Posts by Emma Hart
-
I do have to admit that choo-choo train academy would be pretty awesome
Oh, I think children's literature teaches us otherwise.
In fact, it turns out that Tootle may be quite instructive to the current debate.
-
I'd buy that. Is there any data on any other countries?
This is a research paper which seems to suggest that the same is true for the US. Note, though, that the concentration here is not on child pornography but adult pornography.
Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there's a causal link between porn and decreased sexual violence, but I am pretty convinced that the data indicates a lack of causal link between pornography and increased sexual violence.
this is what I imagine a lolicon to be.
That's really disturbing. Unicorns creep me out.
-
I still say there needs to be a ton more research before I buy into that line, but it is a more reasonable statement.
There's some disagreement coming through in the research, but the stuff mentioned in that lolicon article is interesting:
Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama observe a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany. In their summary, they state that the concern that countries with widespread availability of sexually explicit material would suffer increased rates of sexual crimes was not validated
-
Heh, in fact, Language Log eviscerates Orwell:
So, Orwell writes "it is generally assumed", which is passive. Why didn't he say "people generally assume", or "we generally assume", both of which are perfectly grammatical, are one word shorter, and are not passive?
-
If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
Whoop! Whoop! Irony alert!
-
It comes down to whether viewing depictions of an act can reasonably be expected to encourage a significant number of people who otherwise would not, to engage in that act.
Yeah, and I find this very shaky ground. Consider: watching lolicon/shotacon (link SFW) will turn you into a paedophile. Now consider: watching gay porn will turn you gay.
It should be noted at this point that I'm not recommending you try this experiment, because lolicon is illegal in New Zealand.
-
Could be an urban myth - surely that would have created enough of a logical paradox to destroy the world?
Nope, it's completely true. Russell has linked to the case on an Up Front thread before, but I can't remember where to find it.
-
Really I think making looking at an image illegal is basically creating a thought crime.
This is the line that Ms Naughty has taken (page contains no offensive material, but words likely to trip your work filter.)
If a model is over 18, she is legal. The magazine in question may be offensive in what it depicts but it’s not child porn. Unless someone can show evidence that reading that kind of magazine leads directly to criminal activity, we are legislating against thought crime.
The message to slim women (and I've not yet seen mention of the cultural/racial aspects of this) is that they're not proper women and men who find them attractive are perverts. Now, I'm actually not one of those people who thinks women get their messages about body image from the pornography they don't watch, but still.
And okay, so breast size is only one indicator used to judge 'apparent age'. But what others are they going to use? Pubic hair? In porn?
(Tangentially, I was talking to my partner yesterday, relating a conversation I'd had with someone who'd found Up Front recently. I said, "So he was doing a google..." And Karl's reply was "What the hell was he looking for?")
-
Not quite Emma.
Ah, sorry, Dyan, I've missed this:
The Tackling Violent Crime Act took effect on 1 May 2008, raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.
That was after we spent time at Bardic Web trying to work out an acceptable 'youngest age' barrier for erotica there.
But given the close in age exception which means that 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with anyone (pretty much) less than five years older than them, that gives you a practical age of consent (because how many 14 year olds have romantic parters older than 19?) which is younger than what we're used to finding 'acceptable'.
-
I'd want to know how much context matters - will an image used to illustrate a serious article on child-porn be treated differently from a similar image on a website 'promoting' sex with minors?
Censors are legally required to take context (and things like frequency and degree) into consideration.
I suppose the first obvious contradiction is that you have have sex at 16, but you can't watch it until 18, so make sure you keep your eyes shut...
The age of consent in Canada is fourteen. That's four years of keeping your eyes shut.