Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RawAlex
kamasutrababe, your attempting to take a love story (old / younger, with a side order of "and then they had sex") and compare it to "I fingered my 6 month old daughter".
Anyone with half a brain can see the difference. Have you ever read Lolita? Seen the movie? They guy isn't lusting after some 2 year old baby in diapers, now is he? If that was the case, do you truly think that the movie would have been made or the book published?
A just of 12 men and women could easily pick out the difference between a naughty tale of forbidden love and spank material for the sickest perverted pedos. This is a case as clear as the nose on your face (providing you have one). There is no grey area here.
Obscene material is obscene, no matter how it is presented.
Now, if the book lolita was 200 pages and 180 pages was graphic details about sexual acts, you might have a subject for discussion. Lolita is about 1% sex... and that is the "they made love until the sun came up" sort of thing.
Search the web for stories by red rose. You will able to see quite clearly that it is pretty much 98% about sex, sex abuse, and pedo activity. The difference between that and lolita is very, very clear.
If you can't see the difference, well... I truly feel sorry for you.
Alex
|
Save your pity.
"A government might be established on the principle of benevolence towards the people, like that of a father towards his children. Under such a paternal government, the subjects, as immature children who cannot distinguish what is truly useful or harmful to themselves, would be obliged to behave purely passively and to rely upon the judgment of the head of state as to how they ought to be happy, and upon his kindness in willing their happiness at all."
Nice to see all you pornographers are just fine and dandy with letting someone else decide what's fit for you to read or not, because that's exactly what's happening. Very soon some Ashcroft like politician will be cracking down even harder on what he thinks you can handle and what artists are acceptable for public viewing.
Rawalex, you're completely missing the point. Willfully. Molesting a child is a horrible crime. Brutally murdering someone is an even more horrible crime. Raping someone is a horrible crime. A brutal non-lethal assault is a horrible crime, and jumping turnstiles in subways is a horrible crime against the state depriving it of necessary revenue. You want to give the government the right to arrest you over pixels depicting one type of horrible crime but not another? Don't be so fucking naive. If they can do it for one, they'll soon be doing it for all of the topics. Today Red Rose, tomorrow Lady Chatterly's Lover. Censors and wannabe censors aren't know for their love of fine literature.