Removing underage stories

[Carnivale Ed]

Let's quit pussy footing around here, ok? Many of the stories posted at that site were to satisfy the perverted fantasies of infantophiles, that's my understanding of the issue.

You can veil it with all kinds of terminology, young, under age, etc.. but it's much more than that, and it is what it is.

Given the subject matter, I'm not really sure I want to wade any further into this debate, but I feel compelled to, because I'm not sure it is actually as simple as you would make it, Alex.

The point's been well made above, but it bears repeating. We're talking about fiction. No child is actually being harmed here. That distiction, to me, is everything. This is, ostensibly, a site for writers of the particular genre broadly defined as BDSM, and the people who enjoy reading such. A section of that audience may, indeed, be 'infantophiles' as you claim, but to characterise them as 'perverted' is almost meaningless in this arena, given all of the other taboo subjects featured on the story site. They can all be interpreted as perverted, it just depends on who's doing the interpreting. As long as no real children are involved, a person's particular fetish is none of my business.

I guess my point is this - I've spent my life reading everything I can. In my mind, I've been to Roissy with O, to NY with Holden, and to the depths of Hell with Dante. I just find it sad that now there's a place I can't go, no matter how distasteful I might have found the trip.

'It is what it is?' It's a limit on my imagination, that's what it is, the one thing that should have no limits.

Hope I haven't offended.

I'm up to four cents, now, I think.

CE

[Woodchuck]

I was actually wondering why bother removing it all when everything on here is fiction anyway.

I remember reading books about underage people "hooking up" when I was in Jr High. I don't think we should be worried just because of the medium we are using. What we should be doing is preparing to help aid those who will be subject to unjust restriction.

[Alex Bragi]

Hi Ed,

How's thing on the other side of the island?

No, you haven't offended me in the least—I like to hear other people's ideas and thoughts. I'm broad-minded kind of lady, however, on this particular subject, I have to tell you, I'm the proverbial cyclops and I won't bend.

Certainly, I understand what you saying here, but I simply can't agree with it and my reasons are well documented at this site on other threads.

I would like to draw your attention to the notorious case of Fred and Rosemary West. In an article I read recently, one of their daughters is quoted as saying she refused to talk about the details of her abuse, not so much because of the mental anguish it causes her but, because she "doesn't want to give ideas to other perverts…" I think that pretty much sums up why I refuse condone kiddy porn—in any form.

[Carnivale Ed]

Hi Alex,

Things are wet on the this side of the island, but then, aren't they always?

Your point is well taken. I suppose I'm just wondering what we'd be missing out on if zero tolerance of certain subject matter had always applied to works of fiction - Lolita, 120 Days of Sodom, Romeo & Juliet? I may be giving, to some of the stories on the site, more credit than they deserve, but, in their own way, they're still works of art. They can still teach us something about ourselves, if only because they are so socially repugnant.

Example : Before coming here, I don't think I'd read a BDSM story featuring minors. Never occurred to me that I should. But I've now read 'Brotherly Love', a tale of incest and slavery between two eleven year old twins, and have been awed by it. There's romance and tenderness in this story that, given what it's about, I would never have believed possible. Something ugly has been made beautiful, if only in my mind. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think this tale is even remotely plausible. It's just that, for me, the literary eye-opening it gave me trumps any disgust at the actual events portrayed.

Given the nature of this site, it just seems ridiculously arbitrary to draw a line in the sand and say, "Here, but no further." The only rationale I can see for doing so, is for the reason it has been done here. To avert political interference of a perceived wrongdoing. Then, at least, the censorship serves a purpose beyond the maintenance of a morality that, while appropriate in the real world, has no relevance in fiction.

And, as for giving perverts ideas, I'm not convinced they need any. Entertainment, whether literary, visual or auditory, can only add details to somebody's sick desire, not create the desire in the first place. It's like blaming 'The Matrix' for Columbine because they wore long, dark coats. Specious reasoning.

All that said, though, I completely respect your opinion. I just think the potential of what we're giving up might be of far greater value than what we think we're gaining.

Agree to disagree?

Up to six cents, now. This is getting expensive.

Carnivale Ed, never in his life believing he'd, one day, be defending 'kiddie porn.'