It's Different Because They're *People*!
Mar. 16th, 2005 08:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsI joined ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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!
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!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-16 07:25 pm (UTC)I love playing devil's advocate, so I'll try to take this one on.
First, let me state that I don't write RPS, have never read RPS, and hadn't even realized it existed until reading this post.
However, while reading this post I had to wonder how RPS about real live actors differs from recent movies such as "Shakespeare in Love" and "Stage Beauty", featuring real deceased actors in sexual situations (including slashy ones). How does RPS differ from a bodice-ripper Mary Sue featuring a sexy young Elizabeth I getting it on with her secret female lover?
Is it OK to write historical fiction because the Real People featured in it are dead? OK, then, what about a steamy JFK/Elvis scene -- would that be acceptable, or would it be taboo because Caroline Schlossberg might be squicked if she ran across it while surfing the net? (Frankly, I'd be squicked if I ran across it while surfing the net. Please, for the love of all that's good and holy, do not write that story.)
Well, President Kennedy is a historical figure, and we all know he'll show up in bodice-ripping historical fiction for centuries to come, so maybe what makes RPS unacceptable is the use of actors instead of politicians. Does that mean it's not OK to fantasize about a torrid rendezvous with Claudette Colbert or Katherine Hepburn?
Hey, what about Bree Sharp's song, "David Duchovny, Why Don't You Love Me"? That's RPS, if I ever saw it! (OK, I've never seen it. But I do love the song.) And, speaking of David Duchovny, I've got this fantasy that he shows up at my door one day, looking for someone to work with him undercovers, if you know what I mean...
No, I can see RPS being squicky, I can see it putting the writer in danger of being thought a perverted stalker. I can see it as being better put aside until the urge passes (or until it has become historical romance instead). But I cannot see it as being wrong per se. Just ahead of its time.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-16 08:59 pm (UTC)(I also disagree that the song is RPF/RPS. It doesn't presume or assert that the actor has done anything; instead it makes it very clear that he hasn't. The wish that an actor would do something is very different from the assertion, however fictional, that he has. If she'd instead written a song of the same title that claimed he'd never called her after a night of rough sex in the restroom of a posh bar they drank at, that'd be RPS. And he'd have a right to legal action if he didn't like the way he was presented.)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-16 09:28 pm (UTC)I don't know. And to be honest, the reality of the people involved did squick me a bit, even though I loved Shakes in Love. My rationalization is that he's so long dead and gone that not even family remains to be offended, but I admit it's a rationalization.
I've seen the David Duchovny video, and I think that's a different beast. It's filled with his co-stars and other celebrities (friends?) but it doesn't cross my line for two reasons:
- She didn't say David had done anything
- Everyone in the video volunteered to be in it. (Including David, which grants retroactive permission for the song to be broadcast.)
That overt permission makes the difference to me. I was asked over on Shay's LJ if I'd be upset if Paul and Callum wrote their own slashfest, and the answer is "no." I'd be wierded out, but their participation would be permission.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 05:45 pm (UTC)It's fairly common to "slash" historical RPF. Not just "Stage Beauty", but also many novels featuring Shakespeare in a homo-erotic relationship loosely based on the sonnets, "Lion in Winter" with the Prince Richard/King Phillip relationship, the swishy prince in "Braveheart" (forget who now), and so on. Usually there's a historical basis for this, but it's usually very thin.
I think that RPF featuring living people is generally acceptable only if it is innocuous (Charo singing in a club is a good example). RPF that is sexually explicit is acceptable only a generation or two after the subject's death (less if it is not speculative, as in "The Aviator", more if it is more controversial). Totally fictionalized RPS is usually squicky even a few hundred years after the subject's death. I mean, a hawt lesbian scene between Elizabeth I and a lady in waiting is just not going to cut it, I think.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 02:17 am (UTC)