It's the online version of, "But what will the neighbors think?!?"
I'm not sure I entirely agree agree. I mean, there are those who don't want the people around them to do bad things because they don't want other people associating them with those bad things. And then there are those who don't want the people around them to do bad things because they think they're bad things.
Of course, they get to define bad. And sometimes they define bad by what the neighbors think. But I tend to think the point here, the source of this, is that they really do think people writing this stuff threatens society or children or the moral integrity of the community they consider themselves a part of.
And therein lies the confusion, because I do not believe you can make moral judgments about art (art being an umbrella term. Some of the porn I am defending here I would be hard-pressed to call art, but obviously I mean fiction). Individuals can make moral judgments on how they choose to view art--they can choose not to look at it, boycott it, keep it from their children, etc.
But as soon as you start casting moral judgments on art, I believe you confuse it with reality. And even though the people on heatherly's side of the debate do understand that fiction is not reality, they come at it from the POV that moral judgments can be made on it as judgments can be made on reality, which means they look at the immoral acts in reality and apply those morals to art.
Their opinions of my art can only be a statement of preference as far as I'm concerned, because my art is amoral. But to them it is something entirely different. It is wrong, or dangerous, or irresponsible.
I guess what I mean is: yeah, they don't share our kinks, they're ashamed, and that's their problem. But they don't see it that way.
no subject
I'm not sure I entirely agree agree. I mean, there are those who don't want the people around them to do bad things because they don't want other people associating them with those bad things. And then there are those who don't want the people around them to do bad things because they think they're bad things.
Of course, they get to define bad. And sometimes they define bad by what the neighbors think. But I tend to think the point here, the source of this, is that they really do think people writing this stuff threatens society or children or the moral integrity of the community they consider themselves a part of.
And therein lies the confusion, because I do not believe you can make moral judgments about art (art being an umbrella term. Some of the porn I am defending here I would be hard-pressed to call art, but obviously I mean fiction). Individuals can make moral judgments on how they choose to view art--they can choose not to look at it, boycott it, keep it from their children, etc.
But as soon as you start casting moral judgments on art, I believe you confuse it with reality. And even though the people on heatherly's side of the debate do understand that fiction is not reality, they come at it from the POV that moral judgments can be made on it as judgments can be made on reality, which means they look at the immoral acts in reality and apply those morals to art.
Their opinions of my art can only be a statement of preference as far as I'm concerned, because my art is amoral. But to them it is something entirely different. It is wrong, or dangerous, or irresponsible.
I guess what I mean is: yeah, they don't share our kinks, they're ashamed, and that's their problem. But they don't see it that way.