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

[neadods]

I joined metafandom because it posts interesting links to fannish happenings around LJ, and hey - if 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!

Comments

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

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]

"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.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Then they should take legal measures if they believe it necessary. Until then, I have no problem with it.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

This begs the question of what would happen if Paul Gross put out a C&D on a website with a RPS about him. Kill the whole genre or just that website?

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Not to drag out the sexual assault analogy, which, while it has some relevant parallels, makes me a little uncomfortable as analogies go, how many people report or take legal measures against their attackers in sexual assault cases, andi s there no problem with sexual assault unless they do take legal measures? Sexuality is a very touchy area, personally and professionally; while trauma may not be much of a factor, an element of shame in putting something squicky about yourself in the public spotlight for everyone to see comes into play, as does a worry about what the professional repercussions might be if a C&D doesn't deal with it quietly. There is still shame about sex, there are still deeply-felt religious/moral feelings about sex, and there are definitely harsh public judgments and reactions to (and appetites for) public figures getting involved in sex scandals. This is a day and age where a fictional story can be used as "where there's smoke, there's fire" evidence, both in public opinion and at lower legal levels. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not want to deal with it legally, and those are also the reasons why appropriating someone else's sexuality until you're told to stop is really questionable behavior.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

How can I put it more clearly than this: Sexual Assault Is a Crime.

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

I think you might be on to something here. How many actors would be willing to accept the negative publicity that would come with a court case against someone who was lying about them in print? That's libel, right?

A few years back, rather than take a president of his fan club to court for embezzling club funds earmarked for charity, an actor chose to shut down the fan club and distance himself rather than have the negative publicity. Did that make it okay for the woman to steal the funds in the first place? No, but she got away with it.

If I were an actor, I can imagine the humilation that I would feel if I read someone's jerk off fantasy about me with another woman as in the case of Real Person Slash. I would feel victimized. I would be angry. I wouldn't want any publicity about it. I definitely wouldn't have nice feelings towards any fans that wrote those kind of stories. I just don't understand how any real fan would treat someone they admired like that.

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

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".

[ajinamoto.livejournal.com]

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.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am inviting them into my private thoughts. Many, or perhaps most may be squicked by them, some amused, and some will enjoy my thoughts. And Paul Gross is invited to take legal measures to have me cease and desist. But he won't, because it's fiction and it's not presented as a news story. There is no intention to libel, merely to entertain, with a work of fiction, and it is presented as such.

[ajinamoto.livejournal.com]

I really find all of this fascinating, and I can see some points, but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

I am disappointed you locked your post on the matter. Why is it no longer public?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am inviting them into my private thoughts. Many, or perhaps most may be squicked by them, some amused, and some will enjoy my thoughts. And Paul Gross is invited to take legal measures to have me cease and desist. But he won't, because it's fiction and it's not presented as a news story. There is no intention to libel, merely to entertain, with a work of fiction, and it is presented as such.

But the thing is, you're using a real person in a fictional way. He's alive at this moment; he's not someone from a past century. "But he won't..." Did you ask him? How do you know this so assuredly?

[jenboo.livejournal.com]

And Paul Gross is invited to take legal measures to have me cease and desist. But he won't, because it's fiction and it's not presented as a news story.

He also probably wouldn't because he's a writer and on some level would understand the intent of the fiction.

Hell, given his sense of humor, he'd probably have a good laugh about it. *g*

[lizbetann]

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.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

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?

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

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.

that is EXACTLY my "do not cross" line. Thank you. :-)

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

For me, it is enough - as I've said, I don't actually like most RPS and I don't write it. But far be it from me to tell someone else, "Stop writing that!" when all I have to do is click my mouse and it's gone from my screen.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I'm actually going to partly agree with you here. One fan telling another what to write and what not to is really problematic, at best, and any blanket ban seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor do I personally support one - if an artist says he thinks RPF/S was spiffy and fans should feel free to write loads of it, I have no objection to RPF/S of that artist, and I'll support it as any freedom of speech cause. (And, admitting to a more problematically subjective "art is in the eye of the beholder" judgment, I've seen one piece of RPS I thought was a really stunning piece of writing; in the face of objections to that piece, I would ignore my own arguments to defend its right to exist based on its literary merits alone - to my mind, it was RPF in the way "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" was fanfic. I fully admit that's inconsistent, particularly as one of the two is still alive, but certainly I have no intention of running around telling people, oh no, they're not allowed to write RPF under any circumstances.)

However, I don't think that's the same as one fan saying that RPS is a Big Frelling Ethical Issue that deserves due consideration by fandom as a Big Frelling Ethical Issue. "Approve" and "ignore" aren't the only two options open to fans, although they're very useful ones in a lot of circumstances; "discuss ad nauseam", "censure", and "support" are also out there for use where there's an ethical belief involved. (I know someone who has moral objections to homosexuality and is running a ficathon where slash is banned; I can join in or I can ignore it, but I can also tell her that I won't be joining in because I have ethical issues with the terms of her ficathon, because the expression of ethical beliefs in a community is inherently valuable.)

The issue at heart here is actually very much related to your statement, though. With fanfic, the people directly involved are thee-and-me, and I can exercise my right not to be involved by simply clicking away. With RPF, the people involved are you, me, and the people being written about, and they don't have any option for declining involvement. They can only go to a lawyer, of course, but lawyers are the step demonstrating that the problem has already occured - they're there to redress the issue when things have gone too far already, not an opt-out mechanism before things get to that stage.

At its most basic, the question really seems to be, is there tacit permission to use someone's name-and-likeness until they opt to refuse that permission, or should the permission be obtained first. The law says the latter; regulations about release forms are pretty stringent. Ethically, I believe the latter. I can understand the former in circumstances that are unlikely to have significant legal or personal impact, or that fall under protected speech (attributing a false quote for humor value on a parody site, where parody is protected speech, for example), but I don't understand the former in a situation risking significant and warranted legal action based on damage to an individual. Your argument seems to me to be that there isn't significant or warranted legal recourse for RPF, and also that there is tacit permission. And I don't understand either of those viewpoints.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

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.

Agreed... as long as they are ONLY one's own thoughts. Ghod knows I've been having some hot RP fantasies lately about a certain actor who will not be named (and it's not the character, who I didn't like at all, it's the ACTOR) -- but those are my private thoughts. Writing them down in a fic and putting it up on the Web is something entirely different.

Let's take your example and extrapolate from there. This guy sees a woman he knows wearing a Totally Hawt Outfit, and he fantasizes about raping her. Then he writes those fantasies down (and because it's his fantasy, he may very well write about how much she enjoyed being raped) and posts them on his webpage, complete with the woman's actual name, perhaps her address and phone #. How, exactly, is this any different from Operation Rescue posting a webpage with the names and addresses of people who work for clinics that provide abortion services? Both are direct appeals to the loonies out there to Make Their Fantasy Come True.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

The difference is in the posting of her name and address. That is not RPF or RPS - that is an actual attempt to harm the person. RPS is a story about real people, without posing the slightest threat to their well being. As I've said, if celebrities feel threatened by these works of fiction, they should seek legal measures and issue Cease and Desist orders. Many writers have received those for their fanfic. Go for it, actors! I say.

But they won't. They know it's not real.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

But they won't. They know it's not real.

There's a real boundary between fiction and non fiction, between fantasy and reality. Either they don't know it's there, or they don't care.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

As I've said, if celebrities feel threatened by these works of fiction, they should seek legal measures and issue Cease and Desist orders. Many writers have received those for their fanfic. Go for it, actors! I say.

But they won't. They know it's not real.

There's another reason why they might not act if they know it's out there-- they sure as hell don't want to draw attention, even negative attention, to this. They may find it does more harm to file a C&D than to *try* to ignore it. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't hate it, or they'd prefer not to be depicted that way.

The LOTR guys are aware of RPS from what I've seen, sure. And they seem to giggle at it. But they don't speak for all actors.

Besides, isn't it just -- bad manners, for cripe's sake, to depict someone in a way that they could take exception to? To use their name and quirks in a story without asking permission first? Most people wouldn't treat anyone they actually *know* like that. Does someone have to get sued, before it's obvious they've crossed a line? That's usually the last resort, isn't it?

Look at my mini, imagine me in it, but don't touch unless I ask you to.

[miriam-heddy.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to say, "thank you" for pointing out that fantasizing about someone is different from acting on a fantasy.

When the anti-RPS crusaders start advocating thought-police, we've all got a problem.

Re: Look at my mini, imagine me in it, but don't touch unless I ask you to.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

There are three separate issues being discussed here - personal fantasies, public fantasies, and acting out.

What goes on in your skull is your private domain. Once it goes out in public or semipublic, it is no longer a private fantasy, it is a shared story, and it becomes possible for said story to break beyond the original author's confines and be passed around where they didn't expect. It also becomes possible for the person being fantasized to discover, where it wasn't possible before the story was shared.

You're creating a straw man. I'm not telling you what to enjoy or to think. I am saying that I think there are limits on what should be published or said publicly. Yes, there is a difference.

Re: Look at my mini, imagine me in it, but don't touch unless I ask you to.

[miriam-heddy.livejournal.com]

You argued that accepting RPS equals believing "that anyone that attracts is responsible for slaking the sexual arousal," and you used rape as a (very) problematic analogy, because rape is an act. Had you said "rape fantasy," the analogy would not be so problematic, as you wouldn't have been conflated the sharing and discussion of a fantasy and an act of violence.

Certainly, you may well want to argue that all sexual speech is inherently violent, and that anytime we invoke someone else's name in speaking our desires, we're somehow acting on the person themselves. There are forms of speech that are considered "speech-acts," in that the words themselves clearly do something (as in "I now pronounce you man and wife"). But that example of the marriage announcement only is an act (and not simply words spoken to no effect) if the speaker has the power to make them so (and to use a Trek analogy, the Captain saying, "Make it so" has the power to give an order to act, whereas a Yeoman could say "Make it so" to no effect). In those terms, RPS writers are and will always be lowly Yeomans, as our words will never, ever actually make it so. RPS is a lie that identifies itself as such, and perhaps we might argue that lying is unethical, period (but we already do make that argument, and we have laws about libel and slander that any actor could try to use against RPS.)

Aside from the lie of the fiction, we might wonder whether any fan, in writing RPS (and in sharing that fantasy) has the power to turn their own words into acts rather than fantasies.

Perhaps part of the drive to write RPS is to pretend to power--to feel power over an actor (who, because we desire them, seems to have a certain power over us). But does writing and sharing RPS actually give us anything other than the illusion of power over our own desires?

Stalking, by contrast, gives us real power--the power of intimidation and harrassment--of actually entering into the physical space of another person, against their will.

Rape, by contrast, gives us real power--the power of violence--of actually entering into the body of another person, against their will.

Are you really willing to argue that the sharing of a fantasy, and the risk that our words will be read, is on the level with these other, very real, acts of violence?