|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are boring me, this is the last reaction from me you will get. You are not argueing any point. You are dancing around, picking out sentences and grading them for logical grammar. You change the subject, continue to argue imaginary worlds, but then criticize us for 'vagarities' or 'logical fallicies'. Obviously if you had any hard evidence, any real point to make, you would have come here prepared to defend it. Instead you make wild statements and refuse to back them up with relevant evidence. The onus is not on any of us. You came here to our board. You made a contradicting statement, but you cannot or will not back it up. Not my problem.
I suppose you have enjoyed pretending you are playing with us. I suppose you have been sitting back feeling so superior and intellectual, at least that is the attitude which is coming across.
Well, all you have done is given us a reminder that there is a lot of work to be done, and some incentive to go out and accomplish something. I for one have decided to picket 'Birth' if it comes out in theatres. Pedophilia is not funny, it is not imaginary, and it certainly is not something to disregard.
I quite frankly do not care what you feel about the subject. I am going to spend tomorrow with Dave and our kids, and not give you another thought.
Good Night.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:59 AM September 12th, 2004 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
" Instead you make wild statements and refuse to back them up with relevant evidence."
Rational arguement is based on arguement, not empirical observation / 'evidence'. When local fallcies I point out are used then conclusions are not supported by the arguement.
"I suppose you..."
You use 'you' a lot, usually followed by assumptions or attributions not supported given the facts. Incidently this is called argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy, that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.
If you have any intention of becoming a clearer thinker then it maybe a good idea to stop using these fallacies.
Perhaps next time instead of a diatribe, you'll answer some of the questions I've posed more than once including:
1) If you think Kidman should be jailed, exactly what do you propose she be charged with.
2) Explain how 'normal' kissing is ok, but 'sexual' kissing suddenly engenders harm.
3) Explain how a penis going into one hole or being stimulated one way is ok, but going into another hole or being stimulated another way is harmful.
Keep these questions in mind for the next time this issue comes up. This issue has not be resolved and will not be until people argue clearly and rationally and can answer some simple questions instead of dodging.
Good day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"1) If you think Kidman should be jailed, exactly what do you propose she be charged with. "
I do not have enough information to say whether or not she should be jailed or specifically which laws she may have broken. I do think that an investigation as to whether or not any laws were broken and who all broke them in the filming of the increasingly notorious scene is warranted.
"2) Explain how 'normal' kissing is ok, but 'sexual' kissing suddenly engenders harm.
3) Explain how a penis going into one hole or being stimulated one way is ok, but going into another hole or being stimulated another way is harmful. "
Those are not simple questions. Psychological harm is a very tricky area, and even the experts in the field don't have all the answers. There are reasons for this however. For starters, it is completely unethical to put people in situations to empirically determine whether or not those situations cause psychological harm. We know that many people have been harmed psychologically from being raped. Some people also claim to have been raped and not suffered much mental anguish at all because of it. The scientific method of inquiry would be to select a sufficiently large sample size of people, and rape them in various ways, and then analyze the data to see which forms of rape are how harmful, why that's the case, who is more likely to be harmed by which methods, etc. Obviously this is one area in which we cannot use the standard scientific method to get the empirical data we'd like to have. The same is true with putting children and adults in sexual situations.
Instead, we have to make judgement calls as best as we can. Following the old adage "It's better safe than sorry", the US and many other countries have made sexual relations between an adult and a child illegal. We know that sometimes sexual acts cause great damage to children, (I imagine many experts would argue that they always do), but we don't know exactly how or why. So in order to protect our children, the law and society in general has adapted a very intolerant attitude towards any adult-child sexual behavior. Are there some things in this category which are not harmful and should be considered ok? Perhaps, but due to the ethics involved in research this is one of those situations in which it's up to those who wish to see those acts sanctioned to demonstrate that they are not harmful, rather than risk harming children to prove otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a bad dream last night, but upon waking it put into words what I really have needed to say here, what this Anon is not understanding.
When I had both my sons, I breastfed. Now the men on this board will have to take it from me, but let me say that nursing a child is a profoundly powerful thing. Combine intense love, a physical reaction and hormones and you get something amazing. However, no matter how powerful it was, it was NOT SEXUAL. It is hard to explain. I guess if I were a man I would not have gotten an erection. When I would be with Dave in the months I was nursing, I was so careful to leave space between nursing and sex, because I did not want to blur the lines. Even though the same act was occuring, the feelings were completely different. I did not feel maternal towards Dave, and I did not feel sexual towards my kids. Same act, different emotions.
When I had sex for the first time, I was drugged up and in a city, and had never met the man before. I was scared, confused, and far too young to be making those kind of decisions. My first expirience I still have nightmares about, like the one last night. That expirience put me in a frame of mind, and having a lot of unsupervised free time, that I went on to have many, many more such expiriences. My mind was searching for love and acceptance,and my body only knew one way to get it.
The few times I really did come to love someone, I was too confused to realize the difference.
Dave has been the only one who stuck it out, and I stuck it out. After 11 years I realize that I had no clue what the difference between love and sex was. I had no clue what sex could be. It was alway just put tab A into slot B, and I thought that the reason I felt so lost and unloved was the choice of men.
Yes, this is my personal expirience. Not everyone feels this way. However, since I am not an alien, I have to assume I am not THAT out of the norm. Love vs sex is not new, it has been written about, filmed, talked about. Anias Nin says sex without poetry, without emotion, is empty. The mechanics of sex alone will send one into chastity. I agree with her.
Sex is not about putting slot A into slot B. Maybe if we were monkeys or alligators or mice it would be. We are evolved creatures, and sex is a way of communicating intense love for each other. Anything less and the sex is not what it could be.
If sex were only the mechanics, then I don't think that people would really care about child pornography. In some sci-fi worlds sex has been reduced to entertainment (1984). Something you do with partners, but not the same partner too many times. However, human emotion always seems to slide in there.
As adults, what is going to mean love to these children? A child and an adult do not relate on the same level. Part of becoming an adult is learning to be seen in different ways, to see in different ways. Teenagers start to relate to each other in ways that are not childish. As they grow they become aware that they have new feelings. The reason teens are so difficult is they are trying to change the relastionships around them from child/adult to adult/adult. Their sexual life is an important step, even if it does not include penetration. Just feeling sexual can make the difference in how they deal with everyone. It is the ultimate wedge between childhood and adult hood. If children become sexual in pre-teen or early childhood years, we do not know what will happen. As it is, we see the beginnings already, and children are not benefitting.
Today the lines between child and adult are being blurred. Pre-teens are wearing thongs, kids are watching vidios depicting actual sex, etc. Here is the problem. Children are not equipted to deal with sex. Pregancy, STDs, and emotional health are all tied into sex. Children cannot even make sure they eat vegetables, let alone wear a condom.
So we have epidemics of teen pregnancy, of abortions, of STDs among teens. Am I an alarmist? Maybe. I have two young boys, and I am protective. I really do not care if that is not logical, emotion is not logical. I am not a Vulcan.
When I kiss and hug my children, I do not feel sexual, I feel full of love. That is the same I felt as a child when my father kissed or hugged me. Children do NOT NEED sexual contact. Adults WANT sexual contact with them. All this trying to justify sexual content with children is not based on the needs or wants of the child, it is based on the wants of a few adults.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:40 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen.
BINGO! That was beautiful!
Just about the BEST troll smack-down I've ever witnessed!
Thank you.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know Thundercloud, if we ever meet you are going to get one hell of a bear hug!
~TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:25 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
That'd be great, Jen.
But I dunno if you could get your arms around me..,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
"When I had both my sons, I breastfed. However, no matter how powerful it was, it was NOT SEXUAL."
A one person example is of course the fallacy of biased sample, just in case you were going anywhere with this arguement.
If it were sexual, say you were like other women who had an orgasm while breast feeding, would that make you a bad person? If yes, say why.
"However, since I am not an alien, I have to assume I am not THAT out of the norm."
You do not have the luxery of assuming a 1 person sample is representative. It is the fallacy of biased sample, no matter how much you assume or hope otherwise.
"Sex is a way of communicating intense love for each other. Anything less and the sex is not what it could be. "
I dont quite understand your point here. Do you think pedophiles feel love for children, and if not why not.
"When I kiss and hug my children, I do not feel sexual, I feel full of love."
Incest seems different then then issue of pedophilia / child sexuality. I am sure there are pedophiles who are not attracted to their own children, if they have any - because they dislike incest, but are attracted to other children.
"All this trying to justify sexual content with children is not based on the needs or wants of the child, it is based on the wants of a few adults. "
This is quite interesting. Undoubtly it is no doubt true that a pedophile acts on his or her own desires, but is it not possible that children are sexual (not only possible, but seemingly very likely) and their wants could be fufilled as well (with sex play with another child, or another person?).
The assumption that children are not sexual maybe at play here. Do you (anyone here) they are not? If they are then they would seem to have sexual desires (needs/wants) as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:24 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
...and the Trolling continued through the night...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the MANY reasons why I am NOT EVER having children.
The Reasons: There are SIX-BILLION PEOPLE[PLUS] on the planet and we can't even feed them all, educate them, protect them from genocide, pedophiles, obesisty, discrimination, war, disease, famine, criminals of all walks of life, and we can't protect from injustice, and the earth needs a break from billions of stupid humans for a few millenia. (I am NOT a tree-hugging-hippie, I LOVE fur, hunting, meat, the H2 Hummer, and pick-up trucks, but I don't want the planet I live on crumble beneath my feet due to bad enviromental policies)
The other reason is the whole fear I have of instilling an Oedipus Complex within my child should they be male and going on some psycho-matriarchal-megalomania-ego-trip all because a human being popped out of my vagina. That is what fuels A LOT of women's bloated egos. That whole mother-goddess matriarchy bullsh*t!
By the way, ancient matriarchal societies were VERY PRIMITIVE AND BARBARIC, and more superstitious and backward thinking than even Europe during the dark ages. At least the Catholic Church never sanctioned human sacrifices and genital mutilation like Matriarchies!
And orgasms while breast-feeding?!!! WTF?!!! That's matriarchal megalomania! And pedophilia! Any woman who does that should be locked away for a CENTURY or two in prison, be registered as a sex-offender, be denied the right to move into suburbs or any neighborhood near children or schools. Lose her job and be publically humiliated like any other sex-offender!
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:45 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
It was good of someone to actually reply to my questions.
"We know that many people have been harmed psychologically from being raped. Some people also claim to have been raped and not suffered much mental anguish at all because of it."
There seems to be a difference between forced sexual intercourse with a child (i.e. the child is crying, and obviously does not like any of it) and the situation where the child is willing and or interested.
"The scientific method of inquiry..."
There are many situations in which it would not be possible to assign a group to a procedure because of ethical issues but statistical and scientific analysis is still possible. Possible, but who is looking at this issue that hasn't been scared away, esp. when the U.S. Senate condemns their studies (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al. ).
Since many here seem to enjoy little anecdotes, I have one here. Remember: Anecdotes prove *nothing* (since it is the fallacy of biased sample among other things) other than to give a possible example to help people better understand.
-- http://www.afn.org/~afn09744/childhood --
He continues with an account I cannot independently verify: "A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second....
Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"
--
"It's better safe than sorry"
This justification does not seem strong enough to defend the hysteria surrounding the issue of child sexuality. Why isn't it a strong enough justification? Well, because 'better safe then sorry; can be used to justify almost anything. For example: The segeration of marrage "Blacks should not marry whites in case it pollutes the gene pool" ; "Gays should not be allowed to have anal sexual intercourse in case it harms society" ; "Women should not be permitted to work since children raised in a 2 working parent home may grow up warped" and on and on.
Better safe then sorry seems only useful when the risks are large and the potential damage is huge. The few studies that have been done (like Rind et. al, link provided already) suggest the harm done is due to society viewing children who had sexual relationships with adults as 'victims' or 'tainted / warped' esp. if they do anything but condemn the relationship.
We have made progress, however. We know that 'better safe they sorry' is likely not a justification; and that the issue is murky since the exact psychological harm, if any exists, can also be indeterminate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why isn't it a strong enough justification? Well, because 'better safe then sorry; can be used to justify almost anything."
I'm not about to consider a justification for an action (or set of actions) to be less valid based solely on inductive evidence of it being wrong when applied to dissimilar situations. "Almost anything" includes a whole bunch of dissimilar, (and thus unworthy of consideration), analogies, (by definition, all inductive arguments are in fact composed of nothing more than multiple analogies).
"Better safe then sorry seems only useful when the risks are large and the potential damage is huge."
I'll go along with the idea that degree of risk and potential damage are the factors which determine whether a "better safe than sorry" approach is the most wise course of action, although I don't think they both always need to be exceedingly high in order to justify it, (for example, I think if a course of action has only a 3% chance of destroying the world, it should still be avoided). In this case, I believe the risks and the damage do justify that approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! a brand new excuse for pedophilia! It wasn't a little girl, it was my dead wife in a little girls body!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the no-doubt clever Hollywood plot device that gets around the actual charge of female sexual abuse/pedophilia...
The actual images in the movie are that of a forty year-old Aussie second-rate actress in a sex scene with ten year-old male actor.
Perhaps a better spin would have been to have the boy be a reincarnated embodiment of her long-lost dog!
Now that would be breaking new cinematic ground!
And for Ms. Kidman... not much of a stretch.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey, I found this while I was looking around.
http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/
This guy looks like he has done his homework, on Monday I am going to track down some of his references.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, its an adult man in a boy's body. If the purpose of anti molestation laws is to protect children who are unable to make informed decisions, this is not the case in this situation as the 'boy' is competent as an adult.
Really... so the child actor in the film... had the mental development and personality of an adult man. Even if you're referring to the character, that stupid scenario is:
a) Unimitatible sans for REAL child molestation
b) A foolish excuse to cause controversey
c) Repulsive as an idea in itself
Unless you're pro-girl-abusing movies as well (it could be his ex-girlfriend's brain caught in subspace! Holy Technobabble, Batman!) then you're a hypocrite. If you're FOR both male/female movies where children are molested sexually, then you're just sick in so many other ways.
Any portrayal of a legally underage (mentally or phisically) human being engaging in sexual activity with a legal adult is wrong. No matter the context or style, it is still sick and wrong. Not just as a "cultural taboo"; research shows serious mental trauma for children who are molested.
If at anytime any scientist or film maker tries to address this issue is booed, then no progress will be made.
Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to hold back the amazing modern development of Mind and Personality Transfer Devices in the scientific community.
Whoops, let me adjust the Sarcasm Dial here.
But seriously, there was this thing on Stargate that could do that.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:12 PM September 9th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Any portrayal of a legally underage (mentally or phisically) human being engaging in sexual activity with a legal adult is wrong. No matter the context or style, it is still sick and wrong. Not just as a "cultural taboo"; research shows serious mental trauma for children who are molested. "
I don't think you read much, if at all. Fiction, especially science fiction, is usually nothing but sexual intercourse including that of children. (Asimov, the science prude, even included it in his Caves of Steel novel series which was somewhat surprising).
Before we ban Romeo and Juilet, I think some rational thought is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What??
"I don't think you read much, if at all. Fiction, especially science fiction, is usually nothing but sexual intercourse including that of children"
I read a great deal, including sci-fi, and I have never read about children having sex with adults as acceptable. P Anthony included some sexual content but between children the same age.
Romeo and Juliet is about mutual TEENAGE romance. There is no connection with an adult predator targeting a ten year old.
Try another angle, this one isn't working. Rational thought says an adult having any sexual contact with a 10 year old is wrong. There is no way of rationalizing it.
The Biscuit Queen and
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:44 PM September 9th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"I read a great deal, including sci-fi, and I have never read about children having sex with adults as acceptable."
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Oryx and Crake - Margaret Atwood
Homecoming Series - Orson Scott Card
The Dark Beyond the Stars - Frank M. Robinson
The trilogy A Requiem for Homo Sapiens - David Zindell
And many more, although I have not read all that much Sci Fi.
These stories contain child sexuality to one extent to another, are they on your target list for immediate burning now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These stories contain child sexuality to one extent to another, are they on your target list for immediate burning now?
I don't read much fiction. Of your list, I've only read Brave New World and that was 25 years ago. I don't recall anything similar to the Kidman scene.
But if any of your books portray sexual relations between a 37-year old human man and a 10-year old human girl in a positive light, then yes, I would recommend that they be burned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:57 PM September 9th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"But if any of your books portray sexual relations between a 37-year old human man and a 10-year old human girl in a positive light, then yes, I would recommend that they be burned."
37/10 is pretty specific, so I guess these are safe, for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These books are written by an adult, and regardless of what is written in them, children are not involved.(I still haven't seen any real evidence of anything like you say occured in the books.) Your point is moot. This movie involved an 11 year old actor placed in an inappropriate situation with an adult actress. This child is the one who was assaulted, and the movie which resulted is quite frankly irrelevant.
People in the theatres will voice their opinion, and others, like myself, will boycot the film. For all your complaining that we are "book burning", you seem all too ready to take away our right to voice our opinion. This movie is sick to us. That is our opinion, and you have no right to come on this board and tell us we cannot have that opinion. This movie is indicitive of a larger problem of boys and men being seen as less than human, and that too is our opinion. If you do not like our opinions, either go away or make an actual arguement.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"People in the theatres will voice their opinion, and others, like myself, will boycot the film. For all your complaining that we are "book burning", you seem all too ready to take away our right to voice our opinion."
Yes, there's a vast difference between a boycott and censorship...although I'm not ruling out the possibility that placing a child even in a scene of SIMULATED sex or other inappropriate activity is child abuse...
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
AU must be some sick woman/feminist that should be locked up.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
This movie and many like it that have been made recently are obviously done to "normalize" female pedophilia in western culture.
From what I'm hearing, though, perhaps it is not working.
...Perhaps.
As far as our Troll is conserned, People like them don't GET IT, because they don't WANT to get it.
I'd really be interested in hearing this Troll's oppinion if this movie depicted a 30-ish adult male seduceing a 10 year old FEMALE. If the Troll thinks THAT'S okay, too, then he/she is obviously a pedophile himself/herself. If so maybe Scott might want to consider banning this troll from the site. I, personaly have NO tolernce for pedophiles WHAT SO EVER!
I doubt I'm alone, here.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:04 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
If it makes it easier not to have to think about what I am saying by calling me a 'troll' then perhaps that maybe a shortcut in (non)thinking you may want to reconsider.
Point 1: acting is not reality. Point 2: anything short of direct genital stimuation or insertion, in the film, is currently *legal*.
" I, personaly have NO tolernce for pedophiles WHAT SO EVER! "
I'd guess that there exists pedophilies that choose not to engage sexually with children for personal, perhaps moral, reasons. Is it pedophiles you dislike, and far as I know it is *not* illegal being one, or perhaps you mean child molesters?
Aside: Hopefully we get some intelligent debate going on here, since the normal hysteria surrounding this issue can easily be found elsewhere - and doesnt seem to resolve anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:17 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Even a film can cause damage:
a) by setting social precedents
b) by causing flashbacks to victims of abuse.
You are obviuosly totally ignorant and your feeble attempts to make excuses for female paedophillia are immoral and offensive.
I was sexually abused as a child, by a female, and I'm a man. I didn't enjoy it, and I find this film and you totally offensive.
Wake up. Learn what you are talking about befoer you speak, and GET A LIFE. Cretin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:34 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Even a film can cause damage:
a) by setting social precedents
b) by causing flashbacks to victims of abuse.
If the social prescident occured that child sexuality was ok, i.e. ancient greece, they no more damage would be done wouldn't it? Unless you think that child sexuality is so damaging that it can destroy a society (oopse, no wait the Greeks are still around, and they managed to create modern western civilization as well, hmmmm...).
I guess we have to ban that Sun Block image of the dog pulling down the girls pants, or violent films to prevent war veterns from 'flashbacks'.
"I was sexually abused as a child, by a female, and I'm a man. I didn't enjoy it, and I find this film and you totally offensive. "
Im sure you didn't, but have you asked around, perhaps others did? If any harm is done in society now, if i may submit, it is done by therapists, and society at large, after the fact that brainwash into children that sex is evil, dirty and immoral and something not to be enjoyed now or ever.
I think I am straying too far from orthedox thought though, I run the risk of violence now, don't I? That is the next logical chain in this conversation isn't it? First the appeals to emotion, and next comes the appeals to violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"If the social prescident occured that child sexuality was ok, i.e. ancient greece, they no more damage would be done wouldn't it?"
WTF??? abuse causes long term damage at any age, before or after puberty. FACT. Including Avoidant Personality Disorder, Schizoid Personality Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
And you imply that perhaps other victims of child abuse did enjoy it??????
You are one sick piece of $#!+. Would you have enjoyed being sexually abused for several years? Would you enjoy the flashbacks? the nightmares? the problems involved with recovering? Therapy? Feeling dirty because of what someone else did? Depression? Avoidant Personality Disorder?
No.
You would not.
You know nothing of what you are talking about and are simply parroting off the average feminazi lines of "boys like it".
You are encouraging paedophillia, and I regard you with nothing but total and utter contempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are always going to be those few who have the following agendas:
A: To see how much they can get away with and call it art.
B: Who see any sort of moral or societal guidelines as unnecessary and controlling.
The film makers fall into A, and our dear anon falls into B. Unfortunately, View B already has a name. It is called anarchy, and if dear anon has followed history he or she will note that this philosophy has never worked. People (and social animals) need social and/or moral guidelines for said society to function. There is even 3 species of shrimp who realize this.
There is a camp of these anarchists who believe in child sexuality. They believe there is nothing wrong with desiring a child, and as long as you do not act on it there is no harm. They also hope that someday people will forget these moral guidelines and allow children to function sexually.
To dear Anon:
Perhaps in simian societies this works, but in this world of humans it does not fly. Call it oppression, call it prudishness, call it the patriarchy, I really don't care. We protect our children from known dangers, and child sexuality, in this world, is a known danger. We do not live in ancient Greece, so that factiod is wasted.
All research done to date has pointed to devistating, life long consequences of child molestation. Wishing it were not so does not change this fact.
By entertaining the notion it is acceptable to even think about let alone act apon desiring children, you are putting children at risk. The brain reacts to thoughts by strenghtening the pathways, the more you think a certain way, the stronger those pathways become. SO yes, even thinking about molesting a child can cause a person to become more ingrained in that desire. Longterm this may mean the difference between a quirk in the brain to an acting molester.
Now if you believe there is nothing wrong with child molestation, I believe none of us here have anything further to say to you. If you wish to debate the effects this movie has, we are happy to do so.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:02 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
***standing ovation***
Thank you jenk
I wish I could have phrased it as well as you.
You've hit the nail on the head.
After recent flashbacks and nightmares, Anons comments really made me angry.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:12 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"Would you have enjoyed being sexually abused for several years?"
...And this was ancient greece, I have no doubt I would have enjoyed it, along with everyone else, although I don't think they referred to it as 'abuse' back then.
If anyone were to say they enjoyed a sexual relationship when they were a child with an adult in current Western society they'd be labeled as some sort of pervert or freak. I'd assume it's much easer, and safer, for these people to play the role of victim whether they want to or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To answer this, you have no clue whether or not those boys enjoyed being sexually manipulated. You cannot know, I cannot know, so to make any sort of claim is illogical, in your terms.
Your latter arguement is again an unknown. You may surmise that in another culture children could come out and say they enjoyed being molested, that indeed they may have enjoyed being molested at all, but again you have no way of knowing.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:37 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Jen, thank you.
I agree with everything you said. Including not having anything more to say to our pedophile-troll.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:41 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Anony-troll.
Go to the NAMBLA website and preach your child molesting beleifes there. We're getting a bit sick of you on THIS website.
I'm sure you'll get all the support you need from your NAMBLA friends.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:16 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now if you believe there is nothing wrong with child molestation"
I do not believe nor disbelieve anything, it is what can be rationally proven is what interests me. So far I have not heard one arguement or example of how harm is done, not one.
"It is called anarchy"
As much as you'd like to dismiss me as being an anarchist then wiping your hands of having to explain, give an example or argue the harm done in child sexuality I'm afraid it your assumption isn't the case. Anarchy cannot resolve many problems, tradegy of the commons, prisoner's dillemmas, provide pure public goods etc. so I am a firm proponent of government.
What I am also a proponent of is rational thought and not attacking people or making assumptions about them, but rather look at their statements. The characteristics of a person is independent of the truth of the person's statements, and it is a luxery that is ill afforded to take (non)thinking shortcuts to 'truth' by attacking someone instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's funny... I just finished Oryx and Crake, while it did portray pedophilia it was from the point of view of a bitchy old feminist (Atwood) transferring her hate for men into a novel where all men were evil or morons. The voice in each reference to Oryx's youth in her home country was third person and used to develop a world of moral relativism run amok (no doubt unintentional on Mz. Atwoods part). The spineless acceptance of her past by Oryx was a plot device to convey the inevitable victimhood of all women... apparently you fell for it. The only first person voice used in the novel during a sex scene was when Oryx and Jimmy were together... and they were both close in age. That scene was more inline with modern sensibilities (or lack thereof) of kids screwing whenever they feel like it... perhaps the intent was to show the slippery slope, but knowing Atwoods point of view I highly doubt that.
I read the Homecoming series a while ago... I recall no encounters between an adult and a
child in any of the books. I've also read most of what Card has written and found a distinct lack of advocacy when it comes to sexual expression. Please provide references to the book and chapter so I can look up your citation.
Here's a link to the "Brave New World" in it's entirety available online... please point out the pedophilic chapters:
http://somaweb.org/w/sub/Brave%20New%20World%20ful ltext.html
The only TRUE pedophilia I'm aware of in any of the sci-fi I've read or read reviews of is in Karl Hansens's work ("The Ballad of Lady Blue" - out of print, "Dream Games"). I've not read either of these novels, but the reviews are not what I would call "supportive". Not what I would consider popular sci-fi and certainly not a justification for the use of pedophilia in ANY media.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:24 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm, you seem to be more intelligent then others here, and I enjoy the qualification, "I am aware of", that comes from not being certain (and I find certainty probably the #1 purvayor of evil in the world), so I respect that.
1) Oryx and Crake by M. Atwood. They found Oryx for the first time when watching child pornography, of her, on the television. Any depection other then someone screaming "This is EVIL", i'd guess would count as condoning it in this crowd.
2) Homecoming by O.S. Card. First novel, I do not have the novel and thus not the quotes, but their society had sexual 'teachers' that trained young, very young, people sexually. That sexual brother of the main character actually taught the 'teacher' things at that young of an age, so the story says.
3) Brave New World: Huxley. This I can quote.
Chapter Three
OUTSIDE, in the garden, it was playtime. Naked in the warm June sunshine, six or seven hundred little boys and girls were running with shrill yells over the lawns, or playing ball games, or squatting silently in twos and threes among the flowering shrubs.
In a little grassy bay between tall clumps of Mediterranean heather, two children, a little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing, very gravely and with all the focussed attention of scientists intent on a labour of discovery, a rudimentary sexual game.
"Charming, charming!" the D.H.C. repeated sentimentally.
"Charming," the boys politely agreed. But their smile was rather patronizing. They had put aside similar childish amusements too recently to be able to watch them now without a touch of contempt. Charming? but it was just a pair of kids fooling about; that was all. Just kids.
The nurse shrugged her shoulders. "Nothing much," she answered. "It's just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I'd noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now
"
"Honestly," put in the anxious-looking little girl, "I didn't mean to hurt him or anything. Honestly."
"Of course you didn't, dear," said the nurse reassuringly. "And so," she went on, turning back to the Director, "I'm taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything's at all abnormal."
"Ouite right," said the Director. "Take him in. You stay here, little girl," he added, as the nurse moved away with her still howling charge. "What's your name?"
---
I hope I didn't do a silly thing by proving that child sexuality is found in scifi. I have pictures of fat middle aged balding men cavorting about a pile of burning books, in a scene reminiscent of Europe circa 1935 in my mind now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You still, in your quote, have not found an example of a grown woman targeting a young boy. The stories you speak are framed in a way which creates a society in which this is the social norm. The young children are the same age in the quote, and in the other book you speak of, I am assuming as with the Jean Aule (sp) books -Clan of the Cave Bear, this was framed as a coming of age when at 12-13 they were of child bearing or adult age. I have read Oryx and Crake, and the scene in which you speak is A, about teenage boys, not adults and B, the boy realizes that it is wrong. Thus his obsession with Oryx and later his futile attempts to track down her abusers. He even comes out and tells her that it was wrong, what they did. I felt his outrage balanced her lack of concern. I also felt her character very unrealistic, as I personally know people who were abused as children, and none of them are 'fine' with it, and she was shallow and rather mindless. Quite frankly I didn't like the book, but not for that reason only.
Framing a situation which is immoral in this world in the context of another world is not the same as using this society and justifying the same behavior. I realize this may sound like skirting, but I believe there is a difference.
I think that there is a huge slippery slope here. Many things are shown as acceptable or even funny, from murder to kicking a man in the groin, which would land you in jail if you tried in real life. And these movies and television shows HAVE had a negative effect on the world. To say it is all entertainment is to grossly underestimate it's power. I believe at some point a line must be drawn. I also believe that society is making it very clear this is where the line will be.
I am guessing you are an athiest liberal prone towards anarchy. You do not believe in boundaries. After over a decade of working with children/parents, and dogs/owners, I can say that boundaries are indeed necessary. Nearly every behavioral issue I have seen has been caused by a lack of clear boundaries. Perhaps in cyberspace, or in a pot induced stupor anarchy sounds like a grand idea, but it is not.
And I am not fat, balding, middle aged or a man, so your images are a bit off.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Good reply, I have only a few things to nitpic, and it should be a learning experience for everyone.
"I personally know people..." Logial fallacy: Biased Sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample). A biased sample falsely claims to be typical of the whole group. Someone saying "Everyone liked that movie!" might not mention that the "everyone" was them and three of their friends, or a group of the star's fans.
"I am guessing you are an athiest liberal prone towards anarchy."
I am actually a moral absolutist, if you must know, but have yet heard of any compelling arguement that child sexuality in any form is necessarily harmful. What I think is that it is society, current society, that creates the harm. The question is how to fix this.
As well, how a penis going into one hole is not harmful but going to another hole, perhaps a human hole, somehow makes all hell break loose. It's puritanism + the deviancy amplification spiral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Good reply, I have only a few things to nitpic, and it should be a learning experience for everyone"
First of all, I would like to say that I hate it when someone I argue with is more obsessed with the mechanics of the arguement than the arguement itself. You sound really arrogant, and like you spent the night with a dictionary.
Instead of trying to pile all the responsibility on me, let me switch it around. If child sexuality, in any form, is not harmful, then prove it. I hold the common, world wide belief, backed with decades of both scientific and anecdotal evidence, that sex between a human child and an adult, is harmful. Where is your research to prove it is not? Where are the studies which show that children growing up with sexual contact between child and adult has has little or no effect? And please do not blur the arguement as you have been trying to by siting child /child contact. We are speaking about child/adult sexual contact.
Your lack of sources proving harm does not disprove harm. In other words, just because YOU have PERSONALLY not seen or heard of studies proving harm, doesn't mean they are not out there. You should have read that when you were so busy researching logical fallacies.
Your arguement about society creating the harm is again irrelevant. The harm is there now.We do not live in a sci-fi book.
Now I and the majority of the rest of the world believe that sex between a child and an adult is harmful because one person (the adult) has inherantly more power than the other. The child, in terms of mental capacity, social position, and many times size is at an extreme disadvantage. These laws and moral standards are in place to protect these people against harm. By your own logic, we should be giving our children joints because it feels good. We should be letting them drink beer because it feels good. Just because it may feel good is no metric for whether it is good for you. So your case in another post how children are not free to say they enjoyed the sex is a moot one.
"As well, how a penis going into one hole is not harmful but going to another hole, perhaps a human hole, somehow makes all hell break loose. It's puritanism + the deviancy amplification spiral."
This is one of those college freshman Debate 101-What Not To Do-arguements, or maybe Philosophy 101. If firing a gun into the side of the barn is not harmful, then firing a gun into side of your head is not harmful. It is just putting a piece of metal into a hole, does it really matter what hole? Please.
Puritanism vs protecting minors. A little different.
If you think sex is only about putting a penis in a hole, well.....
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:49 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Our Troll needs to quit doing drugs.
...Or do MORE of them..., I don't know.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Troll is probably home visiting his parents, having mom do his laundry. I am sure he will be back on his liberal arts campus Monday morning. I suppose he could be a she, you never know.
The Biscuit Queen
Sometimes being catty is great fun ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:06 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
" then prove it"
You wish to jail people for sexual behavior, the onus is clearly on you to justify the nature and degree of the harm done, if at all.
"I hold the common, world wide belief..."
This is the logically fallacy of appeal to the majority, believing that because something is popular, it is right.
"backed with decades of both scientific and anecdotal evidence, that sex between a human child and an adult, is harmful."
There is no scientific proof since scientists run far away from this issue since when they do their science and it turns out not to cofirm the orthrodox view, then they are condemned in the senate (e.g. Rind et al study).
As for it being harmful, where is the proof of this? Societies past and present engage in child sexuality, yet the children were not harmed, why? Probably because society does not force them to adopt the role of victim, or if they enjoyed it of pervert.
"Now I and the majority of the rest of the world believe...
Logically fallacy of appeal to the majority, again.
"we should be giving our children joints because it feels good"
Joints, like cigarettes, seem to be harmful. Touching a penis or putting a penis somewhere seems not to be, unless you can tell me where the harm arises.
"If you think sex is only about putting a penis in a hole, well..... "
If I have the mechanics wrong, please correct me, and tell me how putting a penis in one hole is harmful but another isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If I have the mechanics wrong, please correct me, and tell me how putting a penis in one hole is harmful but another isn't"
You have just proven you have no idea what you are talking about. If you cannot figure that one out you are just not worth dealing with. Come back when you grow hair.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This scene, in BRAVE NEW WORLD, to me demonstrates society's refusal to accept that some people -- even a young child, for heaven's sake -- aren't as interested in sex as some others are. The scene describes a child curious about another child, NOT an adult engaging in foreplay with a boy.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:22 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
So you don't see anything wrong then with a 300 naked children all engaged in sexual play / orgies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:20 AM September 10th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Rational thought says an adult having any sexual contact with a 10 year old is wrong. There is no way of rationalizing it.
Yes. Well not exactly. It happens that the Marxist-Socialist-Dems and Marxist-Feminist have found a way to use rational thought to justify woman child sexual relations. They simply use "moral relativism." With this evil ideal there is no absolute right or wrong. There are only shades of gray.
In this way they can question who is to say what is "really" good or bad....right or wrong. The Dems and Feminists are so screwed-up with this evil ideal that they can justify most anything including Kerry's public confessions of war crimes for which he should be in jail, or Clinton's sexual harassment of an intern for which he should have been civilly sued. Basically, there is only a wrong or evil if the opposition is a Christian or a Republican that is opposing these socialists.
Welcome to the new world of hate where adult-child sexual relations are justified by the all powerful Marxist-Feminists and Dems.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:04 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Warb
True, true, and TRUE.
The Fem-dems also hate Indians. TRUST ME!
We ALSO tend to be moaralists. And I'm proud of it!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Crichton (realisitc scifi), Asimov (duh), Douglas Adams (comedy scifi) and scores of others (Hemmingway, Shakespeare, etc) spring into my head. I never once remember the book 'I, Robot' (or ANY other book I've read personally) being about child molestation by (read my post!) LEGAL ADULTS. Also, I don't recall Juliet being 35 while Romeo was 12. But I digress.
Consentual intercourse AMONG children is kind of a tricky subject, but in certain regards it's up to the children. Acts between children and adults, however, is like saying a child could take on an adult in a boxing match. Phisically and mentally, the child is underdeveloped, putting automatic authority onto the adult, making it "unfair" if you will. The child has no choice in the matter in any means.
Wait, let me read this again.
Fiction, especially science fiction, is usually nothing but sexual intercourse including that of children.
WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF FICTION HAVE *YOU* BEEN READING? You're telling me that if I went to a library, the MAJORITY of fiction books would have to do with children having sex? I suppose all the books I've been reading for the past few decades have all been nonfiction then... silly me.
Citing your example about Romeo and Juliet again, I believe that they were legal adults at the time of the writing, or at the very least they were certainly well into their teens. However, if you remember the end, they both die. Are you saying that we should allow children suicides as well?
I'm sorry, it seems your thick skull has given my skull a headache with your strange and backwards logic.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF FICTION HAVE *YOU* BEEN READING? You're telling me that if I went to a library, the MAJORITY of fiction books would have to do with children having sex? I suppose all the books I've been reading for the past few decades have all been nonfiction then... silly me."
Fiction isn't "usually nothing but sexual intercourse", whether you're talking about that involving children or not. Many books do frivolously include sex, because sex is greatly overvalued and overemphasized in society. But it doesn't pervade every single page of every single book...
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it doesn't. I suppose gross overreaction to sexual content in books is either a logical fallacy or puritanism ;-)
Sounds like our troll doth project too much ;-)
Oh boy I am on a roll~
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No wait...I am on a T~roll
baddoop bam!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:15 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
And it really takes it's TROLL on person, doesn't it?
Sorry, I lost con-TROLL there for a minuet.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:57 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
This anonymous Troll's BRAIN is SCIENCE FICTION!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
Ps. Sorry, folks, I'm in a mean mood today, for
some reason. Maybe because trolls who support child molesting really p!$$ me off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, its an adult man in a boy's body.
As I would never see such a film, I can only go by what it says in the article. The article doesn't say that the 10 year old boy is an adult man in a boy's body. The article says that Anna (Kidman) believes the child is her reincarnated dead husband. I'm sorry. A boy is a boy. Believing that a child is reincarnated, even if true, is not an excuse for sexual abuse.
Regardless, a film with the genders reversed would not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:03 PM September 9th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Regardless, a film with the genders reversed would not be tolerated."
I guess I've never heard of the book or film called Lolita.
"Believing that a child is reincarnated, even if true, is not an excuse for sexual abuse. "
Perhaps it isn't, why do you think that sexual abuse has occured? Its a movie, it portrays fiction. It allows discussion on this issue.
If showing a potentially illegal portrayal is grounds for banning or censoring a film, then portals of other illegal actions must also go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forget about the premise, forget about the questionable theme of the movie or plot of the various novels. What made Nicole Kidman's escapade immoral was the idea of a graphic sex scene with a ten year old. This was no Lolita with implied sexual relations. This was no computer simulation of a ten-year-old boy. This was a real child acting with a real 37 year old.
If our anonymous poster doesn't know the difference between this and Lolita, then he/she wouldn't know the difference between a Jason flick and a snuff film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 PM September 9th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"This was a real child acting with a real 37 year old. "
So I take it they had nonsimulated sexual intercourse on film then. Anything less then this is a portrayal, usually called 'acting' (although this is Nicole Kidman).
If you are getting so anal over this, I'd hate to see what you think about other ones, esp. the one called "Kids".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look, you keep trying, over and over, to make points. Some has value, but mostly the posters here have answered you and shown how your points were off the mark or not directly relevant.
Are you of the variety of "keep my mouth moving and no one will notice my previous points got knocked down" debater?
It's simple, and no matter how you keep playing verbal dodgeball there are 2 important points:
1) Real life: Kidman being portrayed naked in a bathtub with a 10 year old actually happened and it was a sexual scene.
2) Movie/story: Even in Lolita there was an IMPLIED relationship with a TEENager, and many people still condemn it. This film is SHOWING and TITILATING the audience with nudity, and sexually charged scenes of Kidman with a PREteen boy.
Can you see the difference and can you see our point now?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:12 AM September 10th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
1) Real life: Kidman being portrayed naked in a bathtub with a 10 year old actually happened and it was a sexual scene.
The inability to distinguish movie acting from reality is quite a problem.
Again: portrayals are not 'real', otherwise people would go to jail when the bad guy 'kills' someone in a movie. It is called *acting*.
2) Movie/story: Even in Lolita there was an IMPLIED relationship with a TEENager, and many people still condemn it. This film is SHOWING and TITILATING the audience with nudity, and sexually charged scenes of Kidman with a PREteen boy.
Rent the movie called Kids if you think that Kidman scene is 'titilating'. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SPCA and various animal rights activists have spent untold dollars and time to keep animals from being abused during the filming of a large number of actions flicks, dating back to the days of early westerns.
THIS, limited forum though it might be, is the place where the outrage commences to stop the abuse inflicted upon this young, male actor that occurred during the filming of this movie.
Apparently, you think that what happened in the real world of the studio ought to be ignored if it results in some PC film, so perhaps we ought to film the Freddy and Jason series with real blood. Perhaps we ought to re-film the "Man of LaMancha" and "West Side Story" with REAL rape. Hmmm... I can see the line of female actresses lined-up for THAT casting call right now. Oh, yeah. And I suppose NOW wouldn't have anything to say about it either.
Dunce!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Regardless of WHY they were in a bathtub, because they were being filmed or they wanted to or one was forcing the other, the fact still remains that an adult woman was in a tub with a ten year old boy and was behaving in a sexually explicit way. This is statutory assault. Period. The rest of the cast, film crew the boy's mother and directors should be arrested for supporting the crime. This is for the actual, real life occurance. It has NOTHING to do with filmmaking. You are not allowed to murder for the sake of the film, you are not allowed to hurt animals for the sake of the film, and you are not allowed to rape for the sake of a film. Even in cases where teen sex is shown I believe the actors and actresses must all be over 18. How is this different?
This is a case where abuse is being justified by art, and most people just aren't buying it. If you could have made the film with a legal adult in place of the boy, or cg animation for those scenes, then I would not be having this discussion about legalities. This boy is only 11 years old, and I would like to know what, other than $$$$, was going through that boy's mother's head (she was there at all the filming.)
We are not being prudes, this is a CHILD.I haven't seen every movie out there, so maybe I missed something, but I have seen many movies with all sorts of sexual content, from rape to incest to gay to whatever, and I had no problem with any of them because the acting cast were all adults, or the scenes were filmed to only suggest therefor the children were not directly involved with the adult. Even in cases where teen sex is shown I believe the actors and actresses must all be over 18.
This was a child. This is completely different, and it is illegal. Period.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:19 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Q. What is it called when an adult male seduces
a child on film?
A. Child PORNOGRAPHY.
Q. What is it called when an adult female
(Nicole Kidman) seducees a child on film?
A. Art.
Q. What is the difference?
A. NOTHING!
If you can't figure THAT out your either stupid, dumb, or a feminist. (which is actually somewhat redundant, if you think about it.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:59 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is statutory assault."
Being in bathtub acting 'sexually' with a boy is assult? No, im sorry, it is not as much as you think it should be, and especially not do to the fact that your term 'sexually' is nondefinite. If it were, then Kidman would be in jail, wouldn't she?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently not, but she should be, which brings us to why we here are all outraged. A film with a 10 year old girl and a grown man would NOT even be made.
"Being in bathtub acting 'sexually' with a boy is assult?"
When a man of 18 or over has any sort of sexual encounter with a girl of under 18, it is called statutory rape, or assault (depending on how much contact), Whether it was consensual or not. In some states it doesn't even matter how old the boy is. Yet when you reverse the situation, many people, including the law, feel there is no problem. This is wrong. This is a double standard, assuming boys are less vulnerable than girls. And all your 'clever' misdirection into literature and art does not make this go away. I would like to see you address this, as this really is why we are here. .
As to my term sexually, I guess my non-scientific definition is -would you do it with your grandmother?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:19 AM September 11th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"behaving in a sexually explicit way"
Define sexually explicit, since after you do so all these prudish protestations will evaporate since all we will be left with, I'd assume, is a kissing scene.
Kissing is not sexual assult as yet, although I'm sure there are people who would want to make it so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're all quite aware that Nicole Kidman didn't actually have sex with the male child actor for the scene in question. That isn't the point. The point is that it's a clearly sexual scene, and that a 37-year-old man in "sexual caress" with an 11-year-old girl would NOT be treated as "art", but rather as criminal activity. And yet, if the genders are reversed, we're told to "keep and open mind".
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:55 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
"clearly sexual scene"
That is the most subjective thing I've ever heard. What is sexual to you is not sexual to someone else.
Clearly define the behavior in the bathroom instead of refering to it as 'sexual'. You are hiding behind vagueness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:26 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"it's a clearly sexual scene"
Clearly, when no one describes what happens in it, that is called opague.
"37-year-old man in "sexual caress" with an 11-year-old girl would NOT be treated as "art"
Then that is a doublestandard that should be addressed by asking why wouldn't it be right, if it is allowed in one movie it is allowed in another. But this issue is seperate from the so called jailable offense of 'acting sexual' in a bathtub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
"but she should be"
She should be jailed for 'acting sexually' in a bathtub with a 10 year old boy? Charged with what, exactly?
"When a man of 18 or over has any sort of sexual encounter with a girl of under 18, it is called statutory rape, or assault (depending on how much contact)"
Perhaps in your state or country but not every nation in the world is as puritanical as the place in which you live.
"when you reverse the situation"
The double standard that may or may not exist in society with regards to sexual gender roles is a seperate issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you REALLY not undertstand the POINT!??!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If showing a potentially illegal portrayal is grounds for banning or censoring a film, then portals of other illegal actions must also go.
I didn't say such a book or film with fictional representations should be banned. That implies government force. I said I would recommend that it be burned. It's trash, and should be treated as such.
However, as others have pointed out, there is a real boy in the film. Acting or not, the boy is being exploited. Saying he is "just acting" is no different than saying a young girl in a kiddie porn film "is just acting."
37/10 is pretty specific, so I guess these are safe, for now.
That's Kidman's real age and the boys age in the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:37 PM September 10th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how I missed this reading the article the first time, But did you all see where it said that this film is in the running for the "prestigious Golden Lion award"???
...'the Hell...?!?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:43 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
An 'abortion drama' called "Vera Drake" won the Golden Lion http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=7 62&e=1&u=/nm/20040911/en_nm/arts_venice_dc
Maybe "Birth" can get a Golden Raspberry or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Van Drake sounds great. Of course she was only doing it out of concern for young girls, of course. Absolutely no thought as to money at all. She is a hero, right?
~Puking sounds coming from the bathroom.~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's extremely interesting to note the contradictions in opinion regarding how the sexual abuse of children should be qualified differently for girls vs. boys.
There's no debate that a female minor subjected to sexual interaction with an adult male has been abused.
But there's much expressed ambiguity about the same situation where the genders are reversed... i.e. a minor-aged male is subjected to sexual interaction with an adult female.
For a female, being abused is a violation of her person.
For a male, it's a "developmental opportunity?"
A current article from Norway -- (original link at) --http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article8 65857.ece
RECORD NUMBER SEXUALLY ABUSED BY WOMEN
Never before have so many Norwegian men reported being sexually abused in their childhood by women. An increasing number of incest victims have stories to tell about female assailants, and experts say that women can more easily disguise such offenses as care, newspaper Dagsavisen reports.
"A boy who is sexually abused by his mother is the ultimate taboo," said Endre Førland, leader of the Incest Center for Men.
A third of the men who call the center now report that a woman assaulted them during childhood. The number has risen quickly, just six years ago the center had no registered calls accusing a woman of incest.
"The increase began in 1998. Then about 15 percent of those who contacted us spoke about a woman attacker. After this it has increased every year. Last year 32.3 percent of those who called us said that the one who had assaulted them in their childhood or early youth was a woman. The traffic so far this year indicates that this tendency continues," Førland told the newspaper.
Geir Borgen at the National Resource Center on Violence and Traumatic Stress in Oslo, said that surveys indicate that ten percent of incestuous sexual assaults are committed by women, mostly mothers but also sisters.
He believes women can camouflage these abuses more easily and that the number has been constant for some time, in Norway and in the rest of the western world.
"If a mother tells her son from the age of three or four that she must wash his penis because it is important that it is very clean, and she continues to do this until he approaches his teens, most people would characterize this as abuse. But the child may not recognize this until much later in life," Borgen said.
Førland said that the health system does not have enough knowledge about how boys react to being sexually abused by women, but that awareness around the problem is beginning to grow.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:23 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy.
Thank you.
If our Troll doesn't get it at this point, I give up.
By the way, anony-troll, you wouldn't happen to be "Phaedra" posting anonymously, would you?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As I understand it, its an adult man in a boy's body. If the purpose of anti molestation laws is to protect children who are unable to make informed decisions, this is not the case in this situation as the 'boy' is competent as an adult."
Perhaps the plot said it was an adult man in a boy's body, but I'm pretty sure the actor who played the boy was in fact, a boy. Thus he is not competent to choose to be in the situations the movie put him in.
"If at anytime any scientist or film maker tries to address this issue is booed"
It probably wasn't the attempt to address the issue that was booed, it was more likely the decision to put a child and an adult in a bathtub apparently naked acting out sexual roles in order to do so.
"then no progress will be made."
I booed the film "The Manhatten Project", and yet progress has been made in the design of more powerful super-weapons.
Still, in spite of our disagreement on the all-powerful effects of 'booing' a film, what progress are you afraid of seeing halted? Progress towards a more pedophile-tolerant society? I don't think that's the kind of progress we should work for, even if that means that honest adults who are trying to have sex with other adults that happen to be trapped in children's bodies won't have the right to do so. I suggest you rethink your position on this movie. You can still support artists examining this and any other issue, without supporting them using these methods to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:09 PM September 11th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"apparently naked"
You mean this isn't known, and if the child was naked how would this make any difference?
"acting out sexual roles"
Vague. Define sexual roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""apparently naked""
"You mean this isn't known, and if the child was naked how would this make any difference?"
Actually they were wearing what are called "naked body suits" which make them appear to be naked. From what I understand, these are shorts made up to look like human flesh, with makeup and other movie magic applied to make the wearer appear to be actually naked.
""acting out sexual roles""
"Vague. Define sexual roles."
Role - A character or part played by a performer
Sexual - Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions
The first definition in each case on Dictionary.com is the one I used. I don't know how that can be considered vague. According to the article, (and a few others), they acted out some sort of sexual/erotic behavior while appearing to be naked together in the tub. I don't know the specifics of that behavior, only that it fits under the category of sexual unless all those journalists are lying. I'm not particularly concerned with the specifics of what form that sexual behavior took, as I won't condemn the audience for booing any form of sexual behavior between an adult and child depicted on screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:20 AM September 12th, 2004 EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good reply, It doesn't have the edge of hysteria that I seem to perceive in some other posts here.
"They acted out some sort of sexual/erotic behavior while appearing to be naked together in the tub."
The matter is quite clear though, either the behavior was illegal or it was not regardless of it was a movie or not.
It would seem that kissing is not illegal, sexual or otherwise.
As for people's personal tastes on the matter, that is their opinion and will boo if they want. (Though, does it accomplish anything other then shutting down discussion on this issue?) but this jail nonsense in this discussion is over the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:21 AM September 12th, 2004 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
"As for people's personal tastes on the matter, that is their opinion and will boo if they want. (Though, does it accomplish anything other then shutting down discussion on this issue?) but this jail nonsense in this discussion is over the top."
The innocence of our children is precious, and when that is taken from them by a child molestor, I for one adamantly want to see the child molestor incarcerated for as long as possible, then upon the child molestors release I would like her/his where abouts known and broadcast to all families living in his neighborhood so they can protect their children from the child molestor.
It is good sense to imprison child molestors for as long as possible to protect all children from them. It is good sense to track and know the where abouts of child molestors after prison release to prevent any further child molestations on their part.
Thanks goodness law enforcement can now track anonymous child molestors down through the internet. Children and their families should not have to live in fear of child molestors prowling on the internet or in their neighborhoods.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.
Our troll seems to think child molestation is perfectly fine.
wonder if the F.B.I. is tracking him/her right now...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:09 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
Your posts usually do not contain anything other then your opinions, but this time I found even your opnions useful.
"Our troll seems to think child molestation is perfectly fine. "
I do not find child molestation 'perfectly fine', I do however think that the hysteria in society is doing more harm to children and, society at large, than good.
"wonder if the F.B.I. is tracking him/her right now...? "
I did not realize it was criminal to present ideas that were out of the mainstream in the United States. I am assuming you are refering to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Perhaps the U.S.A. has cracked down more on civil liberties then I had realized if this, speaking out, is indeed now criminal.
Incidently attacking me instead of my arguements is argumentum ad hominem, the logical fallacy of replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It maybe prudent to stop using logical fallacies such as this, if you wish to think clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
"I did not realize it was criminal to present ideas that were out of the mainstream in the United States. I am assuming you are refering to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Perhaps the U.S.A. has cracked down more on civil liberties then I had realized if this, speaking out, is indeed now criminal.
Incidently attacking me instead of my arguements is argumentum ad hominem,..."
I certainly hope it is illegal to advocate child abuse. I hope the legal authorities have a lock on your where abouts, and come to question you and interogate you soon about your advocacy of child molestation. I'm curious is that something you learned in one of those perverted women's studies gender bending parties that I see promoted through taxpayer funded women's studies programs on college campuses.
I'm sure you would be much more welcome on any radical feminist web site than you are on a site that cares about the well being normal biologically constructed families and children.
Sincerely, Ray
P.S. In my opinion it is not ad hominem when a person speaks out against a person that is advocating for criminal behavior (child molestation) as you have been doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:16 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Ray.
You put that in better language than I did.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know what Ray, I have to tell you, When I first got here I took your posts as being extreme and harsh. You made good points and were passionate, but seemed unfocused in rage, perhaps? I have seen you grow more elloquent as the year(s) has gone by, as you actually put into action all that passion. I am so impressed at your ability now to put into words what you are thinking in a way that gets the message across loud and clear without lashing out at everyone. You have grown a great deal and I respect that. Just wanted you to know.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
"The innocence of our children is precious"
Are children innocent? What does this mean exactly, and are those children who killed that 2 year old in England also innocent?
I think perhaps you meant ignorant, and this is true.
"Children and their families should not have to live in fear of child molestors prowling on the internet or in their neighborhoods. "
Depends on what you mean by this, molesters who forcably have sex with children seem to be a bad thing indeed, but could this not be different than the situation here (a single sample example):
---
Exerpt: THE CULT OF CHILDHOOD AND THE REPRESSION OF CHILDHOOD SEXUALITY by Bill Paris
He continues with an account I cannot independently verify: "A few years
ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an
affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later
stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second....
Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was
abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says
what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he
thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused
at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"
Duh, People who the law has clearly defined as sick, criminal, perverted child molesters. In the example you cited that would be the female school custodian, but I would also like to add I consider child molesters to be anyone like her, or anyone who defends her actions or behaves like her.
May they all find themselves behind bars, where they belong, and not out in open society around children.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 PM September 12th, 2004 EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
"The innocence of our children is precious"
Are children innocent? What does this mean exactly, and are those children who killed that 2 year old in England also innocent?
I think perhaps you meant ignorant, and this is true."
"The innocence of our children is precious." Please don't put words in my mouth. I stand by what I said, "The innocence of our children is precious," As far as those alleged children in England that killed a 2 year old, you offer no link to that news stories, and I certainly wouldn't believe someone who advocates for child molestation. Again I'm suspect you will find a much more sympathetic ear on some radical/gender feminist web site, where they advocate that gender is a social construction. They would most likely take more to a child molestation advocacy viewpoint. That is what they are taught in women's studies on our college campuses.
Personally, I believe that sex is almost totally a biological construction, except for very rare cases, but then what do I know, growing up on a farm and seeing thousands of animals born into normal biological sexual existences. I don't even recall a single deviation in 20 years.
Again, I suspect those radical/gender feminist web sites would be more welcoming to someone who wants to be a gender bender, but I'm not sure they would go for someone who wants to do that from an early age (child molestation).
Here is someone who seems to be somewhat compatible with your philosphy, although I'm not sure just how much.
I feel like vomiting at the site of her agenda.
(click) California State Senator Sheila Kuhel
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:20 PM September 13th, 2004 EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
...and I feel like vomiting at the sight of HER...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
