First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or journalists, or interested third parties.
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that non-fans would be hanging out in fan conventions buying fanzines and fan artwork. My mistake. Or that journalists would be so naive as to assume everything they see on-line is in some way factual. Especially when it is artwork on a fan site. Or that interested third parties would believe it. Okay, let me rephrase this : Any teeny tiny minority of persons who might even conceivably believe this really must be too stupid to live. That better? I am talking issue with your statement that there could be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan adult art.
My enjoyment of B7 has nothing at all to do with conventions (and if it did would have nothing at all to do with guest
actors).
That's your feelings. You don't speak for everyone, in fandom or on the lyst. Anyway, it's because of the actors that you have the show in the
first
place-- doesn't that entitle them to a bit of courtesy?
Seems to me I said "my" and I meant my. I realized when I wrote it that others might feel differently. I don't see why other's preferences for cons should affect my or anyone else's enjoyment of zines, or the show, or adult matter either. I consider myself courtious. I try never to be rude to people and I try and respect others wishes and feelings to a reasonable degree. I can't say as this is something I've experienced from any prominent person I have so far been near (although this admittedly does not include anyone involved with B7 to my knowledge). As far as I can tell, removing offending sales merchandise is courteous. Displaying adult merchandise discreetly is courteous. Not asking actors to sign any merchandise they don't wish to is courteous. Treating the actual actor present civilly and as a human being and not a sex object is courteous. I think this is as much courtesy as is necessary.
Anyone who doesn't wish to be exposed to nastiness from journalists,
fans
and
critics shouldn't be an actor.
Oh, now really. Are actors not also human beings? Don't they have a right
to
privacy?
Of course they are entitled to privacy. Anything which happens legally in the privacy of their own homes and grounds is sancrosant . No extended super lens cameras to catch them sunbathing in their own backyards, no spying on them when they are a scratching themselves on Sundays. While I personally would leave them alone were they to be shopping, eating in a restaurant or whatever, a prominent person cannot be surprised if others do. It happens to local prominent persons, for heaven's sake, not just actors. If you are prominent you are exposed to others even when you are on "private time".
Common
courtesy's not a great deal to ask, and that means not treating people
like
objects for our own selfish pleasure.
Apparently you live in a different world. As far as I can see the world thrives on selfishness, selfcenterdness and an awful lot of treating people as objects. Writers and illustraters of adult themes do this as little or as much as anyone else but from what I have seen they are very clearly aware that their objectification is for a character idea and they are not portraying the actor as an object.
but if adult zines containing artwork are kept out of
general
view
In this age of pictures on the Internet, that's a bit hard to do.
Considering that the only ones who need the courtesy of not being exposed to this are the actors or those who do not wish to see adult art, it's actually quite easy. Most adult art and stories are not advertised or flaunted and can be avoided by those not wishing to see them.
but fans shouldn't be banned from creating it.
There's a difference between banning people and pointing out that what they're doing hurts the feelings of another human being.
It may very well do but I find it really hard to believe that anyone could have worked as an actor for decades and not developed a fairly thick skin in this regard.