Weighing in on the great age debate.
Jul. 23rd, 2004 11:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusI'm tired, so this is going to be brief.
Regarding the current age debate... I'll lock what stories I have to for the sake of legality, but I don't believe sex automatically means inappropriate for preteens and teenagers. Theme is what determines what is difficult for those "underage" to understand.
So I recommend my NC-17 Skinny Dipping for teens and preteens, because it is a very equal and generous encounter and deals with issues that are relevant to teenagers. I'd recommend both the R and NC-17 version Primer to the Dark Arts for the same reasons. Rising Sun is quite explicit, a very high R, but is perfect for teenagers who are constantly being fed an overly idealised, romantic notion of sex.
But I don't recommend my R-rated A Moment of Sin for teens and preteens, because of the cynical "using" world of prostitution, and the confusing moral gray areas involved in Snape's decision. Nor would I recommend Beg Me For It -- again, less because of the sex (though here some of it is non-con) and more because of the questionable decisions on the part of several persons. The fourth part (still in the works) SNAFU, has very little sex and may only rate an R by some standards. But, with the violence in it, that one I would object to teens reading.
An Elegant Man is one that I would lock because of the casual attitude about infidelity by Lucius.
On the other hand I have no difficulty with teens reading the Harry/Snape/Ron three-way in Unexpected Guest, because it's a very positive encounter and... it's just sex.
If you want your kids to have your values I suggest you:
a) teach them your values, and
b) monitor their internet habits if you're so concerned.
I think a) is more effective. There is no difference between my parents values and my own on this subject.
But don't expect me to conform to your values because you're kids are roaming wild on the internet. Whose kids are they?
My standards are my own, and I don't feel they should be imposed on others. Likewise, I don't feel anyone else's standards should be imposed upon me. Those of you who think the Silence of the Lambs is more appropriate for kids than a fluffy sex-romp with full frontal nudity -- I disagree.
Regarding the current age debate... I'll lock what stories I have to for the sake of legality, but I don't believe sex automatically means inappropriate for preteens and teenagers. Theme is what determines what is difficult for those "underage" to understand.
So I recommend my NC-17 Skinny Dipping for teens and preteens, because it is a very equal and generous encounter and deals with issues that are relevant to teenagers. I'd recommend both the R and NC-17 version Primer to the Dark Arts for the same reasons. Rising Sun is quite explicit, a very high R, but is perfect for teenagers who are constantly being fed an overly idealised, romantic notion of sex.
But I don't recommend my R-rated A Moment of Sin for teens and preteens, because of the cynical "using" world of prostitution, and the confusing moral gray areas involved in Snape's decision. Nor would I recommend Beg Me For It -- again, less because of the sex (though here some of it is non-con) and more because of the questionable decisions on the part of several persons. The fourth part (still in the works) SNAFU, has very little sex and may only rate an R by some standards. But, with the violence in it, that one I would object to teens reading.
An Elegant Man is one that I would lock because of the casual attitude about infidelity by Lucius.
On the other hand I have no difficulty with teens reading the Harry/Snape/Ron three-way in Unexpected Guest, because it's a very positive encounter and... it's just sex.
If you want your kids to have your values I suggest you:
a) teach them your values, and
b) monitor their internet habits if you're so concerned.
I think a) is more effective. There is no difference between my parents values and my own on this subject.
But don't expect me to conform to your values because you're kids are roaming wild on the internet. Whose kids are they?
My standards are my own, and I don't feel they should be imposed on others. Likewise, I don't feel anyone else's standards should be imposed upon me. Those of you who think the Silence of the Lambs is more appropriate for kids than a fluffy sex-romp with full frontal nudity -- I disagree.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-24 09:14 am (UTC)(And Silence of the Lambs gave me nightmares for weeks. I've not yet read a fic that could do that. *g*)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-24 09:34 am (UTC)Exactly.
Then again, if you manage to reach your teens without being overly exposed to violence, kudos to your parents.
They were pretty strict about it.
We were the only ones in the neighborhood who weren't allowed to watch The Dukes of Hazzard, while scanning Playboy was fine -- with a slight talk about objectifying women and that most women don't look like that, there were airbrushes and in some cases breast augmentation. Other magazines that were less respectful of women were off-limits. Mom had a more serious talk with my brother about the contents of Swedish Erotica, which she considered demeaning to women. I don't what she said, but it left him very thoughtful. He gave the magazine back to his friends and refused to look at it afterwards.
The only sexual movies that were banned were Cruising, because they felt kids wouldn't understand the S&M and assume that all gay sex was S&M (the gay themes were not a problem); The Postman Always Rigns Twice (STRONG objections to the infidelity); and American Gigalo, because it was a "very cynical" movie about people using each other.
(And Silence of the Lambs gave me nightmares for weeks. I've not yet read a fic that could do that. *g*)
I find that movie deeply disturbing. *g*
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-07-24 10:12 am (UTC)Mine, really, weren't. I think it was more a matter of necessity than choice - my father was a single parent trying to write a dissertation, so, for most of my childhood, I was allowed to watch (for the most part) what I wanted. I can't ever remember a time when I wasn't allowed to watch R-rated movies (so long as he was with me, until I was 11 or 12 or so), but I think the key point was that he taught me that there was a very big difference between how people treated each other in movies and how people treated other people in real life. More importantly, I had a "standard of acceptable behavior." People were to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter who they were, violence was not okay, and solving problems without conflict was the goal. (Which I think he showed more via example than ever having, you know, sat me down and said, "You always, always say sir and ma'am and don't be rude to people making minimum wage if they're not quite on top of things.")
On the other hand, I wasn't allowed to swear. Ever. I was told it made me sound uneducated, and there was no reason to do it. And that kind of stuck; I still shock people if I do. And the thing that really shocks people is that I wasn't allowed to watch cartoons, unless they were educational, like Magic Schoolbus or Sesame Street's cartoon segments.
But the thing is, I know of teenagers now who were banned from movies when they were young, and now there's an air of the forbidden about it - I never had that. Ever. So it was probably more effective than he knew, because by giving me the choice of whether or not I wanted to watch it, I typically didn't want to. But I wasn't allowed to watch Scooby Doo. And I still flip on the TV and if it's on, I'll tune in for a minute or two, until I remember just how dumb it was. *G*
I find that movie deeply disturbing. *g*
Yeah, but you must admit that the eaten-by-pigs scene in Hannibal was sort of cool.