|This Time It's Permanent
||[Jun. 19th, 2007|03:30 pm]
Hey everyone. I wanted to give you a quick heads up that we just announced details of the Permanent Account sale in news. Click over to read all the details! There's also a related post in lj_biz.|
For me, it's important.
When I see people taking sexual gratification over the sexual exploitation of minors--or the signifier (go read your Saussure)of one, say, a character in story--it's important to me, and I act.
I am not, however, one to craft his entire identity around one event. I am not the "raped child" guy, nor do I have a filter in my LJ where I routinely trot the event out to fish for sympathy. Being the victim of rape is not who I am, and I do not construct my entire identity around it.
And for all your literary analysis, you seemed to have forgotten two small things: audience and intent.
I did not recount the story of being raped to titillate and arouse my readers. The amateur pornographers I spoke of did. I recounted it to inform people in my social circle of an event in my life. I was clear and factual. I did not embellish it with details designed to arouse and stimulate an audience. If anything, I would have expected shock and revulsion, and had anyone responded with arousal, I'd have nuked them on the spot.
So, in your charges to me about recalling past traumas, let's see your hand: were you writing to inform, or were you writing to arouse? As you keep it hidden on a filter, I'm sure I know the answer. I just want to see you admit it and put an end this blithering.
So before you go off and try to discuss reception theory and analysis with someone who has graduate level experience with research, may I suggest that you read some elementary literary and rhetorical theory.
So, in your charges to me about recalling past traumas, let's see your hand: were you writing to inform, or were you writing to arouse? As you keep it hidden on a filter, I'm sure I know the answer.
If you are the kind of person to assume that someone who has filtered their mental disorder and their experiences because they are writing to AROUSE, then I pity the people you teach. You spout a lot of nice literary resources, and I'm sure you have a very nice degree to go with your narrow-minded perspective on life, and I'm sure that your ability to bullshit non-sympathetic statements in a rational way has got you into a rather comfortable place in life.
It seems to me, that there are rather more obvious reasons to have my adventures with C-PTSD and involuntary flashbacks under filter such as; to protect those on my Flist who don't actually want to hear about child rape *at all*, and out of a justified sense of privacy (sure, you don't need privacy as a survivor right? Why should anyone else require it? I would argue that it's a survivor's right to establish a sense of safe place and boundary.)
You may not believe it, but I also have a graduate level experience in research. *Shrugs* Your assumptions as far as I'm concerned speak of just as much blatant ignorance and stupidity as any 'assumptions' that I have also made in the course of these comments.
The difference between us is that I am realistic enough to admit that your comments were so non-sympathetic and in fact blatantly ignorant (and continue to be so), that I reacted irrationally, and that you on the other hand are possessing just enough superiority to emerge from this completely unscathed and justified in assuming that anyone who puts accounts of child prostitution under filter must be writing about it to arouse because of course they could have no other possible reason for both wanting privacy and to not parade it around to their entire Flist (most of whom are not there to hear about my past anyway).
IS this relevant? Does it matter where the argument occurs? The internet is, amongst other things, a tool for communication, just like any other. These people are communicating, or attempting to, so why not use the internet?