~~ sanity. it's what's for breakfast.
May. 26th, 2004 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI think I've seen the light. Now, this happens often, so it's no big deal, as I see all sorts of 'lights' frequently (it's sort of like being on a continuous trip except without the artificial drugs). But.
I've actually seen the same Dan-squeeing post in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
hpguys_daily that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wickedcherub wrote about, and I was disturbed by all the sexual references, yes. Hell, I get disturbed when people drool over -drawings- of the boys (even though I know I'm also guilty); more than that, I get disturbed when anyone drools over -anyone- in public, dude. I am sekritly prudish, it seems :D Well, I was even more disturbed because I do think he's "cute". Actually, I think he's beautiful. He's... disturbingly attractive (to me).
So are (at least!) hundreds of other actors and actresses and people on the street.
I've always thought the question of whether the fans would actually shag their crush object was... er... irrelevant? Immature? Silly? Embarrassing? Yeah, something like that. Sure, I check out guys, girls & fictional characters with gusto myself (though I feel ridiculously protective of ickle Harry-- and that's -Harry-, not Dan), but... seriously wanting unreachable sex objects isn't a sign of pedophilia, it's a sign of being sexually immature. Which basically means you -like- them being untouchable in some way, so that you don't actually have to make the decision of whether to shag them.
In a way, it's like writing Mary Sues, this sort of self-insertion into the actors' reality-- since, really, as the RPS-slashers keep saying, the actors are about as fictional as their characters, because we basically don't know them as people, do we. Sure, if I was a character in the HP books (...and that statement alone has many an issue with it), yes, I'd shag him in a minute, given that he liked me back & we were in school together. But. I'm... not. And also, if I -was- an HP character, I'd say that I would still know that Harry needs someone else. There's a reason I dislike Harry/Luna, as I identify with her.
And as far as Dan... I really doubt there are -that- many hardcore groupies out there, no matter how hot the actor is. Aaaand... if by some extreme twist of fate, a woman who's 10 years older and a teenager fell in love (consensually)... well... 16 is the age of consent, baby. That's 2 years away for sex, not romance.
Do I want Johnny Depp in my bed in actuality, then, since I think he's so hot? Hell no. He makes my hormones do a little happy dance, sure, but are most people over the age of 17 or so slaves to their hormones? Would most people -molest- someone (against their will), whatever they're feeling, whether or not they're younger than them, no matter -how- overheated they are? What kind of question is that, anyway? Is that what we really think of each other?
There's one key phrase there that I can see:
But I do think it's wrong to fantasise [...]
And that's when it all became really simple for me.
Because it is simple: it can never be wrong to fantasize, can it. It can be wrong to hurt people or yourself (though that shouldn't be -illegal-), but how can it be "wrong" to use your imagination in whatever way you want?
I think what people forget it the foundation behind some of these unquestioned ethical guidelines. So that people can forget to ask whether a particular case involves -harm- or is simply in -danger- of one day possibly involving harm to oneself or others. That is to say-- plenty of activities, legal and illegal, -can- be dangerous if engaged in by the right 'sort' of person, under the right circumstances. Taking a shower is dangerous if you're dizzy or distracted-- you can easily slip, fall & die. Admittedly, that's a different degree of risk than the one you take driving while intoxicated. And it's a different degree of risk again when you start heavily fantasizing about hurting people somehow.
The thing I realized is-- if you're the sort of person who'll hurt people, it doesn't matter what you look at or are exposed to, eventually something will 'click' and fantasy & reality will blur. Psychosis isn't something you can induce by exposure to fantasies of any sort, and without knowing each particular person, one can't make even an educated guess as to someone's mental state & their level of vulnerability.
Most people, I think I've just realized, are remarkably healthy and what's more, they're resilient. They're not generally fragile beings who'll snap if you tell them or show them "dangerous" materials. Most people will give things a chance as far as running them through some mental simulations, but the vast majority of people have a -lot- of natural safeguards that protect -them- from their own half-formed psychoses. None of us, it is true, are completely "healthy" or "normal", but around 90% of us know how to compensate well enough to go through life without hurting anyone seriously.
I myself am a great example: my mental health is almost always in some sort of flux, and I'm probably on the border of any number of disorders, if not actually -having- one full-fledged. And yet... generally, I would say I function normally most of the time. I don't shield myself in the slightest, though I am avoidant of some particular things that stress me out and I instinctively feel I can't handle. In fact, I'm guessing that most people have this innate sense of what they can handle and what they can't. Most likely, the things -I- feel I can't handle without suffering serious mental trauma (say, serious pain-kink/torture fantasy stuff), a number of people -can-.
I think the people who snap get a lot of attention, but that's because they're unusual. There aren't really hordes of pedophiles waiting to happen, no matter -what- sort of lusts anyone harbors in theory. In practice, people act -very- differently than they do in theory within their minds, don't they; in fact, it almost seems like generally these are completely separate sets of behaviors. I know for me, this is very true, and I think I've a much stronger link than is even remotely healthy between my fantasy life and my everyday self. I usually say that my fantasy life is more real to me than my everyday life, and I'd trade one for the other in a heartbeat. Even so, I would say they're blindingly separate.
Fact remains, the reason people tend to say "X is wrong, and it should not be encouraged" is because they're afraid.
They're afraid of themselves and of other people. They don't trust people's innate moral compass to steer them when they don't have the absolute of "don't even think about doing X". That, I think, is in itself an unhealthy policy, because it depends on rigid repression, and that alone makes "snapping" more likely. As we all know, after the repression of the 50s, what did we have? The 60s.
Now... I have to admit that certain things will always disturb me, simply because I'm easily disturbed, personally. But I will try to have more faith in my fellows. Or more precisely, to remember that I do actually have that faith.
It is the only possible healthy attitude, I think. Otherwise, there are way too many possible triggers out there, and way too many things that can go wrong with humanity in general. Instead of dying out through murder & mass physical & psychological weaponry, we're getting more and more populous, aren't we? In the end, I have to believe we're doing something right, in spite of any terrorists and child molesters and rapists and evil politicians. They aren't inhuman-- they are one of us-- but we are not them. All in all, I would have to say the human race is surprisingly... sane. And... I never thought I'd say that, trust me~:)
I've actually seen the same Dan-squeeing post in
hpguys_daily that wickedcherub wrote about, and I was disturbed by all the sexual references, yes. Hell, I get disturbed when people drool over -drawings- of the boys (even though I know I'm also guilty); more than that, I get disturbed when anyone drools over -anyone- in public, dude. I am sekritly prudish, it seems :D Well, I was even more disturbed because I do think he's "cute". Actually, I think he's beautiful. He's... disturbingly attractive (to me).So are (at least!) hundreds of other actors and actresses and people on the street.
I've always thought the question of whether the fans would actually shag their crush object was... er... irrelevant? Immature? Silly? Embarrassing? Yeah, something like that. Sure, I check out guys, girls & fictional characters with gusto myself (though I feel ridiculously protective of ickle Harry-- and that's -Harry-, not Dan), but... seriously wanting unreachable sex objects isn't a sign of pedophilia, it's a sign of being sexually immature. Which basically means you -like- them being untouchable in some way, so that you don't actually have to make the decision of whether to shag them.
In a way, it's like writing Mary Sues, this sort of self-insertion into the actors' reality-- since, really, as the RPS-slashers keep saying, the actors are about as fictional as their characters, because we basically don't know them as people, do we. Sure, if I was a character in the HP books (...and that statement alone has many an issue with it), yes, I'd shag him in a minute, given that he liked me back & we were in school together. But. I'm... not. And also, if I -was- an HP character, I'd say that I would still know that Harry needs someone else. There's a reason I dislike Harry/Luna, as I identify with her.
And as far as Dan... I really doubt there are -that- many hardcore groupies out there, no matter how hot the actor is. Aaaand... if by some extreme twist of fate, a woman who's 10 years older and a teenager fell in love (consensually)... well... 16 is the age of consent, baby. That's 2 years away for sex, not romance.
Do I want Johnny Depp in my bed in actuality, then, since I think he's so hot? Hell no. He makes my hormones do a little happy dance, sure, but are most people over the age of 17 or so slaves to their hormones? Would most people -molest- someone (against their will), whatever they're feeling, whether or not they're younger than them, no matter -how- overheated they are? What kind of question is that, anyway? Is that what we really think of each other?
There's one key phrase there that I can see:
But I do think it's wrong to fantasise [...]
And that's when it all became really simple for me.
Because it is simple: it can never be wrong to fantasize, can it. It can be wrong to hurt people or yourself (though that shouldn't be -illegal-), but how can it be "wrong" to use your imagination in whatever way you want?
I think what people forget it the foundation behind some of these unquestioned ethical guidelines. So that people can forget to ask whether a particular case involves -harm- or is simply in -danger- of one day possibly involving harm to oneself or others. That is to say-- plenty of activities, legal and illegal, -can- be dangerous if engaged in by the right 'sort' of person, under the right circumstances. Taking a shower is dangerous if you're dizzy or distracted-- you can easily slip, fall & die. Admittedly, that's a different degree of risk than the one you take driving while intoxicated. And it's a different degree of risk again when you start heavily fantasizing about hurting people somehow.
The thing I realized is-- if you're the sort of person who'll hurt people, it doesn't matter what you look at or are exposed to, eventually something will 'click' and fantasy & reality will blur. Psychosis isn't something you can induce by exposure to fantasies of any sort, and without knowing each particular person, one can't make even an educated guess as to someone's mental state & their level of vulnerability.
Most people, I think I've just realized, are remarkably healthy and what's more, they're resilient. They're not generally fragile beings who'll snap if you tell them or show them "dangerous" materials. Most people will give things a chance as far as running them through some mental simulations, but the vast majority of people have a -lot- of natural safeguards that protect -them- from their own half-formed psychoses. None of us, it is true, are completely "healthy" or "normal", but around 90% of us know how to compensate well enough to go through life without hurting anyone seriously.
I myself am a great example: my mental health is almost always in some sort of flux, and I'm probably on the border of any number of disorders, if not actually -having- one full-fledged. And yet... generally, I would say I function normally most of the time. I don't shield myself in the slightest, though I am avoidant of some particular things that stress me out and I instinctively feel I can't handle. In fact, I'm guessing that most people have this innate sense of what they can handle and what they can't. Most likely, the things -I- feel I can't handle without suffering serious mental trauma (say, serious pain-kink/torture fantasy stuff), a number of people -can-.
I think the people who snap get a lot of attention, but that's because they're unusual. There aren't really hordes of pedophiles waiting to happen, no matter -what- sort of lusts anyone harbors in theory. In practice, people act -very- differently than they do in theory within their minds, don't they; in fact, it almost seems like generally these are completely separate sets of behaviors. I know for me, this is very true, and I think I've a much stronger link than is even remotely healthy between my fantasy life and my everyday self. I usually say that my fantasy life is more real to me than my everyday life, and I'd trade one for the other in a heartbeat. Even so, I would say they're blindingly separate.
Fact remains, the reason people tend to say "X is wrong, and it should not be encouraged" is because they're afraid.
They're afraid of themselves and of other people. They don't trust people's innate moral compass to steer them when they don't have the absolute of "don't even think about doing X". That, I think, is in itself an unhealthy policy, because it depends on rigid repression, and that alone makes "snapping" more likely. As we all know, after the repression of the 50s, what did we have? The 60s.
Now... I have to admit that certain things will always disturb me, simply because I'm easily disturbed, personally. But I will try to have more faith in my fellows. Or more precisely, to remember that I do actually have that faith.
It is the only possible healthy attitude, I think. Otherwise, there are way too many possible triggers out there, and way too many things that can go wrong with humanity in general. Instead of dying out through murder & mass physical & psychological weaponry, we're getting more and more populous, aren't we? In the end, I have to believe we're doing something right, in spite of any terrorists and child molesters and rapists and evil politicians. They aren't inhuman-- they are one of us-- but we are not them. All in all, I would have to say the human race is surprisingly... sane. And... I never thought I'd say that, trust me~:)
