(Untitled)

[into_amystika]

2 meta-stupids. Different threads, similiar topics. No interesting introduction by me because I'm tired and going to bed.

Meta #1
"If there is grass on the field, its time to play ball!" -- "I'd take 13 as a good demarcation line between child porn."

Meta #2
"I never really saw what the big deal with pedophilia was."

Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

Comments

[theblackdragon]

niiiiiice reversal by anomie666, lol

[hatsumomo]

Blech I hate when guys say "If there is grass on the field it's time to play ball", one of my husbands skeezy cousins says it all the damn time. I had grass on my field when I was about 9.

[amokk]

The rest of that phrase makes it even worse, and I didn't fully understand it until recently.

I had some "skeezy" friends in high school who said it a lot. Looking back, I now wonder if I'll read about them in the paper one day not being allowed to work or live near schools...

[kimbean]

I imagine seeing them on "How to Catch a Predator"

[ex_mrflagg]

old enough to shave, old enough to misbehave
old enough to bleed, old enough to breed
old enough to mow, old enough to go

[wazira_sharira]

They're both being idiots. But so was the person who labeled shots of a 17-year-old girl as 'child' pornography in the first place. 17-year-olds aren't children, for one thing, and last time I checked, crappy Myspace shots weren't porn. This entire situation is stupid. The girl who decided to post the shots is stupid, the people who yelled IT'S KIDDY PORN are stupid, and the people who made this meta-stupid are stupid. End of story.

[hatsumomo]

I agree. The pictures sucked but they were "child porn" in the same way that teen/child underwear photos in catalogues are "child porn".

[orangulent]

I think there's one important difference between this girl's myspace shots, and a catalogue.
In a catalogue featuring underage girls, the poses and pictures are not purposely made to be sexual in nature. The pictures are of girls being very casual, as if they're simply standing around brushing their hair or talking with other girls.
This girl's picture, like not being too overt [I wasn't offended, and I wouldn't quite call it"porn"] are clearly supposed to be sexy. She wasn't just sitting reading a book in her bra, her shirt was purposely opened up to reveal the bra, to provoke a reaction.

And it got one, so hey, it worked!
I think that's what set it off, the fact that the picture was obviously meant to sexual, and she's underage.

[cbackson]

And the commenter in #1 wants to do statistical research...on education issues...in schools...with actual children.

Yick.

[ems]

Being sexually attracted to post-pubescent teenagers actually isn't paedophilia, which is strictly defined as an attraction to pre-pubescents or peripubescents (i.e. those going through puberty). Being attracted to post-pubescents is actually ephebophilia. There is some debate amongst academic circles about whether it's a psychological disorder or whether it's just an example of people breaking societal norms (as, biologically speaking, post-pubescents are "sexually ready" and in many cultures it's completely normal for them to engage in sexual relationships

[amokk]

DSM defines pedophilia as an attraction to children under 13, having nothing to do with puberty at all. So it's not quite strictly defined.

[ems]

It depends whether you're talking legally or not. The word paedophilia means sexual attraction to pre or peripubescents, no matter what age they are. Legal definitions are really a whole other ball game.

But I think we're both in agreement that having sex with fourteen year olds is just as bad as having sex with twelve year olds, so I don't think we need argue.

[amokk]

Psychologically, not legally. And yeah, legal is its own little world.