The Vent and Rant Thread

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by TGS

Will we be boycotting any outlet that makes Nabokov's Lolita available?

Nabokov wasn't advocating child abuse. He wasn't giving advice about how to avoid criminal prosecution for molesting children.

There is a rather large difference in what Nabokov did and what this author has done. It doesn't take a college education to see that.


Stitchawl

[nohmi2]

This is neither Politics nor Religion, and Lolita was not a babe in arms (?). She was a highly sexualised female.

This is about DECENCY and MORALITY.

Remember them?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Nabokov wasn't advocating child abuse. He wasn't giving advice about how to avoid criminal prosecution for molesting children.

So the portrayal of a man having pædophilic fantasies is OK? How about the fictional portrayal of pædophile acts? How about the portrayal of pædophile acts where it is indeterminate whether they are factual or fictional. How about the portrayal of other illegal acts fictional or otherwise.

If censorship exists, the line has to be drawn somewhere - the question is, who gets to draw the line. Once you accept that a line needs to be drawn you might not always be so fortunate as to find yourself on the right side of it.

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

There is a rather large difference in what Nabokov did and what this author has done. It doesn't take a college education to see that.
Stitchawl

Is that just a generalised piece of vitriol or does it have a specific target?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

... Lolita was not a babe in arms (?). She was a highly sexualised female.

No she wasn't, except in Humbert's fantasies - but pædophiles will often ascribe sexual motivations to their victims as a way of justifying their own predatory behaviour.

I am not suggesting that the publication in question should be applauded, but rather it should be vilified, its very wrongness should be exposed and it's author called to account for the apparent depravity of what he has written. But you cannot do any of that if you censor it.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

This is neither Politics nor Religion, and Lolita was not a babe in arms (?). She was a highly sexualised female.

This is about DECENCY and MORALITY.

Remember them?

I sounds to me that this is about censorship. Motivation does not change the result.

It falls under politics.

[nohmi2]

TGS, are you suggesting that every publication of hard-core pornography and paedophilia should be given the same consideration as say, 'Fanny Hill' etc.

In time to come will we be hearing some scum in court citing this publication as his inspiration to rape a child.

Yes! Bring back some form of Censorship. The fact that there is some outrage direct at Amazon, shows this is a step too far. There has to be limits.

I am just grateful that my children and grandchildren are grown, and know right from wrong.

I despair for some of the littlies growing up today, whose parents
are 'bleeding hearts'.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I sounds to me that this is about censorship. Motivation does not change the result.

It falls under politics.

I would say it would only fall under politics if people wanted the govt of wherever to say this shall not be sold. It seems more that people are wanting Amazon to not sell it.

Originally Posted by nohmi2

TGS, are you suggesting that every publication of hard-core pornography and paedophilia should be given the same consideration as say, 'Fanny Hill' etc.

Hard core pornography is NOT the same as paedophilia. Paedophilia can only ever be between a consenting party (the paedophile) and a non-consenting party (the victim); but the acts portrayed in hard core pornography could easily be between two (or more) consenting adults.

[Sparrow]

I wonder how people feel about misery lit?

That generally seems to be about child abuse of various types (judging by the book covers in my local supermarket).
"Misery lit has been described as "the book world's biggest boom sector"."

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I would say it would only fall under politics if people wanted the govt of wherever to say this shall not be sold. It seems more that people are wanting Amazon to not sell it.



Hard core pornography is NOT the same as paedophilia. Paedophilia can only ever be between a consenting party (the paedophile) and a non-consenting party (the victim); but the acts portrayed in hard core pornography could easily be between two (or more) consenting adults.

.........and how about 'Bestiality'?

Or does the beast always consent?

Cheers

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by TGS

So the portrayal of a man having pædophilic fantasies is OK? How about the fictional portrayal of pædophile acts?

Neither of these is in violation of the law. Advocating criminal acts is. His book was advocating criminal acts. THAT is the difference. He wasn't pandering to fantasy or to fiction. He was giving advice on how to molest children and get away with reduced sentences if caught and convicted of this horrendous crime.

If censorship exists, the line has to be drawn somewhere - the question is, who gets to draw the line.

Right now, who decides when Child Protective Services should remove a child from his/her parent's household? Who decides that a parent is unfit to care for a child? We have people in whom we've placed our trust to make these decisions. That's how society works. 9 times out of 10 they make the right decisions.

Once you accept that a line needs to be drawn you might not always be so fortunate as to find yourself on the right side of it.

Thankfully our system has built-in safeguards such as the right to appeal. Usually the system works. It would be wonderful if it always worked.

Is that just a generalised piece of vitriol or does it have a specific target?

No need for paranoia. This entire thread has but one villain; the author of the book. Unless, that is, if people think that stopping this author is somehow wrong.

Stitchawl

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I wonder how people feel about misery lit?

That generally seems to be about child abuse of various types (judging by the book covers in my local supermarket).
"Misery lit has been described as "the book world's biggest boom sector"."

I've never understood the fascination, myself - dreary, miserable, roadcrash stuff.

Originally Posted by nohmi2

.........and how about 'Bestiality'?

Or does the beast always consent?

Cheers

As far as I'm aware an animal doesn't count as an adult? Therefore it could not be a consenting adult. "Could easily be between two or more consenting adults" doesn't mean "is always between..." Bestiality clearly falls into the non-consent side of things (although I suppose there are those would argue that animals are here for humans to use as they see fit - but that is another discussion)

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

TGS, are you suggesting that every publication of hard-core pornography and paedophilia should be given the same consideration as say, 'Fanny Hill' etc.

Not at all, prurient, objectionable exploitative material should be dealt with and responded to to as prurient, objectionable exploitative material. I want such material not to be produced. However, that I want such material not to be produced does not give me any more right to outlaw its production than the prurience of Barbara Cartland gives me a right to ban that.

Censorship is dangerous - and I know pædophilia is dangerous, but then deal with those dangers through sexual offences legislation, not through censorship.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I've never understood the fascination, myself - dreary, miserable, roadcrash stuff.



As far as I'm aware an animal doesn't count as an adult? Therefore it could not be a consenting adult. "Could easily be between two or more consenting adults" doesn't mean "is always between..." Bestiality clearly falls into the non-consent side of things (although I suppose there are those would argue that animals are here for humans to use as they see fit - but that is another discussion)

........and I now feel sick.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by TGS

Not at all, prurient, objectionable exploitative material should be dealt with and responded to to as prurient, objectionable exploitative material. I want such material not to be produced. However, that I want such material not to be produced does not give me any more right to outlaw its production than the prurience of Barbara Cartland gives me a right to ban that.

Censorship is dangerous - and I know pædophilia is dangerous, but then deal with those dangers through sexual offences legislation, not through censorship.

And the Sexual Offences Legislation is working wonderfully, isn't it?

I have given my opinion regarding this subject, now I will find it interesting to see how this subject is now handled, as I have said what I came on here to say.

As one radio broadcaster in Australia, who went to jail for 'outting' a paedophile used to ask when closing his program,

"Who is looking after the children?"

I salute Derry Hinch. A man of courage, and there are not many left of today.

Cheers.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

........and I now feel sick.

Apologies.

If it's any consolation, so do I.

I don't mind what people do to each other so long as all parties have made fully informed consent. Bring in the unconsenting and :shudders: urgh.

I am now going to think of unicorns and rainbows