Rape and Young Girls

[GaryWilcox]

This is a healthy debate between forum members that had hijacked a thread about someone's sexual fantasy.

I have provided this place for such talk, and moved one post here. Below is Kallie Thomas' deleted response. Please be respectful of each other, and feel free to continue the debate here.



Re: Kallie Thomas


Originally posted by Xue Lan
And CHILDREN suffer for it. Forever.

You think that is good thing?

Think about it. That's all.



Murder happens in real life, too. People suffer for it. Forever. But what you seem to be suggesting is that works of fiction are somehow causing the crimes in question. And that is a dangerous road. Take it to its logical conclusion--no one should write about murder to thrill (they do it all the time--it's called a murder mystery, it's written for the sole purpose of entertaining the reader). And what about Tom Clancy, for goodness sake? Murder, espionage, treason, nuclear catastrophes--and all for the sake of entertaining the reader. You think child abuse hurts? Try a nuclear catastrophe in a highly populated city. Someone need to take away Clancy's word processor?

Of course not.

And why not? Because he is writing FICTION. Not an educational manual, not a step-by-step on how to nuke your local metropolis. FICTION.

If writing fictional accounts of things illegal in REAL life is a crime, most successful authors should be in prison. And if we're going to give the okay to blaming writers of fiction with things that happen out in the real world, we might want to just start burning those books now.

Think about that. Think about what it is you seem to be suggesting.

Kallie

[alebeard42]

I am chiming in with Kallie here
Stories are fiction, they are not child porn
no children are hurt in the making of thse tales
I find the rape of children not really any less horrible then the rape of an adult
Either its real and all violence, disrespect and cruelty must be taken out of stories, or its fantasy and it must be free
Ale

[Lord Douche]

Rape is an evil thing. It is one of the most despicable acts a man (or a woman) can do to another human being.
That being said, what is on this site is (with the exception of a few stories) fiction. However, on this site there is a difference.
Rape is sometimes portrayed as something to excite and arouse. That it is evil takes a side-line for a period of time.
To borrow from Kallie, Tom Clancy doesn't portray a murder, or the nuking of a city as something that you should enjoy reading.
Now, I can't say that I haven't enjoyed such stories on this site, because I have. I also can't say that I haven't used younger girls in my own stories, since one of my main characters is 16. I've written rape scenes, and may indeed do so in the future.
What I have also done, though, is exacted swift and violent retribution upon the characters that performed the act, and I make no apologies. I will NEVER portray rape as a positive element, in any light, because I can't think of it that way. It's quick, it's dirty, and designed to get the reader hating the perpetrators.
But it is also fiction.
And I doubt fiction contributes to crime. All you do is have to look through history. Human Beings have been exceedingly cruel to other humans, and they didn't need to be able to read or write to do it.
LD

[Cleo671]

When we say 'fiction' what do we really mean? Because I've seen the word 'fiction' being utilised in here like 'all for one' term. There is historical fiction, there is romance fiction, crime fiction, adventure fiction, child fiction, fantasy fiction,erotic fiction..so let's take a pit stop at erotic fiction shall we? Erotic fiction is written to elicit arousal. It's main purpose is to make something 'erotic', whether it's the expression of sexual arousal of the protagonist, or whatever, the main point is to to 'eroticise' an event.

There is a difference between crime reportage and crime fiction in relation to murder.Yes murders do happen, or there are fictional descriptions in crime novels all over the place.
It's factual. It's not written using words and overrall language to promote eroticism in the act itself. Anyone with one foot in the real world can see that and not confuse the difference and be humble enough to concede to that.

Crime fiction/reportage is never written in an erotic context -for sexual arousal or to be used as 'masturbatory fodder'.

In relation to rape and underage girls(or boys) and this being eroticised?

I think there is no place for that. When people begin to say 'yes this is acceptable', I believe there is something really 'up' -whether it concerns their morals, psyche etc - there is something amiss. The reality is to be aroused with such subject matter, when a girl (or boy for that matter) is not fully sexually developed emotionally or sometimes physically, points to other issues. To sit there and eroticise something like rape amongst 'young' girls or boys,which is an act of violence,is like taking a step back into the period of De Sade, regress to an era where personal values were severely lacking. But that's my personal opinion, and yes I'm sure there are differences of opinion about this.

So before people 'debate', at least get their definitions correct as to what type of fiction they are referring to and the 'audience' that the 'fiction' format is targetted to. Because the 'fiction is fiction' phrase doesn't really clarify anything and more or less 'skirts' the subject matter/topic in question.

[Kallie Thomas]

Originally posted by Cleo671
There is a difference between crime reportage and crime fiction in relation to murder.Yes murders do happen, or there are fictional descriptions in crime novels all over the place.
It's factual. It's not written using words and overrall language to promote eroticism in the act itself. Anyone with one foot in the real world can see that and not confuse the difference and be humble enough to concede to that.

It's factual? I think you're confused--what are you talking about? Fiction or fact? I believe we were discussing fiction, so let's stick to that, shall we?

Crime fiction/reportage is never written in an erotic context -for sexual arousal or to be used as 'masturbatory fodder'.

"Never?" Perhaps you need to read a bit more in the murder mystery genre before making such a sweeping statement. Many, many fictional accounts of murder are written in such a way as to titillate or otherwise excite the reader. Numerous murder stories are written to be incredibly erotic. They are ALWAYS written to entertain the reader--after all, that is the point of fiction. Now, whether or not people masturbate to a story is hardly my problem--or yours. When I was 13, I used to masturbate to stories about Shaun Cassidy. And 'Lord of the Rings'--oh, my, the nasty things I did with that dashing, pretty-boy elf. The point? People will get off on anything and everything. And those murder stories that don't get you off DO get others off.

In relation to rape and underage girls(or boys) and this being eroticised?

I think there is no place for that.


Congrats. It's good to know what you like and don't like. Now run with that--don't read those things that don't work for you.

When people begin to say 'yes this is acceptable', I believe there is something really 'up' -whether it concerns their morals, psyche etc - there is something amiss.

Funny, I feel the same way about people who actually have the gall to preach censorship and psyche on a porn site ;)

The reality is to be aroused with such subject matter, when a girl (or boy for that matter) is not fully sexually developed emotionally or sometimes physically, points to other issues.

Still operating on your peculiar idea of what is "fully sexually developed," I see. As we've established, there is no consensus on that issue. So what we're really talking about is this--you attempting to push your idea of what is and isn't moral. Again, I say this is probably not a good site for pushing morals on others.

To sit there and eroticise something like rape amongst 'young' girls or boys,which is an act of violence,is like taking a step back into the period of De Sade, regress to an era where personal values were severely lacking.

ROFL! I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. To push rape as erotic in any REAL situation would be an awful thing, regardless of the age of the victim. And to confuse fiction with reality in this or any other circumstance would lead me to worry about the stability of the one confused.

I think you may be confused.

Now, as for the "regression to an era where personal values were severely lacking"---you are joking, right? How on earth do you figure? You don't really think that the late Marquis reflected the societal values of his time, do you? He was an aberration--was considered such at the time. If he fit right in. he'd hardly have been locked away, no?

But that's my personal opinion, and yes I'm sure there are differences of opinion about this.

Good call.

So before people 'debate', at least get their definitions correct as to what type of fiction they are referring to and the 'audience' that the 'fiction' format is targetted to. Because the 'fiction is fiction' phrase doesn't really clarify anything and more or less 'skirts' the subject matter/topic in question.

"Get their definitions correct?" In other words, agree with your definitions. No, I'm sorry--you're mistaken. Fiction is fiction in that it depicts imaginary or nonfactual situations, characters and occurrences. And that's the bottom line--one need not be a monster to dream up monstrous scenarios. If you can't accept that, if you can't understand that those who write a terrible scene need not be terrible people, if you can't grasp that writing about something "immoral" does not make one "immoral," then there's no point talking with you further on the issue--you're not able to distinguish story from writer, fact from fiction. And if that's the case, nothing can be accomplished here.

Kallie

[alebeard42]

Being clear here, I personally have no problem with someone enjoying fiction of a non-con nature or having fantasies as such with underage characters, I dont care if they are 13 or 3
The reason is simple, its fantasy
when we censor fantasy, what we do is become the thought police. We begin to judge people based on their thoghts and not their actions.

[Cleo671]

haha..
yes let's stick to the 'fiction' is fiction debate, it's concrete.
Im so happy for you that you masturbated over Shaun Cassidy,
but that's 'you', I used to masturbate over Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran..
and ?
Does that mean that 'every single' my age at that time masturbates?
No it doesn't.
So who am I to sit there and make that generalisation 'just because I did' therefore everyone does,
therefore 'why not'. So just because I might have had a sexual awakening, hey I might as well write
'fiction' relating to it. Great argument right there, it justfies everything.

You know something?
If your so called 'argument' was valid and had valid points, then every mainstream publisher from Random House
to Viking would publish 'child-minor' erotica.

But Kallie, get this, they don't.. oh my God!! What a travesty of freedom of speech right there huh?

That's the reality of publishing, that's the reality of the majority view on the matter of child 'erotica' for you
and you will always be in the minority, that's a fact, whether or not some people masturbate at 13 or not, whether
people don['t a problem with 'erotica' relating to someone '13 or 3' yrs of age, whether or not people 'get intellectually' aroused by it doesn't matter.

I'd like to reply to each and 'every' one of your 'comebacks', but the fact that your being faceteous in many, I can't be bothered.Why? It gets tiresome dancing around the mulberry bush all the time when people 'pretend' to not 'comprehend'.
But I'll simplify the crime reportage and crime fiction for you further 'so you do 'understand it better'' (oh wow now I'm being faceteous).. crime reportage as in real life crime documented in newspapers say.. and crime fiction ie Patricia Cornwell, Minette Walters and the like. Is that more clarified for you now?

Great.

I like debates, but as in real life I'm not into 'running around in circles' physically or mentally especially when something as 'basic' as the sub categories of fiction is confused. The way you bang the fiction is fiction drum, then we might as well shove children's fiction together in the same category as erotica!

[alebeard42]

I am unsure what Cleo's argument is here
you find this type of fantasy to be distasteful, ok, then dont have them
I dont see where you find a right to limit or censor others fantasys
Your argument that if it was good random house would publish it makes little sense, random house does not publish any adult material, whats more just because society accepts or rejects erotica does not define the morals of fantasy
I dont find this type of fantasy dangerous, I do find censorship to be

[Thorne]

This topic is, naturally, extremely volatile and confusing. What age is someone considered to be a child? What is pornography? Where does one draw the lines?

I decided (since I had nothing better to do) to check on what the legal age for marriage is around the world. I won't say I was surprised, with only two exceptions, but the results were certainly interesting. I won't bore you with references here, but I'll hang on to them for a week or so for anyone who would like them.

It seems there is a large disparity about the legal age for marriage. I would assume that most here would agree that, with the exception of arranged marriages for legal or show purposes, the act of marriage would also signify an ability for sexual relations. In the limited research I have done, the acceptable age for marriage, with the consent of parents, guardians, religious leaders and/or civil judges ranges from 9 years old to 21 years old!

Yes, I said 9 years old! That was one of the surprises. The age of puberty, as defined by Islam, is 15 years old for boys and 9 years old for girls. Though there are certain emotional/mental requirements as well, children who have reached the age of puberty are not only permitted to marry but are encouraged to do so!

In the United States, there is quite a variation between the states. Most seem to draw the line at 16 years old for girls, generally a little older for boys. In New Hampshire a girl can be married at the age of 13 (14 for boys), while in the state of Mississippi THERE IS NO MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE! With the permission of parents or of a judge children of ANY age can be married! (Surprise #2)

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are writing a story about having sexual relations with a married girl of 11 years. Is this still considered child pornography? What about her husband? Is he guilty of sexual abuse of a child? (Legally not, I'm sure, but morally?)

Now personally I'm not interested in any girl under the age of 18 (and I'm unlikely to find one under the age of 48 who was interested in me, but that's another story.) But I have known of girls 14 years old who comported themselves, and seemed to be as knowledgeable, as women much older. I have also known the reverse, women in their 20's who acted like teenagers, with about as much understanding of sex as a 12 year old. To my mind, there are cases where having sexual relations with a 20 year old college student could be as immoral as having sex with a 10 year old. They can be just as naive and immature.

So where does one draw the lines? It is my opinion that, for the purposes of FICTION this has to be a personal decision. As long as a writer sticks to the Library Code, and lets potential readers know what his story contains, it is up to the reader to decide whether he/she should read the story or not.

[Cleo671]

There are laws that prohibit anal sex in some states, just there are are laws that prohibit fellatio - within marriage. Some laws are so outdated that they have never been updated.

We can get all academic here and argue until the cows come home about the concept of 'what is a child' when the reality is 'common sense usually prevails', people that have 'confusion' of the 'child' definition are either 'playing dumb' or are really 'confused', or just like to be 'agent provocateurs' just for the sake of it etc.
Yes there are physically more mature pre teens there, there are girls that menstruate at age 8, this 'technically' means that they can reproduce but it doesn't mean that they are intellectually,emotionally or sometimes physically able to handle 'rough sex' a lot of the time, or any 'sex' for that matter.

What is a child? Well I have a child, and I know what a child is, but I also observe children playing and it ought to be simple as to what a 'child' is. Just like other people have children, whether in 'here' or out there.

There's been mention in here for example that 'fantasy' is only fantasy, well today after I finished work I was on a bus in the city and because it's holiday period, there are a lot of minors out there. So I asked myself whether or not I could actually sit there and 'fantasise' about a boy say 12, 13, or 14, as in sexually fantasise about me and them, involved in an act. Or let's make it the same age as my son, let's say 9, because an earlier 'quote' just really had me perplexed, but I'll say it, I'm not going to 'stress' about offending anyone or 'upsetting' or 'creating controversy' because your all adults and this is a forum is it not?:

I dont care if they are 13 or 3
The reason is simple, its fantasy

So there I am sitting there looking at kids walking on the street, or playing in the park, well sorry, but either way it's looked at, any whichever way, because we live in the period we live in, because we are more informed about a wide range of issues and events, it's something that is reflective of a person's development than anything else. How did people feel reading that Pete Townsend of The Who, downloaded child porn from the internet? He apologised for it, however it's a done thing.
well I bet you he fantasised about it..
Let's take it further still.
At his age, can it be considered 'healthy'? Yes or No? Seriously.
Might it not point to 'other issues' he has, that might or might not stem from his childhood?
Going further along still, even if it wasn't Pete Townsend, it was your friend or your neighbour, whatever.. are you going to pat him on the back and say 'Well hey buddy, sweet, no problem.'
Crime is random, let's say, it results from a myriad of social problems, family upbringing etc. It differs.
Behind every visual or online, child porn site is a child staring right back at Mr Pete Townsend. Where did this child come from? How did the child end up getting there?
Just how has this 'market' been established?

now that's food for thought is it not?

Is it functional to eroticise American 'kiddie' beauty pageant contestants? Doesn't that in some way expose a young girl to elements that are more appropriate for an adult woman? What will the young girl evolve into when she reaches adolescence when she has been 'conditioned' to 'perform' from the age of 3?
This is a different type of eroticism, but it's there, and people do it to their children because 'it's there', just like various 'marriage' laws are 'there' etc. It's 'creative', it can be lucrative etc etc. Yes this example is a 'real' example, but it often is closely related to fantasy: parents wanting 'recognition' for something so they get it through the pageants for example.



Then on the opposite end of the spectrum there are children that perhaps mature faster in terms of their own upbringing, whether they have been exposed to sexual abuse or not, it's been noted that children that have been exposed to abuse often enter sexual relationships 'quickly' or at an earlier age etc, but this is all related to the fact that this is what they have 'learned', it doesn't necessarily mean they are sexually 'developed'.

Pavlovian Conditioning isn't just a concept that is isolated to training dogs to salivate, humans utilise this on other humans, and many people utilise it on themselves the most..and some don't even realise that they have conditioned themselves, for various reasons.


There may be some grey areas, as this all depends on the time and society we live in. So in relation to what laws dictate what in terms of marriage etc.
We don't by and large live in a society where the 'financial' security of a female is necessary through possible marriage, hence laws that were drafted (some of them who knows when), and I'm talking about most nations in the Western world now.
Sure it might differ in the Middle East, or in nations where there is a high incidence of poverty, or in cultural groups where arranged marriage between teens and sometimes children (Romany gypsies) is arranged, but this doesn't necessarily 'mean' that the child in question can 'handle' it, these practices are largely practices that were popular in peasant society - and I don't mean peasant in a derogatory sense here, it's a combination of low finances, low education etc. The majority of individuals in this day and age aren't peasants to marry off their daughters at a very young age, or seek a suitable 'husband' for their daughters lest their daughters 'starve' or to raise their offspring with the mentality that 'their only purpose in life is to marry, go forth and multiply, so that be it'.

If we all lived say, four hundred years ago, or even two hundred years ago, say in France, and not in Edwardian or Victorian England, the society being in a different time and place our opinions would slant toward the more 'libertine' way of thinking, however we live in the age we live in now. Things are different.

[Finding_Fantasy]

I have tried to come up with a reasonable, well thoughtout arguement as to why I fell that having rape of anyone of any age of any sex should be allowed, but I cannot.

I just do not see why it is such a horrible thing. (the writing about it not the doing it) Let's put the child raping thing aside and look simply at raping. Rape is a horrible act. Plain and simple. To just simply violate someone in such a way is wrong.

However, that being said, a lot of famous authors use it as a tool for excitement and thrill in their stories. An example: In Mercedes Lackey's book Magic's Price, her main character is gay. In one part of the story he his beaten and raped repeatedly and she is a world famous author of fantasy and fiction.

Did it bother me that Vanyel was beaten and raped? Well, no becuse I knew it was a fictional character. He had no real emotions. Sure I wanted to see the men who did it to him get caught, but I did not get upset. Now, when I read the account of Paul Bernardo who raped dozens of women and raped and murdered two young teenage girls, I got angry. Why? Because it really happened.

I distiguished between fact and fiction. I knew that when Vanyel was raped that it was just a work of fiction, a tool to entertain so I did not get bent out of shape about it. But what Paul Bernardo did was horrid and hope he burns in hell for it because he really did rape and murder.

I don't know if it makes any sense but there it is at any rate.

As for places like random house not publishing erotica, well, I do know of at least one major publisher that does publish erotica and that is double day. I know this because I have it sitting in front of me in a book I have with literally thousands of publishers listed by genre. There is quite a list of publishers who deal in erotica actually.

That being said, I have stated my opinion. However, I would ask one thing:

Do not berate me. If you have an objection, please keep it civil. I can see that this is a tough topic and people are getting a little hot under the collar. There is no need for snide remarks. :) Fight nice boys and girls.

[Thorne]

Originally posted by Cleo671
We can get all academic here and argue until the cows come home about the concept of 'what is a child' when the reality is 'common sense usually prevails'

It's a nice thought, but I find that, more often than not, common sense is in short supply. Especially when it comes to things which do not directly affect ourselves. There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.


What is a child? Well I have a child, and I know what a child is, but I also observe children playing and it ought to be simple as to what a 'child' is. Just like other people have children, whether in 'here' or out there.

I tend to agree with you, at least under what we would consider normal conditions. But some children in this world, even in this country, grow up faster than others. Some are forced to grow up due to abuse, as you noted. Some due to economic conditions. A young person in a 3rd world country, or perhaps in Appalachia, who has had to work, and work hard, almost from the time they are able to walk, is going to be emotionally more mature than a child who is free to play the days away. This is not a pleasant thought, but it happens all the time. And a young person growing up in a one-room shack, watching his parents engaging in sexual activity because they have no room for privacy, can become sexually mature at an earlier age, even without being abused.



If we all lived say, four hundred years ago, or even two hundred years ago, say in France, and not in Edwardian or Victorian England, the society being in a different time and place our opinions would slant toward the more 'libertine' way of thinking, however we live in the age we live in now. Things are different.

If things were truly different we wouldn't be having this discussion. The biggest difference between now and 100 years ago is the speed at which information is disseminated through society. That and the fact that things like sexual predators and child abusers/molesters are no longer protected by the "silent majority". 100 years ago people did not want to hear about things like child abuse and molestation, or about rape or spousal abuse, or almost any other sexual matter. Parents could literally beat their children to death in the name of discipline and more often than not get away with it. (Now, of course, a parent who slaps a child's hand in a supermarket can wind up being arrested and losing custody of that child. The pendulum has swung too far!)

All that being said, I must say that, in general, I agree with Cleo671. We all know what a child is, and I think we all know that those who can even fantasize about abusing a child might need to seek out some help. To my mind, the only possible reason for focusing on children sexually is because you are afraid of relationships with adults, or you are an emotional child yourself. Either way, get help.

For those out there who would abuse children (or spouses, for that matter), you are cowards, capable only of attacking those weaker than yourselves. The only help for you would be to put a .45 caliber hole in your head. But that would take more courage than you have.

[Kallie Thomas]

You know something?
If your so called 'argument' was valid and had valid points, then every mainstream publisher from Random House
to Viking would publish 'child-minor' erotica.

But Kallie, get this, they don't.. oh my God!! What a travesty of freedom of speech right there huh?

Are you really suggesting that if Random House doesn't publish a genre, it must be invalid? Is your personal paradigm so narrow that it is defined by the dictates of publishing powerhouses? They turned down Stephen King for years, you know. I guess he just wasn't worth reading then, his work was, until accepted by a major, mainstream publishing firm, invalid.

Take a look around, hon--NONE of this stuff is "mainstream publisher" friendly. Guess not an author here has put out any work that you would consider "valid."

You seem so lost in this debate--it was never about "freedom of speech" as laid out in the Constitution. THIS isn't a democracy--it's a privately owned website, and as such, the OWNER of this site gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable. This is a privately owned site that deals pretty much exclusively in the electronic publication of what is widely considered pornography. So for you to cough up the argument that if Random House doesn't publish it, it's not valid, is beyond ridiculous. If THAT is your criteria for determining the worth of a fictional piece, you may be in the wrong place. Viking likely has forums you'd be more comfortable in.

And btw, check out those crappy, cookie-cutter VC Andrews books sometime. Wildly popular, published by "mainstream" publishers, and--oops, full of child abuse for the sake of titillating the reader. Molestation and rape of children, sexual abuse, incestuous relationships between children, etc.

Nasty stuff--and on the bestseller lists, too!

Kallie

[Kallie Thomas]

haha..
yes let's stick to the 'fiction' is fiction debate, it's concrete.
Im so happy for you that you masturbated over Shaun Cassidy,
but that's 'you', I used to masturbate over Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran..
and ?
Does that mean that 'every single' my age at that time masturbates?
No it doesn't.
So who am I to sit there and make that generalisation 'just because I did' therefore everyone does,
therefore 'why not'. So just because I might have had a sexual awakening, hey I might as well write
'fiction' relating to it. Great argument right there, it justfies everything.


ROFL, you ARE lost! You're the one who brought up masturbation and fiction, hon. And hey--if you want to write about yourself and Simon Le Bon, why SHOULDN'T you? Sounds boring as all get out to me (unless he tied you up and pounded you mercilessly on stage), but hey, if it works for you, by all means, write it! After all, it's fiction, right?

I'm sorry--you're not able to hold up your end of the debate here. You really do seem confused, unable to identify, let alone stick to the subject. And I'm tired of trying to follow you along on your little leaps of "logic." Thus far, all you've succeeded in establishing is that:

1) You don't like sexual fiction involving children.

2) You have a definition of "child" that cannot be pinned down, but gosh, you know it when you see it.

3) You think that if a piece of fiction isn't mainstream, it isn't valid.

4) You believe that people who disagree with you on this subject are immoral or mentally sick.

5) You wanted to fuck Simon Le Bon.

6) You need a proofreader (I am available)

7) You can't debate to save your life.


Interesting, but not interesting enough to keep me banging away at this. So have at it, hon--you've managed, finally, to bore me.

Happy New Year!

Kallie

[alebeard42]

The violation of innocence, the terror imposed on it.
Common themes in stories on this site, common themes in the Genre
Is rape bad? of course, so is murder, so is war, so are many things.You look around at kids and decide whether its ok to fantasize about em? very odd way to think of things
look around at adults and decide if its ok to rape them, to kill them? certainly they would not mind right? Is it ok to write about raping and killing them? I mean, if they are of legal age to be raped and killed and all.
cause thats what we are talkiing about. ya know, making sure someone is of mature and sound mind to be raped and tortured horribly, cause we wana make sure they understand whats going on really really well. I mean If I was gonna go out raping and pillaging, I would check ID"s first, throw the 17 year olds back, cause I am just sure that somehow if I am committing the crimes of rape, torture and kidnapping, I dont want to get in any furtur trouble. Me personally, once a character dips below a certain age, it usually isnt a story for me, so I move on to another one, try that

[Cleo671]

Originally posted by Kallie Thomas
(5) You wanted to fuck Simon Le Bon.

6) You need a proofreader (I am available)

7) You can't debate to save your life.


Interesting, but not interesting enough to keep me banging away at this. So have at it, hon--you've managed, finally, to bore me.

Happy New Year!

Kallie

Correction. There is a difference between 'wanted' and to 'want' in the present time for point '5'.

As for your proofreading offer? No thanks, I already work in publishing thank you and I don't need your 'validation' as to whether I can debate or proofread.
Finally,
'sticks and stones Kallie'.

I hope you have a happier New Year than what I do, and I really mean that.



:D

[Alex Bragi]

Recently I read about the downfall of internet porn king, Tom Reedy, whose defense was – the photographs posted, which shocked and distressed hardened Dallas police - were computer generated, no children were harmed. Should, people be allowed to view computer generated kiddy porn and/or be allowed to read about it? Is a picture more offensive than a story? In my humble opinion, a story written by a skilled author is far more vivid.

As for the ‘age of consent’. I feel it has little to do with the ‘child’ and everything to do with the ‘adult’ enjoying it. If the characters in a story or photo shoot are portrayed as young and innocent children, for the purpose of sexual titillation, certainly I think that amounts to kiddy porn.

Personally, I just don’t feel comfortable with this kind of appetite is being fed. As much as anything, I think it’s like eating carob - it tastes ok for a while, but then you really just have to have some chocolate.

I noticed none of these posts contain the dreaded ‘p’ word. Well, if you enjoy reading, watching, or looking at pics of kids being abused and/or having sex, that’s what you are – you’re a paedophile!

[alebeard42]

So, by this logic, if you enjoy war movies your a soldier?
If you watch a horror film your a killer?
there is a difference between doing, and the fantasy of
Many peoples fantasies may happen to have teen age characters in them because they themselves developed these fantasies when they were teenagers.
To police fantasy is to police thought
It is a road that anyone who values freedom can ill afford to go down

[Alex Bragi]

Hi Ale,

That’s an interesting argument.

I would counter it by saying most people have an urge for sex, but few have one for killing, so I feel the stretch between fantasy and reality is much greater for the latter.

I love good shoot ‘em movie or book. I become totally immersed in the fantasy, only a very short time later my suspended belief is broken, and I don’t have the urge to commit murder. On the other hand if I read or watch exotica or porn, just between you and me and any one else reading this, there’s really only one solution for what I’m feeling afterwards. So you You see there is a difference.

I think too teenagers are in category all of their own from ‘children.’ The people who repulse me are the paedophiles who are inclined towards prepubescent children. I believe it’s totally wrong to pander to their wants, and on that issue, I won’t be swayed.

I know this is an awkward question, but I’ll ask anyway. Do you think Tom Reedy should have been found not guilty if he could have proven beyond a doubt that his bdsm kiddy porn pictures were, as he claimed, computer generated and total fantasy?

Ale (x) (and not so hairy :))

[alebeard42]

I personally tend to agree about the children as compared to teen fantasy, there is a line there as to what for me is accrptable personally
having said that, I am not really willing to censor or control someone elses fantasy. I dont nessisarily like it, but I dont really have to like something to belive someone has a right to it
Does it pander to pedophilia, yes, I belive it does, but does that mean it immoral on its base?
Most people who watch violent movies are not violent, but certainly a study of violent personalities might show most watch violent films, do the films cause the violence or would the people be violent anyway?
Child abuse, rape, violence and the atrocities of the world predate mass media by a very long time. The worst instances of violence in our nation and the world certanly happened before movies and the net. Would I find him guilty if I were a Juror? no, I dont think I would. But I would liely find the material highly unsettling. The line between reality and thought is an important one. it opens a door to arguments that quickly become a threat.
Is music at faut for kids doing drugs? do writings exploring fantasy equal the preforming of those fantasies?
Where is the line between the literary and the erotic?
and in a cruel twist, what about the child rapist who comes back and argues that he is not wholely responsible for his actions, that the drawings made him do it?
Child abuse is one of the most hotwired buttons into our feelings, it brings up anger and hatred and dread and rightly so.
But in making laws we need to consider the impact on the whole against liberty and weigh it carefully against the safety of human beings. Does outlawinng drawings and stories really make any child safer or does it simply censor what disturbs us?

[Curtis]

Computer generated pictures have entered into a really hazy grey area as the technology has advanced. At one time there would've been no difference between a computer generation and an animation or cartoon, but now some of them are insistinguishable (to my eye, anyway) from real life.

Someone a lot smarter than I am once said, "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference", and someone else had a saying about a difference without a distinction. The question really becomes then, should a person creating generations of rapes or murders be held to the same standards as someone who actually films live rapes and murders, or to the standards of someone who makes movies about fictional rapes and murders?

Put that way, it would seem that computer generations are just movies made with non-union labor (he said as he put down his mouse and backed slowly away from his computer).

[Spitman]

Emotionally I agree with most of what Cleo671 has said. It is interesting to note the difference in tone between her posts and KallieÕs replies, in which the argument is caught up in often vituperative emotion.

Alebeard42 raised an interesting issue, asking whether censorship really makes a child safe. I donÕt know the answer, because much of the opinion does not seem to be founded on sound evidence. Do people that way inclined regard kiddy porn as a substitute for the real thing, or does it just intensifies the obsession, or does it depend on the individual, and if so, what determines which it is? Could it be IQ, or is it having been abused, or is it related to the ability to see fantasy as something separate from what happens in the real world? All of these might be part of the answer.

Asking whether people Ôthat way inclinedÕ regard kiddy porn as a substite for the Ôreal thingÕ is actually a question full of pre-judgements. Are people Ôthat way inclinedÕ, if they have no interest in Ôthe real thingÕ? Is it possible to answer questions like this if all of the research is always based exclusively on offenders? Surely offenders represent the wrong kind of minority here. We need studies that show why large numbers of people who might like the porn have had no inclination to offend, and that applies to every kind of erotica, literary and otherwise.

The big problem for anyone trying to keep children safe by locking up everyone who is interested in porn is that due to inadequate research and worse argument they are creating a problem much too big to solve. The only way to make it manageable is to understand a lot better what distinguishes offenders from those who have no inclination to harm children. The wrong distinction to choose is an interest in porn.

Personally I find the abuse of young children disturbing, whether the abuse is physical, sexual or psychological. What characterises the kind of thing that disturbs me is that it is centred on the pleasure of the perpetrator of the abuse. There is little or no attention given to the thoughts, feelings or wishes of the victim. I cannot see such writing as in any way erotic, but I cannot exclude that there are some who do find it erotic and have no inclination to do something similar to a real child. It does seem counterintuitive to me, but there is simply not enough of the right kind of evidence to be sure.

Looking at this from the perspective of a writer, my own writing was more violent when I was younger. Writing was an outlet for my feelings of aggression and sexual frustration. None of this reflected my actual behaviour.

Getting back to what is acceptable in fiction, this leads on to a point that has not previously emerged from the discussion. Having fantasies about doing harm to children is very different from having fantasies about being a child that has sexual feelings, and an inclination towards submission, masochism or even incest. We have all been a child, and it is idiotic to pretend that because there are age-based legal restrictions on sexual activity, these also apply to sexual development. What is in ourselves I feel that we are fully entitled to explore, especially in fiction.

[j]

'Having fantasies about doing harm to children is very different from having fantasies about being a child that has sexual feelings, and an inclination towards submission, masochism or even incest. '

Agreeing totally with the rest of your post, I might add that we can harbor "fantasies AND MEMORIES about being a child that has ...". I hope I am not alone in having started daydreaming at a fairly tender age...

[agp_millie]

In regards to underaged sex, i'm generally a dis-approver. However, from my own experience, when 14 yrs. old, I stayed with my Uncle on his farm for the school summer break.

During my time, (his wife had left him and he had no children) he taught me 'logically' how beneficial male Protein was for growing girls. At 14, i was already verging on C cup and 3rd. biggest in my age group, for overall height, weight etc. Anyway, having been fed Protein by Uncle for 6 weeks, I couldn't wait to tell my school b/f. who promptly told his friends etc. and i am sure i failed College, because of my extra ciriculumcum.

However, would i have been such a healthy, smooth complexioned hu-cow now, if i hadn't. One thing's for sure, male Protein is good for complexion. As for rest, well my mom is a saggy H cup. and i never liked to ask her. (smile)

So, i guess, depending on circumstances. If need good education and not worried about Acne, don't listen to Uncles.

[rallan]

Personally I don't see why it should be treated as somehow different from the portrayal of any other nasty act. Yes it's horrible, yes it's bad, but so what? Nobody on this thread is claiming that the movie Kill Bill (which y'all might recall is nothing but a wall-to-wall bloodbath of gratuitious violence that serves no purpose except to amuse and excite the audience) puts people at a greater risk of being brutally cut up or gunned down just because it portrays extreme violence as a fun event to be applauded.

And meanwhile if we start banning stories because of content people object to, I'm afraid I'd have to ask for about half the archive to be deleted as being too offensive for me :)



rallan

[Mobius]

Comments and Suggestions?

So that I do not hijack the thread here is my two cents on the subject

There are things that is Socially acceptable for a story and there are things that are not

Unfortunately Murder and Nuclear holocaust are Socially acceptable. Most People in there right mind can read a book on either subject and not commit the act.

However There are those sick individuals that can not discern the difference between fiction and real life.

Usually they vote Democrat (just Joking) :)

So that is why there is a stigma about reading a story about underage sex/Rape/Consensual or not.
Just my two cents (If it was already covered sorry I did not read the whole thread. :)

As for me. I do not mind a good story about the NC Rape of a minor. But Rape is not my thing. Frankly it bores me.
Now Mom and a Daughter getting in on BDSM that and a good cheeseburger and you have made my day.

[GaryWilcox]

Why is this being posted in Comments and Suggestions? Because it began as a debate about the forum policy regarding what age is too young to depict characters in rape scenes in the Library.