Up Front: Do My Homework For Me
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
My concern is more for the performers than the act performed.
But we are only talking about adults. You don't think I'm defending actual child pornography, I hope.
-
Well, if anybody has a problem in this direction then maybe they need one of these handy iPhone Apps like "iRecover – Pornography Addiction Recovery"
I have a new favourite sentence: "I made a covenant with my eyes".
-
No I do not; but if we allow pornography where adults who look underage perform as teenagers, there is always the danger that real underage people will be employed in those roles. The porn industry is not noted for its moral probity, after all.
-
if we allow pornography where adults who look underage perform as teenagers, there is always the danger that real underage people will be employed in those roles.
I fail to see how one follows from the other. It seems to me that using 18 yr olds + and making them look younger is precisely a way to fulfill the fantasy without using actual underage actors. As indeed is drawing comics, manga or anime, or producing written pornography on this particular theme, where no actual people are involved. Whether or not any of this constitutes a damaging practice is very debatable I think.
-
I'm sure there must be cases of these numerous people we read about being arrested for possession of child porn who would never think of engaging in such an act. If they could be steered towards a more morally acceptable avenue then it could only be a positive.
Woah there! I think it's extremely important to remember that all pornography involving photographic images and/or video involves a real live person at its heart. Those arrested for possession of child porn in the form of photos or videos are viewing a real live child being abused. It doesn't matter whether or not they would ever "think of engaging in such an act".
The act of downloading/buying/viewing child porn makes them complicit in the act of abuse, whether or not they actually did it themselves. By continuing to add to their collections, they ensure that the child porn industry remains a viable way of making money for those who abuse children - and seeing as children inevitably grow up and stop being children, this means that a ready supply of new victims is always required.
For those people interested in child pornography of young children, I cannot see what the "more morally acceptable avenue" could possibly be, if we're talking about photographs and video. Unless you're using living dolls or animation, there's no way you'd be able to have an 18+ year-old passing as a pre-teen (or younger).
Presumably you're therefore only talking about 18+year-olds passing as teenagers. Personally, I don't think it's "morally acceptable" for pornography to depict children of whatever age engaging in sex, even if they are teenagers and even if the actors themselves are over 18.
But I do understand the dilemma - I watch the occasional episode of Law and Order, SVU and CSI - where people are murdered on a regular basis - which is illegal - and I'm not planning to kill anyone - but I think there's a real difference.
I do have a problem with the depiction of murder if it's being depicted in a gratuitously violent way - if there's an element of glorification in the violence then I'm not comfortable watching it. I can watch SVU because it's about catching the baddies. I've never watched Dexter because the hero is a serial killer and I'm not comfortable with that dichotomy.
Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable, and why I see a big difference between it and a story about cops catching child pornographers.
I'd also like to see the research that shows that people who watch child porn are less likely to engage in actually abusing children (as opposed to watching other people abusing children) than people who don't. What proportion of child porn watchers escalate into child porn engagers? Presumably there must be some.
Did the majority of people found guilty of child sexual abuse begin by watching it and then escalate into doing it, or did most of them start out cold, as it were? What level of escalation is acceptable? If even one person who watches child porn then escalates into action as a result of watching it (and I guess that's the most difficult thing to assess), isn't that one too many?
Questions, questions. I'm open to being convinced that my POV is incorrect or based on inaccurate info, but I think I'll need to see the evidence either way, first.
-
It seems to me that using 18 yr olds + and making them look younger is precisely a way to fulfill the fantasy without using actual underage actors
Why should we want to fulfill the fantasy? People who have fantasies about sex with children need psychiatric treatment, not fulfillment.
-
People who have fantasies about sex with children need psychiatric treatment, not fulfillment.
Wow. I suggest we round up all consenting adults who roleplay Catholic schoolgirl scenarios - clearly these people must be stopped.
-
You're also not showing causation. Could the fantasy in fact pre-exist the representation? And if it does, what exactly is the issue with writing a book like Lolita or a more prurient treatment? And could these representations constitute a form of release, as opposed to a normalisation of paeodophilia. I'm not suggesting it's actually as simple as that, but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as "these people need to see a psychiatrist" either.
-
These people need to see a psychiatrist. Sexual desires towards children are not normal and should not be encouraged. Humbert Humbert's sexual compulsion clearly was abnormal: it stunted his life and eventually brought about his destruction. He is not clearly not a happy pedo; that is why Lolita is such a brilliant book.
-
So... Lolita but with consummation would have been a contemptible book, Lolita with its current ending a brilliant book? Again, I think you're oversimplifying.
-
No, I think you are drawing a very long bow. Consummation or no, there is a huge difference between a book which describes abnormal sexuality and one which presents it as normal.
-
It's more the fact that I think you're oversimplifying Lolita, which is not a novel about a "bad man" or "bad desire" anymore than, say, Death in Venice is - it's more complex than that. But I take your point that the leap to pornography is, yes, longbowish. The leap to consenting adults fantasising about being, say, a teacher and a student isn't, though. It's not my personal fantasy, but I'm not sure why I should think that these people are monsters. Nor why filming such a scenario with adult actors ought to have such a straightforwardly damaging, causative effect.
-
Anyone care to discuss the fact that we have anti-cruelty-to-animals legislation (that is, rightly & justifably, going to to be tightened) with the open display of *considerable* cruelty to animals in a huge number of on-screen programmes?
I am a fisher. I kill what I catch asap. There are fishing programmes that display lingering deaths with slavvering joy.
-
-
No, I am not oversimplifying Lolita, but that is by-the-by. You brought her into this conversation and I think it is now time she went home.
Please also note that I have not said that filming scenarios with adult actors has a straightforwardly damaging, causative effect. I said merely that sexual feelings towards children should not be encouraged.
Teachers spanking schoolgirls are harmless enough, so long at the teachers are wearing gowns and mortarboards and the schoolgirls are wearing gymslips. Things get a bit more icky when the depiction is realistic.
-
Realistically, I don't see how you pass an 18 year old for a child. See what Emma wrote no longer than one page ago.
-
the open display of *considerable* cruelty to animals in a huge number of on-screen programmes?
It's worse than that. Every day and every night we are subjected to World War 2 on National Geographic, The History Channel and others.
Won't somebody think of the Hebrews?. -
Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable
Why morally unacceptable? Furthermore why morally unacceptable if they were under 18?
-
Every day and every night we are subjected to World War 2 on National Geographic, The History Channel and others.
I like to stroll into the breakroom at work (which has a telly and a sky subscription), and ask if there's any warporn on worth watching.
Although lately they've taken to showing a whole bunch of documentaries about Atlantis and similar. Guess they must finally have run out of WW2 stuff....
Anyway, on topic. I'd be interested in opinions on that scene in 'trainspotting', since we're discussing 'lolita', and the trainspotting scene is far more explicit.
-
Fishing programmes are generally filmed in real time (for the catching sequences.) Paticularly when you are dealing with 'big game' fishing, you are watching a magnificent animal dying in a drawn-out fashion.
That, for me, is as obscene as any other kind of hapless victim-pornography (there is obviously pornography where the participants are neither helpless nor unwilling. Rocks your boat,cool, float along...) -
The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST was closer to snuff imagery than I was prepared for, and I'd rage against it becoming the norm. It made my darling cry and me feel sick...
I mean really, choosing to highlight the final, terrifying moments leading to anybody's death crosses all sorts of boundaries for me and makes we want to bitch slap some fuckin' sensitivity into all editorial staff concerned.
-
If even one person who watches child porn then escalates into action as a result of watching it (and I guess that's the most difficult thing to assess), isn't that one too many?
I have to admit, I've been at a mate's place and spent an evening playing Gran Turismo. Then on the way home, I have found myself exceeding the legal speed limit in circumstances where I would not normally have.
I guess its lucky I wasn't playing Grand Theft Auto. -
I'd rage against it becoming the norm.
I'd agree with you there, but I'd also point out that its way too late.
Don Henley's Dirty Laundry was released in 1982. "Its interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry" -
The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST was closer to snuff imagery than I was prepared for [...] final, terrifying moments leading to anybody's death
The sports section, you say? What story was that?
-
I'm not sure what to think about young but adult actors performing in sexually explicit under-age roles. The problem is that the acts they perform can't just be acting, as in someone pretended to kill someone and they used ketchup to simulate blood. They are actually illustrating abuse. Images of children being abused are illegal because the children are actually being abused. Right there in the photos.
This is a different story though. No children (or animals) were injured, because there were none there to start with. It's animation. Would this be illegal here?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.