the rats in the steel walls.

[reenka]

As a preface I'd like to say that in a way I agree with this post insofar as obviously there is an important difference between fictional and 'real' pedophilia (and likewise a difference between fantasizing and acting on any fantasy, obviously), but once again, I'm frustrated by how quickly and how thickly people jump to drawing the line between fantasy & reality, as if it's always some 12 foot wall of steel and not a fluttering curtain at times.

There's a line between 'fiction/fantasy cannot influence or become reality' and 'fiction/fantasy naturally will and does consistently influence and become reality' where the actual truth lies, and it's a source of continuous frustration to me that people are so stubbornly binary-thinking about this. :/ I guess it doesn't make a good rallying cry to say 'well, sometimes the right fantasy will affect the right person in such a way that they could catalyze it to become reality, but most times it (probably) won't, but either way it would have happened sooner or later with another form of that fantasy, so you can't really stop it'. :> A good example of this last point is how exposure to kink in fandom has led me in particular to become a lot more laid-back and accepting of my own kinkiness levels in real life. I don't really go out and 'do it', but... neither am I opposed to some of the things slash porn has brought home to me. :P In general, I wouldn't say I write porn I consider... well, non-hot, you know? Heh.

I mean duh, yeah, fiction != reality, the Easter bunny isn't real and the sky is blue, but on another level, what kind of paucity of imagination does this imply in people? This is empirical materialism at its most droll. Meh. :/ Even more frustrating when spoken by writers themselves. The opposite end of the spectrum is of course the faithful fanatic extremists, the ones who think that thoughts are dangerous and the heretics must be BURNED before they, you know, COME FOR US ALL. *eyeroll*


People fear disruptive beliefs and 'dangerous' speech for a reason, no matter how much one goes on about 'fantasy' and 'human rights'-- and that reason is that ideas are fucking powerful. Ideas can move the world, and they may not be real to start with-- I mean, you can make up some stupid fantastical story about overlord Xenu and the Body Thetans that's full of pure grade-A crack, and 50-some years later, Tom Cruise will go on TV loudly proclaiming how he's Seen the Light and You Should Too-- and that, that sort of crazy is as real as it gets. All too real, actually, as in I wish it'd go away and take all the other crazy cults with it. Yeah, right.

Likewise, people go on and go about free speech for even the most loathsome & dangerous concepts for a reason-- and that reason is that once you start repressing and censoring, these ideas actually gain power as they go underground and strengthen through increased opposition. People who're given a real fight rather than dealt with rationally & peacefully tend to fight harder. People are contrary bastards that way. This is why terrorists wet themselves with glee at every bit of mass panic and hatred they can stir up, right? Right, because that's what they need to grow and to prove their point.

The thing is, the painful truth is, that we cannot avoid the dangers of existence, we can't really protect ourselves and we can only sort of protect our kids. We can do our best, and that's all anyone can do, but a lot of times we'll be fucked over anyway and there's nothing to be done about that because 90% of the time the 'solution' is worse than the problem. And I'm not trying to be nihilist, either, I'm just trying to say that the 'solution' is accepting the world as it is-- trying to help without trying to 'fix it', because basically you can't fix it when 'it' is reality or human nature.
    You can deal with it, you can try to go around it or improve it or treat its effects, but you can't... change its basic properties. Therefore you'd have to accept that our greatest freedoms carry within them-- are the flipside of-- the greatest dangers, and that fantasy is indeed dangerous, though not half so much as reality, and there's no such thing-- no such thing-- as a harmless thought. It's only when you fully realize that that it becomes truly meaningful to say that there's also no thought, fantasy or pure desire that should be forbidden.

So basically you end up with a lot of stuff about 'lesser evils' and a lot of people telling themselves that it's safer to allow the dangerous types like pedophiles their imaginary pleasures because after all, the imagination is a powerful thing, and it can, in fact, often be near as good as the real thing. It can stem the urge. It can heal. It can create an outlet. It can defuse the ticking bomb. In short, it's the furthest thing from safe and it has a deeply real effect on the person doing the imagining, but even with all that, it's better than the alternative. And pedophilia is actually a straw man in any discussion about fantasy vs. reality in some ways, because nearly everyone has a very clear knee-jerk reaction against it, right? I know I do; I pretty much hate pedophilia like I hate nothing else human. It's easy to feel separate from it and to say 'I'm nothing like that' 'cause clearly, clearly, you don't want to hurt children.
    Of course, inevitably this leads to murkier waters like 'so obviously I don't want to kill anyone' and 'obviously I don't want kinky sex', etc, where the truth is that whether or not we like murder mysteries, a lot of their potential draw comes from the fact that we can, as human beings, empathize with the instinct to kill if we're honest with ourselves. Most people-- even me-- just need the right incentive for most awful or dark or dangerous things, really. We just need the right push, and that truth is where dark fiction and dark fantasies of all stripes draw their deeply welling power in the first place.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess I do think some people are 'purer' and 'kinder' than (most) others (ie, I don't think you can ascripe a single level of 'darkness' to humanity in general), but they attain that kindness and goodness not through righteousness but through heightened empathy and being at peace with themselves, letting go. People who love do not speak of love but rather become love; people who speak of vengeance and of control of various unsavory social elements are always becoming vulnerable to darkness through the will to power.

But you're right-- this was just a rant, I realize people have a lot invested in their denial of their darker natures, though at the same time one of the beautiful things about fiction is its ability to rip through that denial much more efficiently than any essay or argument :> The answer, as I said, isn't to fight-- it's to go around, to inspire and enlighten without confronting people's fears head-on. And fear is what I think it is-- people have always been afraid of themselves first and foremost, and of course of each other, because on some level we do know each other's dark faces and it freaks us the fuck out :>

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I wanted to link to you but of course I still can't post, third day now, and I realise I answered way too condensed and possibly misleading for people on another wavelength but I've got too many thoughts and they're bursting and not neatly downwritable and as I said, I know either people understand or they refuse to be honest.

I also think some people are kinder due to not being mean; I tend to be hard with myself, but compared to others I know I'm more empathic and cringe from certain actions (but I'm not at peace with myself, so I'd not agree there in general).
When I meant "love" I'm talking the American usage that's everywhere now. It would take too long for me to explain ... what is generally sold under that word is nothing, whereas trying to work with all the myrad of tiny grievances and dislikes and misunderstandings in a relationship to me is the true attempt to love someone and all that blather about of course one loves ones children or parents is the worst lie of all.

Yes, yes, so I'm glad you wrote something up, really am.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehee I always think it's kind of cute how we complain to each other about how no one bothers to read our rambles but when you talk to me it tends to be way condensed and um, elliptical. :> I also tend to have many thoughts, so what I end up doing is revising my posts a lot and also rambling :)) Being condensed is generally not a problem, anyway. At least it saves me from being overly sentimental (most times), as it might be a danger to more condensed I got. :> Unless it's angsty poetry :D But that's neither here nor there. ^^;

Hahahah 'due to not being mean' :D :D :D That's condensed in a good way, too :D I love it :D

I meant that um, being at peace would help, not that you'd have to be or even most kind/empathetic/non-mean people are. Few people are at peace, but I figure those that manage it are probably a lot less dark than others :> Of course there's probably not enough people who're fully enlightened Zen monks for us to make a general survey statement with any degree of confidence anyway :D

I knew you meant 'that' love, 'cause we are, in fact, generally on the same wavelength :> The sentimental 'love' is generally what people talk about 'cause they don't really experience the depths of 'real' love or any intense emotion, or if they do they don't have the depth of self-awareness and the philosophic background to speak about it (especially in America, I'll grant you). I do wonder if it's a personality thing as much or moreso than a cultural thing-- I mean, an INFP's (http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html) love is really not an ESFJ's (http://www.typelogic.com/esfj.html) love by a long-shot, and I suppose America has lots more ESFJs than say... Japan or England, though it's really that the culture suppresses certain tendencies more, as well. I guess I'm trying to be empathetic and say some people do care about those 'shallow' words and birthdays & greeting cards & baseball games and Hallmark movies, etc. The depth of intense and authentic introverted Feeling that dominates my personality is probably not fair to compare to someone who's just... really different. I guess :>

it doesn't let me post OR comment now; part 1

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I know - but hey, at least I do talk to you, pffft, you nevah do! ;P Being condensed is my curse, though, and no matter how long I take drafting and editing, only one person gets it.

*ggg* um, yes, well, struth.

I agree with you, in my initial response I was just focussing on me and how that's not the reason for me, but then I'm not most people and so agree that generally the balanced ones are less mean.

2

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

My definitions are, again, far more complicated to understand. I should probably go to the camp of the nihilists and rationalists, but that's completely wrong, because I have always been and still am always looking for love, despite never finding it. What "people" call "love" is just not good enough for me! It's just ... nothing. Hollow, empty, meaningless, a lable slapped onto things, and so when you post about how you want your

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

H/D to be full of hate and no rosy feelings and I think "no, I don't want that" maybe we're both thinking the same but just in different words. What others might read as me being callous or writing two people not caring for each other is me searching for something that goes deeper, acknowledging as many things as possible about our complicated selves and billions of mostly unpleasant thoughts etc. and then, despite, yet, nevertheless, especially then have people care for and about each other.

Which veered from the initial topic, so I'll just add that

4

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

anybody claiming both that they are "normal, healthy" people and that their love for reading about the raping of children is "just fiction" should think about both terms, because a) there is no normal, that's already a dangerous lie, a huge one used to cover a multitude of sins, and it shouldn't be a sin to admit to dark desires, but b) it is one if those are then claimed to be natural and healthy but/YET ONLY AS FICTION, which has noooothing to do with their lives (Nabokov wouldn't be happy to hear that his work had nothing to do with RL, is what I wanted to post but). Two lies don't make one truth.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm talking about 'shallow' or sentimental love when I say (if I say) that I don't want 'love' for H/D. Of course I want Love, I'm in love with Love-- but what most people write as love is just sentimentality and a poor reflection, and 'hate', I suppose-- to me, in that context, it's just another way to add complexity and intensity. It's exactly that-- trying to be honest, searching for meaning, searching for 'something that goes deeper', in spite of darkness, that thrives in the most inhospitable environment and is therefore more real. I probably go overboard sometimes 'cause I'm still attracted to all forms of romanticism, so when I write a 'cute' or affectionate/fluffy H/D fic (and I do!), I feel like I'm slipping or something. *eyeroll* I have this need for things to always be deep and meaningful that even I can't keep up with :>

And mostly I don't comment on anyone's ljs these days since I've pretty much not been 'here' if by here you mean active presence on lj/fandom. ^^; Meep. Either reading fantasy books or (before recently) obsessing with the INFP forum. Ah well, that part's over, at least. I feel more comfortable expressing myself at my lj, where even if people get offended/confused and misunderstand, I feel I have a right to say whatever 'cause it's -my- lj.

(Christ, the Denial of Service attack thing is getting out of control, seriously.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Like other of your replies (lucky you, so long in one box) I got this twice - but the first had an interesting sentence that broke off in the middle instead of this last line (which, grah, in my time zone it's now the fourth day).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Er, I had a response to that last bit written out but then it... went *poof*, so ^^;;
Suffice it to say that I agree, and that this reminds me of the usual portrait of repressed American suburbia, where everyone thinks what's important is the face you put on and the things you do in public, etc, and even if you've got severed fingers in little jars in the basement at home, everything's fine if you those fingers either aren't Mary's or John's from down the street or alternatively no one knows and the party goes on as planned.

I guess I don't really think of having a Super-ego as something to congratulate someone over? So yeay, you don't go out and kill/rape/pillage, yeah, repression and fear of consequences and civilization in general has done its job? Er? I used to have arguments about the value of actions (as 'reality') vs. feelings/thoughts (as 'reality') often, and people... well, I think they may honestly think that their inner world is 120% less real and significant than the world of what they ate for breakfast and where they went last Sunday, and in fact that's what 'reality' is, just as 'normalcy' is merely resembling the Joneses enough to 'pass'. I don't even think you can call it a 'lie' because it's such a culturally accepted and deeply rooted belief, one that they build entire social orders on. They bring out the 'fiction/desires are dangerous! oppress now!!' thing when people get a little too much religion (and guilt), but basically Western society functions through repression of the individual Id and its subsequent sublimation into 'acceptable' venues.

ah, there's the missing bit! mine in parts *sigh* 1

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Heh, that sounds a lot like what you hear about Victorian England and Germany of the Burgertime, so not really new either. It's just always scarier without the comforting distance of time - or space, as in the two homies parking in my street now are simply surreal and belong to America, not Middle Europe in my mind.

2

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Yeah *grimaces* it's fascinating and even if there are books about that phenomenon, I don't think they actually capture eg. all the people I worked with, or my parents' world either. It is about breakfast and holidays and if one of *types/deletes coz circular blabla* okay, leaving aside all the Ids, I think Douglas Adams is the one that nailed it alone, when he makes his heroes admit they don't give a toss about saving the world.
Sorry, I'm dense and elliptical (it's late and Dr. Who annoyed me) but basically,

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

the good of religion is for the masses, so they don't just steal and kill and do what they like, because most people do only care about breakfast and holidays and it needs the guilt and the rules to make them care about other people. But then this, as you say, is the basis of society, and we have the connundrum (?) of seeming "bad" when trying to be really "good".

Yes, thread all lost *waves*