![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OK, now I notice
Aug. 16th, 2007 08:24 amI haven't paid so much attention to the recent 6A/LJ problems because like a lot of people, I'm really of the mind that underage porn is a no-no, even in fiction (even though I still think there are worse communities that demand a strikethrough before the fictional art). I freely admit I'm prejudiced against shota and chan - and one hopes I'm using the terms correctly. However, what I've been waiting for is something like this to crop up. If it is true - and I don't know this user, so I can't vouch for them - I'd say that's probably going beyond the line on 6A's part. No, nobody expects one to believe that an infant, for example, is 18 even if it's noted in the disclaimer, but when the artist draws a character that they explicitly SAY is 18, should Corporate really be in the art critic business? Who are they to say a teenager-looking person isn't 18? I still have my college ID from just before I turned 18, and I look 12 in it. I'm sure there's plenty of depictions all over LJ of, say, adult women being raped and beaten - yet I haven't heard "boo" about those being struck out. (Has anyone?)
One has to wonder who 6A has policing journals if it has come to using one's own criticism instead of reading the artists' disclaimers - again, something that has been previously reported as being an acceptable way to post explicit art. Have they perhaps followed the Republicans' lead and privatized the job out, say, to the far-right-flung Christian Coalition? (Who, I imagine, would certainly have no problem with images of females being subjugated ... nor, I suspect, with underage het porn, including underage female characters in coitus, if they could be convinced it was for baby-making.) Or is it like that old saw about putting a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters, with the assurance that eventually, altogether, they'll reproduce (by accident and simple repetitive, mindless typing) the complete works of Shakespeare?
One has to wonder who 6A has policing journals if it has come to using one's own criticism instead of reading the artists' disclaimers - again, something that has been previously reported as being an acceptable way to post explicit art. Have they perhaps followed the Republicans' lead and privatized the job out, say, to the far-right-flung Christian Coalition? (Who, I imagine, would certainly have no problem with images of females being subjugated ... nor, I suspect, with underage het porn, including underage female characters in coitus, if they could be convinced it was for baby-making.) Or is it like that old saw about putting a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters, with the assurance that eventually, altogether, they'll reproduce (by accident and simple repetitive, mindless typing) the complete works of Shakespeare?
