Regarding my comments in my previous post

[icarus]

Re: fandom_scruples:

1 - Password protections are simply for the parents' peace of mind and don't work.

2 - Children who 'stumble' on porn hit the back button. Note how quick they are are to get rid that sexy pop-up in LiveJournal. Most kids who read adult content are actively seeking it. And this is nothing new.

3 - Children should either not be allowed to view TV/Access the internet until they're older, or be taught your values and why you feel certain ways about certain materials. They do listen.

4 - It takes a certain hubris to attempt to rewire the world to suit your children yourself. When you force your will on others, for any pallid excuse, you almost always piss people off.

One can either cover the entire surface of the world with leather, or one can wear shoes on ones own feet. ~ Shantideva

The latter is far simpler.

Teach your kids. Because the world will not change to suit you. That isn't how it works.


First, keeping things from kids.

It sounds good in principle, but it doesn't take into account the nature of kids, who are not as innocent or stupid as we'd like to think. We aren't 'protecting the innocent' who might bumble into some porn. We are battling a skilled and determined assault.

These passwords are only there to give adults peace of mind. They don't work, and anyone who thinks they do has forgotten their fake IDs in high school. The strategy of changing the nature of the world around children was impossible when there were only titty magazines.

I always point to those 'child-proof' bottles as evidence as to just how successful that strategy is. Often only the kids can open them. Kids are pretty good at getting around our passwords, etc. When I was a kid there weren't even PCs, and we still got hold of porn magazines (some of them pretty, ugh). The whole concept of innocent children stumbling onto and corrupted by what they see is erroneous.

First, it's rare that a kid 'accidentally' stumbles on internet porn of any kind and keeps reading/looking. If it wasn't what they were looking for, kids - confused, appalled - hit the back button just as fast as everyone else. More often than not, kids actively seek what is 'forbidden' and then it's really hard to keep them out of the gears.

This 'poor little innocent children' theory assumes a couple things:

1 - that kids are blank slates, with no moral compass or intelligence of their own.
2 - that kids are more influenced by these images than they are by their 'real' environment.

I have very clear memories from when I was a kid, and I remember how bright I was. I had my own ideas about my parents' divorce, for example, that was not told to me by others.

It's my opinion that it's best to not let your kids watch any television/media influence until they're older. Let them grow up with less noise.

But that's very difficult to do, mostly because these things act as virtual babysitters. And that's the real problem. Parents don't have time to really keep an eye on and interact with their kids, because people need two incomes these days to survive. I've watched this with all my friends. So they click on the TV or the computer, and then expect these mechanical devices to do as good a job as themselves. That's impossible.

The internet, the library, the television... they're all neutral. They don't have a moral screen really, and you can't automate that.

What's a parent to do? Because kids can and will defeat these flimsy protections, you have to:

1 - do the best you can to supervise. Your kids need as much of your time as you can give them anyway.
2 - teach your kids what is appropriate and what is not. Tell them what your feelings are about that and why. Give them their own moral filter.

You'd be surprised at what kids will self-monitor.

In fact, chances are fandom_scruples is in the 18-22 year old range.

Comments

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Beautiful and wise words.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but it is human if silly to expect the rest of the world to change for our sakes. That Shantideva quote is from his writings on what you might call 'anger management' - patience.

Icarus

[goseaward.livejournal.com]

*nods*

Excellent thoughts. I hate how American culture always shifts the blame to someone else. My parents told me why they thought things, not just what they thought, and I've always been very open with them; every parent I know who just lays down a set of rules has ended up with children going behind his or her back. And ended up doing things that were very, very, very dangerous.

I only wish fandom_scruples agreed with you. And I agree about his or her age.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I think it's less American culture and more human nature to blame somebody else -- look at mctabby's Blame Somebody Else challenges. :D But, true, this is one country where you can sue someone for something that is considered your responsibility elsewhere in the world.

Icarus

[goseaward.livejournal.com]

Not just suing...I mean look at all the warnings plastered across American products. "Do not fold stroller with child inside," for instance. You really don't see that other places, or at least I noticed a difference when we were in Europe.

*sigh*

Ah, yes. The Blame Somebody Else challenges. *remembers the results fondly*

[titti]

I have to disagree. Password protection, pop up questions and warnings are to legally cover your ass. Kids will still get in if they want, and I couldn't care less.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Good point!

Yes, you're right. They do serve a legal purpose.

Icarus

[milkthistle.livejournal.com]

Well said! You're absolutely right on both the moral responsibilities of parents, and the fact that children are not the innocent mindless drones they are made out to be. If a minor "stumbles" onto a porn site that is password protected, they will keep on "stumbling" until they are able to view what they want. If the 'Warning, Porn ahead, click to exit" main page does not stop them, then I hardly see how a password will.

[fourth-moon.livejournal.com]

If I commented on all of that, I'd be typing forever, so I'll be trying to limit myself.

"The world will not change to suit you" - that is a pretty general statement, and you can use it anytime somebody says "this is problematic and has to be worked at".

The world _did_ change massively, to the better as well as to the worse: education, better jobs and equal payment for women, right to vote, reduction (not an end) of racism in the U.S., laws to lower destruction of enviroment, building of social systems,... the list goes on. And it changed because a lot of people spend a lot of time and effort and nerves to ask friendly, complain, bicker or protest and accept that what they'd get for it was mostly "Hey, this is how it is, do you expect the world to change just to suit you."

Passwords make very few things impossible, but they make a lot of things more difficult to get to. Every lj user relies on them.

The glorious free will - a "no smoking sign" and a red traffic light also restrict free will, as do laws against selling alcohol to children. Not every restriction of free will is unreasonable, or evil.

Yes, agreed, in an ideal world all children would be taught and guided by their parents and know what to read and what not. Anybody around here who does _not_ know a family where the parents have, for whatever reason, little time and energy for their children? And solve that problem by parking them in front of the TV or computer?

"One can either cover the entire surface of the world with leather, or one can wear shoes on ones own feet." ~ Shantideva

Nice quote, and again, it's all-purpose: You can use it anytime safety measurements are required. But the quote uses the contrast between unreasonably, impossible alternative and a very simple one. I don't think passwording a site is anywhere near the degree of difficulty that this quote uses.

Darn, entry got awfully long again. Sorry.

[alchemy]

I just wanted to say that I agree with this position on the issue. I don't believe I'm underestimating children by thinking that making it more difficult for them to access porn will deter most of them. When I was kid, I was definitely curious, however, there was a point where I just couldn't be bothered, and I - perhaps wrongly - feel that most kids are the same.

I was raised by a single mother who had to work her buns off constantly to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. She wasn't always there to watch me every moment, and I can't expect for other parents to do it, either. However, I will say that my mother did provide me with a very strong moral compass which I generally ahered to. I completely agree that the best answer is education rather than restriction.

Of course, I have a somewhat unqiue view on this entire situation, as I'm not an author, but a webmaster who hosts them. Priority number one is covering my own ass, even when I don't agree to the reasoning behind it.

fandom_scruples was such an odd, poorly-planned weapon, it's no wonder the fight was over before it had even really begun. I still believe that it's danergous to talk in definites with a subject as obtuse as this. Should LiveJournal users be held to the same restrictions as a public, well-known fansite? It's a lot more complicated than fandom_scruples has made it out to be, but all in all, it really just comes down to personal opinion.

I will say that as annoying as the idea of it has been, I think fandom_scruples wasn't an altogether bad thing, as it's given us, as a fandom, something to really think about and debate. If nothing else, it has made some of us more aware of the existance of the other side of the spectrum, and broader horizons are always a good thing.

Thank you, Icarus, for such a well-thought-out response. It really gave me pause.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Thank you. A lot of what fandom_scruples said sounded an awful like it could be translated to:

"If I were king, the world would be a better place."

Icarus

[lyricalnights.livejournal.com]

This may be completely off from what Icarus intends, but really, for me, the point is not "should NC-17 fic be passworded" but "should some anonymous yahoo be the one to decide what should and shouldn't be passworded by creating an obnoxious and uttertly subjective list."

No, passwording isn't difficult, and yes it does help cover the liability issues involved, but when it comes down to it, that is why I would choose to create a passworded system, and that is not the stated reseaoning attached to the fandom_scruples community.

I don't have children to raise, and it's not my job to raise other people's children.

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head with that statement. Thank you.

"I don't have children to raise, and it's not my job to raise other people's children."

[lyricalnights.livejournal.com]

That just drives me bonkers, really; if/when I have kids, then it will be my responsibility to decide what they should see and when, it'll be only my responsibilty, and it won't be anyone else's fault if I don't.

Besides which, I read all kinds of good shit when I was little (most of it in traditionally published books), and while I may be a little maladjusted, I've yet to notice any sociopathic tendencies. *g*

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

Same here. Hell, *I* gave my mother the talk about sex when I was younger and I have yet to break the law in any capacity.

What gets me is that the ones who scream the loudest about morality are often the ones with the most to hide. [smirks]

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

"Should some anonymous yahoo be the one to decide what should and shouldn't be passworded by creating an obnoxious and uttertly subjective list."

Exactly.

Icarus

[lyricalnights.livejournal.com]

Ok, good. =)

Glad to know I wasn't off in the hinterlands somewhere, banging into metaphorical trees.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

What I would choose to password lock is radically different from what another would choose, because my values are probably different from others. I also wonder about the two-dimensional message sent that something is 'bad,' by putting it under lock and key.

I actually have several stories that are rated NC-17 (or a very high R) because of visual content, that I feel (by my standards) are very positive and appropriate for teenagers. These are:

Skinny Dipping
Hagrid's Hut
Rising Sun
Sweet Hypocrisy

All of these show young people having consensual, real sexual relationships. They are each in their way sensitive and caring, but strip away the mythology as a cure-all, or sex as the embodiment of 'true love.'

Each of these address issues that teenagers are confronted with, show positive sexual relationships and have a strong moral depth. Skinny Dipping is gentle and sensitive, and addresses the difference between ones 'image' and what's underneath; Hagrid's Hut shows how real relationships even if warm and supportive can be also be unequal; Rising Sun shows the double standards and different attitudes boys and girls have regarding sex. It also shows how sex has an impact beyond the immediate gratification. Sweet Hypocrisy, although Snape is not 'good' in it, has underlying point of being honest with oneself and with others.

There are other stories of mine that are rated R, I would want to put in some context for a younger audience. These are:

A Moment Of Sin
Not My Affair
A '57 Vincent And A Red-Headed Boy

A Moment Of Sin portrays an image of prostitution that does not reflect the realities (at least in the US). I gave the prostitute a means to enforce their contract through hexes, while in truth, prostitutes have no means to protect themselves and cannot even go the police for help. This is a cynical world of using others for your own sexual gratification that on the other hand is quite real.

Not My Affair portrays incest in a very realistic fashion and addresses a lot of tough questions of how these two deal with the fall out from it. It is loosely based on a true story that happened to an ex-boyfriend of mine.

A '57 Vincent And A Red-Headed Boy deals with issues of trust and maturity, and how an adult isn't necessarily grown up. This is appropriate for older teenagers, but younger ones I'd want to point out a) wear a helmut on a motorcycle and b) be prepared if anyone kisses you or touches you inapproriately, don't be caught off guard but say no.

There are others that are NC-17 that I feel should be password locked:

Beg Me For It has a kind of cruelty and violence that needs a great deal of maturity to understand. There are riptides of moral grey areas and people doing things they wouldn't do under other circumstances. And there is a soldiers sensibility to this story: the good guys fully intend to kill the bad guys, and we also have the planned patricide, and using that, amorally, as a soldier would.

Sex, Drugs and Death Eater Rock is much lighter. It has cross-dressing, which is probably new and I would want to explain this is unusual but still healthy sexual behaviour. It has drug use slightly glorified, so I'd want to make sure the context is clear: this is a coping mechanism of Draco's. Drugs as I've noticed do not do much good or bring about closeness, and most of the inhibitions that are lowered result in embarrassment rather than closeness.

Ante Up! contains incest, and although the bottom line is two brothers giving each other advice on their girlfriends and the trust between them -- well, I'd want to make sure it's understood that while sexual exploration between siblings does occur I'm not 'for it.'

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Part II

There are others that are NC-17 that I consider neutral. They're neither positive nor negative, despite the explicit content.

Unexpected Guest
Animagick
Zen Taxi

Unexpected Guest is just porn, is not believable and has no particular message. Animagick, despite the bestiality, is light slapstick. Zen Taxi, despite Draco's exhibitionist behaviour, also has no real positive or negative message -- it's just sexual teasing.

These shades of value judgements can only be accomplished by parents talking to their kids.

Many people would disagree with my values here, but I also disagree with theirs. I will not permit a rather self-righteous minority to impose their will on my actions, hiding behind the thin excuse of (ineffectively) 'protecting children.' The truth is, those who complain are not concerned with 'protecting children,' they are concerned that their own values and beliefs are not reflected 20/20 in the world at large. And therefore might infect their children. Communicate your own values, and it won't.

"The world will not change to suit you." I will to that: nor should it. I find equating the first amendment with slavery, racism and sexism to be morally repugnant.

I do conform in so far as I use the accepted ratings system. That's to help others choose whether or not to read. But beyond that I think Skinny Dipping and Beg Me For It are radically different stories in terms of their impact on kids and there is only so far that I am willing to allow others to impose their values.

Icarus

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Many people would disagree with my values here, but I also disagree with theirs. I will not permit a rather self-righteous minority to impose their will on my actions, hiding behind the thin excuse of (ineffectively) 'protecting children.' The truth is, those who complain are not concerned with 'protecting children,' they are concerned that their own values and beliefs are not reflected 20/20 in the world at large. And therefore might infect their children.

Thank you. Real nail-on-the-head stuff here about "protecting" children not so much from real danger as from conflicting values.

Communicate your own values, and it won't.

Welll.....not necessarily. My own values aren't identical to my parents', and I know a lot of people whose values diverge from their families' MUCH more radically. Parents have to accept that their children MIGHT NOT, in fact, turn out to agree with their values completely. I think some have a very hard time with that, that children grow up to be other people (I thought that was kind of the whole point of having them.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Welll.....not necessarily. My own values aren't identical to my parents.

Yeah, I should have been more clear about that. Kids do learn their parent's values, but we're individuals so come to our own conclusions. That's a big reason why this 'protecting the children' through molding the environment is so mistaken. Kids aren't controlled by the environment.

Icarus

[mad_maudlin]

I don't know about kids not stumbling onto porn...I rather think I stumbled onto my first NC-17 fanfiction (Star Trek: Voyager, "The Secret Logs of Mistress Janeway" by Nova) at age eleven. That is, I hung around message boards where other people talked about the fic, I got curious and goggled it, and simply ignored the "adult content" warnings. I realized it was smut almost immediately; I kept on reading anyway.

Of course, there are a few qualifications here. One, my parents never monitored my Internet usage; neither did they try to stop me from reading anything I wanted (The Stand by Stephen King? Age eight) and I only remember a few times they censored what I watched. Aside from telling me that "gay" only meant "happy," I don't know that they ever made an overt effort to protect me from the Big, Bad World outside. However, that doesn't mean they were completely immoral; I was sent to a Catholic school, and woe betide me if I ever swore in their hearing. Hell, I remember once getting spanked for using the word "penis" in what I still believe was a completely non-filthy context.

Two, as you can probably guess, I was a precocious little brat; this wasn't the first time I'd read about sex, although it was my first exposure to homoeroticism and bondage. (Is somone getting tied up and whipped any more twisted than someone getting raped by the Antichrist, though?) I don't think such things have warped me any more than, say, my mother's mental illness, or that aforementioned Catholic education.

Third, "The Secret Logs" were actually pretty good...well, the writing was appalling, and I've begun to question whether some of the, ah, technical details are physically possible, but from a characterization standpoint they were brilliant. That really intersted me more than the sex part, though of course the sex was the medium for the character issues; I sometimes skipped the detailed sex parts to get to what I then considered "the good stuff." I was more shocked when I first discovered X-Files slash on the Gossamer archive that was both graphic and badly written all around; those are the times I did hit the back button, although I've still got some images of Mitch Pileggi and William B. Davis that will never leave me.

What's my point? Well, kids will stumbled onto naughty things occasionally; in fact, they're more likely to be drawn into something like "Sex, Drugs and Death Eater Rock" than some five-hundred-word lemon that reads like The Kama Sutra for Dummies as written by a dyslexic. However, that won't necessarily destroy their little souls, especially if they have the moral grounding and intelligence to process it with a grain of salt. And the alternative--keeping kids in a state of complete innocence for as long as you can--can be just as destructive, if it leads to them being terrified of their own sexuality and unable to make good judgements about relationships. I submit a girl on my floor, who's nineteen years old, thought kissing was sinful, and had to ask her roommate how erections work.

It's not that the world won't change to suit you. It's that you can't protect your children from everything forever.

[rebelpoetus.livejournal.com]

I agree. I'm sixteen years old, and my parents have never monitored my internet use. I believe they have taught me well, though. I don't actively seek porn sites, or read NC-17 fic. It isn't because my parents have told me not to. In fact, my family discusses sex openly, and they impart on me their thoughts. To them, their children seeing a naked body on the computer screen is a lot less worse than them having unprotected sex. They lay down the boundaries that make sense to them. Slightly off topic, but just trying to relate. This comment is really to say thanks for defending "the children". People underestimate my age group, forgetting they were that young once.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

This comment is really to say thanks for defending "the children". People underestimate my age group, forgetting they were that young once.

I always found that attitude vaguely insulting, now and as a kid.

My parents allowed only one TV show per day from age 3 - 10 (the PC didn't exist back then, but they would have included it). Though we could get around that by going to our friends, generally we didn't, because they explained why: it was such a passive 'rot your brain' activity that they preferred we go play outside. I used to watch my friends stare vacantly at the TV and decided I agreed.

After age 10 we were allowed to watch TV. They were never home, but told us what shows they didn't want us to watch and why. Then they trusted us. They allowed nudity, sex, these were natural -- but not violence.

So the 'Dukes of Hazzard,' one of the most popular shows at the time, we never saw. We could have ignored the rule, but their point that watching violence desensitized you to it made sense to us.

And I used to argue that Road Runner, despite the fact it was a cartoon, still fit the bill for gratuitous desensitizing violence. I added that one to my list of my own accord.

Yes, when I was only ten. Don't tell me kids aren't able to judge for themselves.

I think there are three kinds of ignorance here:

- Don't shelter kids to the degree that normal life comes as a shock.
- Don't leave kids at sea to figure out life the hard way through trial and error. That's not fair and it often has embarrassing results for the kids.
- Don't just explain the rules so kids have to blindly follow you (or blindly rebel which is more likely). Explain the reasons behind them, so kids can decide for themselves if they agree.

That said, the only kids I'm ever going to have have four legs and fur. *laughs* But I know from my friends it's hard being a parent. Really, really hard.

Icarus

[rebelpoetus.livejournal.com]

Once again, I agree with you. I wasn't diminishing the responsibility of being a parent, or insulting people who discipline their children differently then my parents do. I was talking about underestimating in a general sense, like when I get suspicious looks when I walk into a store because someone might think that I will shoplift, or that teenagers don't read newspapers or care about what occurs outside their "bubble". I don't know if this is exactly what you were objecting to. I know being a parent is hard, and I'm in no rush to become one. Thanks for replying.