Responses to [perceived] assaults... (it's long, sorry ... or maybe not *g*)

[Meira B]

Me:
Ok, don't hurt me, this is going to be a bit long, since I snipped just a 
little bit of the original post... just thought I should warn you.



Diana:
>The majority of parents are just not ready to explain to their child how 
>gay
>sex 'works' exactly in context with his favorite fictional HP characters.


John:
I am becoming increasingly frustrated with your continual, unceasing
equations of the appearance of gay characters with sex, sex, sex, because
that belittles gay people. The stereotype of gay people as rampant
nymphomaniacs is as ludicrous and demeaning as the stereotype of black
people as criminals. Please stop perpetuating it.


Me:
I understood Diana's words here in a different way.
Sex is a natural part of our lives. Without it, none of us would be here. 
One thing is explaining the "mechanics" of sexual intercourse (gay, lesbian 
or straight) and another totally different thing is to get to the tiniest 
bits of information about it. I think that what Diana meant is that she 
doesn't want to get into the "tiny details".
(When explaining straight sex, for example, there's a difference between 
explaining what goes where and what happens with the egg and how it's 
fertilized and explaining what exactly is foreplay, sexual arousal and all 
the other intimate details that have to do with sex).


Diana:
>Why would I voluntarily tell my son everything I know about sex before he's
>ready to hear it?  Overloading kids with info they are not ready for is not
>the way to explain sexual feelings and intercourse to a child.


John:
Oh, honestly, nobody's suggesting that. And your use of "overloading"
perpetuates a commonly-held Anglo-American perception that children are
ignorant.


Me:
I don't think so. I agree with Diana that there are levels of information 
(as I said earlier) that children are capable of handling, and that there 
are details that would overwhelm them, if explained too early.

For example: Imagine that you want to further your child's sexual education 
by watching TV. One thing would be to watch with him (or her, for the sake 
of the argument it's a "he", ok? :)) an educational program about sex and 
about how babies are born and how there are some men who don't find women 
all that attractive and prefer other men and how women sometimes prefer 
living with other women instead with other men. That is one thing, and is 
perfectly acceptable. Or watching movies that approach the sex issue (gay, 
straight etc) in a mild manner (such as that videoclip that has been running 
online a while ago about those two boys that play soccer and end up kissing 
each other in the middle of the field. Sorry for the poor example, but that 
is what comes to my mind at this moment). Another, totally different thing 
would be to put that kid in front of the TV and watch a pornographic movie 
with him.


John:
Studies show that in countries where love, sexual feelings and
intercourse are explained by various degrees at an age-appropriate level
without acute societal embarrassment, children make more stable, rational
and informed decisions about their own lives and sex lives.


Me:
No argument here...


John:
And, honestly, it's not *hard* to explain love to a kid. As an educator, I
have to do so frequently. To a kid from a two-parent home, I would say "You
know how mummy and daddy love each other? Well, those two men love each
other the same way." Obviously, to a kid whose parents are not living
together, I would adapt the reference to one of a common societal reference
point: "You know how Shrek and Princess Fiona love each other?"
<snip>


Me:
Explain the concept of love using the concept "love"? That's not such a good 
way of explaining anything....

Kid: "Mummy, what is 'Tall'?"
Mom: "Well, sweetums, you know how daddy is tall?"
Kid: "Yeah."
Mom: "That's what tall is."


Diana:
>[2] My son represents the 'everychild' who isn't being watched over by a
>parent.


John:
Yet, despite attempting to distance yourself from 'everychild', you
nonetheless take offence at others commenting on the fact that this
'everychild''s situation is *not* a recommended one:


Diana:
>I don't know if any of you have children, but I should tell you
>right up front that insulting a mother by telling her she must be a
>bad parent who lets her kids run rampant on the internet reading
>whatever they want is *extremely* loaded and offensive.


John:
Barb wrote, using language which implies that you *are* supervising your
child:

(Barb:)
>if you are not supervising your child's internet use, that is a decision 
>that
>you might need to reexamine



Me:
"if you are *not* supervising..." (emphasis mine)
How does it imply that "you *are* supervising your child" (emphasis John's)?


John:
and I wrote, using language which again, implies your responsible parenting:

>But surely, as a responsible parent, you monitor your nine year old's 
>internet
>usage, and thus the point about children being disturbed by material, of
>whatever nature, is rather moot?

You wrote:

(Diana:)
>The majority of parents are just not ready to explain to their child how 
>gay
>sex 'works' exactly in context with his favorite fictional HP characters.


John:
See above. Once again, you equate gay people with sex, sex, sex. The
majority of parents *should* be ready to explain to their child how love
works.


Me:
I don't think so. Personally, I know that the gender of the person is really 
not so important if I love him/she/it. But there are those that their 
partner's gender is an important issue. So yes, it *does* have to do with 
sex.
And I can see her point. If the kid doesn't see Harry and Ron (for example, 
don't throw any rotten tomatoes at me, guys ^-^) as being in love with each 
other (as in romantic love), then why should the parent say "Hey, kiddo, you 
know Harry and Ron? I think they might be gay and love each other." So ok, 
it opens your mind and helps you accept other POV's, but really, I'll give 
here one example from my own personal live:
I used to live in the neighborhood that's at the other side of the city, and 
beyond that there was noting but sand. I used to enjoy walking my dog late 
at night there because it is deserted, and there's no one there. One day, a 
car drives by and stops next to me and the people inside tell me "Why are 
you walking all alone in this part of the neighborhood for? Don't you know 
that you can get assaulted and raped here?" Since then, I never ventured out 
that far. I used to pass near the construction sites, where bedouins and 
foreign workers worked without the slightest fear (and they even invited me 
for a cup of tea once after mentioning that the bedouin tea is my favorite). 
So I knew since then that it's dangerous to be there at such a late hour of 
the night, and yes, it did open my mind, but it damaged me more than it 
helped me.


John:
A loves B like C loves D. Simple. Even the Kinsey study shows that
50% of males experience homosexual attraction in their lives. 10% show
exclusively homosexual attraction.
<snip>


Me:
Yes, very simple. I would make sure that instead of overloading the kid with 
information, I would make sure that he knows that he can come to his parents 
for answers to his questions.
Everything has it's own time and pace. Same goes for kids' development. Just 
because a child can divide and multiply at an early age far beyond what is 
"average" in his age group, doesn't mean that you have to bombard the kid 
with university-level (or high-school level) mathematics, equations 
functions and whatever.


John:
Wouldn't you as a parent want to make sure your child knows that if he is
one of those kids, you will love him unconditionally? I certainly would. And
I certainly wish that my parents had assured me of that love before I came
out to them last year, though they did so afterwards  it would have made
the whole process a lot less stressful.

If you're interested, check out PFLAG.org, the Parents, Families and Friends
of Lesbians And Gays. The Unitarian Universalist church also has some useful
suggestions at UU.org.



Me:
Just showing a bit of close-mindedness here, *hides behind keyboard for fear 
of rotten eggs being thrown at her* <g>.
Just as it is difficult hearing, or accepting the fact that your parents "do 
it" (I'm 22, my father passed away a few months ago and my mom talks about 
how lovely he was, and how she loves him so much, and all the "gory" details 
of their life as a couple and for her sake I try to swallow all the "ewwwww" 
that I feel, and it's an ongoing process and I hope that I shall be 
enlightened soon *g*, but that doesn't mean that it doens't squick me), it's 
difficult to accept that your kid "does it". You accept it because you don't 
have a choice, because he's after all only human, and that's a part of 
humanity that he will eventually have to live with on a daily basis, but 
it's not easy listening to those details. Even though I just read Olympia's 
Shining Prince series, which is wonderful, and I found myself fantasising 
about 60 yr olds Draco and Harry sleeping in their canopy 4-poster bed and I 
just got all warm and fuzzy inside.
Hypocrisy? Maybe. But I'm only human. I accept my parents more romantic 
aspects of their relationship, but it's not something I enjoy openly 
discussing, and is one thing that I would love to just shut my ears and hum 
loudly when they used to talk about it.


Diana:
>In my son's case <snip> I would worry about him losing the image of HP he
>currently enjoys and that we share talking about together.


John:
By the words you use, you imply that you *value* the lack of gay characters
in HP, and that your HP experience would be denigrated by their inclusion.

There are no words to express how strongly I reject that value.


Me:
I think that Diana wants her kid to enjoy HP without getting into all the 
"is he gay or isn't he?" discussions, which I sometimes wander if those 
things are really relevant to the development of the story or if they are 
just facts (like the fact that Padma and Parvati Patil are twins) that 
happen to be or not to be and will not make any substantial difference 
plot-wise.


Diana:
>Other kids may get negative ideas and reinforcement of
>free-floating stereotypes about gay people or hetero people that
>take much work to undo by their parents.


John:
By the words you use, you imply that you believe that slash fanfiction
conveys negative ideas of people. In particular you imply that you believe
that slash fanfiction conveys negative ideas of non-gay people. I find this
amusing, because you state that you are not a slash reader.

As someone who's actually *read* slash, I disagree utterly.


Me:
I also read slash, and enjoy it tremendously, and there *are* slash fanfics 
that do give the wrong impression of what being gay is all about. Keep in 
mind what someone here wrote that the vast majority of the slashers are 
young women, who don't have first-hand experience on what being homosexual 
is all about. They do see it on TV, read in books, fanfics, etc, etc, but no 
first-hand experience, so they probably might not always get it right.


Diana:
>I don't know if any of you have children, but I should tell you
>right up front that insulting a mother by telling her she must be a
>bad parent who lets her kids run rampant on the internet reading
>whatever they want is *extremely* loaded and offensive. If John
>thinks terms such as 'normal' and 'homosexual' are offensive to gay
>people, he's only hit the tip of the iceberg of offensiveness when
>insulting someone's parenting skills in such an offhanded manner;
>even more so when all these downright rude accusations and
>inferences come from misreading my original post and filling in gaps
>with their own conjectures.


Me:
Everyone have words that squick us (Have I said that already? probably in a 
previous post, or else I'm repeating someone else's words).
There's a limit to how much politically-correct a person can get. So what? 
next time I want to describe myself as short and fat (which I am), would I 
say "Horisontally and vertically challenged"? No, I'd say "I'm fat and 
short" which is the best way to describe me.
What exactly should be said instead of "homosexuals"? 
"Men-Who-Prefer-Other-Men-Not-Only-As-Sex-Partners-But-Also-As-Lovers-or-Boyfriends-Because-Being-A-Homosexual-Is-Not-Only-About-Sex-But-Also-About-The-Deep-Emotional-Bond-That-The-Couple-Share"?
*regains breath*


John:
The impression formed by others of your views is based on the language you
use and cultural reference points of you and others. If you wish to be
perceived differently, use different language or attempt to understand
others' cultural reference points.


Me:
This is the language that she knows. I'm sure that there will be people 
offended by what I say (John or Diana included), and I apologize, but it's 
difficult to please everyone and write something that is *not* influenced by 
what I know and by the language that I use. Those are Diana's preconceptions 
about the world, and that is the language and the vocabulary that she uses.
Judging her by her use of words would be like judging a 18th century white 
male because he says "nigger" instead of "african american" or "black" or I 
don't know what term is acceptable nowadays. That was the way that they used 
to speak, even if it is extremely racist and against black people, and even 
if they had nothing against black people and were completely liberal and 
non-racist.


Diana:
>I'm going to try to give all of you the benefit of the doubt, but as
>I'm very offended right now, I'm trying as hard as I can to be civil
>and clear in my responses.
>
>I started this thread by saying that I don't read slash pairings and
>didn't get their appeal.


John:
The words you use also made me perceive that you equated the appearance of
gay people with sex. I  and others  found this offensive.


Me:
Maybe Diana ran into the wrong fics. When I went through the internet 
looking for Star Trek fanfics, I read one (or rather, started reading one), 
and I got so squicked that I closed the Explorer and never ventured back 
into Star Trek fanfiction ever again. The story, btw, was about Counselor 
Troi going at it very enthusiastically with 2 or 3 male crew members that 
were at that time on the bridge of the Enterprise, and all because of the 
telepathic influence of a nasty bug-eyed alien.
My luck in the HP fandom was that the first fic I ever read was such a 
sweet, romantic, with sex refered to only as two 15-year-old *boys* would 
feel attracted to each other, it was very innocent and beautiful that it 
didn't scar me and I felt secure enough to venture out further into the 
fandom. Later I ran into some very unpleasant fics, but that didn't scare me 
because I knew there were also very good fics here.


John:
Moreover, the replies pointed out that without explaining the rationale
behind your views, your views appear to be an irrational dislike of slash:
homophobia.


Me:
I don't think she's homophobic.
She just doesn't see what I (and you and a lot of other people) find 
appealing in slash fics. She thought it over and decided that she prefers 
het fics, thank-you-very-much.


Diana:
>I have *never* once said that anyone who writes or reads slash fanfic based 
>on
>the HP characters is evil, deranged, or anything even remotely like that.
><snip>  I do not think ill of people who read and write slash fiction, 
>whether
>gay, hetero, bi or alien hybrid.  I even said that I wholeheartedly support
>the fans of slash to read it, write it, wallpaper their walls with it,
>whatever, but that I would not be reading it myself because I like the HP
>characters as based in my visions from reading and re-reading all four HP
>books four or five times.


John:
Your words remind me of the argument that many people in the gay community
hear all the time: "I don't hate gays, but I WISH they wouldn't keep rubbing
my nose in it/being so *blatant*/kiss in *public*!". Non-gay people display
their love all the time: in movies, on the street, in books. Why shouldn't
gay people?

Your words once again make me think that you value a lack of gay people in
the HP world. I object to that thought.


Me:
Forgive me for putting words into your mouth, John, but this is what I get 
from your words:
You want so much to be considered equal in society (or perhaps you want that 
for all gay population), that you don't think for a second about those that 
have nothing against homosexuals and lesbians, they simply don't want to be 
gay.
Just another small local example:
There are many neighborhoods that are populated almost entirely by orthodox 
jews. At the entrance to those neighborhoods there is usually a sign that 
says "please don't enter with your car in the Shabbat (that is, Saturday, 
which for Jews is like Sunday for Christians) or in Holy days (such as 
Passover or Hannuka, Jewish Hollidays)."
Their POV is that since they are the majority in that neighborhood, they 
have the right to live as they want there, and those who enter that 
neighborhood should respect that.
Those of us who are anti-religious opression would say "hey, I'm a citizen 
of this country, this car belongs to me, I shall do whatever I want" and 
they drive on Friday night exactly in front of the local synagogue. Just 
because.
Ok, so accepting others means not only that straight people have to accept 
gay people, but also the other way around.
The "rubbing our noses in it" goes both ways.


Diana:
>Don't any of you have friends who are into hobbies that you find
>strange, boring or maybe even bizarre?  And when that friends talks
>about his hobby to you, after a while, you just shake your head,
>smile and say, "As long as you're having fun.  I don't get it,
>myself, but whatever."  That is how I feel about slash fiction.  I
>can't see the appeal, but if it's your thing, go to town.


John:
Your comparison of hobbies with a sexual orientation is as offensive to me
as it is ludicrous.


Me:
I don't think it's ludicrous. The idea is the same. It's all about taste and 
personal preference. She would have proven the exact same point if she were 
to discuss personal pizza topping preferences (some people like pepperoni, 
others like anchovi, and i saw in the pizza place menu that they have a 
pineapple topping option, so *some* people might like it), or about anything 
else that people get to have a personal preference in.


John:
Diana, nobody ever killed a Trekkie for being a Trekkie.


Me:
I hope not, or else it would make going to Star Trek conventions too risky 
for me.
And talking about offensive terms, I find "Trekkie" and "Trekker" very 
offensive. It's just that people do tend to go into Trekkie/Trekker wars 
about which is better and who is more "devoted" and "fanatic" and who "has 
been in the fandom since the first time they aired the "The Cage" pilot 
episode of Star Trek - The Original Series. Very tiresome and totally 
irrelevant.


John:
I cannot recall an instance in which a model railroader ever murdered a
war-gamer.

People do kill people for being gay. THAT is why homophobic attitudes and
comments are not acceptable. THAT is why there are so many people in this
forum leaping up in defence of slash as a representation of gay issues. THAT
is why I take offense.


Me:
Well, they kill each other because they tend to get personally offended 
about such things, and people take themselves too seriously and don't always 
know how to take things in the proper proportion (like me getting ickled by 
the use of the word "Trekkie", I'm imprevious to these patterns of behavior 
too). It's important to lighten up a bit, guys...


Diana:
>My son does *not* wander the internet unsupervised and he has never
>visited a fanfic site in his life.


John:
So...what's the big problem? Why take offense from Barb's and my comments
when we *specifically* assumed that you did *not* let your son do those
things?


Me:
Barb didn't, to judge from your quote of her response to this thread.


Diana:
>The point of my first post was that, unlike my son, many children do
>not have a parent watching over them to see what they are surfing on
>the internet.  I represented my son as an 'everychild' who could
>find a fanfic site and end up with an unwantedly changed vision of
>the HP characters.  Don't children have the right to maintain their
>own vision of the HP characters from reading the books without
>interference from fanfics that bring in ideas they may not
>understand, want or even be able to handle yet?


John:
Of course they do. But children also have the right to *develop* their own
vision of the HP characters from reading the books *and input* from fanfics,
discussion groups and other sources that bring in ideas they are able to
understand.


Me:
I agree on this one too, but that doesn't mean that the kids have to be 
exposed to a (het *or* gay) sex-fest in a fic that was poorly rated.


Diana:
>The problem we are going to have with coming to an agreement on this is 
>that I
>feel that several fanfic writers and defenders feel it's okay to muddle 
>with
>others' personalized and internal images of the HP characters, even 
>children's
>views of the characters, because it will cause "growth", "acceptance",
>"tolerance" and "understanding".


John:
Yes! I do think that! I think that posing questions about the nature of
love, or the nature of war, or the nature of interpersonal relationships,
WILL cause all four of those things! That's what fanfiction  and book
discussion  is about! It's taking situations and characters about whom we
have preconceived notions and examining those preconceptions in the light of
differently-interpreted information. Information about characters and the
wizarding world from others' cultural and personal perspectives,
<snip>


Me:
One thing is list discussions, slashy fanfics with tactful fade-to-black 
scenes or not-so-graphic descriptions of sexual intercourse
and another thing is R or NC-17 rated (don't know which means the explicit 
sort of fics).


Diane:
>That's a load of horse manure.  Children don't suddenly gain blazing
>insight into acceptance of other's differences because of reading a
>fanfic posted on some website.


John:
No, but they might be forced to *think* about these issues, and make
decisions for themselves. To consider the parallels between racism and
homophobia.


Me:
Forced to think about racism and homophobia? I think that this issue is only 
brought up when the other characters start to act homophobic or racist 
towards other characters. If everyone accept the gay couple, then that issue 
is mute. There is no homophobia and there is no racism. 100% acceptance is 
usually not part of reality, but it does make the kid (or the reader in 
general) consider how to accept those issues better.
if they read a slash fanfic, or a fanfic featuring interracial pairings, it 
would make them consider how plausible it is related to Canon, or, if they 
still go "ewwwww" when they see mommy and daddy kissing, then they might 
think in terms of how "ewwwww"-y the fic is.
A kid that isn't brought up to hate homosexuals, or different people than 
himself in general will not hate them, It's as simple as that.


Diana:
>I would not like to see unsupervised children stumble upon a slashy
>or sex-filled [whether gay or hetero] fanfic of their favorite
>fictional characters because the fanfic site was poorly organized,
>incompletely or inaccurately labelled or as easy to get past as
>lying to an onscreen question.


John:
By the words you use, you imply that you would not like to see unsupervised
children read, or talk about, any gay people, even in G-rated situations.


Me:
No, she said "slashy or sex-filled [whether gay or <hetero>]" (emphasis 
mine). I agree with Diane.
I don't think she would want her kid reading R rated fics just because there 
are not accurate warnings next to the fic's link.
Would you, as an openminded parent, John, want your kid to stumble into and 
read a fic with a very graphic and explicit description of a sex scene? I 
know I wouldn't.


John:
I object to that in the strongest possible terms. Why should children always
be supervised when reading, talking or thinking about people of a different
sexual orientation  or skin color, to draw a parallel?


Me:
Children should be supervised period. Sexual orientation, skin colour, 
religion doesn't matter.
You don't want the kid reading a description of a violent rape scene, 
because you want to explain what rape is on your own terms, and not on the 
author's terms, which might not include 4 letter words, and might accomodate 
the explanation to fit the kid's emotional level and his capability to cope 
with things.


Diana:
>If my son is any example, when he's logging on to some favorite children's
>sites or playing a computer game, a screen will sometimes pop-up that asks 
>him
>if he wants to go to go to site b or if he wants to type in his name and he
>will have to punch a button that says "YES" on it to get to the games.  
>I've
>seen these sites and games and they are set up exactly the same way as the 
>"no
>one under 18 warning screen" described on this board that simply asks if 
>the
>kid is over 18; just press the yes button to continue, in other words.  It 
>has
>now become automatic for my son to hurriedly press yes to continue on to 
>his
>game.  He stopped actually reading those screens a long time ago.  I have 
>no
>doubt that many kids are the same and would just click right through that
>screen without thinking about it or reading it.


Me:
Which just proves the point that a "are you older than 18" yes-no question 
is just a formality, and is just for the author to wipe their hands off 
responsibility, which in fact, isn't theirs. It's the parent's 
responsibility to watch out for what the kid does online (or anywhere else 
in life).


John:
So, lying, in violation of a Terms of Use contract that you and/or your son
have undoubtedly agreed to to register with these sites or games, is okay?


Me:
Please don't tell me that you think that everywhere, 15 year-olds (or 
younger) are *not* pretending to be older just to be able to see what's in 
*that* particular site. That would be extremely naive of you, John.


Diane:
>The truth is parents can't watch their kids every single minute.  If we 
>could,
>there would be no child abductions, child sexual abuse or accidental 
>deaths.


John:
I am astounded. Do you not know the statistics that the VAST majority of
child sexual abuse is by an immediate family member who lives with the
child? And that, again, the VAST majority of child abductions are carried
out by one of the child's parents?


Me:
You know that that's not what she meant. She's talking about the "normal" 
(and I think here it's a consensus, right?) parents who would never sexually 
abuse or abduct their children.


Diana:
>The truth is that some parents will not want their children to be exposed 
>to
>gay pairings, regardless if actual intercourse is or is not described, 
>between
>characters the children and the adults have grown to love in a image that
>doesn't fit that scenario.  That doesn't make the parents homophobes.


John:
Honestly, what other motivations could the parents have than homophobia? So
far, nobody has been able to quote a *rational* explanation for this
theoretical parental dislike. Again, if it is not a rational dislike, it is
an irrational dislike. A phobia. Homophobia.


Me:
That is the truth, no matter how high minded you, me, Diana or anyone else 
might be about it. Most people wouldn't want their kids to be gay. they want 
their kids to be what they consider "normal" (ducks behind keyboard again 
*g*) marriage life with a member of the opposite sex.


Diana:
>I'm called a homophobe by others simply because I have no desire to read 
>slash
>fiction based on HP characters.


John:
I refer to my previous paragraph.


Me:
Me too.


Diana:
>I went to a fanfic site to see how the organization was since so many
>responses to my original post went out of their way to tell me that there 
>was
>no way I could "stumble" upon stuff I didn't want to read and everything 
>was
>so properly labelled and clear that I must be an idiot if I did end up 
>reading
>something that tainted my personal image of the HP characters.  The main 
>page
>had a bunch of blurbs for new fics in no particular grouping or in any way
>sorted.


John:
Actually, they are grouped by length and theme. As it says on FA's main
page, Schnoogle (green) is for novel-length fics. Riddikulus (gold) is for
humor. AstronomyTower (red) is for romance. TheDarkArts (blue) is for
everything else, including angst, darkfic, etc.
<snip>


Me:
That is only on Fiction Alley. I don't know all fanfic sites out there, and 
I don't presume to have facts about it, but I assume that not all fanfic 
sites are organized like that. Besides, the only way to see exactly the 
notes on rating, pairings etc of the fics in FA is actually opening the 
story. That is very tedious and for me, at least, i dont find it all too fun 
to open each author's page, and then the story and then the first chapter 
just to see if it's a pairing or a rating that I'd like to read.
In Schnoogle, for example, under the writer's name there's a list of the 
fics s/he wrote. when you click on the author's name, you get the link to 
the various stories s/he wrote. Each with a short, and usually very vague 
description of the fic. If you're lucky, it might say something about the 
prominent ship. If not, there's still one more link to open.
then you click on the story, and you get the chapters page. only by the time 
you click on a chapter and starting to read it you realize what rating and 
ship you ran into.


Diana:
>What I actually found was blurbs written in such a way as to be
>quite memorable [so you'd want to read the story, obviously] and
>they were able to bring forth instantaneous unwelcome images.


Me:
Exactly.


John:
As both Heidi and Barb have pointed out, FA's "blurbs" are checked for
rating (PG-13). If you are concerned about "unwelcome images", whatever you
define them as, then I suggest that you don't read fanfiction. Simple as
that.


Me:
Well, that was uncalled for, John. I could easily say, well, if you don't 
want to be offended by people who don't make such a great hoo-haa over all 
the gay issues that you probably do (otherwise you would have let Diana's 
post glide by), even though they might be as un-homophobes as possible, then 
you should stay off places that you might hear such things.


Well, just as a closing note, each person is entitled to his or her own 
opinion about things. Acceptance means not only straight people accepting 
gay people (as relevant to this issue, but is right with everything else 
too), but also gay people accepting that there are those that might feel 
uncomfortable with homosexuals.

No one is immune from getting insulted. The trick is trying to figure out 
when it is worth making a storm in a cup of water and when it is not. Life 
is too short to make a big deal out of every single thing. Thick skin is a 
must when you want to participate in a society that has more than one person 
in it.

Oh, and one last thing.
What, exactly, is so wrong with letting people know in advance which pairing 
and which rating the fic is?
Unless you're a Switzerlander (which in fandom someone explained to me means 
that you ship everything and everyone), you would want to know what ship it 
is, because there might be slash ships that you think are squeaky, or you 
just might be in the mood of reading a McGonnagal/Winky angsty fic instead 
of your usual cup-of-tea (if angst!McG/W *isnt* ;-), and knowing in advance 
what ship is the fic might save you a lot of link-opening...


Just my 15 knuts,
Meira (who is *so* going to be oh-so-late to her class...)

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail