I don’t think calling it a fantasy is exactly fair. It was a moral scenario and moral question/argument. I think the argument was bad but if had he made a good argument, I possibly would have approved it. Discussing the morality of societal taboos (in an appropriate way) is something I hope is possible to discuss on LessWrong (although we are mindful of pragmatic considerations).
I agree with Ruby that being able to have that kind of discussion is valuable and that includes understanding pedophiles’ POV, but agree with Richard that that particular comment was someone luxuriating in a fantasy not making a moral argument. I wouldn’t keep that particular comment out of the rejected section but could see someone going far enough I would want that option.
Having now looked at it more closely, part of my thought process is “We’re fairly busy, so the effort involved in figuring out ‘is this a plausibly real argument vs pure fantasy vs fantasy plausibly-deniably-masquerading as argument’ isn’t really worth it. Nothing particularly bad happens AFAICT if it’s in the rejected section, and generally having a habit of using the “reject” button for things that aren’t obviously spam seems kinda fine.”
Calling it a fantasy is exactly fair. That is what it plainly is. Observe the weird drifting from third person to second to a mingling of first and second, from the hypothetical to the real, from the past to the present. This is typical of bad sexual fantasy writing (and almost all such writing is bad), the writer starting from a distant viewpoint, and when they become excited at the story they are telling, jumping into the characters and the present tense in order to excite themselves even more (while presumably typing with one hand). It closes by wandering back into the past, the hypothetical, and the third person. (The writer is typing with two hands again.)
It is not a moral scenario. Certainly it is a scenario that has a moral aspect, a serious one. There is no real moral question raised, though. The reflection at the end of the final paragraph is the writer’s wishful daydreaming. Oh, if only he could do such things with a 12-year-old girl. How unfair of the world to prevent it.
And what does the moral question amount to, that it supposedly asks? “Suppose some imagined instance of sex between a 20 year old and a 12 year old harmed no-one — then it would harm no-one!” But reality does not work that way, only fantasy does. Think of any class of morally bad things, and you can fabulate up an example of the category that seems to not be bad. Go on, you have a virtual outcome pump in your head that is omnipotent in the virtual realm, and unlike the genies described in that link, this one does exactly what you truly intend, perfectly aligned with your desires. Choose such a class and create an exception to it. It’s easy.
A quote, source unrecorded, but it is relevant that the context of the original was a discussion forum on BDSM: “Fantasy is not reality. Fantasy is not always even a desired reality. Rather, fantasy is the selection of certain thematic elements and the exclusion of certain others, in combinations which may not be available or even possible in reality.”
How does the writer, who eventually places himself in the 20-year-old character, know that the 12-year-old is as enthusiastic as he is about the situation? He simply imagines it to be so, and this being something he’s just making up in his head, the fantasy proceeds exactly as he imagines it. He is the god of his virtual world. Everything in it happens because he imagines it, and for no other reason. That is how fantasy works.
That is not how reality works. For sexual fantasies such as this one, the difference can be instantly surfaced by asking, “why is the other person there?” In a fantasy, they are there because the fantasiser imagined them. The imagined figure is a virtual sex toy, a virtual vibrator or fleshlight, whose sole reason for existence is to gratify the imaginer’s urges. Whatever backstory they may invent to heighten the illusion of reality, they are still just making the whole thing up. There is nobody actually there but the person indulging the fantasy.
In reality, when a real person is having real sex with a real other person, that other person must have their own reasons for being there. Those reasons cannot be imagined into existence. Each must have been found attractive to the other, and there must have been a process, whether short or prolonged, before they got to the bonking stage.
Perhaps “Ryan Baker” should quit fantasising about 12-year-old girls and find someone his own age. If his comment isn’t his personal fantasy, I can only say that he has done a very persuasive job of making it seem so. I suspect that if he submitted it to a commercial porn site, they would reject it out of legal caution.
There’s a real world out there. Imagining that this sort of material can be the basis of a discussion on LessWrong is just another fantasy.
Okay, going back to look over it and you pointing out those features, especially the lapse into first person, I see what you mean about it being something the author clearly desires and in that sense being a fantasy. But there is in a question in it of “suppose no one actually suffered, what did they deserve [bad outcome]?” which could be a moral question/argument.
I think we might not be in that much of disagreement. Quoting Elizabeth:
[I] agree with Richard that that particular comment was someone luxuriating in a fantasy not making a moral argument.
I agree with it. Perhaps our difference is I think the issue is not presence of fantasy but absence of decent argument (we agree that’s missing), whereas maybe you take issue with the presence of fantasy? I’m not sure.
I’m curious how strongly you feel that this shouldn’t even be on the Rejected Content section? Raemon is right that once we’ve decided there’s sufficient reason to not accept something, we don’t put a lot of extra thought into it.
I wouldn’t have allowed it anywhere on the site, but I’m not a moderator. I’ve said everything I think needed to be said about it, and at this point I’d prefer to leave it to the mods, whatever they decide.
I don’t think calling it a fantasy is exactly fair. It was a moral scenario and moral question/argument. I think the argument was bad but if had he made a good argument, I possibly would have approved it. Discussing the morality of societal taboos (in an appropriate way) is something I hope is possible to discuss on LessWrong (although we are mindful of pragmatic considerations).
I agree with Ruby that being able to have that kind of discussion is valuable and that includes understanding pedophiles’ POV, but agree with Richard that that particular comment was someone luxuriating in a fantasy not making a moral argument. I wouldn’t keep that particular comment out of the rejected section but could see someone going far enough I would want that option.
Having now looked at it more closely, part of my thought process is “We’re fairly busy, so the effort involved in figuring out ‘is this a plausibly real argument vs pure fantasy vs fantasy plausibly-deniably-masquerading as argument’ isn’t really worth it. Nothing particularly bad happens AFAICT if it’s in the rejected section, and generally having a habit of using the “reject” button for things that aren’t obviously spam seems kinda fine.”
Calling it a fantasy is exactly fair. That is what it plainly is. Observe the weird drifting from third person to second to a mingling of first and second, from the hypothetical to the real, from the past to the present. This is typical of bad sexual fantasy writing (and almost all such writing is bad), the writer starting from a distant viewpoint, and when they become excited at the story they are telling, jumping into the characters and the present tense in order to excite themselves even more (while presumably typing with one hand). It closes by wandering back into the past, the hypothetical, and the third person. (The writer is typing with two hands again.)
It is not a moral scenario. Certainly it is a scenario that has a moral aspect, a serious one. There is no real moral question raised, though. The reflection at the end of the final paragraph is the writer’s wishful daydreaming. Oh, if only he could do such things with a 12-year-old girl. How unfair of the world to prevent it.
And what does the moral question amount to, that it supposedly asks? “Suppose some imagined instance of sex between a 20 year old and a 12 year old harmed no-one — then it would harm no-one!” But reality does not work that way, only fantasy does. Think of any class of morally bad things, and you can fabulate up an example of the category that seems to not be bad. Go on, you have a virtual outcome pump in your head that is omnipotent in the virtual realm, and unlike the genies described in that link, this one does exactly what you truly intend, perfectly aligned with your desires. Choose such a class and create an exception to it. It’s easy.
So these bad things, they might not be bad, right? No, it’s just a fantasy constructed to join up the chosen dots, the bottom line written in advance and all of the evidence fictional. Reality is not so compliant.
A quote, source unrecorded, but it is relevant that the context of the original was a discussion forum on BDSM: “Fantasy is not reality. Fantasy is not always even a desired reality. Rather, fantasy is the selection of certain thematic elements and the exclusion of certain others, in combinations which may not be available or even possible in reality.”
How does the writer, who eventually places himself in the 20-year-old character, know that the 12-year-old is as enthusiastic as he is about the situation? He simply imagines it to be so, and this being something he’s just making up in his head, the fantasy proceeds exactly as he imagines it. He is the god of his virtual world. Everything in it happens because he imagines it, and for no other reason. That is how fantasy works.
That is not how reality works. For sexual fantasies such as this one, the difference can be instantly surfaced by asking, “why is the other person there?” In a fantasy, they are there because the fantasiser imagined them. The imagined figure is a virtual sex toy, a virtual vibrator or fleshlight, whose sole reason for existence is to gratify the imaginer’s urges. Whatever backstory they may invent to heighten the illusion of reality, they are still just making the whole thing up. There is nobody actually there but the person indulging the fantasy.
In reality, when a real person is having real sex with a real other person, that other person must have their own reasons for being there. Those reasons cannot be imagined into existence. Each must have been found attractive to the other, and there must have been a process, whether short or prolonged, before they got to the bonking stage.
Perhaps “Ryan Baker” should quit fantasising about 12-year-old girls and find someone his own age. If his comment isn’t his personal fantasy, I can only say that he has done a very persuasive job of making it seem so. I suspect that if he submitted it to a commercial porn site, they would reject it out of legal caution.
There’s a real world out there. Imagining that this sort of material can be the basis of a discussion on LessWrong is just another fantasy.
Okay, going back to look over it and you pointing out those features, especially the lapse into first person, I see what you mean about it being something the author clearly desires and in that sense being a fantasy. But there is in a question in it of “suppose no one actually suffered, what did they deserve [bad outcome]?” which could be a moral question/argument.
I think we might not be in that much of disagreement. Quoting Elizabeth:
I agree with it. Perhaps our difference is I think the issue is not presence of fantasy but absence of decent argument (we agree that’s missing), whereas maybe you take issue with the presence of fantasy? I’m not sure.
I’m curious how strongly you feel that this shouldn’t even be on the Rejected Content section? Raemon is right that once we’ve decided there’s sufficient reason to not accept something, we don’t put a lot of extra thought into it.
I wouldn’t have allowed it anywhere on the site, but I’m not a moderator. I’ve said everything I think needed to be said about it, and at this point I’d prefer to leave it to the mods, whatever they decide.