|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
As the initiator of this debate, I am pleased, yet disappointed with the results to date. Pleased, because this used to be the best (and least flame-plagued) forum for intelligent gay discussion on the web; I was sorry to see the traffic die away, and I'm happy to have started the biggest flurry of activity in months. Disappointed, because elements of petulance and knee-jerking are appearing, and neither characteristic adds to the quality or value of the discussion.
Now Bester doesn't know me, nor do I know him, though I've seen his postings at TGO and elsewhere, and I do therefore know a little of his background. I don't want to provoke any antagonistic exchanges with him, but his posting is a pretty bog-standard and superficial defence of freedom from censorship. By implication, that suggests that I favour censorship, and I find that suggestion rather insulting. I can only assume that he has failed to read (he's certainly much too bright to have read and failed to understand) the whole of the argument I have put forward. I have never supported censorship - I have been an active campaigner against it since schooldays. Nowhere in my argument do I suggest that the story should be suppressed. Nowhere do I deny its value to a particular audience, and certainly nowhere do I criticise its quality as a piece of fiction.
Freedom brings responsibilities. There is a great deal of difference between making a piece of literature available and promoting it with an 'in-yer-face' approach. It is in my view grossly irresponsible to imply that everyone has a sufficient degree of intellectual detachment to read a story such as this without being influenced by it. I would suggest that the implication is palpably untrue. The pen is mightier than the sword - it can and does change the way people think. There is an allure in S/M; I suspect that there are many like me who can see that allure, even if they are not consciously attracted to the basic concept of inflicting or receiving pain. And some of these will be young people still trying to find themselves. I do not suggest that those with leanings towards S/M should be deflected from their path. I DO suggest that unless they are very sure of their needs, that path is likely to lead them in directions which would be better avoided, and that is why I have an objection to the siting of the story, as opposed to the story itself.
Tim's site is an oasis for confused gay teens. The rest of the stories are of considerable intrinsic quality, but (with respect to all of the authors!) are not too emotionally demanding. They are exactly what is needed to create the sense of reassurance which the prospective readership needs. 'The Story of Tim' does not fit this mould. It is, in its way, much more powerful. Tim's site has much else to commend it, apart from the stories. It has plenty of useful links. I would be entirely happy if the story were to be accessed that way (I do realise that it doesn't matter a damn whether the page is internal or external; what matters is where you find the access button.) That would mean that the potential reader had gone in search of the kind of story he would be reading. That's freedom.
The difference is between facilitating and promoting. Do you put the story on the front page, or in column four on page seventeen? The first alternative will influence far more readers than the second.
Ien thinks I said that the majority should not concern itself with the welfare of minorities. I didn't say that, either! I did in fact try to illustrate what I meant when I suggested (in my reply to Jack Rowan's thoughtful and perceptive posting) that the interests of a minority should not be catered for AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MAJORITY. If you read my comments it's transparently obvious that I think that the majority has an obligation to the minority. That, though, is a different concept. I'm trying to make the point that I accept that support for the minority is both necessary and desirable, but I don't think that it is either necessary or desirable that this support should be front-paged in a fairly mainstream site, where it will inevitably be read by, and in some cases will have a lasting effect upon those who had no predisposition to seek such material.
In response to Tim's comments abour confidentiality, I accept that I didn't express myself very well. I certainly wasn't suggesting that Tim should paste in e-mails with names removed. But, Tim, you do have a long-standing tendency to use these oblique references to confidential conversations. In a sense, I'm saying 'put up or shut up'; if there are relevant points in these communications, then make those points, in your own words, in your postings. Don't breach confidences - ever - but you can still make the points. If you choose not to do so, then your references to the unspecified views of unspecified acquaintances are nothing but an irritation. It isn't an issue of integrity; I know you could make it all up - we all could - but I don't for a moment think you do.
And finally, I'm still open to persuasion on the vast majority of the points I've made (and I haven't made many, if you count 'em up!) but I do know about communication, and nothing anyone can say will convince me that warnings, however convoluted, will ever serve any deterrent purpose. They may protect the squeamish, but they certainly don't deflect the curious, and in the context of this argument they are a waste of time.
In essence, all I am advocating is moving the story from the front page to column four on page seventeen. I think there are good and responsible reasons for doing so, and those reasons have nothing to do with censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Well... I think it is, you can decide for yourself  . For a start, this argument is, to me, more comprehensible than your previous one. I agree, to an extent, that it should not be promoted. Maybe not banished to 'page 17', but probably not on the front page.
I would, for a start, grossly refute that I in any way suggested that you are pro-censorship. In fact, my previous post was directed at the dogmatic insistence of another person that the story be removed. You did not do this, as this post makes clear, and as I just said, I to an extent agree with your stance.
What I DO disagree with is that: "It is in my view grossly irresponsible to imply that everyone has a sufficient degree of intellectual detachment to read a story such as this without being influenced by it. I would suggest that the implication is palpably untrue."
I do not think everyone can be detached enough not to be influenced. In fact, a lot of people will most likely be influenced, at least in their views on S/M. What I DO content is that far from the majority will be affected to such a degree that they will take part in a sexual activity they would otherwise not have taken part in. I would suggest that THESE are at least as small a minority as those who enjoy SM. I would give people credit for having a brain, and if that is naive, then I am naive.
As it seems the concern is for gay teens, I would also like to ask who, apart from me, is actually still in their teens? I am a gay teen. I am still fairly unsure of exactly what my sexuality means. I'm shit scared bout living in a world that doesnt want me. And the only people who I know who understand are online. Tim and his site have helped me alot. I would suggest that others in my situation who enjoy SM are equally entitled to support, and can recieve it without massive damage to the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... when I wrote my response to Bester in a posting below, I hadn't read this one. Bester, consider my faith substantially restored! But don't be so bloody proprietorial about being under twenty - even us geriatric geezers have memories, y'know! Seriously, I do try (not only here) to recognise that if intellect and perception do not diminish with age, we must all have had both abilities from childhood!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
To be fair it is a time and priorities challenge. I have been spedning some energy healong from an injury on Xmas day which has knocked me out almost totally since then. Not serious, just disabling. And the drugs to help the injury have made long periods of concentration impossible. [This is not asking for the sympathy vote, nor expecting anyone to say "Ah, his brain was addled, and that is why he posted the tale." The former is not required and the latter will be offensive.]
My priorities have this been both on handling the issue quietly with my co-webmaster to attempt to find a sensible solution together with respinding as best I can to the various comments on this board, some of whihch are reasonale, some are misguided and some of which have been "difficult", if I may use a euphemism.
I can see the "irritant qualities" (please forgive if I paraphrase poorly, I am using shorthand) of unsubstantiated genuine good done to a reader or more of this story. The facts of each case have been so brief and expressed so emotionally to me that it is next to impossible to distill them into an abridged and anonymised form without revealing everything except the writer's name.
Yet how could I not have mentioned that they existed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ien
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: Netherlands
Registered: April 2002
Messages: 81
|
|
|
There's something about that bridge story that bothers me, because the bridge was build too complicated, people don't use it. So the architect did a lousy job. IF however that bridge had been built to accommodate both disabled and physically healthy people there would have been no problem. I think the same goes for Tim's site it was build for the majority as well as for the minority.
I have been interested in sm for as long as I remember, I wish I could have read stories like these when I was still a young teen it would have showed me I wasn't as weird as I thought I was. Maybe I'm just thick or something but I think it's a good thing that this story is here for all that want it to read
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Ien, you are dead right about the bridge; that's EXACTLY the point I was making. And the parallel is that I don't wish to suppress the story, because it's probably the best of it's kind available, and there's a definite need for it. I just don't think it should be sited where (despite all the warnings) young readers will be curious enough to read it and may be encouraged towards S/M as a result. I DO NOT OBJECT TO S/M as must be clear to anyone reading my posts, but I don't think it should be promulgated to the young and curious. I don't object in the slightest to the story being on the site provided that the reader has has to express an interest in S/M to find his way to it. In the same way I do not think that so-called 'pornography' should be suppressed or censored, but I don't think it should be displayed next to the children's comics!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
I hope that you will agree that now the warnings are sufficient to meet the "provided that the reader has has to express an interest in S/M to find his way to it" point?
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
