I keep asking why sexual abuse is worse than regular abuse and getting no answer.

If you don’t want to see incest on AO3, you can filter it out. I’m against improperly tagged works on AO3 for this very reason. There are even browser extensions that allow you to permanently filter out tags!

alanabloommd:

biancaoblivion:

You’re repeating your initial message, but you’re not answering my questions, namely the last one: where do you draw the line? There isn’t a clear, stark line between high and low art. Furthermore, the OP specifically talked about the difference between fetishization and portrayal, so my question about sexual pleasure was very much relevant. I’m under no delusions of the incest tag on AO3 containing mostly thought-provoking artworks on the theme, but there are some, so how do you make a moral ruling that protects them while keeping everything else out? Can you stand to enforce a ruling that takes out valuable works? I can’t. And again, because this question is very much relevant, why is your E-rated PWP incest boogeyman harmful when thought-provoking original fiction isn’t? The two are not artistically comparable (fanfic is art, but not all art is good, after all), but they are morally comparable to me.

here’s the answer to your question, which i shouldn’t even have to answer because it’s that simple: when you are engaging with fan made media (producing or consuming)— there is a clear line in the literary significance of fanmade and original published works, which is what we are discussing here—that contain themes or explicit content with incest, and you are actively harming REAL LIFE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE. murder is irrelevant to the conversation because murder victims have no chance of consuming the media when browsing archive of our fucking own. (because. and i can’t believe i have to spell this out. they are dead.) there is a moral ruling because incest is an actual fucking act of sexual abuse, not a fun funky fresh literary device to be utilized in a fanfic. incest in fanfic is actively fetishizing it. there is no two ways about it.

and yeah i can’t enforce it just like i can’t enforce that people don’t commit murder (as you love to keep comparing this to) but i sure am against it! since we are keeping with the murder comparison, no one has ever committed incest in self defense before. but there are SOME testimonies from people who are victims of incest who say the perpetrator consumed fanworks containing incest. and the fact that even one victim says that should be proof enough that fanworks with incest is actively harmful. the literary merit of incest in fanfiction should not even be a discussion. the line is drawn when actual, real life victims of abuse are being harmed. why can’t you see that?

There isn’t a clear line between fanworks and published fiction, for starters. Authors changing the character names in their fanfics and publishing them is a widespread phenomenon. But this line of thought is, IMO, irrelevant to the conversation.

Attempted murder exists and is traumatising. Why is sexual violence worse than regular violence? Victims of attempted murder can read fanfiction about murder, so why isn’t it immoral? The same goes for car crashes, torture, or medical abuse (I can’t help but notice your Hannibal URL). Why is incest different? I’m also curious as to the definition of active harm you’re operating under. How does someone writing incest fanfiction actively harm victims?

Your statement that the line is drawn at fetishised depictions of sexual abuse presents several problems. The first I already mentioned above: Why is sexual violence worse than regular violence? The second is that it is more difficult to tell whether something was written with fetishistic intent than you think. Art is complex, as are the interpretations thereof (and yes, even the trashiest fanfic is technically art, even if we deem it lowbrow and bad art, and is as such subjected to the ontology of art, which very notably lacks such a thing as clear lines). Don’t assume. You seem to be using whether it is posted to AO3 as a litmus test, but that ignores both the countless works of published erotica fetishising SA and the incest-focused fanfics that don’t even make the cut for an Explicit rating. Furthermore, even art with an erotic or fetishising intent can have things to say? As I said in the post that started all this, erotic art can be horrifying and thought-provoking.

I ask yet again, where is the line? Hannibal is based on an existing media property (like fanfic is) and consists largely of very eroticised medical abuse, a real-life cause of trauma. If the exact script of Hannibal, instead of being shot professionally, had been posted to AO3, would that be harmful?

And yes, you can enforce being against murder. It’s called the law. It doesn’t stop murder altogether, but it is a clear ruling against it. I’m arguing that you can’t make such a ruling against any type of literature because literature is ontologically nebulous and anything that takes out what you consider harmful will also take out valuable, “harmless” works as well. There are famously “some testimonies” of violent people playing violent games. These testimonies aren’t enough to say (1) whether they’re more than anecdotal evidence, (2) if there is a cause-effect relation, and (3) whether these people were influenced by the material or if they were drawn to it due to a preexisting disposition toward the acts portrayed in it. If you take one person, as you said, as proof, then we should also ban violent videogames, films that satirise toxic masculinity (because so-called sigma males love to misinterpret them and try to emulate their protagonists), and so on. It’s neither reasonable nor feasible.

There is more to say on this topic, which is much more complex than you give it credit for, but I draw the line at being told to kill myself in the tags. It’s immature and unproductive. I’m going to stop replying after this.

What is the difference between someone deriving sexual pleasure from a story in their head and the same person posting it online to a niche, easily filterable website for other people to derive sexual pleasure from?

Wait until I introduce you to the concept of rape fantasies, which have been endlessly researched and written about.

You’re repeating your initial message, but you’re not answering my questions, namely the last one: where do you draw the line? There isn’t a clear, stark line between high and low art. Furthermore, the OP specifically talked about the difference between fetishization and portrayal, so my question about sexual pleasure was very much relevant. I’m under no delusions of the incest tag on AO3 containing mostly thought-provoking artworks on the theme, but there are some, so how do you make a moral ruling that protects them while keeping everything else out? Can you stand to enforce a ruling that takes out valuable works? I can’t. And again, because this question is very much relevant, why is your E-rated PWP incest boogeyman harmful when thought-provoking original fiction isn’t? The two are not artistically comparable (fanfic is art, but not all art is good, after all), but they are morally comparable to me.

Thank you, thank you. We do try out here.

And is murder in fanfic also wrong? Why not? I read about someone committing murder through a clever method and feel the pleasure of witnessing a particularly satisfying puzzle click together. Someone else reads it and derives sexual pleasure from it. Is the latter wrong when the former isn’t? If so, what changes except that sexual feelings are now involved? If not, how is fictional murder different from fictional incest when both are used for erotic means? Where do you draw the line?