Just one more small harrassing question for the day before I head out to Norview Avenue to play in traffic....

How come some websites say images of nudity are 18+ but anyone from age zero to 150 can go into a theater and see the same nudity without restriction?

Nudity can appear in PG films which do not restrict the admission of children. If the film has slightly stronger nudity, but not sexually oriented, it gets bumped up to the PG-13 category and age 12 and under is not admitted. R-rated restricts admission of 17 and under, so a minor aged 17 can view sexual nudity. Even the strongest possible film rating, NC-17, still allows minors to see graphic sex acts, such as the blow job in The Brown Bunny by main stream actress Chloë Sevigny and even full penetration porn (which, normally, the MPAA does not give a rating).

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

In other words, in the United States, you can buy a child a ticket and show them nudity in a public setting. Heck, main stream movies have even filmed nude and partially nude children in a sexual connotation.

But we scream in indignation at a website?

Come on, people. Find your priorities! Find your free thinking mind and stop knee jerk reacting because it is the popular thing to do. If you want to fight, then by gosh go ahead, but fight properly. You cannot leave one avenue open and expect to force legal changes down another. Does the term "special interest legislation" mean anything to anyone? Decades ago the film industry successfully defended their first amendment right to display art and entertainment nudity to anyone who would buy a ticket. Websites will just cite those very same film precidents, the courts (as the Oregon Supreme Court recently did) will probably say they cannot define what is and is not art, and boom...by not fighting the battle on all fronts, you will have lost the kiddie war and will, in actuality, have opened the floodgates to even more of the kind of websites you are now protesting against.

One, just one, Supreme Court ruling in favor of that website is all it will take to stop your campaign cold and publicize the legality of such sites to everyone in the country. Be careful how you do things. You want to stop such sites? Fine. Do it right, or not at all, and stop making the job more difficult for those of us who truly attempt to work against child sexual exploitation.


Bye. My afternoon truck doging session is calling.

I hate to say this, but LEGALLY those "kid model" sites aren't breaking any laws for the most part. Sure MORALLY they're wrong/disgusting/etc.... But they've been in existence for years because pervs have credit cards.

Sadly, after watching a special on MSNBC (or one of their affiliates) and some girls are kidnapped and forced into stuff like this and much worse.

So far though i've only run into two former teen models with paysites that went on to do more when they became legal. One of them wound up working for Playboy as a cybergirl.

Ty Simone's delving into the sciences seems right on target.

We are not more than a hundred years (in the U.S.) from when a woman could be considered an old maid if she was not bethroed by age 14. For most of the world's population, 12 to 14 is still the most common age for marriage. The trend towards females getting marriage a decade or more after puberty developes usually after a society becomes industrialized and a middle class developes. Industrialized societies require education and a career in order for people to survive. Sexual activity and reproduction become delayed not because of a moral imperative or social pressure but because industrial societies create inflation and a reduction of farming/hunting land. To counter this, a career is needed.

Once a majority of the citizenry has been absorbed into the industrial life and settles towards a middle-class society, then the practices of the past become passe and anyone indulging in them becomes morally reprehensible. The pressure, legal and social, is to join the system.

And too, an industrial society makes it a severe handicap for a girl to become pregnant prior to completing an education and establishing a career.

The survival instint to reproduce early and often becomes harnessed by the industrial instint. But it always resides there, below the surface, and it must be controlled. That is why my definition of a true pedophile must be someone who finds persons below the physically reproductive age attractive. The law, however, has extended beyond the age of initial reproductive ability and that is what we must follow.

The availability of what many percieve as temptation - internet websites featuring pretty younglings - is what frightens people. Yet still there is either denial or ignorance feeding that fright. The fear is being guided in the wrong direction.

There is a old saying: The biggest trick the devil played on man was to convince him that he does not exist.

Here is a brand new saying for the internet: The biggest trick that pedophiles have played on man is to convince us that they are hunting on the internet.

Don't get me wrong...here and there there are a few, a very few, individuals who wish to and do hunt down an attractive person they fixate upon on the web. But they are in the extreme minority. I would say one in a million range.

People are looking in the wrong place for pedophiles. Ask any social worker.

Here is a bumper sticker that should be promoted: Strangers don't rape stangers.

Most sexual predation by pedophiles happens in the home and is committed by relatives. The next most common occurance is by neighbors and family friends. Those are the people who have knowledge, access and opportunity.

It is the same pattern as with rapes among adults. Most commonly, the rapist knows the victim. This is also but one of the many reasons why most rapes, even now, go unreported. I wsish I could remember the name of a study that was done by a civil rights group. They tried to get it published - they were a customer at my old print shop - but their grant money dried up suddenly and quickly. Their study was inspired by the alarmingly high numbers of persons convicted of rape in the U.S. who are being released from prison now that DNA testing is common and is proving that they did not commit the crime. Their study, centering on cases where DNA evidence freed the convicted party, was doing genetic comparisons of the rape kit sample with the victim's genetics. They wanted to know how many falsly accused persons were a scape goat for a victim protecting a family member. I never saw the report's results,  but I do remember them commenting that a large number of the DNA profiles were not even of the same race as the accused.

On the matter of sexually explicit images of children being available on the web (no judgement in this statement as to whether or not the website being discussed is or is not sexually explicit) making child porn unprofitable is only a drop in the hat as far as the real problem: sexual exploitation of anyone.

A pedophile running a website will not stop abusing children because he/she cannot make money off of them. Making money is a fringe benefit. A businessman running a website featuring sexually exploited children, however, is another matter. He survives only as long as there is a market. Unfortunately, even in some first world countries, like a few Scandanavian ones, prostitution is legal as young as 14. A web presence in such countries with minors having sex might just be legal. You won't shut them down or remove their presence from the web.

The onus falls then on you not to view the site. In fact, it is illegal in the U.S. for you to view such sites. Your warnings to the world about such sites is a form of promotion of those sites that the webmasters welcome. Free advertising! Yippee!

If a link appears on a site that is U.S. based or based in a country that prohibits such, notify the site owner, notify law enforcement, notify your congressman, then shut the heck up! That is how you can help reduce the spread of child sexual exploitation.

Oh...and keep an eye on Uncle Bob and Aunt May.