Fanart: Teen Kilroy (rating to be determined after Abuse deletes my account)
Okay, LJ is claiming that not only text-only description, but any non-photographic depiction of someone under 18 (and photos, too, which I'd say everyone was on the same page about except that LJ has spectacularly failed to specify that only photographs of minors which include nudity and/or a sexual theme are obscene, so anybody who's posted fully-
( Read more... )
Comments 10
I find the statement of age insufficient; no thirteen year old with hormones strong enough to cause that sort of genital growth could possibly be free of acne.
By the standard of "Would this make people snicker and/or blush?" it is prurient, as it is by the standard of "Would I hesitate to show this to my grandmother?" Mind you, my grandmother might be involved in this debate under a pseudonym and keeping her identity secret from me, so the latter case is less applicable.
The act of ejaculation itself seems as though it can be no more offensive than snoring (which is mighty irritating in the middle of the night, but not worth a court case unless one means divorce), given that men do both in their sleep. There is no indication of whether the minor depicted has been masturbating or engaging in some other form of sexual activity.
As for the latter question, yes, dear. You might have done better to seek out R. Crumb and repost some.
Reply
I left pimples off as a matter of artistic license. They would've detracted from the image's ability to arouse prurient interest, don'tcha think?
Personally, I'd have no problem showing li'l Kilroy to my grandmother -- my dead grandmother, my senile-from-Alzheimer's grandmother, or my blind grandmother.
There is no indication of whether the minor depicted has been masturbating or engaging in some other form of sexual activity.
Curse it, you're right! It could just be one of those spontaneous random ejaculations which are commonly associated with that degree of penile hypertrophy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
One loophole I suspect would be, if the "community" in question is a fandom. If people post flocked material with warnings all over it, surely then the burden of whether or not the material is obscene falls to those able to view it, ie the members of a particular LJ community or the people on a particular flist?
This whole thing is so unsettling. Obviously I don't want to be seen to support paedophilia, and I think that's the sticking point with this situation. But people DO have sex with each other below the age of 18 and personally, I think anything with people aged 15 to 18 is fair game. They're physically adult and highly likely to be engaged in some form of sexual activity. Preferably not with their parents or teachers, but.
Reply
(Though, if there were a hypothetical LJ-community for people with paedophilic desires whose purpose was to help its members not to act on those desires, its community standards might well preclude glorification of sexual activity with minors of the sort which SixApart is trying to keep off LJ.)
I got into (briefly, and got right out again once it became clear the other user was a liar, a moron, a troll or all three) an argument with another commenter on one of the lj_biz posts who suggested that it was hinky to regard anyone under 18 as a sexual being, and claimed never to have experienced any sexual desire or curiosity before the age of 18 themselves. *Humans* are sexual beings, as any psychologist can tell you. Plenty of infants and toddlers figure out all ( ... )
Reply
That's taking it way too far -- don't most kids look at their siblings' bits when they're really young? I know me and my sister did.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment