|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 188 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 25 of 188:
| 
Mar 27 22:24 UTC 2002 |
YES!
|
brighn
|
|
response 26 of 188:
|
Mar 27 22:37 UTC 2002 |
#23> you bring up one of the problems with kiddie porn. the problem also rears
its head in the fetish world: Why should it illegal for me to walk around in
latex, so long as I'm coveed correctly? And yet some communities bar it
because *some* people get their sexual jollies from it. Likewise, if I
masturbate to Anne Geddes pictures, does that make them pornography? Some
would actually say, Yes, it does. I don't think so.
The general standard for kiddie porn is similar to the standard for adult
porn: It's a subjective call based on exposure of genitals, the nature of the
pose, whether there are others involved and what they're doing, and so on.
If a six-year-old is naked and posed like a Hustler centerfold, it's porn;
if they're naked but posed like a Maxim cover model, it probably isn't.
|
morwen
|
|
response 27 of 188:
|
Mar 27 23:32 UTC 2002 |
resp:8 if resp:3 is a precursor to first amendment violation, then this
judgement is a precursor to legalization of child pornography. Either way,
we have a problem.
|
jazz
|
|
response 28 of 188:
|
Mar 27 23:44 UTC 2002 |
I can't believe you even THOUGHT of masturbating to Anne Geddes
pictures. Does anyone find those half as disturbing as I do?
|
oval
|
|
response 29 of 188:
|
Mar 27 23:50 UTC 2002 |
they should be illegal.
|
morwen
|
|
response 30 of 188:
|
Mar 28 00:03 UTC 2002 |
People masturbate to THAT? They must REALLY be desperate I'm given to
understand that she goes out of her way to make her pictures UNsexual.
|
russ
|
|
response 31 of 188:
|
Mar 28 00:06 UTC 2002 |
I fail to see how the product of someone's imagination (a story)
becomes "child porn". It was my impression that the element of
the crime was the abuse of a child in the production; how can it
be "abuse" if the characters are imaginary? If that's the case
then mystery writers are guilty of murder, and so are their
readers when they re-create the crime in the process of reading
the stories. Absurd!
For once, I'd say that the SCOTUS can learn something from Canada.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 188:
|
Mar 28 02:39 UTC 2002 |
The fault of finding writing gross, obscene, etc, lies 100% with the
READER. Without readers such writing is nothing but scribblings on a page.
It is the READER that creates the problem. It would address the alleged
problem more directly to forbid persons that are allegedly driven to
criminal acts by READING to READ. And, it is not an authors' fault if you
find yourself unable to do that, but YOURS.
|
russ
|
|
response 33 of 188:
|
Mar 28 04:11 UTC 2002 |
Re #13: In "Amelie" (great flick) there is a brief sequence
of babies swimming underwater. In one of these sequences the
genitalia (male) are visible. Is "Amelie" child pornography?
(Let the bluenoses use that as an excuse to ban it. I'm sure
that the sequence which follows, featuring Peg-Leg Bates,
already has the movie on the Aryan Nations banned list. The
two are not that far apart; I'd like to see them make the
parallel more obvious.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 34 of 188:
|
Mar 28 04:28 UTC 2002 |
#33> Nirvana's "Nevermind" album also has nude male infantgenitalia, I
believe.
|
jazz
|
|
response 35 of 188:
|
Mar 28 13:35 UTC 2002 |
That *was* censored in a number of outlets, wasn't it?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 36 of 188:
|
Mar 28 14:17 UTC 2002 |
Re #27: No, it isn't. He was convicted for having pornographic photos of
actual kids. He was let off for having pornographic *stories*
about imaginary kids. It's just a statement that what is illegal
is child pornography that used actual children, not works of the
imagination that no children were harmed to produce.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 37 of 188:
|
Mar 28 15:12 UTC 2002 |
("In Canada, the age of consent for sex is 14".... ?!)
|
md
|
|
response 38 of 188:
|
Mar 28 17:16 UTC 2002 |
Back in the 1970s there was a sex education book for children
called "Show Me." It had explicit photographs of adult men and women
having various kinds of sex, including oral. It also had pictures of
kids. One of them showed a boy with an erection -- he might've been
ten years old. Another one showed a little girl -- also about ten
years old -- in a spread-legs shot. It also showed naked kids "playing
doctor" together. It was talked up as a caring, sensitive,
enlightened, and above all tasteful book for children. I remember
seeing it for the first time right out there on the table at Barnes and
Noble in NYC. There was no big controversy about it. I think it was a
best seller, in fact.
No one would defend such a book today. No one. Okay, Susie Bright
tried to defend it recently, but she got shouted down by eveybody. The
question is, were we more enlightened then or now? Lest this sound
like teapot "A or B" coyness, I'll state right now that I think the
book was a pedophile's dream come true and never should've been
published. But back then, if you expressed even slight puzzlement
about the book, you faced being called a prude by the More Enlightened
Than Thou types.
|
jazz
|
|
response 39 of 188:
|
Mar 28 17:19 UTC 2002 |
That doesn't make sense to me. If the book fulfils a valuable social
role, then why should it really worry anyone that it also helps a pedophile
get off? It's the harming of children that's the horror we're trying to
prevent, not people with fantasies about children masturbating. The latter
might even help to prevent the former.
|
brighn
|
|
response 40 of 188:
|
Mar 28 17:34 UTC 2002 |
Michael was going on so well in #38, then he had to throw in the second
paragraph. ;}
I agree with John. How does it harm society if someone masturbates to
questionable material in the privacy of their own home. It's when they
transfer those fantasies into reality and begin to act on them that we have
problems. I understand the "gateway" argument, but I also agree with the
argument already presented that reading Agatha Christie doesn't make you a
murderer.
|
md
|
|
response 41 of 188:
|
Mar 28 17:36 UTC 2002 |
Hey, maybe I'm wrong about it. Here's a review from Amazaon.com, where
used copies of Show Me sell for $235:
Certainly the most controversial sex ed book ever!, May 7, 2000
Reviewer: Bill Peckenpaugh from Silverton, Oregon, USA
Which is incredibly sad, since it is such a refreshingly (even
shockingly) honest and intelligent work.
The photographs by Will McBride are stunning, not just because the vast
majority of the models are nude (this is not unusual in artistic
photography), but because they portray adults and children engaging in
normal sensual and sexual behavior *appropriate to each age*. I feel
it's important to add the emphasis, as so much criticism [from people
who, no doubt, have never laid eyes on the book] has been unleashed
that the book is "manna for pedophiles," and other such meaningless
statements. Yes, adults who are mentally ill and who find children
erotic will certainly love this book; in perspective, they also love
the Sears catalog children's underwear ads, and Pampers diaper ads, and
we don't lose much sleep over that. The book doesn't (as sometimes
claimed) show adults and children engaged in sexual behavior together,
nor does it show children watching adults having sex. These are myths
perpetuated by those who villify the book without having ever seen it.
It does show children touching their genitals -- shocking! Has any real
child ever done such a thing?
I believe the criticism this book receives is based on the fact that it
openly (some would say brazenly) admits that children are sexual
beings, and they engage in sex-play -- and then goes on to normalize it
by showing photos of children doing things all children do. Those who
perpetuate the myth that children are asexual (or, more correctly, non-
sexual) until they hit puberty are unable to accept this, and choose to
attack the messenger rather than debate the merits of the message.
Parents who are open and "progressive" in their beliefs will find this
book very useful in answering children's questions. The accompanying
text at the end of the book, written by Dr. Helga Fleischauer-Hardt, is
perhaps the most comprehensive and well-presented I have ever seen.
Too bad those who see a pedophile under every rock (just as they saw
one in every day care in the 1980s) have made it all but impossible to
find this book.
|
brighn
|
|
response 42 of 188:
|
Mar 28 17:41 UTC 2002 |
I do take umbrage at the implication that adults who find children erotic are
mentally ill, but I like that review anyway. Not having seen the book, I don't
know how accurate it is. =}
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 188:
|
Mar 28 18:34 UTC 2002 |
I honestly wouldnt have a problem with my children (if I had any)
seeing pictures of adults engaged in normal sex acts. I wouldnt have
any trouble with my children looking at nudity although I know I am
enough of a prude that I wouldnt want them to see *me* naked.
That book doesnt sound too bad but I have never seen it so I cant be
sure. I dont think it should be banned nor do I think it is porn even
though some people might use it as such.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 44 of 188:
|
Mar 28 18:50 UTC 2002 |
I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance.
|
void
|
|
response 45 of 188:
|
Mar 28 19:08 UTC 2002 |
If the subject is unenjoyable, close the book and don't read it again.
Don't, however, even presume to tell me what I can or cannot read based
on your personal preferences. I read some Agatha Christie stories when
I was a teenager, and I have not become a murderer (I don't read Agathqa
Christie anymore, either, but that's beside the point). The gulf
between encountering an idea and acting on that idea is enormous.
|
md
|
|
response 46 of 188:
|
Mar 28 19:21 UTC 2002 |
But doesn't it seem strange that if you were told the photographs of
naked sexually aroused ten-year-olds playing with each others' genitals
were taken by a pedophile who posted them on the internet it would be
bad, but if you think they were taken by a child psychologist who made
them into a sex ed book it's okay? Same kids, same pictures and, I
suspect, same pedophiles drooling over them. What's the diff?
|
void
|
|
response 47 of 188:
|
Mar 28 19:32 UTC 2002 |
re resp:46: Since porn depends on context (and that's as close to a
definition as I'm going to get), it's not strange at all. The
pedophiles who drool over your sex ed book probably also drool over
stories involving fictional children and digital images with no real
human subjects. To paraphrase George Carlin again, "show me someone
who's at home [reading or looking at pictures] and waxing his carrot,
and I'll show you someone who's not out causing any trouble." Fictional
subjects involve no actual harm to anybody. What's the diff?
|
drew
|
|
response 48 of 188:
|
Mar 28 19:33 UTC 2002 |
In fairness to Agatha Christie, I'm under the impression that the plots
usually have to do with discovering and arresting the person who did the
murder, rather than in simply displaying the act. Is the equivalent true for
most "kiddie porn"?
|
void
|
|
response 49 of 188:
|
Mar 28 20:26 UTC 2002 |
Probably not, but as I've never seen any kiddie porn I don't really
know.
|