#public morality

I’ve been noticing a debate about fiction and its influence, and one of their arguments is that “dark fantasies are okay; psychologists said so!”  And they even provide citations, which is a refreshing change.

They just don’t actually read them.  

Because in all those citations from psychologists who say that having dark fantasies is perfectly normal and healthy, I’ve never seen any of those psychologists say that sharing them with others in a public format is also without risk.  I’ve never seen any of those psychologists say it’s healthy to seek out public approval for those fantasies.   I’ve never seen any of them say since having dark fantasies is a normal part of life, there is absolutely nothing wrong with normalizing them as media intended for unfettered consumption.

I’m more than willing to be proven wrong, but the clinical psychologists I’ve talked to have made it very clear to me that there is a difference between having fantasies that are considered dark and immoral and acting on those fantasies.   As a writer myself, making the effort to put those fantasies down on paper is certainly an act that requires a great deal of effort.

The leap between acceptance that you’re going to have dark fantasies and presenting those fantasies as legitimate forms of public entertainment is not insignificant.  They’re not the same thing, and they never have been.  One is private behavior, one is public behavior, which by definition can influence others.

Of course, concern about real effects of fiction can be taken to an extreme.  All one has to do is remember the anti Dungeons & Dragons overreaction of the 1980s or Tipper Gore’s crusade against naughty music lyrics.   But just like there is a great deal of difference between daydreaming about murdering the people who annoy you and writing a 100k multi-chaptered novel offering moral justifications for murdering or sexually molesting children, there is also a great deal of difference between iron-fisted censorship and genuine concern that authors consider the ramifications of presenting such things as not only desirable but as a positive desire. 

Too often, those who want to defend the ability to publish dark fiction without consideration resort to the motte-and-bailey fallacy.  If someone proposes that presenting fiction which celebrates something dark, like adult-child relationships, should address the difficulties of such a fantasy, it’s automatically likened to censorship and moral scolding, even though that’s not a refutation of the original premise.

When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.

Tumblr users absolutely love the Motte and Bailey Fallacy.   It’s an informal fallacy you can read about here; it’s pretty common.  To summarize, someone takes two positions that are similar in nature but different in degree.  If another person, say me, attempts to argue against the more extreme position, my opponent can say I’m arguing against the more moderate position.

Let me give you an example.  

MOTTE POSITION:  “Authors should be free to write about dark topics; readers have a responsibility to curate their own experiences.”

This is a reasonable and moderate position.  One with which I happen to agree.  I’ve never said that authors shouldn’t write about dark topics.  I’ve written about dark topics.  I’ve argued however that writing about dark topics is like possessing a firearm; there are reasonable expectations of behavior.  But people take ...

BAILEY POSITION: “Authors should have no limits at all when it comes to  how they present dark topics; the burden of responsibility falls entirely upon the audience.”

This is an extreme and dangerous position for many reasons.  Fiction does influence reality.  No one is immune to the power of stories, which many people talk about but act as if it can only be used for good ends.  There are endless examples of propaganda, of unintended consequences, and of self-reinforcing yet morally dubious conclusion ranging from Fatal Attraction to CSI to fanfiction.  

In my experience, writers, both professional and amateur, use writing about dark topics for not very ethical results.  These results range from the vicarious thrill of sharing the forbidden without acknowledging that this is what they’re doing to camouflaging social harms like racism and misogyny in their work to simply finding petty revenge against a media property that didn’t go the way they wanted it to.  

Yet, when I argue that a creator has a responsibility in their writing to handle dark topics with skill and sensitivity they move to the motte, saying that I’m arguing that writers shouldn’t be able to write about dark topics at all.   Their arguments become justifications for authors doing anything but considering the power of their own words, from the obscuration of “don’t like; don’t read,” which depends on an illusory uniformity in both genre and tagging systems, to the bald-faced delusion of “fiction =/= reality.”   

If that doesn’t work, they trot out the straw man of censorship, as if I have an office where my minions work to prevent any story being written that I don’t like (and has nearly a 100% failure rate) or my secret influence over AO3 or Tumblr. Very few people are proposing censorship.   Very few people are actually saying never write about terrible things.  Most of them, like me, are proposing authorial sensitivity to how they write about dark topics and are willing to discuss it.   

The Home Ministry has banned two books — “Chase Me” by Tessa Bailey and “Ammar Zahrain: The Obsessive Husband” by Nssignature — under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. Effective July 1 and 3, the Prohibition Orders aim to prevent content deemed harmful to morality. Home Ministry Bans Two Books for Threatening Public Morality The ban prohibits all acts of printing, importing,…

“Billiard Parlors Barred From East End Streets,” Toronto Star. March 8, 1932. Page 4. ---- May Not Operate on Queen St. E. or Kingston Rd. - Leslie Charges Discrimination - McBride Denies Poolrooms Breed Crime --- No building on Queen St., between Woodbine Ave., and the city limits or on Kingston Rd., from Main St. to the east city limits can be used for the operation of a pool or billiard parlor, the city council decided last night. While the by-law to restrict the streets to a certain class of business made no mention of a pool or billiard parlor, it was plainly designed to exclude them as the discussion revealed.

The by-law was carried on the following vote: The mayor, Simpson, Robbins, McBride, Ramsden, Sibbery, Phillips, Johnston, Ryckman, Ellis, Bray, Wadsworth, Whetter, Winnett, Beamish, Chisholm, Hamilton, Day, Elgie, Howell, Blond and Kirby - 22,

Opposed: Quinn, Leslie, Glass, Holdsworth, Rogers and Clark - 6.

These sections of the two thoroughfares can now be used only for the following purposes: an apartment house, a bank, beauty parlor, boarding house, bowling alley, butcher shop, cleaning and pressing establishment, church, fire hall, gasoline service station, hospital, hotel, laundry, moving picture or other theatre, office building, printing establishment, private residence, public hall, public garage, public library, police station, post office, professional office, restaurant, school, shop of any type, store for sale of goods, wares and merchandise other than second-hand goods, wares or merchandise, undertaker’s shop and warehouse.

‘It is class legislation of the worst kind,’ declared Ald. Leslie.

‘The whole thing rose from the fact that someone got a license for a billiard parlor,’ continued Ald. Leslie. ‘If we’re going to let churches squat down on our thoroughfares and be the only places for entertainment then it is tme for the churches to start to pay the city something.

‘Back Stairs Way’ ‘This seems a curiously back-stairs way of getting at the pool rooms,’ pointed out Ald. Rogers.

‘This by-law is the result of a demand in the district,’ declared Ald. Bray. ‘It is apparent that Ald. Leslie is looking after the interests of the billiard companies.’

Ald. Leslie objected to the suggestion saying that he was not representing any companies.

Ald. Siberry pictured pool rooms as the breeding places of crime, stating that they were conductive to the making of thugs, etc.

‘I hope the press won’t broadcast Ald. Sibery’s remarks that the pool rooms of Toronto are dens of vice,’ declared Con. mcBride.

‘They might be dens of vice where the alderman goes, but now where I go,’ he added.

‘I want to say that what the alderman has said here to-day has done more harm than the good he has done in all his years in council,’ said Con. McBride.