Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell, you are doing that grown-up left-brain stuff again. What did Deborah tell you about that? "... Prime Minister John Key says just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it."
-
What utter tosh. I suppose when you value feelings so much, forming a coherent argument does not matter.
I would carry on this line of thought, but I cannot be bothered. Instead, I want you all to imagine how angry I feel.
-
The photo spread on the front of the sports section in today's SST was closer to snuff imagery than I was prepared for, and I'd rage against it becoming the norm.
Word. I was ambushed by the photos on the Herald site. I don't want to see photos of somebody dying and I don't think they should be made available for those that do.
-
No, I am not oversimplifying Lolita, but that is by-the-by. You brought her into this conversation and I think it is now time she went home.
Please also note that I have not said that filming scenarios with adult actors has a straightforwardly damaging, causative effect. I said merely that sexual feelings towards children should not be encouraged.
Teachers spanking schoolgirls are harmless enough, so long at the teachers are wearing gowns and mortarboards and the schoolgirls are wearing gymslips. Things get a bit more icky when the depiction is realistic.
-
No, I think you are drawing a very long bow. Consummation or no, there is a huge difference between a book which describes abnormal sexuality and one which presents it as normal.
-
These people need to see a psychiatrist. Sexual desires towards children are not normal and should not be encouraged. Humbert Humbert's sexual compulsion clearly was abnormal: it stunted his life and eventually brought about his destruction. He is not clearly not a happy pedo; that is why Lolita is such a brilliant book.
-
It seems to me that using 18 yr olds + and making them look younger is precisely a way to fulfill the fantasy without using actual underage actors
Why should we want to fulfill the fantasy? People who have fantasies about sex with children need psychiatric treatment, not fulfillment.
-
No I do not; but if we allow pornography where adults who look underage perform as teenagers, there is always the danger that real underage people will be employed in those roles. The porn industry is not noted for its moral probity, after all.
-
My concern is more for the performers than the act performed.
-
I come down on the protecting-children-from-predators side, whether those predators be pornographers or their clients. I do not share your confidence that the "performer" is telling the truth when stating her age, and feel more than a little uneasy that she should have to do so.
I am also unconvinced by your slippery slope argument or your claim that this is a freedom-of-speech issue. The important issue here is the protection of children. That is far more important than the right to get off on material which is morally dubious even if it is legal.