, it only comes up when people are pissed. Granted, that's when we notice. But it's got to be covered one day when there's not a more important issue at large, because frankly, it's distracting. Yes, the message is always, always more important than the messenger. It does not matter if the messenger is your archenemy or your best friend.
Secondary to this: when we are beyond the message moment and into the aftermath. Tone can matter. During, disregard it if possible; and trsut me, it is not only perfectly possible, but pretty much expected. But that does not and has never meant that you can't take umbrage from it, be annoyed by it, and *after*, not during, set up ways for yourself in how you think a message should be spread. Just don't let *that* ever be a defining factor in how you view an argument. It's short-sighted, it's ridiculous, and it can and *does* fuck up an otherwise important discussion.
(Note: I didn't find witchqueen's original post all that incendiary, to be honest. Though I could have lived without 'honky' being reintroduced into my active vocabulary. I don't think I've heard it since The Jeffersons went off the air. But, even considering subject matter and passion involved, it was fairly clear on what the problem was, why, and provided clear context. Liked.)
I still want a pony.
Short version: removal of term, reversal of earlier stance, etc.
ETA: the below cut was more than I thought it would be. So it's less mod-actions at this point and more the concept of kink defintion.
This is vague--thoughts. I'm not sure it's even organized enough to be considered meta.
1.) I'm glad they made the reversal. Full stop.
2.) I'd like it far more if I hadn't read the mod's comments here. Not taint so much as--reading it with an eye that tends to be more cynically inclined.
3.) Yay reversal!
4.) I'm still not entirely comfortable. This could be just me, though, and not a particular judgement on this or any post.
5.) Clarifying. Well, a little. What makes me wary is not that they didn't know the word's history. Got that. Not that they didn't do an instant reversal. Though I wish they had, since knee-jerk sometimes can be a really *good* thing. I'm not even sure that they were *that* slow--all the idiotic comments prove a little known subtheory of relativity--the stupider something is, the slower time goes.
I seriously, seriously do not like the idea of interracial as a kink in fandom. I just don't. As a general fic topic--got it. Kink. Associating that with interracial relationships feels wrong. I can't quite articulate at the moment, due to all the headdesking last night, but it feels fundamentally wrong. A fic prompt on sga-flashfic that encouraged exploring interracial relationships wouldn't--I think--ping me quite like this. But--the concept of it.
Granted, at the time of the protests going around lj yesterday, it would have deflected from the issue at hand, so I'm glad it didn't--much. On one hand, it is a separate issue, but on the other--it's there now. It's a labeled kink and both my initial knee-jerk (are you *kidding me*?) and my secondary think-through to see where I was getting the squeamish vibe and if it was a.) reaction or b.) something that would have bothered me if miscegenation had never re-entered my active vocabulary--and it's yes. Yes, that does bother me. It bothers me in less of a "Jesus, that is some stupid there" and in the way of "Are you seriously stating that the act of having sex and/or procreating with another human being is kinky when there is a difference in pigmentation?"
Which I'm perfectly aware is simplifying the issue, yes. Just go with it for the sake of argument.
I think the question that occurs to me at this point is, is that so common in general that, should the kink term have *been* interracial, there wouldn't have been a blink of any kind? Or would the reactions have been considered oversensitivity? If witchqueen or witchwillow or liviapenn or pretty much anyone had stated that the concept of a prompt fetishizing race was perhaps a bad idea, would it have hit this level of discussion?
We lost the word, but the concept is alive and well and *there* now. And under any other word, I'm find it very, very hard to swallow. And by that, I mean, no. I don't think it's acceptable as a listed kink. I cannot, *cannot* find it any less *wrong* and *not* something that I can think of as anything other than obscene. Jesus, I'm using dramatic language. But it just is.
6.) One day, as group, we are going to *have* to discuss tone. So far, it only comes up when people are pissed. Granted, that's when we notice. But it's got to be covered one day when there's not a more important issue at large, because frankly, it's distracting. Yes, the message is always, always more important than the messenger. It does not matter if the messenger is your archenemy or your best friend.
Secondary to this: when we are beyond the message moment and into the aftermath. Tone can matter. During, disregard it if possible; and trsut me, it is not only perfectly possible, but pretty much expected. But that does not and has never meant that you can't take umbrage from it, be annoyed by it, and *after*, not during, set up ways for yourself in how you think a message should be spread. Just don't let *that* ever be a defining factor in how you view an argument. It's short-sighted, it's ridiculous, and it can and *does* fuck up an otherwise important discussion.
(Note: I didn't find witchqueen's original post all that incendiary, to be honest. Though I could have lived without 'honky' being reintroduced into my active vocabulary. I don't think I've heard it since The Jeffersons went off the air. But, even considering subject matter and passion involved, it was fairly clear on what the problem was, why, and provided clear context. Liked.)
I still want a pony.