cryptoxin: Making the Case for Chan

Making the Case for Chan
What do we lose if we lose chan?

This isn't a rhetorical question, given the current upheaval between LJ and fandom. But -- despite reading everything I can find in the current discussions -- I haven't seen anyone really answer that question. Please link if I've missed something!

I'm looking for an affirmative articulation of the case for chan. What I've seen instead -- and I've found many of these arguments persuasive -- are a variety of defenses: the characters in the artworks in question aren't actually or necessarily underage, "underage" is an arbitrary social construction, freedom of expression, censorship is wrong, they're targeting slash & it's homophobic and/or sexist, even if you don't like chan how do you know they won't come after you next, etc.

I have yet to see a "Why I Love Chan And I'm Not Afraid to Say It" post. And I can't help but wonder if that's at all related to what

penknife discusses in a recent post entitled On friends-locking, risk reduction, and shame.

The closest I've seen to a pro-chan argument is this post back in June from

cesperanza, where she writes:

"The reason I've got this on the brain is because of the incest thing: a number of people have pointed out that when it comes to some of the more superficially problematic sexual kinks--underaged fic, rapefic, incest fic--many writers are identifying not with the adult, but with the child; not with the rapist, but the rape victim; not the stronger person, but the weaker. I feel like I heard a lot of people saying, oh, they're fantasizing about raping children or whatever, but FWIW, in fannish cases I think it might be the opposite; the fantasy is of being the more powerless person."

This is a really compelling argument, though she allows for the possibility of fic where the writer/reader does identify with the stronger person, and I'm tempted to think that some of the pleasures of fic come from the reader's oscillation between different points of view as well as taking on an outsider/voyeuristic perspective. Yes, for the Freudians in the house, I'm applying "A Child Is Being Beaten" to fanfic....

But even if all writers and readers of this kind of fic only identified with the more powerless person, that doesn't explain why that might be a good thing. For example, I can imagine (if not endorse) a counterclaim that this reflects internalized, even eroticized, oppression. And while I'm sympathetic to the line of thought that kinks are beyond good and evil and should be exempt from moral judgment and not mapped on to actual behaviors or real-life desires, I think that argument has some serious pitfalls (rhetorically/analytically/politically) when we move beyond fandom.

I haven't yet reread the comments to

cesperanza's post, which may address these questions, but I want to go beyond the adult/minor instance. LJ would apparently construe sexually explicit art depicting two underaged characters as potentially obscene, regardless of whether they reflect any power imbalances.

So I'm trying to work out how to make the affirmative case (that "this is a good thing", rather than "not a bad thing" or "neutral/harmless") for chan. I'm using chan here to denote any sexually explicit fic or art involving "minors", though I've seen it limited to only works involving sex between an adult and a "minor". Though I've read it, chan is borderline-squick to me, and so I'm not a good position to articulate its appeal and value.

I'm new to fandom, so I'm guessing that people have indeed made the affirmative case for chan in past intra-fandom debates that I've missed. I posted a couple of comments this week about where I see the problem for myself:

"I'm just not at all sure how to mount a viable defense in the current political climate for adults channeling sexual fantasies through the imaginary bodies of underage fictional characters. Perhaps the challenge lies in preventing the issue from getting framed that way in the first place -- though that feels like a losing strategy, and even somewhat disingenuous."

"So I came to fanfic with a certain investment in -- well, let's call it something like empowerment and self-determination for adolescents viz. sexuality, paired with a desire to resist the normalization of adult (male) consumption of sexualized images of (female) teenagers. And in fanfic, I found a certain normalization of adult (female) consumption of sexualized images of (male) teenagers. And I wasn't sure what to do with that. I can recognize the various ways where these phenomena aren't exactly parallel or analogous, but I'm still troubled by the residual intersections."

I'd also point people to this thoughtful post by

kaethe for another take on these issues.

Bottom line -- if fandom can't make an affirmative case for chan to people outside of fandom, we're always going to be on the defensive. If fandom can't make an affirmative case for chan to LJ, we can expect more suspensions/deletions.

(23 comments) - (Post a new comment)

heyiya
2007-08-07 07:08 pm UTC (link)

fodian makes the case you are asking for here, very eloquently.

Myself, I'm inclined to step aside from the pragmatic legal defences and argue in favour of the porn along the same lines as the defense I'd make of sex in public places, taboo smut exchanges along the same lines as I'd defend gay male cruising or any consensual nonnormative sexual practice -- it hurts no one, and its validity as a threat is rhetorical. It's also surrounded by a certain critical meta-awareness in ways that other porn-sharing practices don't seem to be; I'm not a fan of chan but I do get the impression that it is very often about exploring uncomfortable arousals rather than simply celebrating them, and I think that marking certain desires as unthinkable, evil, untouchable probably does more harm than good much of the time.

That's not a defense to LJ, of course, who can close their servers to whatever they like; nor is it an argument for utter publicity per se, since I think that the warning system is very crucial here.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

cryptoxin
2007-08-07 08:44 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for the link! I hadn't seen that, and it's really excellent.

One thing I didn't get into is what I think of as the "therapeutic defense" -- that things like rapefic are a way for survivors to work through issues. While I think that's entirely valid (though not completely unproblematic), I'm wary of leading with that particular defense to the extent that it risks pathologizing fans -- or perhaps a better term would be patheticizing -- and gaining outside approval via invoking pity.

The argument made by

fodian and your comment make me think that it could be sufficient to make the affirmative case for chan by articulating how at least some chan can have recognizably positive value for at least some readers/viewers. Even if you were to allow that most chan doesn't necessarily function that way for most readers/viewers most of the time. But you lose that potential if you lose chan -- you can't really pre-specify which chan will have those values for which readers/viewers, so you'd need to keep chan to leave open those possibilities.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Remember, One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor

executrix
2007-08-07 09:19 pm UTC (link)

Fan A's kink is Fan B's squick; I truly, truly hate rapefics and slavefics, and my response is not reading them--not trying to stop other people from writing or reading them.

The only way that *anybody* is safe is for everybody to be able to post any wack shit that they want to. I wouldn't be opposed to having some way of flagging stories, images, and comments that have explicit sexual content of any kind--and an attempt to create netiquette of erring on the side of flagging possibly innocuous material instead of leaving potentially inflammatory material unflagged.

Lord, if it weren't for false consciousness we wouldn't have no consciousness at all--I do think that sexual pleasure is a good thing, as long as it can be obtained without harming non-fictional human beings. I don't think there should be Libido Police at either end of the political spectrum telling anyone else what to think is a hot masturbation fantasy.

Even if the only people who ever read HP chan were HP chan writers, that's still a significantly large constituency. Indeed, a community with its own standards (e.g., not using spell check = death at dawn). So why doesn't this group get a vote? It's not like they're proposing to make everybody view HP chan and pass a quiz.

I do enjoy thinking about the job interviews for the 6A I Know That My Redeeming Social Importance Liveth panel. I can imagine the successful candidates holding up placards for Technique and Artistic Impression.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Remember, One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor cryptoxin 2007-08-07 09:35 pm UTC (link)
	I am now unfortunately picturing the swimsuit and evening gown portions of those job interviews, thankyouverymuch. (Reply to this) (Parent)

janeaverage
2007-08-08 04:26 pm UTC (link)

Hi.

You don't know me; here from links of links of links, I'm sure, I couldn't even tell you where I started.

So I'm trying to work out how to make the affirmative case (that "this is a good thing", rather than "not a bad thing" or "neutral/harmless") for chan.

I... don't know if this will help at all, honestly. But I look at this issue from the perspective of half my life ago -- age 14, and just really discovering the internet. I had a lot of problems. (Still do; who doesn't?) And what I got up to on the internet scared the bejeebus out of my mother, but to this day I say that my ability to live things out vicariously on the internet -- by roleplaying, by reading stories -- was the thing that kept me from getting in trouble in real life. Without that outlet, I don't know what I would have done. I could have a teenage kid right now, I could have died of AIDS, I could have got myself in a situation of being kidnapped, raped and murdered... I don't even know. But having a safe outlet kept me from feeling like I needed to go out and do all those things.

To me? That's a good thing. I expect, though, if I tried to explain it to "the average person," it wouldn't be understood.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	cryptoxin 2007-08-08 04:38 pm UTC (link)
	I think you make a compelling argument. I was thinking after I posted that I'd implicitly framed the issues as, what's the case for chan among adults? But if chan has a positive value for adults, it would surely also have potential value -- maybe even greater value in some ways -- for teenagers. Thanks for commenting! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

slashpine
2007-08-10 02:30 am UTC (link)

OMG. I am friending you, BTW. And I need to read all your posts! especially the tl;dr fan-culture posts. Btu all those books are on my top shelf right now b/c I simply MUST get a draft out to a pissy editor with major ego... (hmm; grovel? or come on strong? Hmmm).

BUT - but. I LOVE the way you've problematized this; yes, positive merits please? And then we can see - are there any said positives that are unique to chan? In other words, the 'necessary and sufficient' test.

Several places in this debate, but especially with janeaverage above (and often from young fans, IIRC), I'm seeing the germ of an Aristotelian defense of chan... hm. Probably not the kind of thing that's going to get me a job interview, but worth putting on my future-essay-list.

And if I wasn't buried in books and papers right now I'd find the right reference to Aristotle's theories on education. I will just say, that when my thirst for historical fiction ran through the children's and then YA sections and I found myself at 12 and 14 reading Mika Waltari (The Egyptian ) and Mary Renault, I discovered the world of "adult sex" (including gay sex) in the safest possible way. And yes, it made me much more resistant to adolescents trying to get me to do silly teen sex tricks, as well as impervious to adults. IIRC, Aristotle disliked art that could be "false" and deceiving, but encouraged its use as "imitatio," that is, a means for artists and viewers (or, writers and readers) to learn how to do things properly as they grew to adulthood and/or full citizenship.

The research question, then: does chan teach useful knowledge to teens about sex/biology, relationship do's and dont's, sexual self-awareness, safe sex, pitfalls and dangers ?? If that material is present, and readers or former readers report that it taught them usefully while helping them stay safe (and even abstinent! How very conservative :-) -- then there's another argument pro-chan, that stands separately from the also serviceable 'therapeutic' argument.

Interesting: the Classical World was, as I discovered, the licit setting for illicit sex & perversions for several centuries. After all, it was very long ago; and they were all pagan perverts so this was merely accurate and provides a Christian moral lesson for today. And besides, only upper-crust type people would read these and we can trust them; they're virtuous.

It's the equivalent of fandom, for the Victorian era through the fifties :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

cryptoxin
2007-08-10 03:28 am UTC (link)

Ha! I wrote my tl;dr fan culture posts when I was in 100% lurker mode -- I never expected anyone to see them, so I didn't even bother with an lj-cut. I used them to work through my ideas and reactions, because of that magical part where they change and develop in the process of articulating them, and to practice writing in a format I wasn't used to and experiment with finding a voice. I haven't dared to go back and read them, and I know that my opinions have shifted on some of that stuff -- actually, maybe not so much my opinions, but if I wrote a 2007 version of those entries I'd emphasize very different things that feel more important and interesting to me now. So, there's my obligatory disclaimer.

I haven't read this article yet, but I think it would be very relevant to the chan discussion viz. the research questions that you pose: it's called Keeping Promises to Queer Children: Making Space (for Mary Sue) at Hogwarts from an anthology of academic articles on fanfiction written primarily by fans themselves (most, I believe, if not all are also academics). It builds on work by queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. There's a nice discussion of it by

princessofg starting here.

*friending you back*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

red_eft
2007-08-08 09:36 pm UTC (link)

This might fit the bill. I know for me, one reason that I've been shy about saying "yes, damnit, I like this and here's why," has been because- well, honestly, because I keep seeing a fairly negative view of people who read/write/draw chan- as you say, the best people can say is "Well, but where do you draw the line?"

I guess I feel weird defending myself from *fandom*. I expect it from people outside, but I'm bothered by the amount of people *in* fandom who are condemning it- not just saying it's not my bag. I keep seeing posts that talk about the dangers of fetishizing teenagers and children- like Kaethe's post- and what they're talking about is so utterly *alien* from my experience that I don't know how to begin talking to them- because if they think those things about me, then... god. Because it's *not* like that, it's about power dynamics, it's about what adolescence *means*, and about my *own* childhood sexuality- and- I just I can't think of a way of making that clear without making a post that basically says "HI. I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO KIDS." and the idea of writing something that has to start with that assertion... I can't- I don't know how to talk to someone who starts off with that assumption about me because of what I draw, I can't- I can't even engage that argument without feeling utterly sick to my stomach.

um. I don't know if that's why other people haven't made pro-chan arguments, but it's why I haven't.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

cryptoxin
2007-08-08 10:08 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for the link and your perspective, they're both very insightful.

Personally, I have a mental block against thinking of teenagers sexually. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that I'm an adult man in my late '30s. I've basically internalized a cultural taboo -- and it's hard for me to bypass that mental block long enough to understand emotionally the various ways that chan can appeal to different people.

So it was strange for me to come into fandom and see all this NC-17 Harry Potter fic. I've read some of those stories, by really excellent writers, but I still tend to skim over the explicit parts. Nevertheless it was immediately obvious to me that I couldn't project the taboo that I'd internalized onto the readers & writers of those fics. Something very different, and in my eyes basically harmless, was going on. Still, my mental block kept me from seeing exactly what that something different might be.

It's interesting that the passage quoted in the post you link to was written by someone who doesn't read or write fanfic. I think it's really important that those of us who aren't chan fans develop ways to explain and defend chan -- especially because of the experiences you describe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Here from metafandom

andreth_47
2007-08-08 11:00 pm UTC (link)

Well, I'm doubtful that this would convince anyone who's on a pedo witchhunt, but my reaction to your question was this:

Chan is positive because it recognizes that children are sexual beings, and that's something our society badly needs to come to terms with. Current Western, mostly American, society has desexualized children. Which is, both biologically and psychologically, nonsense. Harmful nonsense.

Our attitude is partly a historical inheritance from the Victorian notion of "childhood innocence", which was part of weaving idyllic fairytales about the sanctity of the nuclear family, the sanctity of motherhood and reproduction, and the need for the authoritative allpowerful father figure to 'protect' his sacred family from the corruptive influences of the world. This myth of childhood innocence is also part of Victorian repression of sexuality in general, and the entrenchment of the bourgeoisie and their family/sexual paradigms in Western culture as a whole.

The other historical thread which has created our current 'Won't Someone Please Think of the Children!' hysteria, is the ever-increasing age of social adulthood that occurred over the twentieth century. Over that century, the age of social adulthood shifted from puberty, age 13 or so, to the current 21 years of age (for America, at least). There is now a gap of nearly a decade between sexual maturity and social maturity, and it's created enormous stresses. It means that the sexual/reproductive desires must be strictly controlled for years, while the social self catches up. Our society is currently dealing with this fact through denying it: we say that teenagers are 'children', and must not be allowed to be sexual. In effect, we've criminalized our own biology.

The end result of these historical trends has been that we, as a culture, have denied both children and adolescents outlet for their sexuality. And yes, even children, under the age of puberty, are sexual!

Think about it. Why do children play 'doctor'? Why do 13-year-old girls get pregnant? Why do young, prepubescent, children masturbate? They do, you know; I used to masturbate at the age of four. I've seen other children do it before they were old enough to even say what it was they were doing.

Chan fiction can help us open our minds to the possibility that children are sexual beings, and that allowing them to be so is healthy. It is healthy for individual children, and healthy for our society.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Here from metafandom

cryptoxin
2007-08-08 11:14 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for this!

It makes me wonder, outside of fanfic, how many adolescents work out/through their sexuality through writing fiction (online or just for themselves). Because it seems like society doesn't really offer any non-repressive ways for adolescents to negotiate their transition into sexual beings (not to discount what you note about prepubescent sexuality -- I'm thinking more about adolescence as a developmental stage). I'd think that would be something that would be good for teens regardless of whether they're sexually active.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Dear Diary, Today I Was Pompous and My Sister Was Crazy

executrix
2007-08-08 11:32 pm UTC (link)

...best day ever!

Well, kids who go to public schools probably can't write two intelligible sentences in a row, but there always *is* a kind of arty adolescent who keeps a diary and writes--usually poetry. Lily Taylor's character in "Say Anything" is the paradigm.

But there are always a lot of societal institutions that militate *against* anyone maturing harmoniously as a sexual being, since so many institutions are about maintaining sex as a scarce good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	ggreenapple 2007-08-09 02:40 am UTC (link)
	(here from metafandom) Your post got me thinking about myself, and why I enjoy the things I do. I made a really longwinded and reduntant post here on GreatestJournal. It's not terribly interesting, but I thought you might like to know it exists. :) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	cryptoxin 2007-08-09 03:23 am UTC (link)
	You're being much to modest! It's a really great post, and thank you for linking to it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	duskpeterson 2007-08-09 03:55 am UTC (link)
	Here via metafandom. I don't suppose you have an e-mail address, do you? (I ask wistfully). (Reply to this) (Thread)

	cryptoxin 2007-08-09 04:34 am UTC (link)
	It's cryptomnemonics at gmail. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	duskpeterson 2007-08-09 05:04 am UTC (link)
	Thanks much. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	egelantier 2007-08-09 12:22 pm UTC (link)
	I'm trying to give an answer (among other things) here; and thanks for asking this question. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	cryptoxin 2007-08-09 11:55 pm UTC (link)
	I just read your post, and it's terrific -- thank you for responding & linking! (Reply to this) (Parent)

slashpine
2007-08-10 02:41 am UTC (link)

Wow, what a great discussion to start! I will have to follow all the links; it's clearly a productive topic.

So far then, I see three unrelated arguments for chan as a good:

1. Therapeutic; working through severely dysfunctional childhood issues. This could include exploring their darkest aspects as frequently as resolving them through 'happy endings.'

2. Safe sex/ sex ed for teens. A way to negotiate sexuality in a society that forbids teens to BE sexual even as it uses adolescent sexuality to sell nearly everything. Also, a way for teens to learn about and try out individual sexual aspects that they are not comfortable with.

3. Review and processing of adolescence; the bildungsroman or autobiography. Acknowledging that the fully mature sexuality of oneself or one's character began somewhere in adolescence (by definition!) and by exposing that in text or art, especially about a fictional avatar, literally bringing it to light, looking it over, identifying the puzzling parts or contradictions or "things they told you" that weren't so. Chan as a Pensieve, for fully grasping one's past, or comparing with other's perceptions.

How's that to go on with?

darnitall anyhow, why is fandom more interesting and engaging than this lonely-scholar stuff I'm supposed to be pursuing?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

cryptoxin
2007-08-10 04:06 am UTC (link)

The links that people have posted are amazing! I'll probably do either an ETA to highlight them or a follow-up post, just to get them out there.

Your suggestions are all solid -- I'll add my glosses:

1. I think I commented on another thread here that I'm uncertain about whether this is the best argument to lead with -- it's definitely an important factor, but I worry that it risks feeding into stereotypes that pathologize/patheticize fans. At the same time, it might be the selling point for particular 'audiences' that wouldn't otherwise get it.

2. Yes, and that can and does happen, but: my sense is that most adult fanfic writers are not writing for a teenage audience. Hence warnings, age checks, friendslock, etc. This is an argument that's been made by numerous people in the current LJ debates. I'd be really interested to see what would happen if a group of (adult) fanfic writers started writing the equivalent of Young Adult fanfic aimed directly at teens that does incorporate the safe sex/sex ed elements without compromising on explicitness. It's a politically risky project in the current climate for all kinds of reasons, and would probably need to happen off LJ -- but it really intrigues me as a concept.

3. I love "chan as a pensieve" -- this might be the most persuasive argument for non-fans. It would also be the least compelling argument for me personally -- the fanfic (chan or gen) that I've read so far is actually less successful for me in reviewing and processing my own adolescence than pro-fic or original sources (say, Buffy or Friday Night Lights). Maybe I'm just not reading the right fanfic. Or maybe I'm less interested in processing my adolescence than in pretending it didn't happen....

Re: fandom vs. lonely-scholar stuff -- academia for me is very much the path-not-taken, and I tend to romanticize it and periodically wonder if I made the wrong choice. Fandom is an amazing way to negotiate that -- it's not that I don't get intellectual stimulation in real life, but it's cool for me to be exchanging comments with real-life academics and wallow in the meta. Even in my own personal academic AU, I don't fantasize that life-of-the-mind as having such a rich and rewarding sociality (excluding teaching) viz. dialogue and exchange of ideas as fandom does.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Perhaps...

anextropian
2007-10-07 02:51 pm UTC (link)

Perhaps I shall help with an example that may by itself justify it. It is here: http://somnambuling.livejournal.com/12640.html#cutid1

It shows that underage sex is about good portrayls of things. It is not about the thing itself, or a want for anything in real life. Instead, it is about the art. Art is not the thing it represents; it is something of itself. It also show that chan or any sex at all is not for the purpose for itself. It may also be for psychological exploration, or for the celebration of the relationship rather than the sex; in other words, the sex is a means, not an end. This is not a complete answer, I know, but I hope I have presented a partial defense.

(Reply to this)

(23 comments) - (Post a new comment)