You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: EROTIC STORY SHOWCASE: "Earthquake" (actually, an elevator story!)
I´m afraid that I feel strongly against this kind of story,as it normalises sexual abuse. So i can not upvote this one,although I otherwise upvote your stuff. I do not believe that the fact that it´s fiction and not reality is enough to justify it.
This is exactly what made me uneasy, too. (Don't worry about the voting; it's the discussion I am interested in in this case ;) ).
So the question is: What moral standards does literature (or, more generally, art) need to uphold? Is it acceptable for the "villain" to win in a novel? Is it acceptable for a painting to show rape without the painter making his opposition to it clear? And if not, how does s/he need to make it clear?
I feel two gut instincts running against each other: an instinct for completely free expression, and an instinct for suppressing writing that describes the unacceptable in a neutral-ish way.
How do you feel about that?
My opinion is that completely free expression in fictionshould be legal,even if I find it morally objectionable. Freedom of speech does not remove your moral responsibility.I support freedom of speech of course,but I also support it not being absolute,as is the case now. A call for genocide should not be legal,for instance.
To mee it seems clear,that in fiction,the author has to show at least some kind of reflection around an objectionable act,or a clear stance. Otherwise you will easily endorse for example abuse,discrimination,etc.
Another issue altogether is when the author does not see the problem.For instance a lot of sexists and racists are unaware that this is what they are.And their writings will reflect this fact.
Yes, the distinction between morality and legality is important and useful, despite the fact that it is still blurred because laws are ultimately also rooted in moral stances.
In this particular story, the non-consensual parts are highlighted as wrong - but, and this is where my uncomfortableness lies - the story says that the outcome is still a happy one for both parties. That is indeed a murky area. Using a non-sexual analogy, it is like justifying a bloody military coup by saying that the new regime did a much better job in running the country and so everyone was happy.
Interesting how an erotic story can raise some pretty subtle as well as fundamental issues way beyond sexuality.
(Hmmm, in my introductory post I promised to "lighten up" Steemit. I am not sure I am quite succeeding here ... :D )
No problem! Maybe the next story could be a happy consensual polyamorous group sex story? :)
Polyamorous group sex story? Now there is a suggestion I quite like ... I'll look out for one ;)