The Last Taboo: Sexual Desire for Pre-Pubescent Children
Sexual Fascism in Progressive America
Progressives in America are rightly concerned about increasing signs of fascism in this country, such as a so-called war on terrorism that allows massive invasion of privacy and wholesale imprisonment without charge.Such as state manufacture of propaganda for its own people; such as the assertion that anyone who challenges government policies on these matters is a traitor.
Such as a "great leader" who puts himself clearly above and outside the law.
They ought to be concerned also about another sign of the demise of American justice and human decency: scapegoating.
One sign of fascism has always been the creation of a scapegoated class whom people are taught to fear and hate, and whose very existence demands a totalitarian state apparatus of surveillance and control. A class whom no-one would dare defend.
There is a class of people in America today, numbering two million or more, who have been utterly scapegoated, ostracized, demonized and shunned. There is no longer any defense available for these people. Almost no-one on the left or the right, civil libertarians or ordinary citizens, will defend their rights.
They are regularly vilified with the most vicious and hate-filled language—language previously reserved for classes now protected: Jews, Blacks, homosexuals. They are fair game as targets of abuse and vandalism.
They are subject to utter public scorn. About 600,000 of them have been rounded up and forced to register—many soon to be monitored for life with electronic bracelets and global positioning devices.
Nearly 4000 have been locked up for life, not on criminal charges, but by civil commitment, and those numbers are growing by the day.
The remainder are mostly in hiding, desperately afraid of sudden exposure and witch hunts by neighbors, fellow-workers and friends, whom they fear will suddenly see them as monsters beyond redemption.
They are a class defined not by specific crimes (though they are accused of many offenses) but by their very being, their desires, their constitution, as allegedly broken human beings.
Presidents and Governors call them "despicable," "disgusting," "incapable of rehabilitation or reform," "beyond help."
They are loudly reviled as examples to be shunned by fundamentalist and bigoted preachers, but also by left-wing media, progressive community leaders and feminists.
Who are these scum? Arab terrorists? Muslim fanatics? No—those evil-doers appear almost benign when compared to this heinous mob. These are the most awful people in the world: SEX OFFENDERS! Worse, many are PEDOPHILES!
In fact, these two terms become mingled. Jeb Bush recently alluded to all the sex offenders in Florida as child molesters, though fewer than 1/3 of those incarcerated in that state for "sex crimes" involved people under 18.
Bush went on, "These are a group of people who are the sickest of the sick. They are truly perverts and it's not curable. Instead of civil detention, we ought to make sure...these pedophiles...are locked up forever."
Of course among these sex offenders are indeed some criminals who have caused extreme harm: violent rapists of adult women as well as children. A few of them have kidnapped, tortured or murdered their victims.
Dr. Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins University Sex Disorders Clinic in Baltimore estimates that such crimes account for less than 1/10th of 1% of all sex offenses in America.
His studies also show that fewer than 10% of child sex offenders re-offend—though recidivism is usually given as a reason for draconian measures against them.
As child abuse experts point out, about 50 children are reported kidnapped and raped or murdered by strangers annually, compared to more than 3,000 children murdered by parents and other family members in non-sexual cases.
Most sex offenders, says one therapist who works with sex offenders in a state prison system, are "Gentle grandfathers who made one mistake in judgment years ago and fondled their grandchild.
Or lonely, geeky gay men—teenagers some of them—who sought mutual sexual release with adolescent boys.
Or young female teachers who succumbed to the wiles of handsome adolescent boys or girls. Or young men who got drunk and pushed their girlfriends over a line that is now called date rape."
Yet the media, police, prosecutors and politicians continue to insist that children are in dire need of protection from serial rapists and murderers.
Two-thirds of parents surveyed said they feared their children would be kidnapped and or murdered by strangers. Facts simply do not matter when hysteria is involved.
The New York Times recently published a sensational story about a teenage boy who went on line to entice more than 15,000 customers to watch his own pornographic images of himself.
The Times reporter, acting less like a reporter and more like a crusading cop, coaxed the boy away from his life of debauchery, reminding him he would instantly switch from "victim" to "perpetrator" when he passed his 18th birthday.
(Actually, those under 18 may be treated as perpetrators, too.)
He helped get the boy to the FBI to close in on many of his key customers, whom the Times had further investigated on its own. These customers included police officers, lawyers, ministers, rabbis, social workers—and especially those who work with children and adolescents.
Many also were parents and grandparents with ostensibly happy families of their own. Surely one sign that something is wrong with this picture is that the "heinous criminals" are otherwise law-abiding, decent human beings with successful careers and "normal" personal lives.
No. With scapegoating, such apparent normalcy is just one more sign of devious perversity.
The key ingredients of this scapegoating campaign are of course sex and children. "Nowhere," wrote Linda Williams in Children and Sex (1993), "is sexuality more feared in America than in the lives of children."
(Williams has spent her professional career assuring that these ingredients produce repression.)
The core demon in the campaign is the recently created category of "pedophile" (which does not predate the 1960s as a so-called scientific construct).
Although defined by the American Psychiatric Association as persons with a dominant sexual desire for pre-pubescent children, the pedophile tag now applies to any person who every entertained a sexual desire or had a sexual incident, however minor, with anyone under 18.
In some circles, the term pedophile is now used to put down any older person who has an affair or shows interest in younger persons—35-year-olds, for instance, who "prey on" 20-year olds.
By the early 2000s, pedophile had become morphed with the still broader "sex offender," with even mainstream media free to refer to the feared and hated class as "pervs" and "perps" and "deviants."
This scapegoating also requires public exposure and shunning, even of those who dare defend the civil liberties of pedophiles and sex offenders or challenge attacks on them.
In particular, public wrath is displayed against those who would challenge "age of consent" laws, which are higher in the United States (now effectively 18 in all states due to Federal statutes) than in most other societies.
(Mexico's age of consent is 12 in most cases; Japan is 13,; Spain is now 14—raised recently; France, 15; and Germany 16 and under 16 with parental consent.)
Although as of the 1880s, common law age of consent was 10 in England and its former colonies, and zero in many other societies—where child-brides were common—it has been increasingly raised until there is today, within UNESCO's campaign to protect children, a call for a universal age of 21.
All sex between persons under 18 and those over 18 (or 21) thus becomes "abuse," since there is the myth that underage persons are simply not capable of consent.
Journalists and scientific researchers who challenge this construct—or who defend some relationships between adults and minors as not being abusive—face severe consequences.
In the only instance of a U.S. Congressional resolution against a scientific paper, the House of Representatives, with only minimal opposition, denounced a study by Dr. Bruce Rind & others, published in the scholarly review, Psychological Bulletin, in 1998.
This "meta-analysis" reviewed several research protocols about adult-child sexuality, and summarized them as showing that relationships in which force was not used did not appear to cause harm, and sometimes might be beneficial. Rind and his co-authors have been systematically ostracized and excluded from many scholarly journals.
In 2005, a book by a major publisher, which contained another scholarly article by Rind, was withdrawn by that publisher (Hayworth) because of protests from fundamentalist Christians.
Other gay writers like William Herdt and John DeCecco who researched sexual outlaw behavior in the U.S. (DeCecco) or intergenerational sexuality in non-western cultures (Herdt) simply moved on to other topics.
This did not keep DeCecco from experiencing extreme persecution—while a Professor in San Francisco he had to hire bodyguards to protect him from right-wing attackers.
A number of women researchers and radical feminists have attempted to undermine or slow down the sex panic.
Among them have been Camille Paglia, Debbie Nathan, Joan Nelson, Elizabeth Stoney, Laura Marks, Gayle Rubin, Pat Califia, Carole Vance, Marjorie Heins, Joanne Wypijewski, Janice Irvine and Judith Levine.
Paglia has been castigated by other sex researchers and many feminist writers for her defense of man-boy sexual relationships in particular.
Although she has published lengthy, well-researched summaries of the history of sexuality and sexual research, she is seldom included in university curriculums involving these topics.
Many of the other women writers suffered similar consequences or censorship of their views. Debbie Nathan, who exposed and virtually stopped the so-called satanic cult child sex panic with her book Satan's Silence (Basic Books, 1996), has spoken of the icy reception her work has sometimes received.
She said, "... I have often had a sense of being intellectually and professionally marginalized, and I have experienced instances of editors killing pieces I've written about sexual hysteria because they got cold feet, as well as refusals to assign such stories."
One woman writer, who had never had problems with previous articles on other subjects for a prestigious national magazine, attempted a balanced look at the crusade against Catholic priests, especially the sensational case of Father Paul Shanley. She was called in by the editor who said he simply could not run her piece.
Even before Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex was published in 2002, a massive campaign by fundamentalist Christian groups, including Concerned Women for America, attacked the publisher, the University of Minnesota Press.
While the book was published, the Press created a new process for reviewing its books before publication.
Levine spoke publicly about how she was humiliated time and again in public. She said the manuscript for her book had been turned down by many publishers, treated as if it were "radioactive."
Among other insights, Levine wrote that "obsession with pedophiles stems for the reluctance to confront incest and the rampant sexualization of children" in American culture.
"Adults project the eroticized desire outwards, creating a monster to hate, hunt down and destroy." Of the outcry against her book she added, "What happened to me is a perfect example of the hysteria my book is about."
Nowhere is censorship and shunning greater than against those who would describe or depict childhood or adolescent sexuality, or mere nudity.
The "victims" of the evil perpetrators must also be protected—and projected as the spotless mirror image of their violators—at all costs—their purity and innocence asserted (even in the face of post-Freudian revelations of the sexual lives and interests of children).
Anything portraying the physical beauty of children or erotic aspects of their lives must be banned. (See Bob Chatelle's excellent summaries of the impact of the child porn crusade on freedom of expression: Kiddie Porn Panic, 1993; Limits of Free expression & the Problem of Child Porn, 1997.)
A spate of prominent photographers were censored beginning in the late 1980s, for photos of nude children or adolescents.
The most prominent case was that of the gay photographer, Robert Maplethorpe, whose works were removed from galleries across the country, including the Corcoran Gallery in Washington in 1990, with conservative attacks on the National Endowment for the Arts which had funded some of his work.
Some cases involved prize-winning women photographers, including Sally Mann [her photos accompany this article], Star Ockenga, and Judith Livingston.
Each of them was pilloried. Livingston's son was temporarily removed from her home after she published a photo of him nude. Livingston was eased out of her professorship at Cornell, and Ockenga was dismissed as director of the MIT photography exhibitions.
Sally Mann, who did some of the most widely-published nude photos of children. Her frankly erotic photos of her own children were called incestuous, pedophilic and pornographic.
Feminist writer Germaine Greer has said of her work, "The censoring of a mother's physical delight in her children marks the last stage in the denial of the sensuality of children." Mann now does landsape photography, and Ockenga, after a period of not working at all, turned to photographs of flowers.
Allen Ginsburg and Joseph Richy published an essay in 1990 against the radical departure from art history in which nude children and adolsecents are out of bounds.
In "The Right to Depict Children in the Nude," their main point was that sex and nudity in children, and especially adolescents, had been a primary theme of the visual and literary arts throughout Western culture, as well as in many non-Western societies.
He pointed out that even popular advertising used photos and drawings of nude children—especially boys—and Norman Rockwell often portrayed nude or semi-nude boys on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post.
Suddenly, all such photos and pictures disappeared. By the 1990s, when Calvin Kline made public a campaign to sell jeans showing scantily clad teenagers, he was forced to withdraw it within days. The nude child disappeared.
In fact, almost ALL photographs of pubescent and post-pubescent boys and girls vanished from most public media.
No wonder, since the Faber Supreme Court decision in 1982 labeled child pornography as wholly unprotected expression not covered under the Bill of Rights, and since the child pornography acts, beginning in 1990, increasingly criminalized almost all such depictions of any person appearing to be under 18, even when "real children" were not depicted in drawings and simulations.
(This was part of the 1996 law, but the Supreme Court declared that part of the bill unConstitutional. The language has reappeared in the 2006 bill now before Congress.)
Almost the sole exception to the disappearance of erotic depictions of children has been Greer's The Beautiful Boy (Rizolli, 2003).
She notes, "At the end of the 20th century, the guilty panic about pedophilia completed the criminalization of awareness of the desires and charms of boys."
She took care not to provoke with openly sexual photographs, but she was clear that her purpose was to resurrect the erotic image of the boy, not as pedophilia, but as a reasonable erotic interest of homosexual or heterosexual artists.
The response to Greer has been largely positive in the art world, though not without expected attacks in mainstream newspapers and conservative journals in which she is labled a "female pederast" among other things. Greer is Australian and has always been known as one to challenge taboos and court sensational publicity.
A Supreme Court decision (Knox V United States,1993) criminalized photographs of even clothed children, if they could be deemed erotic.
Most anti-censorship organizations simply stopped complaining about censorship in cases involving depictions of nude children or erotic situations involving children.
These were now deemed beyond the pale of civil liberty. The Parade magazine cover (Feb. 19, 2006) featured the words in large, bold type,"...Every image of a sexually displayed child—be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD—records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity."
The feature article from which these words came was by Andrew Vachss, not a child sexuality expert, but a very high-priced lawyer who has successfully sued institutions and individuals in child sex abuse cases.
Vachss does not define a "sexually displayed child"—neither in terms of age (a 17 year old is still a child in most jurisdictions and under most laws), nor in terms of what it includes—nudity? nearly nude erotic poses?—but he makes the absolute statement that it is rape and a crime against humanity.
Nothing could be more heinous (his word). Who says? Why? Those questions are not asked and may not be asked. To ask them is to risk being accused of complicity with rape and crimes against humanity!
Vachss goes on to urge stiffer penalties for mere possession or viewing of a downloaded photograph from the internet—one assumes he means at least life in prison (which is already in force for many such offenses). The utterly evil act becomes the basis for completely scapegoating the utterly evil perpetrator.
The full force of this shunning and scapegoating is aimed at those who can be labeled pedophiles. As the National Center for Reason and Justice, a group that supports those it deems wrongly accused in sex cases, says on its website:
"Especially vulnerable have been those accused of sex offenses against children and adolescents. While none of us deny that these crimes occur, those accused nevertheless have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to receive fair trials. But too often, hysteria reigns and the accused are tried and convicted by the media."
One day—perhaps fifty or a hundred years from now—it will appear ludicrous that our society was so consumed with anger at this class of scapegoats that it obliterated its fine traditions of liberty and justice in favor of retribution and vengeance.
It will seem odd, that American society was obsessed with concern about sexual acts with teenagers even as it pursued a pointless war that killed thousands of teenagers and others on both sides of that war.
People will hopefully someday recoil when told that a person convicted in Federal court of making a photograph of a 17 year old masturbating would receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison, yet a person convicted of the (non sexual) murder of that teen would face far less.
It will seem incredible that the focus was on sexual deviance rather than on the astronomical rate of murder and other real violence, or the growing gap between rich and poor, and the indelible mark of real poverty on so many children.
Until such a day of greater sanity, this scapegoating and shunning of all sex offenders and "pedophiles" will inevitably lead to less freedom and more insecurity for all who might engender the wrath of puritan preachers or stoke the greed of media outlets and pandering politicians.
For now, it seems unlikely that even those who traditionally guard our civil liberties or those who traditionally challenge state repression from the left will dare speak out, lest they, too, be marginalized and shunned.
The writer remains anonymous because he writes and is politically active in several completely unrelated social justice movements. He fears that the shunning and marginalization he describes for those who write about this topic could compromise (unfairly) his other work.
I find the disclaimer at the end of this particularly vile piece of trash
interesting. "The writer remains anonymous because he writes and is
politically active in several completely unrelated social justice
movements". No, the writer remains anonymous because he doesn't have the
moral certitude to put his name on this...because he knows in his soul that
this is completely vile. I'm also hazarding a guess that Mr. Anonymous has
never been perpetrated against by those poor 'marginalized scum' whom he
champions.
IT WOULD BE COOL TO SEE MORE PICS LIKE A GALLARY
Young budding flowers and baby animals have a "cute" appeal that we humans
are attracted to. So it is with naked growing children. Seeing them in
their pure essence of budding life is also attractive.
I wish I'd found this when it was first posted, not eight months later.
It's nice to encounter another intelligent, rational voice that can discuss
children and eroticism without being consumed by the over-blown hysteria
that strikes the masses when they hear someone say that a little girl CAN
be sexy.
I'M GLAD TRUE ART CAN NOW BE ENJOYED BY NORMAL PEOPLE WITHOUT PRUDES
BLOCKING IT BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORANT.
This is an interesting view that children can be sexy. But it makes me ask
who to? My suggestion is only to the onlooker of the image. Can it
seriously be said that a pre pubesent child understands the sexual desire
of the body? Can anybody out there honestly say that they themselves as
children understood and desired sexual contact as they now do as adults? I
admire the objectivity of the arguement, however this objectivity leaves
out the ecological truth that children do not have the experience or
knowledge to make an informed decision in relation to their sexual actions.
The mind of a child does not function like that of an adult and therefore
should not be intruded upon with adult concepts in any way.
Bex: Poke around the web long enough and it becomes very clear that MANY
people are erotically attracted to prepubescent children. The mistake many
people make is to think they somehow need to understand that attraction.
You will probably never be able to truly understand how I can be erotically
attracted to the girls in the photos above. I don't think I will ever be
able to truly understand how someone could be erotically attracted to the
boy in the second photo, though I'm sure many are. But I don't need to
understand it. I just accept it, and judge people by their actions, not by
their erotic desires.
i love pre teen girls but i like them above 16 under i think it is sick and
i do not see how any 1 can like them piks
I believe there's nothing wrong with pedophilia at all. I think it's a
natural thing for every man, and occurs at such a high rate with straight
men but they just don't get caught because they are usually the father and
daughter or father and son having sex, which is awesome! What's wrong with
teaching your child how to have sex? Are we that close minded to think
children don't have sexuality, then you're stupid. The child wants it just
as bad as the adult, mark my words. So enjoy what God gave us like all
creatures, pedophilia occurs in all sorts of species of animals, and we are
no different, do you think a dolphin doesn't have a soul, again you're
stupid. All intelligent creatures have a soul, and their souls don't burn
in hell for having fun with a little boy and he being a man, it's not even
questioned in some cultures, for it's legal in some to enjoy what God gave
us--sexuality. I'm sick to death of all the people with religion shoving
their beliefs down other people's throats, when they don't know what God
believes and to hypothesize is blasphemy against God. God is himself, and
you haven't met him, so that's why you require faith, which is blind, and
written in the Bible to mean just such. Your belief in God is just that,
not beliefs about God, that's not what faith is, so get something correct
you weirdo Christians who removed all the grandfather claused child
pornography that is out there somewhere that is legal to look at...where
did it all go? I wonder who has it all? I really do wonder. Wouldn't it be
worth seeing what people want, why don't you make it legal and see what
happens here in the USA? Do you know that everyone who's male would
essentially become a pedophile, a little too realitic for you non-pedophile
lovers...make it legal and then you have your answer. You can't handle the
truth, because it would put you in your place there are so many latent
pedophiles. Wasn't it 100 years ago that 40 year old men were marrying 12
year old girls, and this was considered normal, good for them. It is.
Geneology will prove you this point, and everyone who studies geneology
gets a wake up call about pedophilia was right over here in our family
tree. And no they were monkeys either. It was men having sex with little
girls, and there's nothing wrong with it. Do you see how bottled up because
of a conservative view about sexuality will do to a people, to a nation.
Look at Europe, they are free about sex and look at their conscent ages,
they are in line with what pedophilia is, it's with adolescent boys and
girls, originally derived from Olympia, Greece, home to the Olympics as
boys would practice and sport naked in front of the men who would try and
court them, but it was up to the boys who they picked, very interesting
isn't it. Maybe we should go back to a system like that again, instead of
denial. Make it legal and watch what happens...it's not heathens in the
streets hunny bunny who are ending up screwing your kids...it's the hottest
guys, with the hottest children, the combination that once you see it, it
makes you a pedophile. I could be one too because I've seen pictures of
young boys, pre-pubescent and it instantly turned me on, yet I wasn't into
this stuff before. Do you see what are sometimes innate things in the
animal. To think we aren't the animal anymore is to button up your blouse a
little tighter, and become a little more stuffy, because the world is going
to just revolt as soon as the cures to sexually transmitted diseases come
around, which is soon, and once they hit the market, they will change the
world forever, because marriage will collapse, promiscuity will skyrise, as
it should, and people will have sexual freedom for the first time, and be
able to enjoy it whole heartedly. If that includes your children, amen to
that, they're already sick to death about how you think of them as having
no sexuality to begin with. That they can't watch nudity and learn what a
porn is and get to watch. When I have children I will definitely introduce
my kids to pornography at the age they are sexual, probably 7 or so, and
see where that takes them. If it takes them to my cock, call me the most
blessed man on Earth, because I will bet getting a blow job from someone
who is a learner is the greatest thing because you'll be having sex with
them as old as you want them to be...probably into their teens. So imagine,
now get mommy involved and make it a family affair and enjoy the hell out
of it, because now you have what it was intended to be. Gettiing to teach
your child sex, and make them learn it right, and teach them how to enjoy
it, how to love it, how to never want to leave it. That's a partnership if
I ever heard of one. Now remember, make it legal and watch what happens.
That's the litmus test. Who says government should be able to dictate when
my child or yours has sex. No government in the world should get control
over another person's sexuality. And if you think it's to protect children,
that's a load of Sh*t because the government does nothing today to find and
hunt down pedophiles...oh no, you have child porn on your computer, you
must be the worst criminal around, is that what they think. Try rapists
first, then murderers, even theives, because they take the cake over any
pedophile doing something that is harmless. If you think your child is
harmed by sexuality it's only because you make it harmful and not something
that's natural. Get a grip people who can't stand it...get a grip. Looking
at little pictures of naked children, or graphical pictures which is
protected under the Supreme Court's ruling, so pedophilia is going to be
coming back into style because you can render by a computer a human being
almost as if it were the real thing, and it's legal, so get a grip on
what's coming down the pipe. Okay. Pedophiles are in the making, let's hope
they're the hottest, know how to fuck, straight men, not afraid to touch
boys and girls, because that's the combination that works. If you see it
yourself, try news groups and see what you find, because when you see the
right combination of guys with boys or girls, you'll never go back. It
happened to me. One time is all it took, and still today, I'm into it, and
it feels good, it feels right, God has no problem with it, because I asked
him, and he said okay, so go for it...but be the pedophile of the future,
the hottest guys finding the hottest boys and hottest girls because you are
the ones, I am the one, that will get away with it. It's what you don't
see, so you don't imagine it occurring, but it's what's all over the place.
Fathers teach your sons how to have sex, instead of them fumbling around.
Show them a porn and watch what they quickly learn, exactly where they want
their mouth to fit around, your large cock! So enjoy, that's what it's
about, endulge because that's why God created sexuality to begin with.
Pedophile isn't mentioned in the Bible by the way, so it must be okay.
Incest, well, at least you have the Adam and Eve arguments and the Noah's
Sons arguments to back you up on incest, so enjoy. Take your first step and
subscribe to a newsgroup service, with a reader, it allows you to download
pictures from different groups, and many of them are pedophile groups
because posters can anonymously learn how to post child porn on the net and
not get caught...so check it out...because it's that hot to witness. You
should see a video, because that will make you melt, and I'm not joking, so
get on Limewire and enter in child porn as your search terms and find and
sift through the porn and find something real. Once you see it you'll never
stop wanting it. Then it's all about finding it. So babysit if you want to,
go to the swim parks and show the little boys your hard dick in the
bathroom, parks are a great place to see young boys, my preference,
although I'm into little girls too, but imagine getting to pull a boy
aside, having a system set up by your friends who are fellow pedophiles,
and you have signals to alert you when a mother's coming to get their son
because they've been in the bathroom too long. Take them in the stall,
where there's privacy, take your dick out and they'll know exactly what to
do, you don't even have to tell them...they are that good at it. So enjoy.
What you should be looking into hot guys, take my challenge and find young
boys on the internet. These are legal to look at:
http://tgp.theboyscollection.com/index3.htm?gay-cat.com
this guy told the truth! i just checked out limewire & entered child porn &
it's still listing files. something should be done.
I have had sex with someone under 18. Most of my friends have had sex with
someone under 18. I am pushing 50 and have a 21 year old co-worker
interrested in me. I guess that makes all of us pedophiles.
A well-thought out article, well researched and reasoned. I couldn't have
put it better.
Most troubling if not unexpected are the few ignorant comments above made
by people who are so blindsided (I suspect lacking the education or skill
to understand) that they totally miss the point and think the author is
defending the "abuse" (however defined) of children. He/she is not.
God, the creator of the universe, is on your side. God has talking to me
directly, and has dictated a letter for me to write, concerning this very
subject, and wants everyone to read it. The letter is a real eye opener.
Did you know that God created all human sexual desires, and gave them to us
in our nature. Afterall, who do you think gave us our nature anyway? God is
calling for everyone to have a serious change of attitude if we are to see
a real change in our world for the better. Anyone wishing a free copy of
God's message to mankind, 'GOD is Speaking, listen up', which clears up the
misconseptions about God, send a request to faraway_farfromhome@yahoo.com
I find it odd that the author chose to use Sally Mann's photographs to
illustrate his or her opinion. I would think Juck Sturges would have been a
much better choose. But that is just mine opinion ;-)
Despite errors and misconceptions within many of the postings\comments, as
a psych major i can whole heartedly agree on this article. With the
increasing close mindedness of the society and the government in general
changes must be created and emotional rule must be eliminated the only way
to successfully combat the threats that continuously press upon our
society. The constitution was founded on limited government involvment with
in daily lives of its people. However this has changed drastically try to
think of something the government is not involved in within our lives. It
is time we took back our freedom and ended pointless wars. Emotions must be
controlled and a impatial desicion must always be made for there to be
everylasting peace there must be one final war. Our freedom and prosperiety
as a society depends on it. Only by working together and reviving our for
fathers dreams could we save this world from humanity and eliminate all
threats against it. All we need to do is stand together. Join me and we may
yet save this world and can begin to plan for a new future. E-mail at
revolutionaryleader@yahoo.com if interested in what I have to say.
I feel that pedophiles are sick and disturbed people, but i see nothing
wrong with these pictures. There is nothing sexual about them, God didn't
create man with a buissiness suit and tie, he made them naked and care
free. There are perverts in this world because society has made things
perverted. If the entire world were devoid of these ideas of taboo, like
nudists for example, it would be a much better place to live.
NOTES:
we are capable of doing something, saying it disgusting, i would say it is
planely kind for we are born wothout clothes. It is our nature you can't
get away of it but the thing is that, it will only be illegal and wrong if
you let you guard down; what I'm saying is that if we think it is bad means
we are thinking of something that could relate into the pic but the
pictures doesn't tell it and for those who sees the picture and thought of
this kind of art is disgusting, ridiculus or greenminded sort of way; I can
tell you that you're the one who disgust your own way, you're the green
minded because these pics dont do harm on you.
Art is Art, just dont do something stupid. try to read 7deadly sins and
you'll know that this pictures don't harm anybody.
I agree that the age of consent should be lowered a bit. I think it should
be lowered to 16. But that's just my opinion. The ages you mentioned are
just to young. This taken from your writing. (Mexico's age of consent is 12
in most cases; Japan is 13,; Spain is now 14—raised recently; France, 15;
and Germany 16 and under 16 with parental consent.) I think age 12 is way
to young. People are living to be older then 25 now... Age 13 is the same
as 12 to me. 14 is still a bit to young but better. As for France and
Germany. I think they hit the mark for good ages of consent. Now about your
art. As long as its not done in a sexual way and doesn't harm the kids and
the kids parents have consented to the photos its ok. I can see why you
would not want anyone to know who you are because most people would probity
label you a pedophile for just trying to point out some of the flaws in the
legal system concerning pedophilia.
There is nothing at all wrong with any of these pictures. Just because they
ARE naked/semi-naked and in sensual poses, does not mean to say that they
are trying to entice people to have sex with them. You can clearly see why
the photographer has taken the pictures, mainly because they're fantastic!
I don't know why, but everybody, and i mean everybody, finds children cute
and no-one can say that they are offended by naked pictures of children,
otherwise parents wouldn't want to take pictures and make videos of their
children at bathtime and suchlike - which every decent parent probably has
done or will do at some time - because they feel that the pictures of their
children naked are in some way OFFENSIVE to them or others - bollocks!
they'r gorgeous. I mean just take the third picture, for instance, you can
see what (GODFORBID) nipples and one of the cutest little bottoms i've ever
seen; there is nothing wrong with that, you can't say it is offensive in
any way because it is all natural. It is fact that no other species,
besides homo-sapiens (humans) have created anything in the way of clothing,
forget that they havn't created such rules and regulations that we have,
they mainly lead their simple lives and survive, do you really think you
would have a bunch of hippopotomouses huddled together around a picture
arguing about wether it was descent enough and not hippo-child pornography
- i think not! so yea.... all in all the pictures are great there is
definitley nothing wrong with them and I don't think there is anything
wrong with pictures such as Nan Goldin's "Klara and Edda belly-dancing"
which Elton John was accused of possesing child pornography for having.
RUBBISH!!
I'm with april. For those who look on a child and think ' oo thats somethin
a wanna have fun with is sick. But, it is also thue that children growing
up are one of the pretttiest times in a humans life. Reason being that when
humans grow up at this time it is usally hard to deal with the changes.
Subconsiously they also wish to return to the time where they learned who
they were weather it was a time of pain or joy it made them who they are.
...
whoever it is true that prepubesent children are cute as many find the pure
untouched fealing around them to appealing. Why I can't say.
My opinion is that sexual offenders, pedophiles and other predators who
stalk children should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives, and
to be constantly examined to see what makes them to make such gruesome acts
against our greatest treasure- our children.
