Do Better: SFF without Sexual Violence discussion
Group Guidelines - Town Hall
>
DB Guidelines - General Discussion
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Beige
(last edited Oct 05, 2020 01:46PM)
(new)
Oct 05, 2020 01:42PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Due to the ongoing notification issues with Goodreads, I've changed our upcoming guideline discussion dates to TBD.
Our first topic Worlds with Inequality & Oppression will remain open until we have more feedback on the proposed guideline changes in comments #48 & 49
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Thanks all 😁
Sorry if this was addressed somewhere else, but I searched and couldn’t find anything... does this group consider prostitution to be a form of sexual violence? I’m sorry if this is a dumb question. I ask because one book I’m reading mentions in passing that a character is a prostitute, but it isn’t really dwelt upon.
Mod
I'm not sure we've addressed this topic yet, good one.
Personally the divide is crystal clear to me: sex work of a voluntary nature, *thumbs up*, coerced in any way, *thumbs down*.
The character you mentioned works as a prostitute, but if it's never mentioned or hinted at, even between the lines, that they're been exploited or forced into it, and they'd really rather work as a math professor, then there's absolutely no problem for me.
I don't think criminalizing sex work is our place to be honest - actually I don't believe in criminalizing sex work at all in general to be perfectly clear, but this is just my personal position on the matter.
Let's discuss about this: thoughts?
Elena C. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Sorry if this was addressed somewhere else, but I searched and couldn’t find anything... does this group consider prostitution to be a form of sexual violence? I’m sorry if this is a d..."I agree that as long as it's a choice, I wouldn't consider it SV.
And I 100% disagree with criminalizing it -I wish it was entirely legal and regulated so that the people who decided to do it were safe.
Elena C. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Sorry if this was addressed somewhere else, but I searched and couldn’t find anything... does this group consider prostitution to be a form of sexual violence? I’m sorry if this is a d..."Absolutely agree with Elena C. and Nefeli comments
Mod
@Mark - thanks for raising another point we haven't yet discussed. I'm making note of these for a future FAQ update.
It's a topic that divides a lot of feminists. If anyone is curious to know a bit more, this wiki entry provides a fairly good overview of some of the viewpoints...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femin....
Thanks everyone for answering my question! And thanks to Jo for posting that link... this is the line that kind of sums up what made me ask the question originally: “... , as it reinforces stereotypical views about women, who are seen as sex objects which can be used and abused by men.” But, I can now see there are valid points from both sides of the argument. That said, I like the idea of drawing the line at things like forced prostitution, underage prostitution, etc.
Absolutely no doubt here: sex work is work.If a character is voluntarily a sex worker, then it's not SV. Forced prostitution/sex trafficking is a different thing and that is SV.
Of course, there is a grey area where someone might choose sex work because there is no other alternative to support themselves financially. So, it may be more of a circumstancial "forcing" due to economic and societal issues. While I do believe that some people do sex work because they like doing that job, it's naive to think that that's the case for everybody. Some are sex workers because they don't have much of a choice but I don't think that it's fair to exclude those voices. I think this is something that should be discussed on an individual basis by looking at a specific book. If a sex worker is assaulted, however, then I would count it as SV since the act itself is the issue, not the profession.
However, minors doing sex work is child sexual abuse and would mean, in my opinion, that the book is excluded.
I don't have all that much to add, but I do feel very strongly that we should not automatically equate sex work to sexual violence. And I'm with Gretel on considering the grey area on a case-by-case basis - I think there are definitely cases where the character might prefer to be a math professor but chooses sex work because it pays better and that would not be coercion. I also agree with the precedent we've already set that a violation of an agreement about sex work is SV (I think the example was a sex worker not being paid after sex).
Finally, I would add that I think that a sex worker being murdered or attacked should almost always be considered SV, even if sexual assault isn't specifically mentioned, because if sex workers are being specifically targeted then it does feel to me that the violence is about sex and sexual control.
Mod
➊ sex work DOES NOT automatically equate to SV.
For sex work to count as SV the text must - explicitly or implicitly - stating or hinting at the fact that the sex worker in question is being exploited against their will.
Grey areas of consent whenever sex work is featured will be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
➋ minors doing sex work unambiguously amounts sex abuse, and as such the book will not be featured in our shelf
➌ sex workers being the victim of violent crimes (such as murder, assault, etc.) count as SV
➍ sex trafficking and forced prostitution are crimes and as such they count as SV
Do we agree?
Elena C. wrote: "I totally agree with what you just said, Gretel & Kaa. So, to recap:➊ sex work DOES NOT automatically equate to SV.
For sex work to count as SV the text must - explicitly or implicitly - stating..."
I agree with this, as long as everyone else does! Thanks for this, Elena.
Elena C. wrote: "Do we agree?"Sounds good to me!
Mod
Agreed! Thanks everyone for your thoughtful insights :)
Good summary. I agree. :)Also, even though it doesn't concern me directly, I'm really happy to see the sex positive/sex worker supportive attitude here.
Mark, not a dumb question....a really good question! I liked reading this thread everyone.
I have a question regarding body shaming.I know that fat shaming is a very specific kind of body shaming, and there is already a tag in the group bookshelf for that. But it got me thinking about what other kinds of body shaming could or should be flagged up.
For example: poking fun at/negative commentary on a character's height, thinness, hairiness, facial features, ugliness, scars, and so on. This may also extend to characters that are maligned for presenting as overly feminine or masculine. It may be a reliance on the old "villains are ugly" or "evil makes you ugly" tropes.
How would one classify these according to the current group guidelines? Should all body shaming be classified under one tag? What do people here think about instances of body shaming in books?
My thoughts are that casting a net too wide would include far too much, especially when it comes to SF where scars, deformities, crooked teeth, unwanted hair, wrinkles and even the need to wear glasses are all unquestioningly 'fixed' by technological advances. But I also feel that it's important to challenge egregious examples of body shaming... even when that behaviour is widely socially accepted.
Mod
I know that fat shaming is a very specific kind of body shaming, and there is already a tag in the group bookshelf for that. But it got me thinking about ..."
Sarah, thanks for raising this. I agree with what the points you raise. We're certainly open to expanding our CW tags based on member suggestions. I think having a general body shaming tag, seperate from fat shaming, would be useful.
It's one of the reasons we've been shy about older SFF/H, the amount of unacknowledged racism and sexism just makes it difficult to for us, in good conscious, to add them to our database. I imagine unacknowledged body shaming is problematic in some older works too and we'd be more than comfortable excluding a book on these grounds.
Books that acknowledge shaming, those we could definitely add to our list of CW tag for members to let us know about. Come to think of it, it's not something I've often seen CW for in GR reviews (so far). I'm not sure if it's just not top of mind for GR reviewers or if it's because we're mostly reading and recommending newer, progressive works?
Just heads up, since I just now saw it, but A Dead Djinn in Cairo won the Nebula award this past weekend and needs to be moved to the "Award Winner" shelf.
