I think you should keep on drawing and posting whatever you want. You gave a warning and you cropped the picture; nobody HAD to look at it.
Oh yes. Pedophilia is always fine if you warn the victim beforehand and tell everyone else to turn a blind eye. As long as that's what you want to do.....
If you are uncomfortable with the picture, you don't have to look at it. But it is not harming actual children and is not depicting an overtly sexual act, so I don't feel it deserves censorship.Then by virtue of fiction, this is acceptable. Or is it? Fiction is a reflection, a mirror of the human condition. In fiction, we are allowed one lie. It can be as small or as great as the author perceives it. But that's it. From then on, only truth can be told. If it isn't, then the reader (or viewer of an artistic work) will immediately sense the deviation, sense that the lie has warped truth. The author's validity has been destroyed
( ... )
What if the victim were you, your sister, your brother, or your child?
Okay. Wee Sam on the picture is a victim of what? Of being kissed? This is a tender, gentle scene, drawn by someone who generally draws this kind of (rather fluffy) pictures. I never saw mucun draw anything abusive or violent.
What do pedophiles do? They abuse children, violate them, even rape them. I don't see any violence here; I'm a mother of three children, and I kiss them, too. I have friends who love them, know them well and have their trust, and mine. My chidren have kissed some of them, too, and even on their mouth - in all innocence.
Frodo kisses Sam - a young hobbit, kissing a wee hobbit child. In all innocence. If you stay with canon (of Tolkien's tale), everything else is ridiculous. And as far as I know mucun's art, she has never done anything else than to illustrate the Professor's tale... in all innocence.
The picture is drawn by an obviously talented artist. No judgment regarding whether she intended the picture to be provocative or not is being made. The depiction is being examined.
Wee Sam on the picture is a victim of what? Of being kissed?Another poster suggested that a kiss to the forehead would have been more appropriate. If the kiss is an innocent kiss, then absolutely, a kiss to the forehead would be more appropriate. The image of a larger person kissing an obvious child on the mouth, not a peck like a relative perhaps would give, but a kiss that suggests it was a full-mouth kiss does suggest a situation that goes beyond innocence
( ... )
People disassociate themselves from reality and accept aberrant acts and premises in fiction (fanfiction and its artistic renderings, in this case) as being not only normal, but desirable.Maybe, but I don't. If we take the source of this picture into consideration, there is no need to be concerned. There are no lines that "blur" between those two. They share one of the most moving, most "innocent" friendships in literature, no grey zone, no "maybe if", nothing. Tolkien makes this very clear, and even the ton of slash stories flooding the fandom doesn't change the basic facts. And these facts in mind, I can see no danger here
( ... )
I was raised in a family where kissing on the cheek was a standard. (Parents kissed each other on the mouth, never children. Mouth-kissing, as a matter of fact, was something little kids I knew experimented in secret, emulating the adults they saw on television, but it was secret, and by all gossip, disgusting.)
One of my aunts came from a background where adults kissed related children on the mouth. However, she was sensitive to the cultural difference and always cheek-kissed *us* (instead of the mouth-kissing practiced in her own family).
Our own children, raised in a family of cheek-kissers, have expressed untaught, unprompted disgust at mouth-kissing. (I tell them they'll feel differently when they marry...)
This is beautifully put. Thank you so much for this very insightful comment. It is the bombardment of innocence by the rush to call this a work of pedophilia that worries me the most. There is such a thing as an innocent kiss on the mouth (not a snog, but a kiss) between a child and an adult, and it would be truly awful if yet another expression of affection were removed from our already puritanical culture. I worry greatly about the harvest we will reap if we scrutinize even further every touch, every gesture, every word as though we expected to find evil. There is an ugliness in doing that which blinds us to good judgment, I fear.
I think citations from a TV show actually can be pretty good barometers of what is and is not considered obscenity and/or pedophilia because of the strict regulations and monitoring of what can be shown on TV under what rating and when.
Actually, no it doesn't. Brad Pitt kissed Kirsten Dunst in 'Interview with a Vampire'. She was a child and he, an adult. I'm sure it was seen as controversial at the time, but it was not a reflection of acceptable behavior or legal statutes. It was a movie and the guy was a vampire. A protagonist perhaps, but certainly not a hero or character that would be seen as someone to imitate. He was a bad barometer and meant to be one. I didn't see the TV show you cited, but I'd say he was too.
classifications are a primary method of the law in defining whether abuse has occurred, and if so, what sort.Yes, but unfortunately, the ones you mentioned are not legally recognized. By psychological diagnosis and definition, sexual conduct among minors with anyone five years or more younger than the other participant
( ... )
Actually I'd like to *thank* mucun for allowing this discussion in her journal. I'm sorry for any distress it might have caused. I wouldn't have clicked on the post (and picture) in the first place, except that a friend told me a thoughtful discussion was going on here.
Interesting discussion. I happen to believe in absolute Truth, but have no time to debate *that* matter, having come to the end of our lunch break. However, I will nitpick at one of your "proofs
( ... )
Lovely. So all that pedophiles have to do, to avoid prosecution in future, is post drawings of fictitious adults molesting fictitious children? They can feed their habit and "nobody gets hurt". Except of course the innocent children, when the pedophiles get around to acting out their fantasies that are fed by the "art" they've been consuming.
(The comment has been removed)
Oh yes. Pedophilia is always fine if you warn the victim beforehand and tell everyone else to turn a blind eye. As long as that's what you want to do.....
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Okay. Wee Sam on the picture is a victim of what? Of being kissed? This is a tender, gentle scene, drawn by someone who generally draws this kind of (rather fluffy) pictures. I never saw mucun draw anything abusive or violent.
What do pedophiles do? They abuse children, violate them, even rape them. I don't see any violence here; I'm a mother of three children, and I kiss them, too. I have friends who love them, know them well and have their trust, and mine. My chidren have kissed some of them, too, and even on their mouth - in all innocence.
Frodo kisses Sam - a young hobbit, kissing a wee hobbit child. In all innocence. If you stay with canon (of Tolkien's tale), everything else is ridiculous. And as far as I know mucun's art, she has never done anything else than to illustrate the Professor's tale... in all innocence.
Reply
Wee Sam on the picture is a victim of what? Of being kissed?Another poster suggested that a kiss to the forehead would have been more appropriate. If the kiss is an innocent kiss, then absolutely, a kiss to the forehead would be more appropriate. The image of a larger person kissing an obvious child on the mouth, not a peck like a relative perhaps would give, but a kiss that suggests it was a full-mouth kiss does suggest a situation that goes beyond innocence ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I was raised in a family where kissing on the cheek was a standard. (Parents kissed each other on the mouth, never children. Mouth-kissing, as a matter of fact, was something little kids I knew experimented in secret, emulating the adults they saw on television, but it was secret, and by all gossip, disgusting.)
One of my aunts came from a background where adults kissed related children on the mouth. However, she was sensitive to the cultural difference and always cheek-kissed *us* (instead of the mouth-kissing practiced in her own family).
Our own children, raised in a family of cheek-kissers, have expressed untaught, unprompted disgust at mouth-kissing. (I tell them they'll feel differently when they marry...)
Reply
Catherine
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Actually, no it doesn't. Brad Pitt kissed Kirsten Dunst in 'Interview with a Vampire'. She was a child and he, an adult. I'm sure it was seen as controversial at the time, but it was not a reflection of acceptable behavior or legal statutes. It was a movie and the guy was a vampire. A protagonist perhaps, but certainly not a hero or character that would be seen as someone to imitate. He was a bad barometer and meant to be one. I didn't see the TV show you cited, but I'd say he was too.
classifications are a primary method of the law in defining whether abuse has occurred, and if so, what sort.Yes, but unfortunately, the ones you mentioned are not legally recognized. By psychological diagnosis and definition, sexual conduct among minors with anyone five years or more younger than the other participant ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Do you see the fallacy in the argument?
Reply
Leave a comment