Author Topic: Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!  (Read 1617 times)

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9915
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2002, 02:54:35 PM »
In laymens terms:

Looking at a porn of a 20 year old dressed up in a schoolgirls uniform could be construed as virtual child porn. Not that you find many half naked chicks in schoolgirls uniforms on the web :rolleyes:

How often do you see the schoolgirl theme in porn? Does this make you and me paedephiles?

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2002, 03:43:44 PM »
Quote
Looking at a porn of a 20 year old dressed up in a schoolgirls uniform could be construed as virtual child porn. Not that you find many half naked chicks in schoolgirls uniforms on the web  

Vulcan


Or even on MTV (not quite naked) a la Brittney Spears.

Here’s a site that shows how such broadly written legislation can be misused. Perhaps some of our Canadian friends are familiar with the Spacemoose cartoon that regularly appeared from 1989 to about 2000 in the University of Alberta student newspaper, The Gateway. The strip is written by Adam Thrasher, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Alberta. The strip's protagonist, Spacemoose, is an entirely nihilistic moose from outer space that is purely a function of his own id. He does whatever feels good, with little regard for anyone’s feelings but his own basic pleasures.

It's easy to miss the point with Spacemoose, since the strips are totally over the top and certainly in bad taste. In general, Thrasher picks knee-jerk subjects that provoke the strongest politically correct, censor the bastard response from people not open to any criticism or discussion on beliefs they hold scared. He doesn’t just push puttons to tweak a politically correct response -- he smashes them with a sledge hammer.

So far, strips bashing ultra feminism (as in Andrea Dworkin -- check her and Catherine McKinnon out sometimes….shudder) and fundamental Christianity (Jack Chick style) have provoked the greatest response. It's interesting to follow the backlash from outraged individuals, who call for censoring the strip. Their logic gets pretty thin as they try to justify such actions in legitimate terms, without saying what you can read behind each word: "...the strip pisses me off, I don't want to hear it, so your voice and arguments should be silenced."

With his strip “Clobbering Time,” he attacks the “Take Back the Night” program where females symbolically march to take back the night from the oppression of male dominated sexual violence. The strip shows Spacemoose and his cohorts providing armed resistance. I believe Thrasher thought the whole movement a bit overboard, particularly with the militant, militaristic overtones behind the program where there was clearly an us (females) and a them (males). It was an obvious parody, but an obvious hot button tweak that got him fined and the strip removed from the university Web site (he eventually won on appeal).

Why is this on topic again? The reasoning for his censure was because some of the women felt “threatened” victimized and unsafe because of a visual depiction of male vs. female violence that many, myself included, found entertaining and humorous in the broader and subtle context behind the strip. You get the feeling that they were more disturbed by his opinions and attack on the Women’s Studies program than any real personal fear from a cartoon, and that they were using the broad campus policy on threatening environments as a tool to get him silenced.

Here’s the link, check out Antler's of the Dammed (under Controversies) and the Archives (early/mid 90s on the best) for a good laugh if it’s your thing. (Adult humor, so surf accordingly)

Clobberin' Time

Charon

PS Here'a teaser, not from the strip in question but certainly related to the topic :)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2002, 03:45:58 PM by Charon »

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2002, 09:18:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
I'm sure HTC appreciates the correlation of their product to computerized child porn :rolleyes:


LOL... I'm sure they do. :D

Quote
Originally posted by batdog
Ever notice all the friggen "Young" Porn sites out there now. Its kind of disturbing. I surf porn now and then... but I'd rather eat a bullet than hurt or contibute to the hurt of a child.

To me its just bloody common sense... you dont mess w/Kids. You SHOULDNT have kids having sex in movies, virtual or otherwise... its sick. Hell some societies w/out execute a man for sleeping w/a girl that wasnt "of age".


xBAT


In all my surfing years, I've NEVER chanced upon any pictures of kiddie porn. IMHO, you can't find it unless you go out deliberately looking for it and even then I think you're going to find most of it to be "virtual" or simulated "children". Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not going to go looking myself to confirm this belief. Call me a coward.

Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2002, 09:27:39 PM by Sandman »
sand

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9915
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2002, 05:28:33 AM »
Yup some of us manage to keep a grip on the difference between our fantasies and reality...

hey creamo... sexy bellybutton ;)

Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.
 

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2002, 06:23:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


In all my surfing years, I've NEVER chanced upon any pictures of kiddie porn. IMHO, you can't find it unless you go out deliberately looking for it and even then I think you're going to find most of it to be "virtual" or simulated "children". Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not going to go looking myself to confirm this belief. Call me a coward.

Also... sick thoughts are not illegal xBat, no matter what they are about.

 



 Sandman... I'm talking about those pop-ups that push "young" women etc. By young I quess they could mean 18 or whatever but I still find it disturbiing. I dont surf porn much anymore simply due to this. I've also seen every damn free picture out there 20 times over, lol.

I quess its simply reflective of a society that pushes "young is best" in everything we see. America has a strong Puritain streek that tends to cause alot of people to view sex as dirty and something to avoid seeing/thinking about etc. This prob leads to all sorts of problems...

I wonder if the Europeans have problems w/this?


xBAT
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2002, 08:52:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by batdog
America has a strong Puritain streek that tends to cause alot of people to view sex as dirty and something to avoid seeing/thinking about etc. This prob leads to all sorts of problems...

I wonder if the Europeans have problems w/this?


xBAT


Hit the nail on the head right there.
sand

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2002, 10:47:31 AM »
has a single European even commented in this thread?  I honestly didn't look at everyone's name who posted.  Don't most European countries have lower age requirements for engaging in explicit photos, movies, etc?  (I honestly don't know)

xbat is right on the popup thing.  the teenage stuff pops up right next to the pregnant, interracial, group, asian, mature, voyeur, and so on.  Given that, I've never come across a site that has actual child porn on it (with the exception of one video.  It was promptly removed from the website after an email to them.)  Sure, there are girls in plaid skirts and white shirts, but they all have the "all models over 18 disclaimer."  Is this virtual child porn?  Hell, I've got a pic of an ex-gf who was 24 at the time dressed up like that, is THAT virtual child porn?  (NO, I'm not posting it!  Tho, I'm sure I'll get many requests from the FDBs)  My point is the schoolgirl dressup is just one fantasy for men out there along with the other "fetishes".  As long as the partcipants in that medium are of legal age (and they consent to the pic, movie, whatever) I think there's nothing wrong with it.  The Supreme Court made a good decision in the virtual regard of child porn.

Exploitation of real children is absolutely wrong, that's not an issue.  Honestly, I don't see how anyone even would want to see some young children engaged in sexual acts.  The thought disgusts me.  Now a nice 18+ year old in a short plaid skirt or cheerleader outfit?  Nothing wrong with it.  :D
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.