can you deal with incest in fanfic?

[percival]

If you are a mature adult, yes, possibly. But if you are a child or a teenager? Will you know that it is not a good idea to have sexual relationships with your sibling? Or will repeated exposure to the idea and fantasising about the idea somehow start to make incest acceptable to you after a while?

Just a Buddhist thought:

In Buddhism, we try to be compassionate and loving in our hearts. That means that we neither dwell upon violence nor enjoy it. One of the key insights in Buddhist spirituality is that who you are and how you act is closely related to what you think. As a consequence, we need to work on our mind, our thinking. We need to make sure that our thoughts are compassionate, loving, free of clinging desire.

So, from a Buddhist perspective, actively seeking out incest fics because you get a thrill out of the dark, forbidden relationship is clearly wrong because you are indulging a desire to see people harm each other. You invite these fantasies into your mind and nourish them.

How would a Buddhist regard people who read incest fic? Well, non-judgmentally, with compassion and understanding. If they decide they need to pollute their minds, they will have a reason for doing it.

For the record, I myself continuosly pollute my mind with thoughts of anger, self hate, sarcasm, hate of others, petty jealousy. But seeing that I want to be a good Buddhist, I will need to work on that. Sigh. Revelling in anger can be such fun sometimes, just as revelling in fantasies of incest or rape can be fun for people who read those fics. But ultimately, it's nae good for you, says Uncle Gautama. And Uncle Gautama is usually not far off the mark, if you know what I mean.

Comments

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Still, I think that self-regulation of thoughts should be done according to what one feels is right, good for their well-being and constructive for their personality, rather than anything dictated by "universal", external principles.

OK, but what's bothering many of us isn't as much people expressing themselves in a catharitic manner, but people who are being transgressive (to borrow the term from musesfool, and hopefully use it correctly) for the sake of being transgressive -- to violate knowingly what is generally considered as 'correct' or 'normal' behaviour via their distortion of someone else's characters, and then banner this transgression in a proud manner, as if it should be normalised.

Certainly, freedom from thoughtcrime is as important as you're saying. But the spiritual viewpoint that I think several of us here adhere to say you're not violating human law, but spiritual law of a sort. Of course, this probably doesn't work if one is a hardcore atheist, so I don't know what keeps them from being depraved (really, I don't; it's something else I can't wrap my mind around yet).

What happens internally if you knowingly keep doing something 'wrong'?

Um...

[nabiki-gmyw.livejournal.com]

Of course, this probably doesn't work if one is a hardcore atheist, so I don't know what keeps them from being depraved (really, I don't; it's something else I can't wrap my mind around yet).

Actually, I feel that's quite an unfair proposition. I've met your typical atheist proffesor who is hardly depraved. He didn't drink or smoke or so any 'deparved' sort of thing. Likewise, I've met a Christian who was an alcoholic and was rumored to be in drugs.

The problem is that Western society likes to tie morality with religion. You can be moral and not have any religion and do good things for the sake of being good, for humanity whole.

My example? I'm a Christian, born in a somewhat fundamentalist-type family. Yet when I hear my mother putting down her own gay brother, I say to myself, "No, this can't be right." I remember her muttering 'good' when Willow loses Tara in Buffy and I can't believe this is spiritual behavior. When the family snorts at gay marriage or labels social drinkers as doomed sinners, I say, no, no, no, this can't be right.

I can't explain it. I don't know how. I know all the Bible arguments, but I can't believe this is how Jesus would act. I am moved and I don't know why or how. Is spriritual law flying in the face of human law? Or are some things true, regardless of all types of religions?

While the spiritual law is good, it also needs to be reinforced my human 'atheist' law. That's what atheists like my proffesor think. Just think of all the crimes committed in the name of 'spiritual laws' that simply don't deserve the name. To make it in life, I believe a healthy measure of both is needed.

Good is good, whether you're a believer of a religion or not. That's what gives me hope when people do sad and twsited things. I do believe that doing good is stronger than little differences in religions or atheism.

Don't believe for a second all atheists are automatically depraved. Somethings are stronger than that. If it weren't, humanity would've been screwed a long time ago.

And, to be more on-topic, I think the Buddist girl is right. And I also agree that people, fanfic writers, are doing it for the kicks, you know, to test the limits. Yet it's very hard to change the world on the net. Too wild and desorganized. Even if you wanted to stop something, there are only so many ways... If you want to change the incest thing, you'd have to change the person, and if that's tough in RL, imagine how difficult it is on the net.

I follow things like this at random.

[runawaykael.livejournal.com]

You've made the most sense of any of the lot, in my opinion.

Some people here blur gay fiction/fanfiction slash/ incest/rape into one 'deviant' category, and I find that so many kinds of misinformed that I can't begin to answer it.

It's the questioning attitude that I have to say something in favor of. I don't pretend to know everything that's right or wrong, but I can see what's harmful.

There is no question that incest is harmful. There is no question that the actual thought processes and even brain waves of children who are molested before a certain age are altered. These things are harmful and, in my opinion, portraying them in a positive light is as dangerous as portraying rape in a positive light. (And do a little criminal justice research, and you'll know that 'dangerous' is the right word.)

I know people don't always act on what they read about - but it happens. I know people don't always come to believe what they're told to believe - but it happens. As the law enforcement officer said, there are crimes committed that follow media portrayals so closely that there's no question that it's a copy. Would they have committed the crime anyway? I don't know. Would they have been moved to those means at that moment? That answers itself.

You can't censor the 'net. That won't happen. And I don't believe in flaming people who write disturbing things, because there's a real possibility that they're writing it because they're emotionally or mentally troubled about the subject they're writing about. I don't believe in invading forums created by adults for the discussion of adult topics and telling them 'this is a children's genre, butt out.'

Someone who writes - to use the Harry Potter example - Lucius/Draco may have a compelling need to write something like that, and yelling 'you're immoral' at a victim is not in any way righteous.

Agreeing that children below the age of majority should be prevented from reading these things - except and unless a professional mental health care worker is supervising - is generally universally agreed on. Except by the very young, and on what subject don't children want to grow up and know more too soon? Agreeing about what adults should be allowed to write and post - that's never going to happen.

So you can't control the web. You have no right to dictate to adults. If you have any sense of morality, you will not lambast the writers, because there's a very good chance that they were victims.

What do you do? I have no idea. Beyond the constantly repeated 'monitor your children.' The internet is not a babysitter, no matter how busy your life is. If you don't have the time to find out what your child is viewing, you don't need to allow them online. Beyond that? I have no idea. But honest questioning has always seemed to produce more results than any amount of self-righteousness.

Re: Um...

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Don't believe for a second all atheists are automatically depraved. Somethings are stronger than that. If it weren't, humanity would've been screwed a long time ago.

Nono, you're right -- that was badly phrased. I was trying to get across that if someone doesn't have an external belief system they grow up with or acquire on their own (spirituality), I don't know from what they find their personal moral structure and ethics.

And that I can't understand atheism.

Didn't mean to equate atheism with decadence at all -- history easily disproves that.

Re: Um...

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Maybe I can help with this...My father's a pretty militant atheist and I was raised that way (I've been a Wiccan for 15 years now though) and we discuss this stuff all the time.

It's really not all that complicated. Some form of the "golden rule"--treat others the way you would like to be treated--isn't a religious or even a moral principle, it's a practical one. Difficult to do in practice of course, but one doesn't need to believe in anything spiritual or supernatural to see that it's helpful in maintaining civil society. You don't need religion to see why it's good to avoid hurting others as much as possible.

Most atheists I know devise their own systems of ethics, usually from philosophy or Enlightenment politics or something of that nature. "Ethics" is the more commonly used term. And it isn't external, it's internal--that's the point. Most also follow the laws of the country they're living in, in most cases (which DOES almost always cover pedophilia or incest--no religion needed there either).

My own religion has no "thou shalts" or "thou shalt nots"--only "If it harm none, do as ye Will." (My tradition capitalises Will, which I think I shows a bit of Thelemic influence.:) ) It's still a judgement call every minute of every day for every one of us, whether you believe in God/dess[es] or not.

[nopseud]

Of course, this probably doesn't work if one is a hardcore atheist, so I don't know what keeps them from being depraved (really, I don't; it's something else I can't wrap my mind around yet).

Dude, you should try it from the other side. I look round the world and I see it full of theists who are presumably only held back from indulging in transcontinental killing sprees by their fragile belief in some force that, from my point of view, is entirely imaginary. It's like the world is full of kids who are only behaving themselves because if they don't Santa won't come at Christmas. It's a wonder I ever dare leave my house.

(Um. That was exaggeration for effect. Just checking everyone noticed that. Yes? Good.)

I'd comment on the fic thing, but I've got some underage!hooker!Justin RPS to write...

[perceval.livejournal.com]

Well, there are also theists who are held back because, inspired by the fact that they are loved by God, they genuinely love their fellow human beings. :)

But that doesn't address your main point. As reading Immanuel Kant and related philosophical ethics has taught me, you don't need to believe in God or follow a spiritual teacher to have morals or ethics. In fact, some of the greatest humanists are either atheists or agnostics, and quite a few Buddhists and Taoists would class themselves as atheists, too.

(on the fic thing: do me a favour and read through the comments I've made in replies to this entry ;) You'll see that I'm not against violence etc. in literature per se, but that I dislike the glorification of violence, rape, or incest.)

[nopseud]

Well, there are also theists who are held back because, inspired by the fact that they are loved by God, they genuinely love their fellow human beings. :)

It's the same principle, though.

(on the fic thing: do me a favour and read through the comments I've made in replies to this entry ;)

I did read them. And I was, for once in my life, actually being fairly serious, albeit rather flippantly phrased. No one's opinions ever get changed in these kinds of threads. I understand your position, I'm sure you'd understand mine. So my getting back to underage!hooker!Justin is a far more productive use of everyone's time.