A bit late to the discussion - but my feelings on the child models and the like are probably a sign that I`ve been here far too long... Or that I`ve been too far removed from the western morality during the important formative years.
Personally, I find nothing even distasteful about the child models. It isn`t all little girls - about a third are little boys.
The important part is that it doesn`t cross a certain line of actually causing harm to the child. A little girl in a bathing suit is in no more revealing clothing than she is when swimming - posing and imitating the popular idols is not asking her to perform pornography.
I do find distaste with the handful of guys who lust after them - but in the end, what does it matter? As long as a line is never crossed and the child is never harmed, what is so horrific?
The child models generally are aiming to be idols, models, or actors/actresses. Most of the famous models and idol groups started out in the child model scene.
Anyway - I think a lot of my feelings on this have to do with my position on pedophiles. I feel that it`s sick and unnatural, but that it is something that the individual most likely has no control over. What they do control is whether they act on it. There are countless men out there who have incredibly horrific fantasies and fetishes - but that doesn`t mean they cannot control themselves to not go out and force that on someone. Just as those men with horrible or illegal fetishes (like rape fetishes) are expected to control their desires and live with just fantasizing... As long as pedophiles can control their desires and survive with just fantasizing - why should I care what goes on in their head?
If someone wants to fantasize about, say, raping me - as long as I do not know about it and as long as they do not actually do it... I really don`t care. The same goes for my own child - if someone wants to fantasize about doing sexual things with him... As long as it stays in private fantasy and never happens, I do not really care.
In the past I received some comments (not here) about posting the number of photos of my son online as I have. The argument was that somewhere, someone may be looking at them and masturbating (gasp and horror!)
My response to that is and was - So? It in no way harms my son. And if some pedophile can get off at looking at non-pornographic photos of children, all the better! Hopefully fewer children will be harmed through actual actions or child pornography - things that are absolutely abominable and should never be forgiven.
I would be very happy if all the pedophiles were able to satisfy themselves with non-pornographic model imagery and 2D pornography instead of any child ever being harmed. Acting on such urges is no different than anyone acting on an urge to forcibly do something sexual to another. I don`t believe that the subject of fantasy should have any bearing to the ability to control oneself. Everyone fantasizes about something or other - it is only those that act on those fantasies who are in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatkid
It stated that all forms of child "pornography" be made illegal and punishable by law. Including the swim suit sort, but it was a flop because a poll showed that most citizens objected to the idea. Mainly because of economic reasons, and that the children being portrayed in main stream magazines were not being subjected to physical or sexual harm in any way, as far as they know of course. I guess, that it really wouldn't put hole in the industry if it were gone though.
|
Actually, one of the biggest reasons for the public rejection of the bill had nothing at all to do with models, as they really didn`t fall under it.
It was because of anything that could be considered a sexual depiction of a child being barred from publishing and censored. The objection came almost entirely to the fact that it covered art and literature.
Any piece of art, any manga, any book, anything in which a young person of questionable age was shown or depicted in a sexual manner - including fiction aimed at young adults - would be barred from publishing or censored and open doors for the artist / author be prosecuted for child pornography.
There was no debate about it in regard to real children. But considering any picture or piece of writing on the same level as a video of someone raping an innocent child is ridiculous - so the law received strong (and justified) objection.
They later failed to see the point and put it up again with literature removed from the thing, but still the same hard line on art... And obviously received just as much objection.
If they`d just limit it to
real child pornography, there would be little difficulty in passing it... People are as disgusted by children being harmed as they are elsewhere. But they keep trying to sneak in ways to censor other forms of media that could be considered suspicious even if no child was ever involved.