Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
But when people ask "who is being being harmed" in a work of fiction and conclude not that no one is (because the characters in the book don't actually exist) but rather that a character may legally be "harmed" as long as it is illegal to "harm" them in real life, and that aliens and werewolves don't count because they're not real, then I despair of having an intelligent conversation.
|
I know that no one is being harmed
because the characters don't exist. It just seemed that for some people, "it's gross" is such a strong argument that "fictional characters are fictional; they don't exist; no one is being harmed" isn't enough.
Hence me trying to take it to even more ridiculous levels - in order to get through the "but it's gross! and illegal! ban it!" arguments.
It seemed like the logical next level in trying that - not only can no one be harmed by such fiction existing, because it's fiction and the characters don't exist in reality, but that it cannot even be argued that such fiction existing could drive some readers to start considering those actions okay in reality.
I've seen people argue (elsewhere) that paedophilia or rape fantasy fiction is bad, because it may blur the lines between what's acceptable and what not in some people's minds and drive them to act out their fantasies in reality. I am not a psychologist and won't get into whether this may be true or not - but I
do think that even
those arguments cannot possibly be valid for banning werewolf porn (or for that matter erotica depicting consensual sex by characters under 18 but above the age of consent in their country).
It's ridiculous, and a hyperbole, and what not, and obviously the answer is that "it's fiction, no one is being harmed", but sometimes non-ridiculous arguments just don't seem to be enough. *shrugs*