It's not that surprising VV, at least, not to me.
All part of the circuitous logic that traps them in the world view
and makes it very hard to argue with these people.
Their first claim will be that children are harmed by being photographed
naked, and if they aren't then they should be, since in their
world "immoral" behavior should always lead to suffering in a "moral"
society. Millions of nudists, artists and photographers would disagree
of course, but that doesn't matter. Who listens to nudist, artists or
photograhers anyway. Or to children for that matter. For how would they
know what is harmful, they are "only" children.
Should that claim fail, which it might in a court of law, their next claim
will be that such images encourage pedophiles to indulge their lusts and
therefore must be supressed. The fallacy here is that fantasy must always
lead to acting out. And this ignores what to me is an obvious fact: that
covering body parts sexualizes them. If you really want to take the sexual
sting out of images of nude children, then put them everywhere, and have
kids run around nude at the beach or wherever. Most of them will not be
that interesting to look at after your one millionth viewing of a naked
child.
Supression of certain images, and promotion of others, has always been a
cornerstone political activity of totalitarian regimes. There is no
power without the power to supress, and to control sexuality itself is the
greatest power. There must be an "out" group in order to have an "in"
group, and the "in" group have run out of things to persecute.
With the war against (adult) porn - waged by a coalition of the loony
Christian Right and very loony militant feminism in the 1980s - almost
totally lost, there is nothing remaining to utterly supress. It is
politically incorrect to criticize gays or any particular race, though
many occupied the toilet stratum of society that we are now relegated to
not that long ago. You can buy (what to me is nauseating) bestiality porn
just in a corner porn shop in one part of Europe I can name (technical
illegal, not enforced). But try and find one image of of sub-18 yo in that
same shop ... All kinds of violent S&M porn are quite legal in Japan, last
I heard. What sexuality and images, then, can society supress, for without
supression there is no power? Once it was politically correct to supress
these images, the Left happily jumped on the bandwagon, because the Left
is nothing if not politically correct. And scared of losing elections.
Nothing is left but cp, however soft. In reality there is not that much
genuine cp around - I don't know, based on looking at usenet, would it be
less than 1-2TB? But there's lots of softer sexual, erotic and naturist
material, much of it unquestionably legal before the 1980s. So the
definition needed to be widened, otherwise hysterical (and quite
ridiculous to us consumers of this material) claims that cp is a
"multi-billion dollar" industry would be plainly unsupportable. No power
base to be had in that. We live under a "soft", smart kind of
totalitarianism, it's persuasive fascism with an intelligent face and a
charming manner that pretends to be democracy - something like Tony
Blair). If I'm sounding like an anarchist or perhaps an Ayn Rand fan,
perhaps I should become one of these.
If you disagree that much of the pedo hysteria is about power, consider
for a minute the huge growth throughout the 1990s-2000s of the social work
profession, whose very bread and butter is intervention in families. My
how they grew because of the "war on pedophilia".
Rant over for now.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|