Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orgasmics
I know you didn't call me a retard. You came off as holier than thou, so I included the word to make you feel even better about yourself.
Since you're trying to pick me apart, let me clarify my googling. Yes, there were many results, but not many in English. So I didn't find many English results and didn't feel like weeding through all the foreign results to find pertinent info.
If it's a simple reference necessary to bring the plot together, it is much different than a book based soley on molesting children.
A book referencing a sex act is less likely to have a pedo following than a site full of baby and child rape stories. Do you really not see my point here?
|
This particular book, actually, consists almost solely of extremely explicit sex acts involving underage characters. In doing that, it both parodies normal erotic writing in a hilarious way and strongly attacks the dominant sexual morality. So, in effect, the content serves as a fairly strong literary device.
At the same time, however, there is not a single doubt about it that that very same book has been masturbated to by a very large amount of people. (Many of whom - I would venture to say - aren't paedophiles at all.)
The point is that it isn't possible to draw a clear line, and that outlawing certain types of fiction will always, in the end, harm literature and art, and thereby the most fundamental elements of free speech.
Furthermore I don't really see your point when you attack content based on the people reading or watching it. Isn't the problem in that more one of aesthetics and association than of ethics? After all, no matter how repulsive fiction is, it doesn't physically hurt anyone, and association with the wrong people may make something look bad, but whether it actually is bad depends on the thing itself. And, I would say, whether something actually is bad depends on its physical causes and effects, not on the aesthetic reaction it causes in us.