Self-censorship or just editing?

Gosh You Guys,
I saw censorship and thought of all the lewd and lascivious acts committed in my stories and many others on the site and decided to stay out of this discussion, but now after scanning the first couple of pages, I see it's all about using the big F. But there is plenty of that on the site. So, I'm wondering, isn't censorship more than just language- specific words?

There you've hit the nail on the head. The censorship people feared (in the US, at least) that led to the concept of freedom of speech and of the press was the quashing of political speech, and the exchange of ideas in general. The censorship which is often suggested (and talked about) is the censorship of things sexual... and then maybe profanity, and perhaps gory violence, and ideas that are offensive to just about everybody, or at least some people, and of course ideas that pose a danger to society... and, well you get the picture.

That's why the notion of government's intention of censoring things must always be questioned. Self-censorship is an altogether different animal - no one is doing anything TO you. Similarly, if a newspaper, or film producer, or author want sot self-edit, they are exercising their own right of freedom of expression - to express only the things they choose to.

I agree, nick, but there are constraints on what you choose as well. One of the examples I was thinking of was where a character expresses thoughts that you hate--99% of the time at least--but which are the kinds of things that character might say. I didn't edit them out, but I was conscious of a conflict, based on my fantasy of how readers might read it.
Also censorship can sometimes make you more creative, in working out ways to get past it. This is probably hard for us all to imagine, but it's like being in a classroom where you know if you say a particular thing you'll get spanked, and everyone is trying to sail as close to that line as they can without incurring punishment. whereas self-censorship, you never even try to get past the censor.

I agree that government censorship must always be challenged and questioned, but that doesn't mean it should never be allowed. A country engaged in a desperate war, for example, will apply restrictions to personal liberty that wouldn't normally be accepted and some of them will be necessary if the war is to be fought. Experience shows that generally once the war is ended, unless a totalitarian regime has taken power, there will be a tide of public opinion that sweeps such restrictions away. In a country in danger of violent splits, murderous riots or even civil war, I'd suggest it's justifiable to ban certain demonstrably false statements about people who might be targeted - for example, the "blood libel" (the myth that Jews ritually slaughtered Christian children). I'm not persuaded, for instance, that in Britain. religious divides are so vicious that we need a law banning expression aimed at creating hatred on religious grounds, but in some Indian states where hundreds of people had died in riots based on differences of religion, it might save lives. I know the liberal/libertarian argument is that it's better to have these things in the open and demonstrate calmly and logically that they're wrong, but people don't always listen to rational argument and any political society (the government, the media and people prepared to try to influence the government) needs to make decisions about when the dangers are so great restiction is justified.

Such restrictions should always be subject to challenge in independent courts and should always be framed so they can be periodically reviewed.

On matters of sex, it seems to me the only justifiable state censorship concerns protecting beings who are poorly placed to stand up for themselves - children and animals.

I practice self censorship of a sort. For example there are themes I shy away from. Rough non-consensual scenes that involve such things as rape are not in my playbook. One exception is where the scene is depicted as a crime (as in RETRIBUTION), but even here rape is out. If violence occurs in my stories it's because of an antagonist who stands in opposition to the main characters. Another is that I don't write domestic scenes involving children, nor do I do daddy--daughter age play. Any spanking of a young child takes place "off stage" and might be alluded to, but I don't provide a description. Again there are exceptions for the occasional 1st person flashback. With underage teenagers (17 or younger) I'm careful, hopefully. This hasn't always been the case but I don't want to make a scene like that too sexy or suggestive.

I actually wanted to do a story for the challenge about a mid teen boy's (say 16 or so) sexual awakening at the hands of his distant female cousins of similar ages on a farm but shied away from it. I'm not sure if teenagers engaging in sexual experimentation is acceptable here. Maybe if it isn't too explicit--I don't know.

I don't know if this is censorship or not, it's just not my "brand", and I try to maintain some consistency so people will know what to expect from me.

An example of the creative ways that people will get around censorship laws: In the 1930's any sex acts in motion pictures in the US could not be shown or alluded to. In one romantic movie a couple on a train retired for the night in the sleeping car. No possible sex was mentioned but in the next shot you saw the train entering a tunnel. In some ways that was even sexier than showing them in bed together.

After I commented I regretted not mentioning rape; rape concerns me more than any four lettered work. and yet so many stories set in the 17th, 18, early 19th century often involve a young girl in service being spanked for some misdeed and then "taken" by the master or head butler or great uncle as a matter of course.
I know it is only fiction, but it is an uncomfortable message regarding the status of women and the power of men.

I'm with islandcarol on this one. There is nothing sexy about rape. To me, it's a big "red flag" in a spanking story.

To rollin, islandcarol, and Guy: what do you think of stories with female on male, male on male, or female on female rape? I ask because of islandcarol's mention of this being a gender issue rather than a basic moral one, and because I distinctly recall some F/F rape in rollin's stories (though its alluded to rather than shown onscreen).

To me, rape is rape, the gender is no matter. In "alluding" to possible things that happen in a story, is also a lot different then in detailing it out for everyone to read.