huh wrote:
the fact that it is there in the zine and unchallenged _would_ suggest
to
readers that Actor X had approved or consented to their presence there.
You're joking, right? I mean, you HAVE to be kidding. The teeny tiny
minority
of fans who might even conceivably believe this really must be too stupid
to
live
First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or journalists, or interested third parties. Secondly, remember a while back a few people on this lyst (including myself) assumed that Gareth Thomas was cool with adult art because he appeared at Redemption, and he turned out to have some real problems with it.
Look, if Sally Knyvette gets a bit upset about a few pictures of her
taken
on a bad hair day, what's she going to do if she finds someone selling a picture of her doing the nasty with Gareth Thomas?
Stop appearing at cons. shrug. My enjoyment of B7 and zines would remain undiminished in any case.
Some of us _do_ like going to cons though, and some of us _do_ like seeing/meeting the actors. Zines isn't the only way to enjoy fandom.
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?
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? These aren't Hollywood stars who thrive on publicity, you know, they're just jobbing actors who, when not working, work in offices, building-sites and schools. Many have partners and kids who are not actors or production people and don't need to be exposed to nastiness. Common courtesy's not a great deal to ask, and that means not treating people like objects for our own selfish pleasure.
I'm not saying one needs to deliberately provoke actors, 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.
particularly of B7 actors who Lord knows are not my idea of fabulous
naked,
Seen any of those pictures ;-)? They're pretty idealised.
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.
Shane
"What did you do in your spare time?" --Avon
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
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.
huh wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, on the internet this is not true.
Mistral
huh wrote:
quite easy. Most adult art and stories are not advertised or
flaunted and
can be avoided by those not wishing to see them.
Unfortunately, on the internet this is not true.
Hmm. Not sure about that. Every so often I type 'slash fanfic' into a search engine, which comes up with some good stuff, some crap, and some totally irrelevant stuff. It doesn't tend to link right to stories, but to warning pages saying 'go away if you don't like male/male erotica'--this is, after all, where you get the word 'slash', not in the stories. And a lot of b7 erotica online isn't linked to there, although you can get to it if you know where it is (ie you will get a link to one of Judith's pages mentioning that 'zines are slash or not, and you could look for her Online Fanfic linke.
OTOH, I haven't actually tried the typical teenager's trick of typing Rude Words into a search engine to find Rude Pages.
And every so often I get porn-spam in my e-mail. I was really shocked when yahoo (I think) was extremely apologetic about the 'offensive material'. It wasn't offensive in other than being spam (which is offensive enough). All right, it would have been offensive & annoying if spammer'd sent me a large jpeg of something I didn't like to watch, I suppose, but it was a typical 'here is our webpage if you like this sort of thing'. And yahoo instantly pulled their account and apologised profusely. Which is not their attitude when I get the more frequent spammus businessus. Bloody Americans!
But seriously I don't particularly find myself tripping over 'tits and bums' links on the average Google search. It's more relentless commercialisation that annoys me: you type in a couple of words and you're more likely to get adverts than pure info.
Cheers, Pred'x (...who thinks there's anything 'n' everything from porno to pomo on the internet, but it won't actually get caught in the search engine for a particular search unless a) someone put it there and b) the words you're looking for are in there...)
Predatrix wrote:
huh wrote:
quite easy. Most adult art and stories are not advertised or
flaunted and
can be avoided by those not wishing to see them.
Unfortunately, on the internet this is not true.
Hmm. Not sure about that. Every so often I type 'slash fanfic' into a search engine, which comes up with some good stuff, some crap, and some totally irrelevant stuff. It doesn't tend to link right to stories, but to warning pages
Having received several replies to this off-list, and not being sure whether they were intended to go to the list, I just thought just answer Pred'x on-list in order to clarify.
With my e-mail client (Netscape), pointing at a message opens it automatically. I've played with the settings some and not found any way around it. That means that even if you already know you don't want to read it, you have to open it in order to delete it, or to mark the thread to ignore in a newsgroup.
I lurk in the Buffy newsgroup. My impression is that most of the fans are adults, but the show is marketed to teens, and there are teens involved in online Buffy fandom. At least twice (and I think more) I've opened an innocuously titled message and been exposed to sexually explicit photographs before I could realize what the material was and get it set to ignore. (It's just now occurred to me that may mean they're still lurking on my hard drive somewhere as well. Eww.) I certainly didn't go looking for them, and I'm just glad that I didn't have a niece or nephew looking over my shoulder at the time (which is often the case.)
No, they weren't fan art. I like the idea that we in B7 fandom don't have any of the sort of people who would do this. But one malicious or immature person could change that easily. I don't in any way consider this a caution, and I'm not really interested in a discussion about the pros and cons of explicit art; just wanted to say that on the net, one definitely _can_ (and IMO probably will be) exposed to explicit art without searching for it; in fact, even when one is trying to avoid it.
Mistral
-
huh -
Mistral -
Predatrix -
Shane Little