Left Sock / Right Sock

son: soy milk

So here’s the thing about callout culture, and why I’ve finally hit this point where I just want to throw it wholesale out of fandom:

There is an important difference between:

“This thing you made bothers me because my experience is _____”

“This thing you made is terrible and you are harming every person who experiences ____”

Because here’s the thing: fandom creations are not a psychic link into someone’s head. You cannot look at someone’s fiction and determine why they wrote it; you cannot look at a piece of art and decide what others take from it. And when it comes to things like disability, trauma, all those things White Knights love to save us from, you have a very wide range of experience. There are people out there who are writing from lived experience - they just react to their situation differently. What may infuriate and enrage you could be cathartic to someone else.

In fact, I’m going to take it one step further: since when was it a requirement that all fanworks reflect real life?  Have we forgotten there’s a line between reality and fiction?  Cause you know what, there’s people out there who aren’t up to reading Hard Hitting and Hyper Realistic depictions of the shit they go through 24/7. Some of the people who write fluffy stories about characters magically healing via the power of improbable romance are people who desperately need that fantasy in their life. As long as people are not claiming their fiction should be everyone’s reality (*coughcough Fifty Shades of Grey*), can we not leave them in peace?

In short:

Yes, it’s okay to avoid works that trigger or upset you

Yes, it’s okay to tell a creator that you were bothered by something that showed up in their work

But for god’s sake stop assuming that someone’s work of fiction reflects their real life beliefs and experiences

And stop requiring that people whip out their trauma and disability cards to prove they’re allowed to explore something in fiction

Use the fucking back button once in a while and

Also:

- Not everything problematic causes actual harm in the universe. Words, art, and fiction can absolutely affect people’s views and behavior, can influence them to do wonderful or awful things, but that doesn’t mean they always do. A work’s potential to cause harm is limited by its potential to persuade and the size of its audience–and the interactions between the things a work of fiction depicts, the messages it sends about them, the audience’s interpretation of those messages based on context, and the audience’s evaluation of their validity are incredibly complex. Fiction doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but it doesn’t have a one-to-one relationship with reality either. So fucking stop equating “wrongheaded” and “problematic as a trend in the aggregate” with “harmful” as an excuse to be a horrid bullying shitstain about art and fiction that bothers you.

- The capacity to harm, or even the fact of having caused harm, doesn’t erase all the ways something might have value and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. Fuck vigilante censorship. Fuck it right in the ear.

Most of us know it when we see it, but I figure any discussion about fandom antis and how to respond to them would benefit from having a solid answer to “what even is an anti, anyway?” Laying out the exact characteristics that distinguish anti wank from every other kind of wank also helps clarify what, exactly, is going on here, why it’s appalling, and also why it’s appealing to those who engage in it.

I’m going to define it as a behavior rather than a particular type of person. The anti movement is:

1. A form of intra-community aggression within fandom, that 2. Seeks, as its primary goal, to designate out-groups who are fair game for social brutality, by 3. Categorically declaring certain forms of fan engagement (ships, characters, fic genres, fanart styles, video game mods…) to be intrinsically morally wrong and in need of stamping out, regardless of how or why one engages with them, and 4. Justifies this by claiming a causal relationship between the targeted activities and some form of (usually SJ-flavored) real-world harm that they allegedly promote.

The order is important, because it goes from most to least essential. 1 is fundamental context, 2 is ultimate purpose, 3 is the mechanism used to accomplish that purpose, 4 is the justification for using that mechanism.

Let’s take it number by number.

Is FB going down the same, probably puritanically motivated drain road as Tumblr? Yes and no. Is it because of FOSTA/SESTA? Yes. Should US citizens yell at their reps about repealing those laws? Abso-fucking-lutely! Those laws are what is forcing Tumblr, FB, soon-to-be Twitter to act (which is a separate issue from how abysmally they are handling this).

But please, please keep your facts straight so that an asshole CEO / right-wing politician doesn’t get the chance to tut at us for ‘being hysterical’ and say “Well, actually.”

Facebook is not banning talk about sex. Or even about being gay. Per se.

What they are banning:

content [that] facilitates, encourages or coordinates sexual encounters between adults = trying to hook up on FB

sexually explicit language that may lead to solicitation = roundabout ways of advertising sexual services on FB

They are doing this because when FOSTA/SESTA come into effect, Facebook could be sued for letting a single ad for sexual services slip through; those laws make them responsible for the content users post.

It’s very obvious in this section:

[Do not post] Attempting to coordinate adult commercial sexual services or prostitution activities, such as requesting, offering or asking for rates for escort services and paid sexual fetish or domination services.

What is REALLY interesting is this bit:

We also restrict sexually explicit language that may lead to solicitation because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content and it may impede the ability for people to connect with their friends and the broader community.

The wording makes me think of the fact that FOSTA/SESTA allow a sex trafficking victim to sue the site that was complicit in their abuse (e.g. ads were published on the site; much like in the Backpage case). This section manages to vaguely make clear why they are banning solicitation.

Kudos to whoever the hell wrote it, that’s some pretty impressive maneuvering.

FB’s new Community Standards ban:

Content to coordinate or recruit for sexual activities, including 1) filmed sexual activities, 2) pornographic activities, strip club shows, live sex performances, erotic dances, 3) sexual, erotic or tantric massages = arranging for the shoot of your newest porn film, trying to find actors for it, and putting up adverts for your cowgirl show at Club Coco is out, as well as promoting your tantric massage business

Explicit sexual solicitation by, including offering or asking for: 1) sex or sexual partners, 2) sex chat or conversations, 3) nude images = no hooking up or steamy pics between you and your SO (but also no dick pics, so yay?)

Implicit sexual solicitation: offering or asking to engage in a sexual act and/or acts identified by other suggestive elements: 1) vague suggestive statements, such as "looking for a good time tonight", 2) sexualised slang, 3) using sexual hints: mentioning [roles, positions, fetish scenarios, sexual preferences, being horny and/or wanking, your sexy bits] = no ‘wink wink, nudge nudge’ hooking up, either (”Wish I knew a tall lesbian who wanted some Netflix and chill tonight!”)

Content (hand-drawn, digital or real-world art) that may depict explicit sexual activity or suggestively posed person(s). = erotic art of any kind

Content that offers or asks for other adult activities such as 1) commercial pornography, 2) partners who share fetish or sexual interests = sharing porn, looking for hookups with people who are into the same kinks

Sexually explicit language that adds details and goes beyond mere naming or mentioning of 1) state of sexual arousal, 2) act of sexual intercourse = talking excessively about how thinking of a good pounding makes you wet/hard

Thing is, those new standards make pretty solid ground for banning revenge porn, upskirt photos, dick pics, and so on, which is about the only good thing comes from it -- if it works. If they don’t sweep everything out along with banned content.

The wording about impicit sexual solicitation is, to my eyes, where the new Standards are at their murkiest.

Content that engages in implicit sexual solicitation, which can be identified by offering or asking to engage in a sexual act and/or acts identified by other suggestive elements such as any of the following

Tbh, I don’t get that sentence. That sentence is an abomination straight from the bowels of Satan himself.

What is “identified by other suggestive elements”?

I attempted to make sense of it:

Content that engages in implicit sexual solicitation | which

[implicit sexual solicitation] can be identified by offering or asking to engage in a sexual act | and/or

[implicit sexual solicitation can be identified by offering or asking to engage in] acts identified by other suggestive elements such as any of the following

So talking about being gay, or about being into something, on its own is not considered implicit sexual solicitation. But talking about wanting to have sex and oh btw I’m gay and into spanking IS implicit sexual solicitation.

I’m not sure. At all. Only God and Facebook know what the hell that sentence means.

Good morning! I’m salty.

I think we, as a general community, need to start taking this little moment more seriously.

This, right here? This is asking for consent. It’s a legal necessity, yes, but it is also you, the reader, actively consenting to see adult content; and in doing so, saying that you are of an age to see it, and that you’re emotionally capable of handling it.

You find the content you find behind this warning disgusting, horrifying, upsetting, triggering? You consented. You said you could handle it, and you were able to back out at any time. You take responsibility for yourself when you click through this, and so long as the creator used warnings and tags correctly, you bear full responsibility for its impact on you.

“Children are going to lie about their age” is probably true, but that’s the problem of them and the people who are responsible for them, not the people that they lie to.

IF YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO POST YOUR NSFW ART….

….yeah.

This isn’t about sticking it to the man. This is about making money, and Pornhub is ACTIVELY soliciting a community they haven’t been able to really touch or break into. WOMEN.

Like I’m sitting here fucking astounded by the level of business savvy going on over at pornhub right now.

Guys, women tend to read their porn. It’s not true for everyone, but it’s a fact that has simply held up well over the past decades or so. Can you imagine if some fan fiction started moving over to, and was posted on, Pornhub? After the content is there…the subscribers come. (Literally and figuratively.)

I am legitimately in awe of this. The company that makes porn their business recognizes that porn needs a place (and wants to make money) and is going after a womanly demographic with this.

Also their subscriber base is a HUGE turn on for artists looking to make money, because you don’t have to wait for an audience to build up. It’s there! Waiting for you! And your fabulous drawings. (For real. Make some Overwatch porn and watch money roll in.)

Is Pornhub where fandom can fall? Hell no. Is Pornhub a place I am legitimately considering placing some of my higher end explicit content? You know…I’m definitely gonna think about it!

You draw and/or write porn? Awesome! Please reconsider uploading it on Pornhub, for several reasons.

1) If your work is stolen and re-posted, your only chance of having it taken down is filing a DMCA notice, initiating a legal process, which means this:

"The copyright owner’s name will be published on Pornhub in place of disabled content [that's your IRL NAME they're talking about]. This will become part of the public record of your DMCA Notice, along with your description of the work(s) allegedly infringed. All the information provided in a DMCA Notice, the actual DMCA Notice (including your personal information [again: your IRL name, address, phone number]), or both may be forwarded to the uploader of the allegedly infringing content. By submitting a DMCA Notice, you consent to having your information revealed in this way." (source)

2) Sites like Pornhub exploit sex workers.

When their content gets stolen, to have it taken down they are forced to out themselves.

(INCLUDING HAVING THEIR REAL NAMES POSTED ON FUCKING PORNHUB)

This is a huge risk for people whose safety relies on their privacy, double the truth for marginalised people -- poc, trans, queer, disabled -- who make a living doing indie porn.

I don't know your stance on sexwork, but I reckon we're all here on the fringes together, so we'd better stick together too.

3) Did I mention that two (presumably) anti-sex trafficking (actually) prudish laws, SESTA and FOSTA, are pushing sex workers under the bus -- and likely the REASON for Tumblr's anti-NSFW campaign?

Yeah. Essentially, Tumblr and other social media sites can soon be sued for enabling prostitution because those laws make them responsible for what we post.

What do they do? Forbid us from posting anything remotely related! ... That works, I guess

Here's Cookie Cyboid's original Twitter thread on the subject matter.

Here's another one that I put together in under an hour, detailing why Pornhub isn't a good option and linking to some sources. (I lack the resources to dig deeper right now, sorry about that.)

---

The Vox article that I was interviewed for is up and running, and it contains some serious fuckign information about this whole fiasco.

Information that tumblr just straight up refused to provide to its userbase at all.

Unsurprisingly to those of us watching this website deteriorate over the last year, this full content purge and ban has been in progress for a solid 6 months. The date got moved up because of the child porn thing, but it was always coming for us.

Equally unsurprising: Tumblr’s management and ownership are absolutely destroying the actual staff working on it. The company has been hemoragghing senior staff without so much as a token attempt to keep them in place. So the drops in site quality are real, and wil probably only be getting worse.

Can we talk about that horn suggestively hovering over Will Graham’s luscious lips btw

This is a thing we are Not Going To Do Anymore, Fred. I know that you’ve been saying this for the last thirty years, Fred. It’s not offensive all of a sudden, Fred, it’s been offensive this whole time and I haven’t cared enough before, but it’s Time To Be Better, Fred.

Okay, folks, I got some recs for y’all today. I’m a pretty unavoidably female-read NB, and I don’t really know any nice ways to make myself LOOK less so. However, SMELLS are a pretty easy way to make yourself feel more at home in the skin you’re in, and I have amassed a couple of good, gender neutral stinky things.

1. Breath of God perfume by Lush

This scent is described as “melony, citrus, sandalwood, and cedarwood.” It really rides the line between being a perfume and being a cologne, which I dig. It has almost an incense-y kind of smell to it. Also, the smell changes as you wear it to go with your body chemistry, which I love. This is a year-round Lush product, so you can pop into a shop to sniff it anytime you want.

2. This L’Oreal rosemary/juniper shampoo/conditioner

Rosemary-scented and sulfate-free, which means it will keep your cool queer dyed hair looking better longer. Rosemary is an excellently gender neutral scent. They also have a rosemary/mint one, which is pretty good.

3. Old Spice Hawkridge

This scent comes also as a body wash and some other products, but I just use the stick deodorant. It’s sandalwood and vanilla scented. Some products with sandalwood, that’s all you smell, but it’s really nicely balanced with the vanilla here so it’s just a little hint of spiciness.