The Case Against
VALL (Virgins Anti-Lemon League)
(http://www.geocities.com/virginantilemonleague/)

by KC
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/bakeneko
animekitty@angelfire.com

Reeking of aspirations to Mary Sue-dom and fully convinced that the notion that the mention of body parts being used in less than wholesome manners is taboo, the Virgins Anti-Lemon League wages a small but opinionated war against lemons, claiming that they only oppose poorly written obscenity, but under further scrutiny, also strive to force their moralities on others, work to promote their own narrow view of sex, push borderline misogyny, and avoid the possibility of parental responsibility.

The mission statement of VALL is as follows:

1. We promote better writing over smut-driven writing.

2. We're alarmed, some are concerned, others are really really annoyed, at the number of underage kids reading and writing graphic sex in this genre.

The main problem with the first statement, as more than one problem exists, is that it is rather arrogantly put forward. Not only do they know what is better, but they know what is smut, a sweeping proclamation since the Supreme Court has yet to fully define pornography. Like most sites based on self-imposed quality control, their opinion is all-important, and their opinion is that lemon writing serves only a few purposes, mainly those of review-boosting, submission to peer pressure, and the exhibition of the writer's stupidity. Not that this is entirely judgmental, as some members do admit to enjoying a quote/unquote good, lemon from time to time.

Pretentions and snobbery aside, their language occasionally echoes that of most long-time writers in any fandom. There are indeed good and bad lemons, and most of us, on our way to improving out literary talents and abilities, have written those bad lemons. The problem with VALL, however, is that they are quite blind to their own shortcomings. Pride in their movement and convictions, not entirely without merit, leads them to complain about the motes in other's eyes, but not the great beam in theirs.

Perhaps the best summation of their attitude comes from their homepage. Sounding not unlike an adolescent rant against the idea that other people may have legitimate reasons not to agree, the page states, "Remember, if what we have to say makes you that uncomfortable OR angry, then you are not truly confident in what you write OR read to begin with. And that's your problem. Not ours." The idea that a person could have a real complaint with their idea, or that their idea has flaws, sends up a wall of denial and prompts the quick defense that it is the reader's fault, not theirs. The fact that their "Public Feedback" page only lists supportive or at least friendly responses shows that if they aren't actively hostile to competing viewpoints, they are least not going to show them on their Public Feedback page for all to see.

For a clearer example of this hostility towards differing opinions, one of the threads on their forum contains a small argument of rather long posts between one woman who writes sexual fiction, and another, called Bucky, who openly condemns her and insinuates that she preys on children. Perhaps her viewpoints are not indicative of the entire group, but one must wonder about the motives of a group who would allow this comment to go unchecked: "it seems to me that most smut writers have conveniently convinced themselves that they are doing no harm. That they have zero negative influence. Some have even bought into their own bullsh!t in thinking that pornographic scenes and disturbing subject matter are the only vehicle they have to express emotion, distracting the readers from their other literary shortcomings, and bland writing."

Their member Bucky states on her ff.net profile that she "Don't do lemons because they cheapen the characterization for me." In light of VALL's assertion that lemons are often a sign of the writer's incompetence, this statement seems rather quaint, almost humorous. While lemons can often be two cardboard characters in a flat setting, lemons can also define a story, enrich the characters, and add depth and multiple emotional and thematic layers. The qualifier "for me" on her statement mitigates this somewhat, but taken with the rest of her comments, and considering she is one of the most vocal members of this group, her comment becomes troubling.

Their pride also comes to play in blinding them of some of the uses of lemons, which I prefer to call sexual fiction. Again, on their main page they state "We aspire to educate those who are under the impression that love equates sex, or that a romance story automatically requires fleshed out details of it to be good. Both notions are false." Of course both notions are false, and this helps make their mission statement seem all the more innocent. However, this does not take away from the fact that sex can exist in all literature, not only romantic fiction, and it also does not mean that sex cannot be written as an integral part of any of such literature.

What is truly ironic is that in their quest for better fiction, they seem to be leaning towards idealized, unrealistic views of sexual relations. Rae George, the self-proclaimed Head Chief of VALL, states on her members opinion section that she believes "that sex is something that results from a loving, stable, mature relationship that is built up over time. It is a private expression of love between two people." I agree, this is a wonderful notion. However, it seems rather indicative of the entire cluelessness about love and sex that seems to go hand in hand with this little club. Mature private nurturing love does exist, but there's also tragic love, desperate love, cold love, rough love, love borne from hate, love that becomes hate...and then there's romantic sex, make-up sex, kinky sex, emotionless sex...

In their eyes, though, explicit sex seems to be taboo. Despite their declared love of "well-written lemons," I didn't find any. Granted, I couldn't look through all their member stories, but I looked through quite a few. Explicit sexual content seems to bring a knee-jerk reaction from then, indicating extremely conservative ideals and constraints. As member Stef-chan states, "Yes, I'm a proud supporter of the banning of NC-17 fics. *Ducks and hides* DON'T KILL ME! It's not MY fault that I have morals!" Another member states, "Hey, did you guys notice that fanfiction.net has banned NC-17 fics? HAH! I'm very glad, for my part . . . but I wonder if the VALL is going to get some nasty mail about that? After all, several of us did send e-mails to Xing about NC-17 fics, so it is partly our "fault" . . . Me, I don't care. Let Rae deal with 'em. *feral grin*"

This joy for the banning, based solely on rating which most people know is not a decent indicator of quality, also belies their apparent claim that they do not endorse censorship. A ban is nothing but. Claiming that morality is their ideological foundation makes them no better than book burners. Also troubling is the undercurrent of homophobia. Slash is clearly in the extreme minority of their fiction, and while that does not automatically slot them for sensitivity courses, bluntly stated on one of their member's ff.net profiles, and I quote: "Don't do slash because the last thing I want is a visual of these cute Z boys engaged in a form of sex that includes fecal residue and fart smells" (Bucky at http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=170495). No doubt I need not go into detail about how offensive and uneducated her opinion of slash and yaoi fiction is, along with how firmly affixed her blinders are to the more disgusting aspects of heterosexual sex. Considering that explicit lemons are taboo, though, I have to wonder if her stance against yaoi is simply the lemons often found in such fiction, or if she simply is homophobic. Afterall, if het fics can exist without sexual explicitness, can't yaoi fics as well?

Another irony is the anti-feminist slant some of their fiction seems to take. Yes, anti-feminist, perhaps even misogynistic. The women in this fiction are either good girls who believe in "no diamond, no hymen," or are trashy sluts that can't have it enough, with little in between. Some of you, especially those not yet in college, may not know about the idea of the "angel in the house, monster in the attic" duality of the female in literature. The angel in the house would be the woman who manages to fulfill all of the requirements of the cult of domesticity, while the monster in the attic, a reference to Jane Eyre if I haven't forgotten my gothic lit., is the undesirable woman who does not fit into society's specific gender roles. While I understand that this phrase does not entirely fit with Mary Sue's angelic qualities, the construct still holds as a fair example of the problem. These girls may be strong, determined, even annoying to their exasperated fellow characters, but they are also good at heart and quite self-sacrificing. They are also usually fully described (at least the good girls are) in such idealized terms that it becomes obvious that if it isn't a self-insertion, this is at least someone the authoress clearly likes, and that her opinion of the character will influence how perfect she is.

Of course, not all of VALL fiction is juvenile. I've gone through most members on their list, and while I did not read every single one of their stories (I will not read HP nor bad poetry) a few stories did stand out. Crash's Speed and Spyte is enjoyable for X-Men Evolution fans and Rae George's DBZ Syndrome shows merit. This, though, seems to be the exception and not the norm.

Their second mission statement, put into pithier terms as "save the children," perhaps grates upon me more not because I am a horrible writer of evil sexual pornography but because I am a Republican, and "save the children" has always been a key Democrat tool for taking away middle class rights. "Save the children" is always a grand excuse for people to hide their true feelings behind, and the expression has become a red flag of sorts, a warning that all is not as it seems. In a move that seems to never have heard the phrase "parental responsibility," VALL intends to place all the blame of children stumbling into dens of sensual iniquity squarely on the author's shoulders. As in the previous comment about writers of smut believing we have done no harm and bought our own "bullsh!t" about the advantages of explicit sexual content, the problem rests not on the parents who pay for and provide internet access, parents who do not utilize net nanny-ish software, parents who do not monitor their children's online activities, parents who do not take responsibility for their children's actions, but instead on the writer providing entertainment and niche literature to a community of other writers.

Another problem with VALL is their idea of what comprises sexual education. Their chief Rae George states that "The quasi-paradox is, VALL sounds sort of like, "don't write lemons if you're a virgin, but don't go off having sex just so you know what the hell you're talking about." Anyone who knows me is probably smirking. If nothing else, I can fully vouch for the ability of a virgin to write a believable lemon. I have, indeed, even written the how-to of writing good lemons. I have amassed what some have called a frighteningly large wealth of information on sex, sexual acts and practices, sexual feelings, various kinks and all manner of fetishes. And I didn't even have to get fucked to do it. It's simply another indication of how naive this group, if not actually acts, then at least presents themselves as. While experience is always the best teacher, it is not required in all cases. If this were true, fantasy and sci-fi authors would be equally wrong in VALL's eyes.

The internet is a place for the rapid dissemination of information of any and all kinds, not the place for idealized, misguided notions of morality to run rampant in an effort to censor and/or stigmatize a branch of fanfiction. VALL is simply a group of mostly juveniles intent on pushing their beliefs and morals on a much larger collective of individuals. With the notion that sex is naughty, their schoolgirl ideals become the mass whining of people who seem to think that fiction should conform to their beliefs and no one else's.