Generational differences in perspective

[nice90sguy]

When I was in my 20's most of the women I knew were empowered, assertive and confident, as likely to instigate sex as the men. Some of the guys experimented sexually with other guys, most of the women had done it with other women.
This was a wonderful start to my sexual life.
Nobody judged anyone else, and there were few influencers around telling people what to think.

Identity politics started to appear in the 80s , among feminists and gay men (acronyms hadn't emerged yet). By that time I was in a relationship, which had transitioned from an open one into a monogamous one. But I always thought identity politics was a bit silly.

Sex was fun; there were no expectations of behaviour.

All this was in the context of a very liberal environment.

Reecently there was a stabbing at my local gay club (a famous one). I assumed it was just laryness and drunkenness, like in the gay bars I remember from my youth -- where fights and "glassing" would often occur. Turns out it was a homophobic stabbing. I was shocked that those days were still here -- that was rare in the late 1970's (but common in the early '70's).

That recurrence of homophobia is part of a very recent phenomenon, I think (at least in my country), and is connected with the rise of popularism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

I see the worm turning.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I agree with everything you say. Joking is a way of coping and dealing with things, ball busting and being able to take ball busting builds some character and the thing is when you take all that away? You have kids growing up in this bubble and one harsh word has them in tears or losing their mind. They face no adversity therefore can't handle it when it comes. The parents who buy into this "everything is bad and you need to stay away from it" are doing these kids no favor.

We are from the same generation and share a lot of life's experiences, including stints in the foster care system.

When I read the OP by @EmilyMiller, I thought more of the extremes that existed then versus now rather than the gaps themselves.

I recall an incident back in 1988 where a woman working at a large multi-national corporation was eating lunch at her desk when she started choking on something that she had just swallowed. A male coworker pulled her out of her chair and performed the Heimlich maneuver on her to dislodge the obstruction, and she was fine. Fast forward twenty-nine years and almost the same situation occurs at the same company with different people, only this time it takes place in the company's cafeteria. The woman is saved from choking but the man is called into HR because another employee took offense at his physical contact with the woman, believing that the man was merely fondling the woman's breasts and that she didn't need his help. He was let off with a warning and a record in his permanent personnel file of a sexual harassment allegation.

At another multi-national corporation, a well-respected executive has been collecting and displaying historic photos of baseball players, stadiums, and press clippings on his office walls for decades without issue. In 2019 he has a visitor from another division of the company in his office who asks about one of the photos on the wall that he doesn't recognize. He is informed that it is a picture of Jackie Robinson when he played for the Kansas City Monarchs in the Negro Leagues. Two days later this executive was terminated for violating the company's no-tolerance policy against the use of racial slurs.

The extremes of intolerant biases and bigotry of the past have morphed into the extremes of over-sensitivity and zero-tolerance. Hopefully, the pendulum will find its way back to the middle at some point.

 

[AchtungNight]

We are from the same generation and share a lot of life's experiences, including stints in the foster care system.

When I read the OP by @EmilyMiller, I thought more of the extremes that existed then versus now rather than the gaps themselves.

I recall an incident back in 1988 where a woman working at a large multi-national corporation was eating lunch at her desk when she started choking on something that she had just swallowed. A male coworker pulled her out of her chair and performed the Heimlich maneuver on her to dislodge the obstruction, and she was fine. Fast forward twenty-nine years and almost the same situation occurs at the same company with different people, only this time it takes place in the company's cafeteria. The woman is saved from choking but the man is called into HR because another employee took offense at his physical contact with the woman, believing that the man was merely fondling the woman's breasts and that she didn't need his help. He was let off with a warning and a record in his permanent personnel file of a sexual harassment allegation.

At another multi-national corporation, a well-respected executive has been collecting and displaying historic photos of baseball players, stadiums, and press clippings on his office walls for decades without issue. In 2019 he has a visitor from another division of the company in his office who asks about one of the photos on the wall that he doesn't recognize. He is informed that it is a picture of Jackie Robinson when he played for the Kansas City Monarchs in the Negro Leagues. Two days later this executive was terminated for violating the company's no-tolerance policy against the use of racial slurs.

The extremes of intolerant biases and bigotry of the past have morphed into the extremes of over-sensitivity and zero-tolerance. Hopefully, the pendulum will find its way back to the middle at some point.

Amen. I hope never to be in either of the above situations. But if I am, I will still gladly admit to being a fan of Jackie Robinson (I will try to avoid pictures of him with outdated language) and save a woman’s life. Then hopefully things will work out. It may help that I am documented as a bipolar neurodivergent with a hero complex, but hopefully that won’t be necessary.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

We are from the same generation and share a lot of life's experiences, including stints in the foster care system.

When I read the OP by @EmilyMiller, I thought more of the extremes that existed then versus now rather than the gaps themselves.

I recall an incident back in 1988 where a woman working at a large multi-national corporation was eating lunch at her desk when she started choking on something that she had just swallowed. A male coworker pulled her out of her chair and performed the Heimlich maneuver on her to dislodge the obstruction, and she was fine. Fast forward twenty-nine years and almost the same situation occurs at the same company with different people, only this time it takes place in the company's cafeteria. The woman is saved from choking but the man is called into HR because another employee took offense at his physical contact with the woman, believing that the man was merely fondling the woman's breasts and that she didn't need his help. He was let off with a warning and a record in his permanent personnel file of a sexual harassment allegation.

At another multi-national corporation, a well-respected executive has been collecting and displaying historic photos of baseball players, stadiums, and press clippings on his office walls for decades without issue. In 2019 he has a visitor from another division of the company in his office who asks about one of the photos on the wall that he doesn't recognize. He is informed that it is a picture of Jackie Robinson when he played for the Kansas City Monarchs in the Negro Leagues. Two days later this executive was terminated for violating the company's no-tolerance policy against the use of racial slurs.

The extremes of intolerant biases and bigotry of the past have morphed into the extremes of over-sensitivity and zero-tolerance. Hopefully, the pendulum will find its way back to the middle at some point.

I'd love to see what the HR of those companies actually said about the incidents.

There's an increasingly common move here, and I imagine anywhere, where people claim they were fired for ridiculous things, often being funded to go to an employment tribunal and garner more publicity (is anything ever 'garnered' except publicity?).

It invariably turns out that they weren't fired 'just' for wearing a cross necklace with their uniform, or accidentally misgendering a pupil, or using a word in its historic context, but that was a part of a long history of harassment, bullying, or attempting to proselytise at work.

They're often funded by an outfit called 'Christian Voice' or similar, who like to claim they represent the Christian-heritage majority in this country but are in fact about three people, generously funded by overseas evangelical Christians... They're *very* good at getting the idea that wokery has gone too far into a huge range of media outlets.

Not to defend your average HR department, but if the victims in these cases never end up complaining about unfair dismissal supported by the ACLU or whoever, I smell rats.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I'd love to see what the HR of those companies actually said about the incidents.

There are levels of choking where the Heimlich Maneuver is necessary and levels where it isn't. You've got me imagining Rik Mayall hanging around a canteen waiting around a staff canteen for a young lady to cough so he can pick her up and hump her from behind in a 'totally deniable' way.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'd love to see what the HR of those companies actually said about the incidents.

There's an increasingly common move here, and I imagine anywhere, where people claim they were fired for ridiculous things, often being funded to go to an employment tribunal and garner more publicity (is anything ever 'garnered' except publicity?).

It invariably turns out that they weren't fired 'just' for wearing a cross necklace with their uniform, or accidentally misgendering a pupil, or using a word in its historic context, but that was a part of a long history of harassment, bullying, or attempting to proselytise at work.

They're often funded by an outfit called 'Christian Voice' or similar, who like to claim they represent the Christian-heritage majority in this country but are in fact about three people, generously funded by overseas evangelical Christians... They're *very* good at getting the idea that wokery has gone too far into a huge range of media outlets.

Not to defend your average HR department, but if the victims in these cases never end up complaining about unfair dismissal supported by the ACLU or whoever, I smell rats.

I work for a large international corporation, in a highly-regulated industry. The sort where you have to do twenty compliance training courses every year (including DEI*). None of the above has been my experience. Neither have I heard about anything like this happening. We all gripe about HR, but the examples seem rather outré.

FWIW when my bf and I spoke to them about our relationship, we were expecting them to be negative. If anything they were supportive, and simply outlined some things we needed to adhere to. Mostly to do with approvals and expenses.

I think what gets into the public domain about dismissal cases is often one side of the story. The corporations will seldom comment on anything.

Emily

* Our DEI courses are actually well-done, they stress respect for others much more than rules - they try to explain the purpose of DEI by giving examples

 

[StillStunned]

There are levels of choking where the Heimlich Maneuver is necessary and levels where it isn't. You've got me imagining Rik Mayall hanging around a canteen waiting around a staff canteen for a young lady to cough so he can pick her up and hump her from behind in a 'totally deniable' way.

I miss Bottom! "And everything was going fine until you turned off the lights on the stairs and told her, 'Grab hold of this, it's the bannister!'"

 

[tenyari]

A few that come to mind include;

1. Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)
2. Interracial being taboo
3. Jokes about sexual orientation
4. Jokes about disability
5. Men crying

I know younger people are sometimes accused of being woke snowflakes

Reasons can differ:

• Interracial being taboo

Older people: race mixing = bad
Younger people: the genre isn't about race mixing but race assault. Race mixing = good but assault = bad.

• Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)

Older people: the genre is about seduction
Younger people: the genre is about assault

• Jokes about sexual orientation

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on orientation

• Jokes about disability

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on ableism

• Men crying

Older people: weak men are failures.
Younger people: showing emotion is a sign of strength.

Snowflake:

Older people: young people wanting to the change the world are snowflakes for all the whining they do
Young people: old people complaining about change and screaming at us for not being like them are snowflakes.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Reasons can differ:

• Interracial being taboo

Older people: race mixing = bad
Younger people: the genre isn't about race mixing but race assault. Race mixing = good but assault = bad.

• Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)

Older people: the genre is about seduction
Younger people: the genre is about assault

• Jokes about sexual orientation

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on orientation

• Jokes about disability

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on ableism

• Men crying

Older people: weak men are failures.
Younger people: showing emotion is a sign of strength.

Snowflake:

Older people: young people wanting to the change the world are snowflakes for all the whining they do
Young people: old people complaining about change and screaming at us for not being like them are snowflakes.

Yeah - pretty much that.

Emily

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Snowflake:

Older people: young people wanting to the change the world are snowflakes for all the whining they do
Young people: old people complaining about change and screaming at us for not being like them are snowflakes.

No, a snowflake is someone who whines that the rest of the world isn't tiptoeing around their specific feelings instead of taking responsibility for their own feelings.

There are 7 billion of us and we all have unique specific feelings fears and triggers. It is simply not possible, let alone anywhere near practical, for us to keep a database up to date on 7 billion people and their ever changing feelings and triggers and to access it in real time every time that we encounter someone so that we know specifically what not to say or do in front of them.

Anyone who thinks that the rest of the world should look after their feelings for them really is trying to improve their life by being the center of everyone else's universe. Think about it. It's not possible to look after everyone else's feelings, so that leaves only the snowflake's feelings. This one specific person is the center of the universe that we all must tiptoe around as far as they are concerned - even when they do not realize this themselves. That is why we 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' - and no I'm not a christian but the words are wise nonetheless. However the world that the snowflake wants is hopelessly flawed. It just doesn't work.

I understand that we are all human and have a limited capacity to learn and understand this at least at this point in our human evolution, so I can sympathize and empathize, but it just doesn't work. The better way is empowerment - empower people to keep control of their own feelings, the positive practice of conducting the energy from within - be your own antenna. The snowflake way is enablement - enabling the negative practice of seeking energy from without - sucking it from the attention of others.

 

[EmilyMiller]

No, a snowflake is someone who whines that the rest of the world isn't tiptoeing around their specific feelings instead of taking responsibility for their own feelings.

There are 7 billion of us and we all have unique specific feelings fears and triggers. It is simply not possible, let alone anywhere near practical, for us to keep a database up to date on 7 billion people and their ever changing feelings and triggers and to access it in real time every time that we encounter someone so that we know specifically what not to say or do in front of them.

Anyone who thinks that the rest of the world should look after their feelings for them really is trying to improve their life by being the center of everyone else's universe. Think about it. It's not possible to look after everyone else's feelings, so that leaves only the snowflake's feelings. This one specific person is the center of the universe that we all must tiptoe around as far as they are concerned - even when they do not realize this themselves. That is why we 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' - and no I'm not a christian but the words are wise nonetheless. However the world that the snowflake wants is hopelessly flawed. It just doesn't work.

I understand that we are all human and have a limited capacity to learn and understand this at least at this point in our human evolution, so I can sympathize and empathize, but it just doesn't work. The better way is empowerment - empower people to keep control of their own feelings, the positive practice of conducting the energy from within - be your own antenna. The snowflake way is enablement - enabling the negative practice of seeking energy from without - sucking it from the attention of others.

That’s a bleak view of humanity.

You don’t need to keep a database of every single human in order to try to be kind and thoughtful. It’s not that hard to avoid assholerry with just a little effort.

And you don’t even need a database with a real time API, you can just talk to people.

Emily

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You don’t need to keep a database of every single human in order to try to be kind and thoughtful. It’s not that hard to avoid assholerry with just a little effort.

That is true, but that is not what woke and cancel culture is asking us to do. They are asking us to tiptoe around everyone's specific feelings. In some rooms, the correct term to use is lady and the term woman comes off as base. In other rooms the correct term is woman and the term lady comes off as chauvinist. How are we to know? We have to consult the database. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[EmilyMiller]

That is true, but that is not what woke and cancel culture is asking us to do.

Oh, hun. I’m not sure those things exist. Or, if they do, that their agenda is what you say. But we are straying into politics here. I’m just recommending being nice.

They are asking us to tiptoe around everyone's specific feelings. In some rooms, the correct term to use is lady and the term woman comes off as base. In other rooms the correct term is woman and the term lady comes off as chauvinist. How are we to know? We have to consult the database. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do. But I don’t really think any of that is mainstream. I’m a left of center gal. But I know some things are important and others less so.

I have a simple rule. Try to be nice. Until someone is really unpleasant three times in a row, then you can be the bitch from hell.

Emily

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I'd love to see what the HR of those companies actually said about the incidents.

There's an increasingly common move here, and I imagine anywhere, where people claim they were fired for ridiculous things, often being funded to go to an employment tribunal and garner more publicity (is anything ever 'garnered' except publicity?).

It invariably turns out that they weren't fired 'just' for wearing a cross necklace with their uniform, or accidentally misgendering a pupil, or using a word in its historic context, but that was a part of a long history of harassment, bullying, or attempting to proselytise at work.

They're often funded by an outfit called 'Christian Voice' or similar, who like to claim they represent the Christian-heritage majority in this country but are in fact about three people, generously funded by overseas evangelical Christians... They're *very* good at getting the idea that wokery has gone too far into a huge range of media outlets.

Not to defend your average HR department, but if the victims in these cases never end up complaining about unfair dismissal supported by the ACLU or whoever, I smell rats.

The first chocking incident mentioned was me saving my admin assistant. The second choking incident involved someone on my staff years later doing the same thing. I interceded on his behalf with HR and the woman he saved also explained that he acted properly, but the allegation had to be noted in his record regardless. He left the company for a position elsewhere within weeks.

Where the racial slur incident is concerned, this was a colleague of mine at a different company. The incident was dissected in manager meetings and DEI training for months afterwards. It didn't matter that the "n" word in question is not typically viewed as offensive, and actually used as the name for several organizations supporting African Americans such as the United Negro College Fund. All that mattered was that someone found the word offensive and HR feared possible litigation if they didn't take action against the executive. The offended party in this case was Caucasian.

I've also witnessed a warehouse worker, miffed over being asked to work overtime, complain to a fellow worker, "They work us like slaves around here." A young black man working as an intern heard the comment and reported it as offensive. The warehouse worker was terminated within days.

 

[AchtungNight]

I have a simple rule. Try to be nice. Until someone is really unpleasant three times in a row, then you can be the bitch from hell.

My rule based on advice from Patrick Swayze- be nice until it’s time to not be nice. You’ll know when that time is.

Roadhouse!

 

[EmilyMiller]

The whole 'Cancel Culture' thing pisses me off. So, I fit into what a lot of the older generation refer to as the 'woke' generation - you know, because we're not racist, homophobic, assholes, but the term 'Cancel Culture' is always been used by people who don't really understand it or what it means.

The argument people have is that "People aren't allowed to have opinions or they get cancelled."

Yeah, that's wrong.

People get 'cancelled' for saying or doing something that is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or in some cases, damn right illegal. It's not being cancelled, it's called being held accountable for your actions because they were wrong or inappropriate.

Under the argument mentioned above, one could argue that Hitler was a victim of Cancel Culture because people didn't agree with him.

See where the issue is?

It's not about not being able to say anything for fear of offending people, it's about holding people accountable for actions that are wrong.

Do people take it too far?

Sometimes, yes. I'm not going to deny that people take things a little too far, but people who spout racist, homophobic, and misogynistic things should be held to account and not be given the platform to promote such hateful language.

Cancel Culture is a term given by people who hate the idea of being called out for their actions. The only people who use the phrase and term Cancel Culture are those who spout the racist, homophobic, and misogynistic content because they hate the idea of being held accountable for something that they, personally, don't think is wrong to say or do.

And it links back to the idea of it being a generational point. Most of the time, it's the older generations that won't be held account for their actions purely on the side of 'it's the way we grew up'. Mindsets can change, it is possible.

As I say, rather unsurprisingly the youngish, gay, grad school girl leans left. But… what I’m aware of is that both sides have labels that they use to miscategorize each other.

I say I care about other people’s feelings and speak up in defense of them.

Someone else says I want to cancel them.

Someone else says they think illegal immigration is a problem.

I say they want to split parents from their children.

We demonize each other, we make up pejorative names for each other.

There are real extremists on both sides, I’d love to see the center left and center right reclaim our country before it’s too late.

As I say, I’m kinda on your side here, but I also wish that the sides were not as sharply drawn as they are at present.

We are all Americans - we use to get along better, even in my memory, certainly in that of my folks.

Emily

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Cancel Culture is a term given by people who hate the idea of being called out for their actions. The only people who use the phrase and term Cancel Culture are those who spout the racist, homophobic, and misogynistic content because they hate the idea of being held accountable for something that they, personally, don't think is wrong to say or do.

You stand corrected.

Where the racial slur incident is concerned, this was a colleague of mine at a different company. The incident was dissected in manager meetings and DEI training for months afterwards. It didn't matter that the "n" word in question is not typically viewed as offensive, and actually used as the name for several organizations supporting African Americans such as the United Negro College Fund. All that mattered was that someone found the word offensive and HR feared possible litigation if they didn't take action against the executive. The offended party in this case was Caucasian.

I've also witnessed a warehouse worker, miffed over being asked to work overtime, complain to a fellow worker, "They work us like slaves around here." A young black man working as an intern heard the comment and reported it as offensive. The warehouse worker was terminated within days.

 

[StillStunned]

We are all Americans

I take offence at that!

 

[alohadave]

I take offence at that!

You can be an honorary American. We won't hold it against you that you weren't born into our glorious Union.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But we are straying into politics here.

The whole thread is politics and you started it. That's fine, but understand the can that you opened.

 

[SimonDoom]

Reasons can differ:

• Interracial being taboo

Older people: race mixing = bad
Younger people: the genre isn't about race mixing but race assault. Race mixing = good but assault = bad.

• Non-con seen through the lens of girls being “good” and needing to be seduced (which isn’t so much of an IRL thing nowadays)

Older people: the genre is about seduction
Younger people: the genre is about assault

• Jokes about sexual orientation

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on orientation

• Jokes about disability

Older people: it's just funny
Younger people: it dehumanizes people based on ableism

• Men crying

Older people: weak men are failures.
Younger people: showing emotion is a sign of strength.

Snowflake:

Older people: young people wanting to the change the world are snowflakes for all the whining they do
Young people: old people complaining about change and screaming at us for not being like them are snowflakes.

I would characterize every single one of these contrasts as an excellent example of reductionism and false framing. It's discouragingly dismissive. This gets it completely wrong, and by framing generational differences this way one a) simplifies the presentation of the issues inaccurately and eliminates all consideration of nuance and complexity, and b) excuses away, through false framing rather than through intelligently grappling with points of view one might disagree with, contemporary habits and patterns that some of us decry.

False framing is, itself, a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic of this generation. I see it all the time, and this post is an example of it.

If you actually pay attention to what the older folks in this thread have been saying about these issues, this doesn't fairly characterize how we think substantively about the issues, like non-con or interracial sex.

I don't think you'll find examples of people here to substantiate the idea that old people think young people are snowflakes because they want to change the world for the better and complain that it's not better. Again, it's dismissive and false. If you want to change the world for the better, go for it. I support you.

I'm alarmed at "snowflakism" as a form of illiberalism and intolerance, and as a reflection of the idea--a terrible idea, in my opinion--that one is entitled to be shielded from the expression of views one disagrees with as offensive. The concept of "safe spaces," for example, on college campuses. Using the heckler's veto to shout down speakers one doesn't agree with. Speech codes. Hate speech laws. Blasphemy laws. Shaming people who want to enjoy what turns them on in a fantasy space like Literotica. Cancel culture. Purging books from school curricula like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because--heaven forbid--they contain the "N-word," a word that nobody objects to listening to ad nauseum when coming from the mouth of a black rapper or comedian, but when--horrors--when spoken or written by a white person sends everyone running for the doors or clutching their inhaler.

I’m just recommending being nice.

No. A thousand times no. Art cannot just be nice. Art should sometimes be nasty, transgressive, mean, offensive, satirical, vulgar, perverse, misappropriative. Niceness in art is a horrible principle. Art should spit on niceness. This is an essential quality of art. Truth is not nice, and it's much more important for art to be truthful than nice. Fuck nice in art.

We are a better, more intelligent, more humane, more progressive, more enlightened, and more civilized people if we allow ourselves to say "Fuck nice" when it comes to art. That includes erotic art. The subject matter of art should be the full range of human experience, good and bad. The subject matter of erotic art should be the full range of what turns people on, for whatever reason, whether one likes or understands it or not.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'd have thought that some might have caught that my parents are in the older generation and have vastly different views on several things that I mentioned. It's dangerous to generalize.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The whole thread is politics and you started it. That's fine, but understand the can that you opened.

We’ll agree to differ, I guess.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I would characterize every single one of these contrasts as an excellent example of reductionism and false framing. It's discouragingly dismissive. This gets it completely wrong, and by framing generational differences this way one a) simplifies the presentation of the issues inaccurately and eliminates all consideration of nuance and complexity, and b) excuses away, through false framing rather than through intelligently grappling with points of view one might disagree with, contemporary habits and patterns that some of us decry.

False framing is, itself, a frequently deployed rhetorical tactic of this generation. I see it all the time, and this post is an example of it.

If you actually pay attention to what the older folks in this thread have been saying about these issues, this doesn't fairly characterize how we think substantively about the issues, like non-con or interracial sex.

I don't think you'll find examples of people here to substantiate the idea that old people think young people are snowflakes because they want to change the world for the better and complain that it's not better. Again, it's dismissive and false. If you want to change the world for the better, go for it. I support you.

I'm alarmed at "snowflakism" as a form of illiberalism and intolerance, and as a reflection of the idea--a terrible idea, in my opinion--that one is entitled to be shielded from the expression of views one disagrees with as offensive. The concept of "safe spaces," for example, on college campuses. Using the heckler's veto to shout down speakers one doesn't agree with. Speech codes. Hate speech laws. Blasphemy laws. Shaming people who want to enjoy what turns them on in a fantasy space like Literotica. Cancel culture. Purging books from school curricula like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because--heaven forbid--they contain the "N-word," a word that nobody objects to listening to ad nauseum when coming from the mouth of a black rapper or comedian, but when--horrors--when spoken or written by a white person sends everyone running for the doors or clutching their inhaler.



No. A thousand times no. Art cannot just be nice. Art should sometimes be nasty, transgressive, mean, offensive, satirical, vulgar, perverse, misappropriative. Niceness in art is a horrible principle. Art should spit on niceness. This is an essential quality of art. Truth is not nice, and it's much more important for art to be truthful than nice. Fuck nice in art.

We are a better, more intelligent, more humane, more progressive, more enlightened, and more civilized people if we allow ourselves to say "Fuck nice" when it comes to art. That includes erotic art. The subject matter of art should be the full range of human experience, good and bad. The subject matter of erotic art should be the full range of what turns people on, for whatever reason, whether one likes or understands it or not.

It’s not just about, art. It’s about general attitude and behaviors.

And many people on this thread employ rhetorical devices, including false framing, maybe even subconsciously.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'd have thought that some might have caught that my parents are in the older generation and have vastly different views on several things that I mentioned. It's dangerous to generalize.

I agree. And Mom and Dad think differently.

I think a more careful question would have said something like “more prevalent.” I guess I thought that was implied.

Emily