Weighing in on the great age debate.

[icarus]

I'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.

Comments

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

That should have read:

(Though I would include all the 16-17 year olds that I personally know on LJ in the group of 'done'--one of them writes wickeder stuff than I do, yet personally is a virgin for her own well-thought-out reasons, and another one is considering marriage for her own well-thought-out reasons.)

It also should've read 'teenagers' instead of '16-17 year olds' because I recalled just now that at least 2-3 of the kids on my flist are not 16 yet.

There are two reasons I hold the radical views that I do, possibly three. One is that I remember my own teenage years more clearly than most people do and had a lot of related issues in my personal life. Two is that my ideas of what kids were capable of were expanded and surpassed by my readers and my friendslist. A lot of people who do read my fic are in the 14-18 age group. I did not expect this, but I feel rather honoured by it, and getting to know these people really did open my eyes to a lot of things about them. Many of them are even more articulate and sophisticated than I was at their age.

The third possibly influential reason is that I was a teenager in the late seventies and early eighties, and society was, for a lot of reasons, less puritanical then than it is today. More bigoted, surely--it was much harder then to be exclusively gay or lesbian--but the backlash against open expression of sexuality that came into play after the AIDS crisis was not yet a factor in society, and at that time, the barriers in place today between teens and the rest of the world did not exist to the same degree. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is subject to debate, but I don't think it did me any harm and the kids who write to me after reading my fics are often the kind of kid I was, which doesn't exactly surprise me.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about this. I'm 5 years younger than you and the 80s were definitely when the winds began to change. I think you put that "barriers in place between teens and the rest of the world" thing very well -- they are there, and much stronger, than when I was a teen. Hell, I didn't get along too well with most people my own age; my friends were all fellow underground-music geeks into zines and RPGs (tabletop, this is pre-internet) who were in their 20s and 30s. There were a few other precocious teens around the edge of that circle too, and I don't think anyone thought it was weird. There was a little dating going on, but not nearly as much as some people who think that adults only hang out with teens for sex (now there's an offensive notion!) would think.

I find it very disturbing that hysteria "underage sexuality" and inappropriate adult interest therein is essentially the new Reefer Madness or Red Scare or urban legend about spider eggs in Bubble Yum or backwards masking on Led Zeppelin records or what have you. (Wasn't the "war on terror" supposed to replace that as a motivator for all-American fear and suspicion?) NOT to say that it doesn't happen for real of course, but must all social relations be poisoned by it? And since when are we actually unable to distinguish between actual children and teenagers, who last I heard were notorious for a healthy fascination with sexuality?