|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
[  ] |
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
