Shut Up and Dance - Conflicted emotions
-
emavo — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 04:45 PM)
Everything here is semantics. What a pointless response. If you think he's doing nothing wrong because he's "only viewing child pornography" then I urge you to reevaluate what the greater implications of that really are.
-
leiastarkiller — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 07:17 PM)
That's not semantics. Child pornography is not a victimless crime. It is dangerous to suggest otherwise. There are real children behind the pictures and videos. Their lives are destroyed because perverts think there's no harm in just looking.
-
PeterMarkoff — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:00 PM)
where is victim in looking at nudist beach with children? where is victim if he would be looking at my naked photos my mother took decades ago? actually i would propose to set up website where people can voluntarily upload their (naked) childhood photos, i don't mind if summertime will jerk to my decades old naked photo if it saves at least one actual child from being abused
-
danavenell — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:07 PM)
where is victim in looking at nudist beach with children? where is victim if he would be looking at my naked photos my mother took decades ago? actually i would propose to set up website where people can voluntarily upload their (naked) childhood photos, i don't mind if summertime will jerk to my decades old naked photo if it saves at least one actual child from being abused
I agree with your website idea, and thought of a similar one involving paedos (that's how we spell it btw) childhood photos being made available.. but the UK law says if you take a photo from one context (say, someones FB photos of their child at the beach) and download it into a folder called 'sexy kids' then you have made child-porn. Bit weird innit? -
andrewmichaelbrookes — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 05:01 PM)
But is he though? I suppose if he buys the material from a child predator he would be supporting the exploitation of children. Or if he were consuming the material off of a website that got ad revenue from him visiting he would be contributing to the exploitation of children. But suppose the person actually doing the abusing of children doesn't make money off of the main character viewing the photos- how does his viewing the photos create more abuse for children? Do we really need to pretend that someone who looks at child pornography is just as bad as a child molester?
-
Sovjohn — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 05:23 PM)
I wrote a review about this episode (because I had the same conflicted emotions over here), and well -
It depends. What is acceptable in a given culture may be a big no-no in another. I know for instance of several cultures in Africa who are perfectly okay with marrying off 12-year old (or younger) girls and boys because their customs works that way - with the heightened probability that, not only will sex take place at that age with the blessing of the family / village / community but also pregnancy will soon follow, with all the implications this carries of course.
On the other end of the spectrum, homosexuality for instance is still frowned upon / is illegal / is considered a disease / is punishable by jail or death in ultra-conservative cultures.
The truth lies in the middle, I think.
Apart from age of consent being what it is legally (surprise,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
in several countries it's not 18 but quite lower than that), I can't view as a crime a 16-year old raised in the age and era of social media jacking off to pictures of say 14-year old kids. Heck, when I was 16 it was hard to find
any sort of
naked pictures anywhere, and girls in high school seemed more chastise than monastery nuns! Things are not the same today, that's for sure.
Apart from the fact of highly restricted / illegal pictures being hard to get a hold of for good reason, there are several exceptions in laws regarding actual sexual activity with persons within a given age range.
I think the fact that Kenny here was a boy and not a 50-year old man was a central theme to the episode, and myself would be inclined to believe his actions could be well justified, to a degree.
Then again, he might have developed an unhealthy appetite for more tender ages, like 8 year old girls or what have you, in which case the argument is rather moot, unless he was 11, or anyway within a reasonable age bracket to the "offending age". You get the point I believe. I can't blame a kid for being curious about neighboring ages' sexual attributes, sorry.
The story would not nearly be the same if the protagonist was not, in essence, a boy (not a man). Of course in the episode, everybody lost in the end so "it didn't matter" - Kenny in particular ruined his life over the video. But as a debate point, it does matter and was, I think, the driving force behind this episode's concept. -
emavo — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 05:33 PM)
It was heavily implied that Kenny was viewing YOUNG children. Think back to the scenes he interacted with children at his workplace. The little girl was probably about 7 and the crayon drawing he was fawning over couldn't have been colored by a kid over 5.
-
Sovjohn — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 05:43 PM)
This changes things, of course, but still, I think this was meant to make people ponder.
Was the protagonist a decent young man who genuinely cared about kids in an affectionate / cute sort of way, or was he a pervert? (I wouldn't say "sexual predator" because his timid character didn't imply something of the sort).
There's no way to know. If a) he was viewing "kiddie porn" of people close to or around his age, this would be normal for some people, including me, but then he'd have to be just a good guy in the kid-involving scenes (little girl, drawing). If b) he was viewing "kiddie porn" of young children, he would automatically be at the very least a pervert (and since the setting of the series is in the UK, a criminal as well), and the interactions with kids would all be suspicious of criminal activity.
We'll never really know whether the case was for a) or b), so I'd call the twist of the episode rather ingenious even for merely fueling discussion and debate on "how on earth could that happen in this episode". Bravo! -
Ringworm7 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 06:21 PM)
it's implied that Kenny and the man he killed are both pedophiles, not hebephiles. Kenny looks about 17, and if he jerked off to teen pics that would be hebephile and not so strange for his age. pedophiles get off only from pre-pubescent children, under 10-11 basically.
child porn exploits children by making sexualized images of them in the first place. that's why I hate the "toddlers and tiaras" type shows, poor kids.
7even days
-
Mehki_Girl — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 07:31 PM)
Yes, because by consuming it, you create a market for it. Frankly, if you are attracted to children then you are a potential danger to children and from where most parents sit, then you are a danger to children. No one is going to make fine lines of distinction about the kind and type of kiddie porn someone likes to whack off to.
http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=) -
Todd_B — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 10:05 PM)
Actually legalization of child pornography lowers the rates of child abuse. Just like the legalization of adult pornography lowers the rates of rape.
Legalization of digital (digital meaning animated, with no real people involved) child pornography would be victimless and would probably save endless thousands of kids from being abused since perpetrators would have an alternative.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/02/study-making-pornography-more-accessible-may-curb-child-abuse/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html -
emavo — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 10:24 PM)
Okay first, you should really cite raw data as a source to back up claims and not articles that fail to actually link the referenced studies in some way and don't get into any of the nitty gritty of the so-called experiments and data collection. Second, half of the Times article talks about how, in the opinion of an expert in the field, that the data in no way makes child pornography condonable. I can't comment further on these claims because I have no way to examine the "facts" presented and how they were obtained.
On the second point, I'm not sure what you mean by digital child pornography. -
laurendorward-990-190608 — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 01:27 AM)
What a load of nonsense. You do realise that children will still be being abused and harmed so the pornography is made.
It's not a victimless crime. The kids in the videos and photos are real. -
leiastarkiller — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 07:22 PM)
Oh I'm sure you'd love videos of your children being raped to be legally distributed so thousands of pedos can jerk off to them against their will. What an absolutely appalling idea. Reading the paragraph you wrote made me feel physically sick. Seriously re-evaluate your life and your use on this planet if you think child porn should be legalized.
-
Todd_B — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 07:24 PM)
I said digital child pornography. Assume legalization of digital child pornography (all animated, no real people involved) lowered the rates of child sexual abuse by 10-20%. That means tens of millions of children who will not be abused.
Pornography provides a substitute for people's sexual urges. That is why when it is legalized the rates of sex crimes drop.
