neadods: (Default)
neadods ([personal profile] neadods) wrote2005-03-16 08:48 am
Entry tags:

It's Different Because They're *People*!

I joined [livejournal.com profile] metafandom because it posts interesting links to fannish happenings around LJ, and hey - if [livejournal.com profile] fanthropology is good, than more of the same must be better.

We'll see how long I last now that my first post has led me to Sprat's commentary on Real Person Slash: "I know this is a sensitive area in fandom, and I know there are a lot of people for whom this is, like, A Really Major Deal--not just a personal squick, but an actual ethical issue having to do with the right to privacy of the actors in question. And the thing is, I honestly do not understand why."

Because they're people, that's why!

I commented in the thread, and I tried to keep my tone reasonable, but I am one of those folk with "an actual ethical issue" about this, and it's very simple to explain why - whether the actors in question know it or not, whether they read it or not, whether they care or not, real person fiction demotes a human being to the same level as a fictional character.

There are levels of this, some not all that offensive. For instance, obligatory disclosure, I once wrote a real person fic. I put a fictional character on a Julia Childe cooking show, which necessitated having Julia Childe in the story. But I don't feel that I denigrated her because I showed her doing her doing her job. And I've read plenty of fanfics where the actor gets sucked into the character's world, or vice versa. When the real person is written in a situation dealing with their job, and written in a manner that fits their character as known, then - well, you can argue that a line is crossed, but it's harder to argue that a person has been damaged or insulted.

But when you start talking about private issues - love, sex, family - in a public fiction, then you start treating people not just as moderately fictional, but as dancing meatpuppets. Real person slash - particularly slash about het humans (I get the impression that Sprat is writing about Paul Gross, who is married) depersonalizes the subjects even farther into breathing sex toys. Sex toys that are getting their workout not in the confines of someone's skull, but right out there in public for the amusement of the masses.

How can you not see that as ethically creepy?

There appear to be two arguments in favor of RPS. First, that the actors are attractive and sell their sexuality in their work. But just because they're selling the sizzle, it doesn't mean they're signing away their rights to control the steak. Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all. RPS may not be as violent or violating as an actual rape, but it springs from the same mindset - that anyone that attracts is responsible for slaking the sexual arousal - regardless of that person's opinion, interest, or even intent. The same can be said for stalking. It's a fine, fine line between just writing about fantasies with someone and making those fantasies real.

And y'know what? Even if you NEVER plan on making said fantasies real, if you publicly post something torrid about an actor and then go see them, what is it going to look like - to the actor, to the authorities, even to the rest of the fandom? Better pray nothing happens to that actor when you're around, because you've made yourself public suspect #1 without ever banging more than your keyboard.

Second, is the argument that "what they don't know won't hurt them." Well, yeah. The odds of someone finding a specific story about themselves are pretty low. BUT - that doesn't mean it won't happen, not with the global, lingering nature of the Internet. Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story? Equally important, is it safe to assume that because the story is not about them personally that they won't be hurt/shocked/upset/appalled? Do they deserve to be hurt just because you wanted to get your ya-yas off with a person instead of a character, and wanted to do so in a semi-public forum?

Not to mention that just because they don't say anything directly to you doesn't mean that they don't know. If you suspected someone of stalking you, would your first impulse be to talk to them, or to gather up your information and quietly talk to the authorities? Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety? (I work conventions, I've been in fandom for decades. I am so not joking here. It only takes one stalker scare for a fan club to lose their star or for a previously wonderful guest to stop coming.)

Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

Think they're hot? Think they ought to be with someone of your choosing? For the love of sanity, write about their character and you can safely bang 'em like a gong. Fictional people doing fictional things is a victimless crime. But for heaven's sake, if you're attracted to an actual person then grant them the dignity of treating them like people!

And no, the golden rule doesn't apply if you wish people were writing torrid RPS about you. Get a sex life of your own!
ext_5608: (fragile)

[identity profile] wiliqueen.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all.

Thank you, thank you, beyond WORDS thank you.

[identity profile] peggin.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:02 pm (UTC)(link)
I just want to say, I agree with every word of this. I have several people I consider close friends who write RPS, and as much as I usually try to read anything written by any of my friends, when it comes to those stories I can't even bring myself to click on the links. It just feels like such a violation of the actors' privacy to me.

I also don't get the need for it. I mean, if you want a fantasy story about the actor with you, go ahead and write it for your own amusement, but for God's sake, don't post it for the whole world to see! I especially don't get it when it comes to slashing the actual actors who play a couple on a TV show - like in Queer as Folk fandom, we've got Brian and Justin... they're a couple on the show and there is a *ton* of fic written about them. Why do people feel the need to take it that one step further and write stories about Gale (who plays Brian and is straight) and Randy (who plays Justin, is gay and is in a long-term committed relationship)? Why aren't stories about Brian and Justin enough? I just don't get it.

Anyway, I'm saving this to my memories. Next time one of my friends asks me why I won't read their story, I'm just going to point them here.

[identity profile] nycdeb.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't applaud you enough for this - because my hands would be numb by the end and I am working on this mad deadline. But yes yes yes to all you said. RPS - and all RP-based fic to some extent - is an afront to their dignity (and no self-promotion doesn't mean they've signed away their right to that and no, just because perhaps they've not shown much dignity doesn't make it OK) and it's an invasion of privacy even if they aren't confronted with thre evidence. This is why unauthorized bios have to be vetted by so many eyes (legal and otherwise). What you write about real people MATTERS to them.

If someone stood outside my window and took photos of me in the shower - even if those pictures are for their personal use and not for financial gain - it is STILL an invasion of privacy. the RPS is simple a wordy version of the same.

This icon pic of Michael Madsen in bed. It is publicly available, released per a decision made by him and his people for the furtherance of his career. If I snuck into his bedroom to snap a similar picture - NOT THE SAME. And WRONG (a dream, but wrong).

Perhaps he's a good example as he writes as well. His x-rated scribbles - some involving himself - hey, that's his, he's published it - he's put it out there. His right to do so and my right to avail myself of it. For me to write RPS using him t dance to my tune - and further making it available for others in some form. NOT the same. Writing about Mr. Chapel, Mr. Blonde or Glen ths Disney Dad from Free Willy is NOT writing about Michael Madsen. It IS compywright infringement and I can live with that. I am not hurting Mr. Chapel, Mr. Blonde or Glen the Disney Dad. They aren't real. Michael Madsen IS and he - as a real person deserves to be treated as a real person.

Now, I'm pondering -- woud I write a piece using Sonny Black (from Donnie Brasco. Yes, he is portrayed in the movie by Madsen but Sonny was a real person. Or is. Good lord, I don't even know if Sonny is dead or alive.). I suppose I would - if there were such a thing as Donnie Brasco fic...Hmmm.

[identity profile] ajinamoto.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh my god, I was just explaining to someone why I object to RPS (specifically Paul Gross and Callum Keith Rennie), but you have hit the nail on the head in a precise, eloquent manner. I should check out that other thread, it might be related to what I was talking about.

May I please, please, link to this post?

lagilman: coffee or die (Default)

[personal profile] lagilman 2005-03-16 03:22 pm (UTC)(link)
See, this is why the whole "copyright" argument is such a slippery slope to some folk. "But if A is wrong but okay to do, than B is okay too, because they're out there performing for us..."


I've seen RPS about non-actors, too. *shudder* Bad enough I have to worry about my fiction being used to the detriment of my copyright -- the thought of someone writing about me is... well, I'd not hesitate to file a C&D, for starters.

[identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:25 pm (UTC)(link)
For me, it's not even the violation of privacy as much as the violation of their *humanity*! The very notion that a human being is being treated like a Barbie doll creeps me to the max.

I especially don't get it when it comes to slashing the actual actors who play a couple on a TV show

I don't get that either. My pop-psychology hypothesis is that some folks simply can't distinguish between the role and the actor, because that happens outside slash too. I remember quite a lot of people chirping about how WONDERFUL and ROMANTIC and HEARTFELT it was that Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton were really really really in love JUST like their characters. And I got in a lot of trouble when I pointed out that if true, it wasn't so romantic for his wife, her husband, or either of their sets of children.

To be fair, I also know the converse; I know someone who refused to watch Reimington Steele because "they hate each other, you know, they're not really in love." Yeah, it's called acting. That's what they do for a living, and I was actually kinda impressed that they could have such onscreen chemistry considering the personal animus.

Anyway, I'm saving this to my memories. Next time one of my friends asks me why I won't read their story, I'm just going to point them here.

Thanks! I shall confess to a longing to someday write one of those thought-provoking posts that ends up all over LJ.

[identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:29 pm (UTC)(link)
May I please, please, link to this post?

Certainly!

[identity profile] nycdeb.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I saw your posts and I thought you explained it very well. I simply don't understand WHY people cannot understand that difference between thinking something and WRITING IT DOWN AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE. I applaud your efforts but clearly they weren't listening to you.

I don't understand how people cannot see why RPS is such an invasion of privacy. I feel like making it EXTREMELY simple for them.

Make it about some one they know and something more immediate like a picture.

Some sneaks in, takes a picture of them in the shower and posts it to a LJ. Oh and the picture has been altered with photoshop or something to make it appear that they're engaging in some sort of sexual activity with - say, their brother. There is no fee to access the LJ and person in photo doesn't know them so they are unlikely to ever hear about it so what they don't know won't hurt them so by their logic - it's all good?

Because what I've just described is the same thing as writing an piece of RPS and posting it on their LJ. Just with fewer words on the page.

[identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)
well, I'd not hesitate to file a C&D, for starters.

Personally, I'd start with the restraining order, then get the C&D...

I'm trying not to have my head explode over the idea of RPS about non-actors. How, could that possibly be explained away? You can't even say that they put themselves out there like actors do.
lagilman: coffee or die (Default)

[personal profile] lagilman 2005-03-16 03:48 pm (UTC)(link)
More likely to get results with a C&D. Plus, it's easier to have granted. Sad, but true.

[identity profile] zinelady.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 04:19 pm (UTC)(link)
/How can you not see that as ethically creepy?/

I don't know why some people don't see it as creepy. It squicks the hell out of me. Almost as much as the thought of Harry/Snape slash fiction, but it's acceptable to a surprisingly large vocal fraction of fans. I can't get over the fact that Rickman is old enough to be Radcliff's grandfather.

/Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety?/

It was hard enough for me to have written B7 slash fan fiction and then go see Paul Darrow in person. I had these irrational fears that he would know what I had been doing. I can't imagine writing it about the 'actors' themselves and then seeing them in person. I would worry myself sick, as my mom used to say.

I guess part of my squick about RPS goes back to my squick against slashing married characters together. For example Lethal Weapon slash. I could never write it because of Murtaugh is married. Or Alien Nation with George being married. Even though both fandom had two male buddies who were very close and would be easily slashed, (a drunken Murtaugh crying in Rigg's arms in the drunken scene on the boat in Lethal Weapon 3 comes to mind) the fact that two of the characters were married prevented me from doing it.

But even if the actor wasn't happily married, I'd still have a problem with writing porn about them whether it was slash or het. They are real people, not characters and deserve some privacy about their private lives.

[identity profile] ginmar.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 04:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I gave some fangirl a bad review once and they wrote RPF about me. Using my real name. And address.

I did a big thing about RPF in 2003, and got hugely flmaed by people whose inability to see boundaries wasn't just about those between reality and fantasy. Yeah, no problem there at all.

[identity profile] tv-elf.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Amen. Granted, I used Charo in a fic recently... But not as a major character; as a preformer at the Montecito (tv Las Vegas). And I felt creepy even doing that.

Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story?

You know, above all of my squick and ethical reasons comes that. As a star, how do you explain that to your children when they find a story where you are having sex with someone other than mommy?
lizbetann: (Default)

[personal profile] lizbetann 2005-03-16 05:20 pm (UTC)(link)
You know, I'd like to hear one person explain why it is okay. Because I know there are two sides to every story but... I do not understand how anyone could ever think that this was appropriate.

My exposure to the "debate" was sparked when Yahtzee published an Angel fic called Hoop Dreams, where the LA Lakers were turned into demons and the Angel Investigations team had to put them down. Funny, funny fic. But it raised the question of using real people in fanfic. On the BetterBuffyFics list, it became a raging argument between the people who were squicked at the idea of read fic (particularly sex) about real people and those who were appalled that anyone would limit what they chose to read and recommend.

The final decision (not from the mods, but from a poll of the members) was the real people were okay in fic as long as you weren't putting them in sexual situations (ref: LA Lakers as demons: okay. Charo performing in Las Vegas: okay. David Boreanaz getting it on with Charisma Carpenter: not okay).

For weeks thereafter, one person on the BBF list (who had been the most vocal about, "Don't you dare limit what I want!" had a quote in her sig from a fic about Faith and Britney Spears f*cking. I mean, really. Faith has SOOOOO much more taste.

My long-held opinion is that RPF/RPS is the new slash. By that I mean the people who were into slash because it was "out there" and "edgy" and wanted to see themselves as shocking... were kind of left in the lurch now that slash is a no big deal. So they had to find something else to do that would alarm people and cause consternation. So they could feel persecuted and abused, because if they aren't being kicked, then what are they?

And I consider that attitude very analogous to many right-wing Christian (and let me emphasize the "right-wing" over the "Christian" in that, because 95% of the Christians I know and hear of are NOT like these people, and I personally don't think that these people even remotely approximate following the teachings of Jesus, so "Christian" is a misnomer) groups in the United States today, who, despite being at the top of the cultural pecking order, insist on acting like they are downtrodden martyrs. But that's an argument for another day.
lagilman: coffee or die (Default)

[personal profile] lagilman 2005-03-16 05:50 pm (UTC)(link)
the real people were okay in fic as long as you weren't putting them in sexual situations

Which is somewhat similar to what's currently allowed in published fiction -- you can use a Public Figure just so far, and no further, and even then be very very careful because if they choose to sue, they will probably win. Even if you were presenting them in a positive light.

[identity profile] ajinamoto.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 06:23 pm (UTC)(link)
My long-held opinion is that RPF/RPS is the new slash. By that I mean the people who were into slash because it was "out there" and "edgy" and wanted to see themselves as shocking... were kind of left in the lurch now that slash is a no big deal. So they had to find something else to do that would alarm people and cause consternation. So they could feel persecuted and abused, because if they aren't being kicked, then what are they?

Very interesting theory.

[identity profile] diannelamerc.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Word!

Just... *Word*!
ext_3548: (Default)

[identity profile] shayheyred.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 06:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I guess I have to take an opposing view to (all of) yours, in that where I do not personally like RPS, or even RPF, because it's goofy and (depending on the subject and people involved) sometimes it squicks me, still I think it is not the Instrument of Evil that you describe.

And here's how it's different from miniskirt-wearing woman "asking" to be raped: the writers of RPS are fantasizing, fictionalizing the lives of people. A rapist is physically raping and hurting the woman. If I like to think of Callum Keith Rennie and Paul Gross fucking each other in a trailer, that's not real. If I follow Callum and Paul and force them at gunpoint to have sex, or I stalk them, or I threaten Paul's wife, or even if I publish Callum's home telephone number, that's real, and that can cause real damage.

What exists in my mind and even on my computer is just a collection of words or fantasies -- possibly delusional, demented or even twisted ideas about these real people. But they're just fiction. I actually think that it's far, far worse to post someone's home address than to write an imaginary scene where they're giving blow jobs to each other, because that sort of information can do real harm. All the rest of it can do is make people wonder, or laugh, or turn away in disgust. As for starting rumors or putting ideas into others' heads about the real lives of these people, well, that happens to any public figure, and where I recognize that they do not ask for such trouble, it does, in fact, come with the territory, no matter if someone's writing RPS about them or not.

And here's a truly unpopular idea: if someone wants to fantasize about raping said miniskirted woman, I might think, "Ew, what a sick puppy, he needs help," but if he's not actually raping her, or threatening her, in this world, morally challenged though it may be, that is still legal, and one is entitled to have one's own thoughts.

You, and everyone else, are not obligated to read, think about or enjoy RPS. But a writer who postulates scenarios about Real People is just a writer, and fiction, be it about real or fictional people, is still just a fantasy.
lagilman: coffee or die (Default)

[personal profile] lagilman 2005-03-16 06:46 pm (UTC)(link)
"where I recognize that they do not ask for such trouble, it does, in fact, come with the territory, no matter if someone's writing RPS about them or not."


Not according to recent changes in the law. Public Figures have protections as well. Even the established dodge of changing name and gender doesn't protect the name-brand novelist any more, much less the person writing unauthorized squickfic.

[identity profile] nycdeb.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
And here's a truly unpopular idea: if someone wants to fantasize about raping said miniskirted woman, I might think, "Ew, what a sick puppy, he needs help," but if he's not actually raping her, or threatening her, in this world, morally challenged though it may be, that is still legal, and one is entitled to have one's own thoughts.

Of course they are entitled to have their own thoughts. If they can find someone with the interst, by golly - they can play them out. A show of hands? We've all done that or something akin to it, right? But the difference is (I think this is the "line" most of the discussion hinges one) is taking the fantasy AND THAT PERSON'S ROLE IN IT public.

Do I have daydreams and fantasies involving real people and things I know aren't going to happen, cannot and should not happen - and which in some cases, I wouldn't actually WANT to happen. Sure. But I do NOT take those people "public".

[identity profile] ajinamoto.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 06:50 pm (UTC)(link)
But why publish it on the internet? What if Hannah or Jack Gross is surfing on the net, looking up their father's name and comes across a story where he's fucking Callum Keith Rennie, a man that they know? Are they old enough to know this is in the imagination of a stranger and not actual fact? Sure, they doen't have to read it and I'm not advocating censorship, but that "harmless" fantasy is no longer so harmless, and for what purpose?

You can think anything you want and yes, it could be the most disgusting thing in the world, but if you put it out in a public forum then you're inviting everyone into your private thoughts. That's your choice, but if you're involving a real person it's no longer just you.

lizbetann: (anne boleyn)

[personal profile] lizbetann 2005-03-16 07:08 pm (UTC)(link)
And here's a truly unpopular idea: if someone wants to fantasize about raping said miniskirted woman, I might think, "Ew, what a sick puppy, he needs help," but if he's not actually raping her, or threatening her, in this world, morally challenged though it may be, that is still legal, and one is entitled to have one's own thoughts.

I agree with you right here, 100%. It's the next step of putting it out for public consumption that makes me go, "huh?" Fantasizing in your head? Done it. Writing things down? Done it. Circulating among a few people? Done it. Posted on the internet for all the world to see? Nope.

[identity profile] estrella30.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 07:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

See, I think this is the most important thing here. The only problem is though, I'm not actually agreeing with you *g*

We don't know these people. Interviews and photo shoots and clip shows give us the very, barest, slimmest view of the *person* that's being interviewed available. We're actually only getting what that actor wants us to see, or chooses for us to see, or makes up for us to see.

If I were to write Paul Gross RPS, do I really think I'm writing 100% PG as a person fic? No. I do not. I'm writing fic based on the persona that he's let everyone who has cable TV see, which is, imo, a character of a type as well.

(I'd also think twice before I compare any sort of internet writing as akin to RAPE. Someone who's ever been in that situation might not take too kindly to being compared to an actor getting willing fucked in the back of his trailer.)

[identity profile] nycdeb.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 07:18 pm (UTC)(link)
so the fact that he has a public persona makes it OK?

[identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com 2005-03-16 07:21 pm (UTC)(link)
still I think it is not the Instrument of Evil that you describe.

The final step between fantasy and evil, to me, is the posting. Seriously. Some strange things have gone on in my head, and it stays there, and nobody has to know about it.

But to put it out in public is to open up a whole new can o' squick. That is the depersonalizing part to me, calling a whole new audience's attention to the person's involuntary involvement. Plus it makes it available to the people involved or their families or their friends or their fandom - and I have seen negative repercussions on whole fandoms when an actor gets squicked or frightened.

I know you're articulate, Shay, so I'll ask flat out - why isn't it enough to fic about the characters? Why does it have to be Paul and Callum and not Bennie and Ray?

Page 1 of 10