Explicitness, Fics, and Generations

[MsTattersall]

No apologies necessary, Dina. I wasn't offended, merely taken off 
guard by what to me WAS an explicit passage, since it was quoted out 
of context, and in a venue where the conversation is generally more 
of a PG-13 or gentler nature. I have nothing against literary erotica-
-whatever floats your boat! Just wasn't expecting to see HBO when I 
tuned in the local news, if you know what I mean.

It may surprise you to know I even wrote some slash fanfic of my own 
back in the 70s (which makes me old enough to be your mother) that 
would be tame by today's standards but were positively pornographic 
back then! Lately, I've written a couple of humorous HP fanfics that 
are on MuggleNet. In the spirit of the current thread on reading and 
reviewing... everybody pls r&r!
(Author-search on MuggleNet Fan Fiction for MsTattersall)

Thanks for your consideration. Love ya!
MsTatt


--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Dina Lerret <bunniqula at g...> 
wrote:
> Some may think this post not worksafe, even though I'm typing this 
at
> work, but I'd feel comfortable discussing this with a mature twelve
> year old.
> 
> First off, apologies to MsTattersall since, at the time of posting, 
I
> did not feel the post to be explicit.  As I stated before, I found 
the
> snippet to be a parody of stereotyping erotica.  This is also not
> meant as a slam against the writer of the fic, which is why I did 
not
> supply a link to the fic.  The writer is competent and she has a
> fairly good grasp on English and/or her beta reader has done well.
> 
> My qualm is that the writer had managed to de-sexualize the intimacy
> between two characters by disassociating their sexual body parts.  I
> included the phrasing to look at it from an analytical standpoint of
> personal and sexual identity.  How I perceived the scene was... as 
if
> their genitalia were separate entities and I know this to be a
> critical aspect in writing: when folks--I'm among the guilty--try to
> avoid overusing pronouns/proper names and end up with 'floating' 
body
> parts.  I know it's especially problematic for folks describing
> characters of the same gender in a single scene.  The ironic thing 
was
> the writer used pronouns but it had the same effect of 
disassociation
> from the 'main body'.
> 
> The level of sexual content in "Little Miss Mary" did earn the NC-17
> rating but there are moments where the writer doesn't have *Harry*
> exploring his sexuality and that included snippet in a previous 
email
> was one instance.
> 
> Now, I've been exposed to open thinking via the public because my 
own
> family is religious and can be downright racist and homophobic (e.g.
> sometimes, my mom doesn't want me touching her in public because 
she's
> worried folks will think she's a lesbian or my dad rarely talks 
about
> his family background because it might have a Jewish spin, something
> he's embarrassed of), but there was a post not too long ago where 
the
> person was asking about opinions on generational preferences in
> reading.
> 
> I'm in my mid-twenties and I had Sex Education the first year of
> junior high (12-13 years old).  As much as US public education has
> gone downhill (thanks in part to poor funding), there's another 
group
> that believes the younger generation is capable of more
> 'sophisticated' thinking.  Recently, Jon Stewart interviewed a guy 
who
> wrote _Everything That's Bad for You is Good_ and how much kids are
> actually processing because the complexity of technology has grown,
> and as a result, communication and our daily lives require new
> knowledge.
> 
> From the Time Machine's (HGW) movie sequence of dresses getting
> shorter to Huxley's "Brave New World" theme of children younger than
> ten years old exploring their sexuality and it being the embraced
> norm, each generation seems aware the subsequent one will probably 
be
> more open to sexuality based on current trends.
> 
> Anyway, I felt "Little Miss Mary" was heavily based on Harry 
exploring
> his sexuality and finding his 'identity' but how can he find it via
> thinking of sexual organs in separate terms.  Again, I found the
> snippet to be... almost clinical in detachment if you *really* think
> about it and look past the sensationalism.
> 
> Some have theorized the popularity of m/m slash is the manifestation
> of repressing female sexuality--offhand, there was even a panel on
> misogyny at a slash convention--and with statistics showing more m/m
> slash writers are heterosexual females, it's a theory that does give
> momentary pause.
> 
> Dina