Won't somebody think of the children?

[sqbr]

Recently there's been a huge ruckus as livejournal has (inconsistently and hamfistedly) tried to rid itself of pedophiles and visual pornography involving minors. (EDIT: Which I think they're well within their rights to do, I just think they screwed up the execution) One of their more controversial stances has been to lump drawn pictures of fictional characters with actual photographs, calling it all "child porn". (EDIT: they didn't just ban both, they explicitly said they're the same) This attitude is not uncommon in society at large. (I say having read the justifications for Australia's inconsistently strict child porn rules)

This attitude bothers me a lot, and after much thought I've recently realised why. In short: these people have forgoten that child porn isn't wrong because it's gross. It's wrong because making it involves hurting actual children.

The obvious and common reponse to those who object to erotic deptions of fictional minors(*) is to argue that noone is being hurt by the creation of this stuff, and that liking fictional depictions of a given act is not the same as doing the act itself, otherwise everyone who likes horror films is a murderer etc. I think this argument has a certain weight to it in principle, but personally feel a strong intuition that liking fiction with violent or otherwise antisocial themes(**) is not the same as liking porn with those themes, though I'm still trying to think out a reasoned argument to back this up. Anyway, I'm not 100% convinced that violent fiction is harmless, though I like certain violent fiction too much to say it's all bad :)

Also I personally can't stand seeing bad or disturbing things happen to children, real or fictional. It's a thing with me. (I mean I similarly can't stand zombies, so I'm not sure it's a moral thing, but it's certainly a thing)

So I don't object to livejournal's stance out of a strong sense of solidarity with the pornographers. I've realised my problem is people objecting to child porn not out of any concern for the wellbeing of actual physical children but out of moral repugnance for the "unnatural" attraction that creates it. I get the feeling these people would rather an adult beat or otherwise non-sexually abuse a child than think sexual thoughts about them. That they would rather put effort into hounding people who draw erotic depictions of fictional characters than groups who give support to the victims of actual abuse. That they don't want to help the children, they want to punish the perverts, and whether or not those perverts have actually hurt anyone isn't the point.

I'm not saying it's wrong to object to, or even ban, particular types of porn even if the acts it depicts did not actually happen, just that it's wrong to equate "thought crimes" with actual crimes, and that doing so is a disservice to the victims of the latter.
EDIT: See also Polanski, "Hounddog" and 13-year-old voices

NOTE: As always, off topic comments or flames go here. Also PLEASE read all the comments before replying, I've clarified a few things after people made a bunch of different intelligent points. (This paragraph has yet to be neccesary but I like to be prepared :))

(*)Another is that apparently most of these stories involve "children" in their late teens, a group frequently presented as sexual objects in the mainstream media, and who it is often legal to have actual sex with. Which has nothing to do with my point, but I thought I'd bring it up before someone else did :)
(**)There's a huge subgenre of non-erotic fiction about child abuse (Look at Law and Order:SVU), using it as a quick way of creating angst precisely because the audience finds it abhorrent. I still dislike the genre, mind you, but it's not the same as porn on the same subject (admittedly, since I can't bring myself to consume either genre this is all a bit theoretical)

Comments

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

I must admit;I find myself squicked by the underage slash for a slightly different reason than the "it might promote the offense" one.

People convicted of child sex offenses often(*) have significant misconceptions as to the sexuality that a child feels; they will attribute adult notions and feelings *and motivations* to a child's actions. Which means, as noted above, that innocent behaviour on the part of a child may be perceived as being overtly sexual; even flirtatious. In this, they fail to understand that children have utterly different thought processes to adults. Not to mention a widely disparate set of priorities.

It concerns me that people can write fics in which a child (especially a pre-adolescent) acts with adult intent. In which behaviour is rationalised in a way that a real child would never manage. I say this because by making the underage character a willing participant in the process it implies that they are "just a small adult". To imply that they will a) cope with the incident as being normal, b) find it enjoyable and rewarding and c) have no fallout later in life from the abuse is misleading, and dismissive of the real-life victims of abuse.

To put it into fan-fic terms, it is the worst out-of-character that can possibly be done. Even the ones where Snape is all sweetness and light, and really just a noble misunderstood soul who wants to have lots of friends doesn't come close. He may be on the good side, but he's still a snarky bastard. And children are still children.

Now, the waters do muddy a bit when it comes to post-adolescents. Certainly, a fifteen year old has sexual impulses (duh!). What they do not have is maturity; a sense of proportion about relationships, a solidified sense of worth, and a formalised self-identity. By ending up in a non-platonic relationship with a significantly older person, the development of these fundamental aspects of character may become distorted. The younger person may try to delay their own development (in order to please the older one), become overly dependant, start to indulge in adult risk-taking (to appear more mature!) etc. *And that assumes that they are in a voluntary relationship*. When the sexual nature of the situation is not welcome, they can be incredibly badly hurt; some do not recover, and for some the situation becomes terminal.

*Those who have no such misconceptions about the cognitive processes of the pre-adolescent brain must, therefore, be fully aware of the lack of any excuse for their behaviour. ie they know that they are causing active harm by their actions.


Darn. I've ranted again. I'll shut up now.

[alias_sqbr]

Nah, ranting is ok. I'm a bit sleepy to reply right now, but I agree. Then again, the teenager-who-acts(and looks)-like-an-adult trope is hardly restricted to fanfic, it pops up everywhere: Buffy, anime schoolgirls etc.

[alias_sqbr]

Something which has been brought up in the discussions I've read about this stuff is the difference between fantasy and realism. Pretty much all romances (which in the case of fanfic, is a superset of the porn) have unrealistic portrayals of relationships, often romanticizing stuff which would actually be really unhealthy in real life for dramatic reasons. Not just the portrayal of teenagers, but the way women tend to be dominated by strong, overbearing men (leading to rape fantasies taken to it's extreme), the glamorisation of what is effectively stalking, lots of stuff. It's one of the reasons I don't like Georgette Heyer(*)

There's this divide between people who object to fiction encouraging unhealthy attitudes and those who see it as a necesary vent for people's fantasies. I tend towards the first group, but that may be because I can't suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy it. There's people who object to Pirates of the Carribean becuase of it's unrealistic portrayal of pirates, but I'm not quite as extreme a proponent as that :)

I tend not to read stories about teengers since either they're out of character or they're about realistic teenagers, neither of which is very appealing. But even fanfic about adults often makes them (imo) out of character in order to satisfy the readers desire for shmoopy romance or adorable hijinks or whatever. It irritates me (...except when it happens to be the sort of unrealistic story I like, in which cases I enjoy it.) For example, Spike/Buffy romances tend to totally gloss over some Serious Issues they would have to overcome and to me it often reads as misogynistic and condoning rape.

(*)Aside: local second hand bookstore has a bunch. Are you still looking for any?

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

Okay, my comment couldn't post as it's about a thousand characters too long so I turned it into a post. See here (http://nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com/8462.html) (it's friends locked so lemme know if it's inaccessible)

[alias_sqbr]

Nope, I can see it. Will reply when not at work and thus rather furtive about posts on such topics :)

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

LOL!