Is there an point where story content is not accepteble?

[sumeragichan]

I totally agree that it's paramount to teach your children good manners, and I support the state stepping in to create an environment where we treat each other respect from the early years. If we were nice to each other, we could make the world a better place!

All well and good, but that is the parents job to raise their child to behave and be polite. Now, that said there are different standards of it across the world in which a polite gesture in one place is rude as hell somewhere else. (Case in point, burping at the table after a meal....) So, that would be still a cultural boundry issue in places.

I see where you are coming from, and I have to ask are you from the UK by any chance?

To be honest, I don't like a nanny state and unfortunately that's what the US is becoming. I do try to raise my daughter well, and I believe it'd be lazy on part to depend on the schools to do so for me. Should they enforce standards of behavior and conduct, yes. Should they be the ones to teach my child right from wrong, no. That is my job. My ideas of right and wrong might be different than the systems. For example, I teach my daughter not to pick on others or start a fight, but if they try to mess with her then to fight back. That would be a punisible attitude by the schools around where we live, but I don't want her to be walked over and to be able to stand up and think for herself. So, that is a reason I feel that a school should be able to hold students accountable to a standard but it is up to the parents to teach it themselves. It must be done early and the family is usually around children that young the most. Learning it at an older age can be difficult for some.

Well, we have specific legislation where I come from regarding hate speech and threatening behaviours, which I'm agreement with. We've had a few high profile convictions in the UK of persons prosecuted for leaving abusive messages on tribute pages for young people who've died: saying they were sluts who deserved to die etc. Obviously, this was extremely distressing for the families of those people and I have say, I question the value of the speech of those people who posted those abusive messages, and I don't see that speech as being something that requires protection. At no point do I think that the right to legitimate public protest should be removed, but some adults do not have a sense of etiquette or good manners, and the I think law needs to step in where it causes harm. Obviously, it's a tough piece of legislation to write, and I don't want to remove anyone's right to say "change the government!" or "free this person who's been imprisoned wrongly!".

That is horrible and counts as libel, if it was spoken it would be slander. Libel and slander is prosecutable by law here and aren't encouraged. The individual or representitives of individual that is victim of such things need to press the charges to get things done, but still... Tabloids run that risk all the time and sometimes do have to face the charges. That is already covered under free speech.

As you can guess, I'm not a big fan of political correctness because it draws more attention to the tensions and differences than just letting people speak normally. They have to think about what they say in the context of "that being is different and I don't want to offend them. What do I do?" Thus a self defeating thing.

As for change the government. If the government steps in to specify what is allowed... I'm possibly being a touch paranoid but there are plenty of real world examples of this. What is to stop the government from banning speech that they don't like or approve of? It's always a possibility. A government needs to be afraid that its people will not put up with their bullshit to keep them from pulling it in the first place. That's whats wrong with the current assholes in power in the US so far. They've forgotten that.

Although on the topic of hate speech or crimes. There is no such thing as a hate crime. All crimes (harassment, or murder) come from negative expressions of emotions and/or negative emotions. All such legislations enforce is a racial/gender/sexual preference/ability/or any other such thing as a difference line. That is also very self defeating.

I'm talking purely about erotic fiction where the subject matter is used to arouse and titilate. If you write a book set in times where slavery was acceptable in America, and that's part of the plot: that's acceptable. For example: Neil Gaiman wrote in American Gods about a character who was a victim of slavery and the dreadful things she experienced in order to explain a bit about who she was as a character. I think that's acceptable. If you write something on AFF where a character is aroused by those dreadful things in such a way that it's designed to titilate, I have issue with that because I see being aroused by the degradation of people of a particular race without their consent as being unethical.

I should also point out that I don't have issue with power play or BDSM within erotic fiction where that is consensual. BDSM is not the same as torture used in interrogation, it's not the same as the judicial floggings in some parts of the world and it's not violent rape. I have a serious ethical objection when people get these confused.

Fair enough. Although sometimes it can serve as a safe exploration of curiousity, few people actually go so far as to do it in real life. Still, that is something I find offensive as well, although I do understand that the human body is meant to react to stimuli wether we like it or not. Although there are times such things are used in allegorical senses such as many of the Marquee de Sade's writings. He hid many political, social, and philosophical meanings under his works. For sake of debate, how do such things figure in? They are rather erotic and titilating in how they handle things....

Edited April 25, 2012 by Hopebringer Jem

[Tigro Spottystripes]

Jem, you quoted me but i'm not quite sure if anything you wrote there was directed at me...

[sumeragichan]

My bad, hang on... I shall edit that out and get to responding to yours.

In my opinion, instead of trying to erode freedom of thought and speech, the government time and money would be much better spent with developing ways to teach everyone, starting when they're young kids, to better react to spoken, written, pictorial etc expressions of ideas and opinions they disagree with or otherwise consider unwelcome. This would help with everything from bullying to racial conflicts and lots more; and of course without people freaking out with non-important things civilization would be able to progress much more easily.

edit: and of course, it would also reduce a lot the wastage of the precious time of the courts.

So in other words, how to have a thicker skin and deal with opposition and adversity better? Am I understanding what you're getting at correctly?

[Hairyhaggis]

The UK is very much a nanny state. I hate it. I grew up when it was acceptable for a policeman to kick you up the ass if you spoke out of line let alone the wallopings your parents would give you. There was more discipline and the kids generally behaved better. We still had bullying and fighting but you would seldom hear a child cussing. I refuse to let anyone other than myself teach my daughter what is right for her and her moral code. I set up boundaries of acceptability and she follows them. I'm a very liberal mother (and single parent) but my daughter rarely drinks, doesn't sleep around (she's 16 and in uk that is rare), she doesn't swear in front of me, she says her manners and is polite to strangers. She doesn't bully or have racist or prejudiced views. She's not perfect but I think she is one damn fine daughter. If I left it up to the government to teach her, I dread to think how she would turn out. Not only would she have no individuality, she would have a warped sense of right and wrong.

As for the hidden meanings inside works of literature and art, I think sadly many people skip over them when there is something erotic that appeals to them. Personally, I like finding the hidden meaning in things (3 little pigs, big bad wolf, one could say that it refers to the holy trinity and the devil.)

[Tigro Spottystripes]

My bad, hang on... I shall edit that out and get to responding to yours.

So in other words, how to have a thicker skin and deal with opposition and adversity better? Am I understanding what you're getting at correctly?

That just about sums it up.

[sumeragichan]

That is something I could get behind. Goes with the right to be as offended as you want really. XD

I can understand where you would be coming from with that Hairy, that would be annoying as hell for me to put up with. I do understand the desire to teach your own child your own morals. That way, at least when they start rebelling it's you they're rebelling against and not someone else. Although that being said, I'd rather hear a child swearing like a sailor than to see them bully another child. I get fights happen, that's just nature and hormones. Still...

[Tigro Spottystripes]

Suppose people had the choice to be deeply offended by the color red, by choosing to, they would be compelled to make a scene when they see someone on the street with red clothes, have to spend lots of money suing companies that make products in red, stop watching TV shows they would otherwise enjoy 'cause the tittle sequence shows a red neon sign for a few frames, feel a deep sense of shame and self-loathing each time they get a cut, hate people they were falling in love with 'cause they sent red roses etc; roughly which percentage of the population would you expect would choose to have red be offensive to them?

[Hairyhaggis]

Hopebringer Jem exactly. I do think something has to be done about bullying but it comes down to the parents and how they raise the children. Unfortunately, too many children are either spoiled or neglected and don't have someone teaching them how to behave as a decent human being. If the parents don't step up and take responsibility, how are the children to learn?

[Lisbet_Adair]

That is horrible and counts as libel, if it was spoken it would be slander. Libel and slander is prosecutable by law here and aren't encouraged. The individual or representitives of individual that is victim of such things need to press the charges to get things done, but still... Tabloids run that risk all the time and sometimes do have to face the charges. That is already covered under free speech.

It's libellious to make a statement that's just not true e.g. to accuse Justin Bieber of having sex with a horse. That would be libellious if it appeared in the national press, but saying something racist isn't by definition libellious.

As you can guess, I'm not a big fan of political correctness because it draws more attention to the tensions and differences than just letting people speak normally. They have to think about what they say in the context of "that being is different and I don't want to offend them. What do I do?" Thus a self defeating thing.

Politcal correctness is just politeness enforced on a grand scale. The fact is, there are tensions and differences, but the point is to create an environment where the politeness occurs as second nature, rather than us being surrounded by obnoxious people calling other people "niggers".

As for change the government. If the government steps in to specify what is allowed... I'm possibly being a touch paranoid but there are plenty of real world examples of this. What is to stop the government from banning speech that they don't like or approve of?

I've already pointed out that I don't condone the removal of legitimate protest again the government. As a case in point, if you live in Belfast and wish to stage a rally in support of the devolution and eventual sucession from the United Kingdom, that should be your right to do; however it's another thing to stage a big parade with flutes and drums singing that all Catholics should die. And vice versa.

Although on the topic of hate speech or crimes. There is no such thing as a hate crime. All crimes (harassment, or murder) come from negative expressions of emotions and/or negative emotions. All such legislations enforce is a racial/gender/sexual preference/ability/or any other such thing as a difference line. That is also very self defeating.

Hate crimes are just the terms that have become accepted for assaults against people because they belong to a particular group of people: transgendered people, people with disabilities, goths and gay people. Yes, when it comes to physical assault, there already exists adequate legislation; however these people have the right to live free of harassment, and I believe that their rights need protected more than the guy shouting "You Paki cunt, why don't you fuck off and die!" across the street every day. I'm not saying the guy shouting those things shouldn't go to a political rally in support of tighter immigration control, I'm just saying he should stop being a racist dick.

Although there are times such things are used in allegorical senses such as many of the Marquee de Sade's writings. He hid many political, social, and philosophical meanings under his works. For sake of debate, how do such things figure in? They are rather erotic and titilating in how they handle things....

I've not read De Sade yet, so I'll have to decline to comment.

[Tigro Spottystripes]

IMO they should do away with all the special treatment regarding crimes against people that just happen to belong to a specific group and just bump up the minimum sentence of the "vanilla" crime to the biggest one they had for the special victims stuff. Just cause someone killed an adult straight white men they shouldn't have a discount on their sentence.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Tigro Spottystripes

[sumeragichan]

IMO they should do away with all the special treatment regarding crimes against people that just happen to belong to a specific group and just bump up the minimum sentence of the "vanilla" crime to the biggest one they had for the special victims stuff. Just cause someone killed an adult straight white men they shouldn't have a discount on their sentence.

Thank you! Fucking thank you for that. A crime should be a crime regardless of who did what to whom.

It's libellious to make a statement that's just not true e.g. to accuse Justin Bieber of having sex with a horse. That would be libellious if it appeared in the national...

Yes it is libel to print an opinion that may not be true as if it were a fact or to print a lie as if it were the fact. Slander is its spoken equivilence. They exsist to protect people's reputations and memory from such acts.

Politcal correctness is just politeness enforced on a grand scale. The fact is, there are tensions and differences, but the point is to create an environment where the politeness occurs as second nature, rather than us being surrounded by obnoxious people calling other people "niggers".

Which does nothing to fix the problem, only cover it with a thin veneer and say there. It's all better now. No, it's not. Ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. Racism is a minor form of xenophobia and all groups suffer from it. To be honest, it's a double standard as well. If you are of a group that is seen as an "oppresive majority" you are expected to follow it. If you are from a minority you are not. If you are disabled you are not while a perfectly healthy person is. This doesn't work. Legislating politeness and any from of kindness isn't a government's job.

It is to:

1. Make sure the country runs and doesn't go bankrupt

2. Provide for national defense

3. Resolve disputes between regions if they can't do it themselves

4. Deal with international trade agreements and disputes

The fact is, the politeness isn't becoming second nature. It's a forced attitude that you have to conciously think about everytime you open your mouth. Even some of these "pc terms" are viewed as offensive to some groups. That's why is still a self-defeating thing. It fixes nothing, doesn't become second nature, and only makes others aware of the differences that could bother them but isn't supposed to. It's not just about speech, a majority of its proponents want to dictate it to the thought level as well. I believe a person's thoughts and opinions are their own, even if I personally believe they stink. Opinions and assholes after all.

I've already pointed out that I don't condone the removal of legitimate protest again the government. As a case in point, if you live in Belfast and wish to stage a rally in support of the devolution and eventual sucession from the United Kingdom, that should be your right to do; however it's another thing to stage a big parade with flutes and drums singing that all Catholics should die. And vice versa.

To be painfully honest, it's all the same at its core. People protesting and stating their beliefs. It doesn't matter what is being said, the actions and intent are the same. To have your views known and to try and provoke change. There are many types of protest to be sure, but they share this at their core.

However, to back up wasn't addressed. Governments shouldn't be trust with the level of power to restrict such things because protests and opposition to them are usually some of the first things they gun after. No, I trust no corporate entity to not abuse power wether it be religious, governmental, or business. There are too many examples of such power being used to restrict what they don't want.

Hate crimes are just the terms that have become accepted for assaults against people because they belong to a particular group of people: transgendered people, people with disabilities, goths and gay people. Yes, when it comes to physical assault, there already exists adequate legislation; however these people have the right to live free of harassment, and I believe that their rights need protected more than the guy shouting "You Paki cunt, why don't you fuck off and die!" across the street every day. I'm not saying the guy shouting those things shouldn't go to a political rally in support of tighter immigration control, I'm just saying he should stop being a racist dick.

Why should one group of people be more special and of more concern than another? No one deserves to be harassed and harassment is a crime that can be reported. No one is more special than anyone else. True equality is when everyone is treated the exact same in the eyes of the law, job requirements, and education. That person can be taken to task for harassing the other, although that doesn't mean he deserves less protection under the law than the others. For legal matters, I honestly believe the gender, race, and prefences should never even have to be put down period. Still, few people hold this view it seems.

I've not read De Sade yet, so I'll have to decline to comment.

You may not like his works, he uses very sexual and depraved means of it at times to state things. It can be seen as glorifing it, but it was used to express libertine political, social, and religious views. He was imprisioned a few times for his writings.

Exactly. I do think something has to be done about bullying but it comes down to the parents and how they raise the children. Unfortunately, too many children are either spoiled or neglected and don't have someone teaching them how to behave as a decent human being. If the parents don't step up and take responsibility, how are the children to learn?

That is a problem that well... There's no real good answer to. I don't believe schools and government are the ones to do it. I don't know who should try, maybe people willing to be mentors.

Suppose people had the choice to be deeply offended by the color red, by choosing to, they would be compelled to make a scene when they see someone on the street with red clothes, have to spend lots of money suing companies that make products in red, stop watching TV shows they would otherwise enjoy 'cause the tittle sequence shows a red neon sign for a few frames, feel a deep sense of shame and self-loathing each time they get a cut, hate people they were falling in love with 'cause they sent red roses etc; roughly which percentage of the population would you expect would choose to have red be offensive to them?

[Lisbet_Adair]

Which does nothing to fix the problem, only cover it with a thin veneer and say there. It's all better now. No, it's not. Ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. Racism is a minor form of xenophobia and all groups suffer from it. To be honest, it's a double standard as well. If you are of a group that is seen as an "oppresive majority" you are expected to follow it. If you are from a minority you are not. If you are disabled you are not while a perfectly healthy person is.

I really don't think racism is a "minor" form of xenophobia.

People within certain groups who have been on the receiving end of derogatory language, sometimes try to claim the words back to change their meaning, as a way of taking power from the people abusing them, and that makes a big difference. Unfortunately, we have the people who gone before us to thank for that. I think we just have to be grown up about it, realise that we might feel differently to a member of a group who have been abused and that the best way of solving it is not to be an arsehole about it. There's also what's appropriate between friends who know each other well, and know whether something is an in-joke or not, but that's a situation where the boundaries have been adjusted on an individual basis.

The fact is, the politeness isn't becoming second nature. It's a forced attitude that you have to conciously think about everytime you open your mouth. Even some of these "pc terms" are viewed as offensive to some groups.

Well, it's about educating yourself, and finding out what's considered an acceptable term or not. But I think it's a cold day in hell before I'd prefer "What do you want, cunt?" over "What would you like, madam?"

To be painfully honest, it's all the same at its core. People protesting and stating their beliefs. It doesn't matter what is being said, the actions and intent are the same. To have your views known and to try and provoke change. There are many types of protest to be sure, but they share this at their core.

We're just going to have to disagree here. I think government and law can separate "legitimate protest" versus "being an arsehole" and you don't think they can. We're going to go round in circles.

Suppose people had the choice to be deeply offended by the color red, by choosing to, they would be compelled to make a scene when they see someone on the street with red clothes, have to spend lots of money suing companies that make products in red, stop watching TV shows they would otherwise enjoy 'cause the tittle sequence shows a red neon sign for a few frames, feel a deep sense of shame and self-loathing each time they get a cut, hate people they were falling in love with 'cause they sent red roses etc; roughly which percentage of the population would you expect would choose to have red be offensive to them?

I'm not really sure what you're hoping to achieve by that statement. You've built up a straw man whose offended by something innocuous. It's a facetious arguement.

[Tigro Spottystripes]

...

Well, it's about educating yourself, and finding out what's considered an acceptable term or not. But I think it's a cold day in hell before I'd prefer "What do you want, cunt?" over "What would you like, madam?"

...

I would rather be vaccinated and walk barefoot on the grass than live my whole life in a sterile bubble risking a horrible death if there is a tiny tear.

...

I'm not really sure what you're hoping to achieve by that statement. You've built up a straw man whose offended by something innocuous. It's a facetious arguement.

That was in response to the comment that people wanna choose what offends them. There are lots of real things that people are offended by that depending on who you ask is also completly innocuous. I didn't said anyone was deeply offended by the color red, i was just trying to point out that having a choice most people would likely prefer to not feel deeply offended by anything, it is stressful, often counterproductive and overall does more bad than good; so by providing people with the tools they need to be able to better handle opinions, ideas etc that they dislike one way or another, before they are brainwashed into having such negative behaviors, i would expect most people would gladly use those tools for the rest of their lives.

[sumeragichan]

I really don't think racism is a "minor" form of xenophobia.

People within certain groups who have been on the receiving end of derogatory language, sometimes try to claim the words back to change their meaning, as a way of taking power from the people abusing them, and that makes a big difference. Unfortunately, we have the people who gone before us to thank for that. I think we just have to be grown up about it, realise that we might feel differently to a member of a group who have been abused and that the best way of solving it is not to be an arsehole about it. There's also what's appropriate between friends who know each other well, and know whether something is an in-joke or not, but that's a situation where the boundaries have been adjusted on an individual basis.

Well, it's about educating yourself, and finding out what's considered an acceptable term or not. But I think it's a cold day in hell before I'd prefer "What do you want, cunt?" over "What would you like, madam?"

Xenophobia, a fear of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange. Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of one group towards a different group, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity. Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".

"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the UN conventions, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination. In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right due to the far right’s common association with nativism and xenophobia.

Now then, I am paraphrasing a few websites for this but let's see. Racism is a disparging reaction to a difference between groups regardless of what this difference is correct? Also, the belief that what is known, familiar, and associated with one group is superior to that of a different group as well? It can also manifest in matters of issues with the intertwining of such aspects as well, if I'm not mistaken... That does sound familiar to the definition of xenophobia, only not to such a severe degree that it always lead to genocide. Xenophobia has been linked to such conflicts. Racism can be an aspect, but usually most racists just don't like the other group for the differences and wish they'd not be around them. Not want them dead. I know there are extremist out there on both sides, but the middle ground is usually the normal one you encounter.

Although, there are some who do come from another point of view that is more tribal. In this view the intermingling of cultures can cause the loss of cultural identity of each group.

Now, to be honest on a completely seperate note. I am aware some of the things I've said can be construed as anti-racist bullshit to explain things. I don't really care what you think about others, it's your own damn business. It could not be based on concern for you culture and cultural identity. It could be based on economic issues and availibity of jobs. It could be for safety reasons for whatever reason. That's why I said minor form. Sometimes, those horrid things are healthy expressions of concerns worded really fucking badly. But when you're that upset, it happens. That doesn't mean it's right and that doesn't make it criminal. Continually harassing someone will get your ass in trouble, still. People will always have concerns and say stupid shit when they're emotional.

Now for people being grown up and taking responsibility for their words and actions, that would be great. However, it can't be forced on them and have it work. Similar to how you can't truly help someone who isn't ready to admit they need help or ready to accept it. This is often an issue with those who have mental, emotional, behaviorial, or personality disorders. When it comes to adversity, we all face it. Removing it from life doesn't help anyone. No, I wouldn't like to be called a cunt. However, I can at least laugh it off or just deal with the idiot who said it as bluntly. I have had to do so with difficult residents at nursing homes and assisted living homes in a professional capacity. Oddly enough, those people ended up being some of my favorite people once we got over that issue. You don't have to take it and you can calmly deal with it like an adult. If I had never had to do it before, I would have broken down in those cases.

That is why sugar coating doesn't work. You can insult someone through tone, body language, and even polite word choices. I have ripped people apart without ever saying an impolite word or even one that was thought insulting before like that. Granted, he had it coming but still... It happened. I probably would have done it again even now. Only, I would have made it worse. So, if I wanted to insult someone I could still do it. It wouldn't make it better with polite language. It would still be insulting and putting them down. How is that any better or different in intent? Just prettier words.

We're just going to have to disagree here. I think government and law can separate "legitimate protest" versus "being an arsehole" and you don't think they can. We're going to go round in circles.

Not to go in circles, but can and will are two seperate things. Oh yes, they can discern but why should they? Look at totalitarian governments and how they operate. Even look at how protests are treated when they are peaceful. In countries where governments can shut them down, they do. Even quicker than "being a bloody asshole" ones.

I don't trust them to want to do it, would be a better way to phrase it. Can doesn't mean will.

I'm not really sure what you're hoping to achieve by that statement. You've built up a straw man whose offended by something innocuous. It's a facetious arguement.

That was in response to the comment that people wanna choose what offends them. There are lots of real things that people are offended by that depending on who you ask is also completly innocuous. I didn't said anyone was deeply offended by the color red, i was just trying to point out that having a choice most people would likely prefer to not feel deeply offended by anything, it is stressful, often counterproductive and overall does more bad than good; so by providing people with the tools they need to be able to better handle opinions, ideas etc that they dislike one way or another, before they are brainwashed into having such negative behaviors, i would expect most people would gladly use those tools for the rest of their lives.

To be honest, Tigro fielded that pretty well. It wasn't to provide a straw-man arguement, but to illustrate his point with something we would all laugh our asses off over. The fact it is ridiculous was the point. XD

Edited April 26, 2012 by Hopebringer Jem

[EnergizeMe]

This is a preference question to me and I'll answer it as such. I don't like children, so I stave from stories involving pedophilia. I'm also not interested in animals x humans.

[Cuzosu]

Do I have topics I will not write? Hm.... Explicitly, yes. Am I willing to mention most topics and how I feel about them in my writing, as shown through characters and their emotions? Yeah, I think I can safely say that.

I come from a really open-minded family, where it concerns the blood relatives and adopted ones. This has influenced me quite a bit. I don't care about sexual preferences of any sort because if they're not doing sexual things with me, why should it impact me at all? Race doesn't matter to me, nor do culture or religion.

Pedophiles are slightly different, but my views differ somewhat here from the legal perspective in the US. In the first place, I know there are places where the age of majority is 14. Secondly, there are, for example, celebrity marriages with 20 or more years between their ages, so if the minor is of age to be sexually active anyway (not 7-9, because I see that as the age of experimenting and that would be a gross abuse of authority over a child, but more...14-17, depending on how mature the kid is and if the family isn't trying to push the kid into it), then it seems hypocritical to me to call it pedophilia. If you go by US law, relationships with minors are borderline acceptable even with four years or less between them, unless both are minors. This being the case, why then would it not be pedophilia for anyone to be in a relationship with someone five years or more their junior? My parents are both in relationships with a 10 year age gap. This would make, in the one case, my dad's wife a pedophile. In the other, it would make my mom a pedophile. But they are all consenting adults (however much my dad's wife doesn't act like an adult toward me, which I don't understand as she's 36 years older than I am, but I guess that, just as some people never grow old at heart, some people never grow up in truth) and far be it from me to meddle. Mostly, I suppose I am saying, I think that if a person is mature enough to make adult decisions, mature enough that they could be emancipated, even if they aren't, then I don't see it as pedophilia. (This may also have something to do with my own somewhat precocious maturity, due to my being the older sibling and the way the families raised me. I'm not saying everyone has to see it that way, just that I do.)

Scat play and similar things don't work for me, so I avoid them. I have an overly active imagination and a nose that's gotten rather picky after three sinus infections, in addition to my hereditary ear sensitivity. Nothing against anyone who likes it, I would just rather not read it myself.

Bestiality doesn't bother me. This probably has to do with the fact that I like the animals I meet much more than I like the humans, on average. I don't mind that other people dislike bestiality. I'm sure there are things they like that I don't, too, and that's just a fact of life.

Violence and gore...well, I grew up in a family of hunters, with two male cousins and then my younger twin brothers closest to me in age. I have a much different view of "violence" than most girls I know. I get told that I hit too hard when I'm giving a playful or friendly swat to a shoulder. And, what with the hunting, my usual reaction to guts is, "That smells. Let's get it out of sight soon, so the bears and scavengers don't wander too close."

Do I think there is any content which is allowed here and should not be? No. I think this site is set up in a way that has created a haven for all of us whose needs don't quite fit in with modern society, wherever we live, and that trying to get even one thing banned would alienate those involved and make the rest of us oddballs, misfits and outcasts suddenly start wondering about whether we'd be banned next. It's Adult Fan Fiction for a reason, if not more than one. Minors in general have a bad tendency to flame and otherwise act immature, which makes me glad they're banned from here. Those of us allowed here for the most part mind our manners, keeping in mind that we haven't liked it when we've been banned, flamed, trolled, or spammed on other sites. To my mind, the simple fact that it's a kind of haven tells me, "It's okay to be and share who you are. Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind can just find something else to read. That's what we do here." And part of why it's a haven is this: the mods and admins respond quickly, use the same rules for everyone, and refuse to tolerate the kind of senseless, flamer-ridden arguments that now infest, for example, YouTube.

So, no, I don't think there's anything that should be removed from this site that isn't already. I've never understood why anyone would read something they know they're not going to like anyway, same as I've never understood why people on YouTube go to videos or songs they know they're not going to enjoy, only to complain that the music, the genre, the artist, the person who posted the video, or the viewers as a whole are crap, are pathetic, are-- We all know the list goes on. It's why I'm thankful that such poor behavior is not allowed here. Isn't that kind of haven worth having to avoid the tags you don't like?

[Raymy]

Poll: is there an point where you draw the lion as an writer?

Well, I'm not very good at drawing, so I doubt I'd ever reach an point where I would draw an lion. Is that the point where you just want an carnivore to rip your writing to shreds because it totally sucks? Okay, maybe I'd draw it then. But I warn you, it would be an really bad drawing!

Now, in regards to the topic being discussed: Drawing a line, saying, "This content shall not pass!"

Writing. No. If it suits my purposes, I'll write anything. I don't care if people want to equate my writing with who I am. They'll never truly know me. So, pah! Whatever.

Reading. I've pushed myself to read stuff that was a major squick but I took the time to evaluate why I felt that way and still came up with a review that, I felt, was not flamey. I feel I learned from the experience and realize that my personal boundaries need challenging. I won't restrict myself on the grounds that I may want to write controversial stuff in the future, if not currently, and learning about another's view is a stepping stone to expand my existence. Did that make sense? Eck. I think I got lost along the way.

Shoulds and shouldn'ts. Debates are also eye-opening for some, just like exposure to non-conforming fiction. Others, however, just want to dictate their beliefs without consideration. A common saying I use, "shoulda, coulda, woulda", means that if I should have, and I could have, then I would have. But I say it with a shrug, because it doesn't mean that much to me to conform. Others may have a different take on the saying.

I think my brain is fried cuz I can't follow my own thoughts. I just read through this thread from the beginning and I think I have a legitimate excuse for being off kilter. Plus I drank too much Dr. Pepper.

[Windrider Shiva]

I grew up with parents nearly addicted to thriller and sci-fi movies/series, and they made it clear for me that what was happening on TV (and in games, books, etc.) was NOT reality. Except the obvious news broadcast and so on. So as long as it's fictional, a lot of things don't squick me at all. I draw my personal line at scat/watersports and furries/anthro, basically. Pedophilia, incest, full-on bestiality (yep, I can't stand anthro, but bestiality is fine... I stopped wondering why), vore, extreme violence, rape, torture, tentacles, bring it on.

Make it real though, and I'll have long fled.

I don't view stories about incest/pedophilia as glorifying each either. To me, it's a story, ie. fiction. It doesn't mean that whoever wrote it actually lives the lifestyle or even approves of it. Just because I write violence doesn't mean I'm violent myself (last time I've punched someone, I was in high-school and for the record, they deserved it). I don't view that stuff as sick, even what I personally don't like - who am I to judge about what other people write, anyway? I might go "eewww," but that's about it.

So I'm really glad we have the tag system, and that people are very, very limited to what they can't post (which AFAIK, is celebrities/real people under 18, which makes complete sense, you're dealing with real people, even if the premise itself is fictional.)

[Guest Scrap_Paper]

I also agree that there is a difference between writing something, and DOING something in real life. What is acceptable depends on the person and shouldn't be enforced on others in fiction writing. Also, I think if people are allowed to explore their fantasies in fiction then they are able to get it out of their system and less likely to act on those fantasies in real life (incest, beastiality). I am curious if there have been studies to see whether people who write/draw their sexual fantasies are less likely to commit crimes than those who keep their thoughts to themselves. Hmmm

Having said that, there are a few things in adult fanfiction that make me sick to my stomache. Incest would be one. I have been a victim of forced incest and so naturally the thought of reading about characters engaging in incest makes me ill. I am also against incest in real life because of the possible children that could result and the fact that they are more likely to have health problems due to inbreeding. Even if a healthy child is produced, they would very likely suffer psychological problems from knowing their genetic origin. If two consulting adults want to engage in incest, then the only way I would be somewhat okay with it is if one of them agreed to be sterilized to prevent children. Incest repulses me but I believe if people want to write fiction about it then they should be able.

Bestiality and underage sex is something else that disgusts me but if someone wants to write about it then kudos for them. My personal philosophy for sexual encounters in real life is that it as long as it is between two consenting adults who are aware of what they are doing and doesn't harm anyone else (or any possible children that might result from such a union), then they should be free to do what they desire. Children and animals are not able to give informed consent- children are immature and not able to understand sexuality like adults, and animals cannot consent because they do not have the intelligence/sentience to understand the nature of what is going on or happening to them.

I have enjoyed adult fiction with dub-con and reluctance, but do not enjoy outright non-con or violent rape scenes. Scenes where the victim is being threatened with a knife or gun rub me the wrong way. I don't like snuff either.

There are many themes in adult fanfiction that I do not enjoy, but should people be prevented from writing? No, I don't think so. As long as its fantasy and fiction, I think writers should be able to write what they want.

[Tigro Spottystripes]

...

... and animals cannot consent because they do not have the intelligence/sentience to understand the nature of what is going on or happening to them.

...

An interesting, though quite thread derailing, spin-off discussion based on that bit of your argument would be whether you're also against all forms of animal testing, a full vegan, against pet ownership, against human-assisted animal breeding etc. But that is too much off-topic i guess.

[DemonGoddess]

You could always start a discussion about Tigro

[Kurahieiritr]

Quite a lively debate going on here. Some of it on topic and some off topic. I believe that Adultfanfiction net is about the freedom of expression first and foremost. I think I will use an illustration or two to tackle this specific topic. Three things stand out about this forum. Everyone loves to voice their own likes and dislikes. Some here seem to wish to see their dislikes removed.

I took psychology courses back in the age of dinosaurs. (for those in the 20's age range to understand this is coming for your mom's peer age) Back in the era of T-Rex, learning a lot about history's significance on modern cultures etc was mandatory. Here's the rub, . . . Let's look at the end of World War One; Germany. The rise of Political Correct politeness was being government enforced through legislation. PC Nazi ethics have been directly linked to the creation of Concentration Camps and Jewish genocide during World War Two. That is a well documented historical fact, not a fictitious wishful thinking statement. When we embrace Political Correctness, we are censoring freedom of speech. To be PC, you have to censor yourself. The more afraid you are to speak your truth, the easier it is for the government to control you and your friends in the end. IT is the beginning of a shift toward victimization prone thin skinned individuals who refuse to try and improve their lives because P.C. has historically made others into villains instead of teaching personal self responsibility.

Go to China and check out their lifestyle. P.C. is a law nobody dares argue. In fact for those too young to recall China's Tienanmen Square, crack your history books and learn how abusive Government becomes once it silences free speech. Learn the truth about Political Correctness and how it removes responsibility from the individual who often is already too lazy to stand up and raise their own children and worse. Free speech, even that which is rude, or infantile, gives human beings their number one emotional venting system. Remove the venting system, and the human being begins an unstoppable slow simmering emotional boiling of resentments. It has turned into genocidal tendencies at it's worst breaching points that humanity can never deny. Shut down the venting system, and the steam backs up.

Ever heard of a steam engine? That is how emotions eventually work in a sense. Forcing steam to build to set levels of pressure to make a train that weighs several tons to move forward at very fast speeds is the same as forcing people to keep their resentments and fancies to themselves. Just like the steam engine will self destruct if the steam is not vented correctly, so will the individual's emotions blow up after P.C. fears can no longer restrain the pressure of resentments.

This site has many diverse written formats for a reason. It is a venting system that can prevent the pressure build up from turning into destructive reality. Whether Cathartic or to simply needle those with holier than thou agendas, it has a place that should be respected by all. Removing topics that are uncomfortable for a set group is about breaking down the ability to vent emotions positive or negative that need a place to go. Shut off any taboo form writing and those who read and write them have less pressure release options to slow the explosion rate is my very well educated theory.

Don't like the content? How about trying the do not read it rule? Allow those who need to vent such ideals room to contain their emotions through a non violent format. Those who act on such pressurized emotions are a different beast entirely. They require damage control measures because those are perpetrating harmful or even exceedingly violent crimes. If this site can help prevent even one such violent explosion by giving a person a place to write it out, or read it, kudos and congrats. It worked to relieve the building emotional pressure in an individual somewhere. Otherwise that individual backed into a pressurized emotional corner would have committed an atrocity.

[Cuzosu]

Also, another reason not to draw those lines we're talking about: some people write about these things so they don't end up actually doing them.

[Dean_Wax]

Also, another reason not to draw those lines we're talking about: some people write about these things so they don't end up actually doing them.

So, you're saying someone spends hours cultivating highly eroticised smut about smearing his semen on an infant (almost always writing in that the infant has feelings of acceptance/compliance/enjoyment on the infant's part) and then posting it on a popular site on the internet where it gains readership of other like-minded individuals, forming a peer group of paedophiles who enjoy sexualising exploiting one of the most defenceless examples of humanity.

... just so they don't do it real life. Sorry, but that reeks of excuse-making, and is lightyears from being accurate when you take into account that they have posted the work publicly on a site that houses masturbation material. When these people form online bonds they aren't commiserating about their mental illness or hypothetically discussing how not to violate a toddler (usually the exact opposite). They congratulate one another for their work, declaring it a unique fetish that's just so misunderstood rather than what it is, and what it is is disgusting paraphillic psychopathy.

I have nothing but a callous contempt for these people.