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 11:31 am (UTC)Yeah, I'll second this idea. As the parent of a young child, I'm far more concerned about the violence he sees, which seems to be the opposite of the way U.S. society seems to think - here, sexual content is considered far more "inappropriate" for children, which really bothers me. Sex is a natural, and hopefully beautiful part of life. Violence is an abberation. Also a natural one, and probably strongly hard-wired into us as a species, but still, I think violence is something that should be discouraged, while sex is something that should be encouraged (with appropriate limits, obviously - I'm not advocating sexual activity among children; just that they be taught that it's something lovely and not dirty). And, at least here in the US, society seems to be shoving our kids in exactly the opposite direction.
(Here via
no subject
Date: 2004-07-24 04:26 pm (UTC)I've been sitting here wondering if I was the only parent who was more concerned about violence than sex.
My daughter's only one, so I'll have a fair while before she's going to be reading. I was thinking the other day, though, that I'd much rather (when she's older than one and interested in sex, of course) she read well-written fanfic than, I don't know, the horrible stories that I'd chuckle over whenever one of my school friends managed to bring Playboy or something to the train station.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 06:46 pm (UTC)It's odd. My family's always been mystified by the anti-sex, pro-violence in this world.
Of course, I'm about to engage in the ultimate hypocrisy here, because I've just finished a very violent story for which I've been doing research for the last ten months -- including talking to Vietnam vets. So much for my pacifism. Note, I had no lack of lovingly produced, viscerally detailed war movies to study.
Is it pacifist to refuse to gloss over and glamorize violence? The Wild Bunch surprised me in how honest it was. The "heros" were idiots, the violence was senseless and hit innocent bystanders, and every few minutes the action stopped for a funeral procession, reminding you yet again how much it all cost.
Icarus