On 06 May 2008 02:36:40 GMT, white-magic <white-magic@remail-it.net>
wrote:
>floppy <floppy@flop.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>I'm agreed whith you.
>
>If a private institution, like IWF, can get sufficient power to be able to
>prohibit rights that clearly have been defined in the constitutions of the
>majority of democratic countries, such as the free access to the information,
>something smells rotten in Denmark (Shakespeare said).
>
>I understand that they want to defend the children. I also want to do it.
>But of what we are defending them?. From to express his own sexuality?
>Our societies need to discuss openly and, without restrictions, these subjects.
>The myth that the children are damaged by CONSENSUAL sexual relations with
>adults, does not have statistical base. It's a subjetive imposition not based
>on facts. There are studies that prove the opposite:
>
>http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/19/2/370
>
>We can believe to be defending the rights of the children and, in fact, to be
>restricting them.
>
>Excus me for my imperfect English.
>
>Withe-magic
>
>
Thank you for your comments, Floppy and White-Magic. It is very good
to see that there are those who peek in from time to time!
The present state of affairs, from a socio-culturally objective
viewpoint, borders on madness. It is not well enough that western
societies impose this moral straight-jacket on the adults and children
of their own societies, but that they are adamant in forcing ... yes,
forcing ... all other societies to genuflect to the altar as well! It
is the height of arrogance that has so long characterised western
societies ... indeed any society with the ability to wield power with
apparent impunity.
I see the esteemed INTERPOL is again "desperate" to locate a poor chap
who has an affinity for young lads, who no doubt were "severely
traumatised." I believe this case, from what I've heard, has been "on
the books" for a considerable amount of time.
Of course, you shan't see pictures of the lads for the "protection of
their own privacy" ...
Indeed.
That and concurrently it would be somewhat more difficult to see them
as victims of abuse when confronted with smiles and laughter, as they
were [or so I am informed, having myself never seen the images!!] with
the previous poor chap.
Outrageous!
VV
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|