[Solace]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

People complain about all sorts of things in the fiction that we consume - Why should this sort of content be any different?

One thing I really tire of is how when people criticize this sort of content it's automatically conflated into a call for censorship, when often people are just expressing a dislike of it. You can dislike something without thinking it should be censored. I mean, Star Wars fans tend to dislike the Prequels quite a bit, but I haven't seen any call for them to be censored - Do you see my point?

I never said people can't complain. Calls for censorship do tend to arise in taboo subjects however, because the nature of humans is to reject that which they find unacceptable, rather than understand or even tolerate it to some degree. History is rife with examples of literature being banned or outright destroyed because the dominant moral thought of the time rejected the content of those works.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

True, the gap between reality and fiction means that said actions don't equate the same amount of moral outrage.

Vile thoughts do not equate vile actions when not realized.

On the other hand, although we understand the severity of the situation is greatly reduced in fiction, it's also not nonexistent, and is potentially sidestepping the issue.

But some lines are more clear cut than others. Nudity alone, in most cases is subject to debate. Even in "prudish" US, we do not consider nudity in itself to be obscene. Gratuitous nudity of very young characters for nothing other than "fanservice" is another issue. It would be very hard to really explain the need for that in the Nanoha movies, for example.

It's not enough to go out and carry around pick up signs. But sometimes it's just annoying enough to warrant some complaints.

Fair points. Seems like you and Triple R are on the same wavelength.

Originally Posted by Sackett

There is a difference between dealing with certain subject matter, and actually showing it on screen as the main attraction.

Yes. One is exploitation, the other is not. Marketing is rife with examples of this.

Historically such events took place of screen. It's only in the last 50 years or so that there has been a big push to depict all the details. Has storytelling significantly improved in the last 50 years? Not that I have seen.

I won't pretend I'm a good enough critic to judge the last 50 years of storytelling. Maybe in another 50 years.

Also, I think there is a significant difference between depicting young children as sexual objects and a mere taboo. Any story that includes young children being sexualized ought to depict it as a great evil, because it is evil.

It's evil to you. Your morals. You believe that every story with young children being sexualized is evil, so every story that has such content must treat it as evil. I don't agree, I feel that limits the potential of story telling.

Some works do this, but do so using a "show don't tell" method that can be very disturbing, (eg Lolita). Does Dance in the Vampire Bud fall in that category? Somehow I doubt it.

The funny thing about Lolita is that the person being exploited in the story is not the young girl.

Furthermore I am tired of this catch-all "violence" category. There is a huge difference between gore, or violence shown for violence sake, and the depiction of violence as used by the good guy to defeat the bad guy.

One violates the moral code, the other actually upholds the moral code. Completely different situations that are collapsed in to one term.

What about American Psycho? Most horror movies? What if I wanted to make something like Saving Private Ryan, except from the side of the Germans? How about 300? The selling point of that entire movie is how awesome the smaller force is at killing the larger force. Even the logo is made of a blood splatter!

Violence is used as a catch all because it is rarely treated with the reverence of taboo that we treat it with in real life. It is liberally used in media, saturated even, and yet it's a reflection of our "moral code" in real life, where killing has so many different meanings and intents that sometimes it makes great storytelling to explore how we justify or condemn each instance.

Violence even has its own niche, taboo names. Snuff films. Gore Porn. Torture Porn.

Nor is the "it's just fiction" really a good defense. We spend a huge amount of our lives telling and listening to fictional stories. Fiction is important. Good fiction is good for us. Bad or corrupt fiction is bad for us. Maybe there are no physical effects, but there is certainly a spiritual effect. Why else do we spend so much effort looking for good stories if they don't do something good for us? If good fiction benefits us spiritually, then it follows that bad fiction is bad for us spiritually.

I won't deny that fiction can be influential, but the argument you are making is far too black and white. Heart of Darkness. Faust. Dante's Inferno. War and Peace. Lolita. Uncle Tom's Cabin. The Bible. 1984. Animal Farm. The Telltale Heart. Huckleberry Finn. Pick an ancient theology. Grimm's Fairy Tales. Lovecraft.

The good and the bad. You need a balance of both. Without one, you cannot hope to understand the other, to appreciate, tolerate, or condemn. To explore the darkness means plumbing the depths of depravity that can only exist in the hearts and minds of your fellow men.

Now you can make the libertarian argument that people must choose between good and evil for themselves, and that as long as no actual specific people are hurt, society shouldn't interfere. But that argument is very different from claiming that the works are harmless. Nor does it imply that we are obligated to withhold our moral opprobrium from such works.

I argue for free will. "The devil made me do it" is not an excuse. Or as they say, actions speak louder than words.