Date: March 11, 2015
When looking into my last post, I happened upon something else by chance…and I just could not allow this to pass, without documenting and sharing it.
I noticed the section below an article, where they have pictures and links to other stories that “might interest you”…a graphic connected to an interview about the clitoris…
This graphic is used in the actual show footage, where this interview is taking place.
I want to explain something about “child pornography”, by it’s legal definition…and I think this is something, which most people are unaware of…
Anymore, in the United States, you can be charged and convicted of “child pornography” possession/production/distribution…even when there was no legal minor [let alone, actual child] involved, at any stage in the process. What they’ve expanded it to these days, includes content which merely purveys the idea, of a “child” [a legal minor] in a situation which stimulates the sexual arousal in anyone at all.
…Because of this, people who are of legal age have been tainted with the stigma of “child pornography”, due to things like wearing “schoolgirl uniforms”…or dressing up like a high school cheerleader, while in a porn shoot. Basically, if they do anything that conveys they are “imitating a child” [a legal minor], then they can be accused of participating in the creation of “child pornography”…This can even include such things, as having a naïve, “child like” look on their face.
In addition…we’ve seen the rise of a social sentiment, where in the inability to distinguish the legality of any “sexual” content, might get it branded “child pornography”…simply because you cannot tell by looking at it, whether all participants are of legal age.
…This is, admittedly, “thought crime” territory…As in, if “that” picture incites “those” thoughts in you, then in a case by case basis…you are guilty of “possessing child pornography”, because it is “an equivalent” to you.
…Don’t believe me?…Go do your own research, and find out just how convoluted “child pornography” law has become…Taken to it’s logical conclusion, you can barely even define, what is or is not legally defined “child pornography”, anymore…And there are many deep, dangerous problems in this.
What struck me about this graphic used here [openly, on the Huffington post website]…is that the model photographed could just as easily be a ten year old female, as it could be a twelve year old female…as it could be a fifteen year old female…as it could be a seventeen year old female…as it could be a eighteen year old female…as it could be a twenty one year old female…
How is any onlooker expected to determine?…And what exactly does anyone have to say about it, should someone grab a copy of that picture…pretend it is a teen, or pre-teen girl…and masturbate to it, fantasy style…because it adequately fits the individuals aesthetic requirement?
In the subjective, unequal quagmire “child pornography” law has become…how are we left denying, that this might be “child pornography”?
I don’t know that this isn’t a pre-teen, or a very young teen…Do you?
…She is clearly hairless, in such a way that emulates a pre-teen…She is also wearing what I might suggest, looks like underwear a young girl would be inclined to wear…Plus, she is posed in such a manner, that is sexually suggestive…And she is slightly pulling them down with her thumb, exposing a tiny bit of pubic area…
So…what, exactly, stops this from being “child pornography”, by legal standards, hosted and made available to the general public on the Huffington Post website?
In the legal world we are forced to live in, today…I see absolutely no way to make that distinction.
Now…reality is…that is almost certainly a female, of at least eighteen years in age…But notice how they think nothing, of the way they’ve packaged and presented this picture…It is vague, and it appeals in a very forward manner, to people’s natural attraction to the young…It appeals to the “barely legal” crowd…that crowd amongst us, who would…as soon as anything becomes legal and willing…
…Because the strict letter of the law means so very much, to what gives us all an erection…right?
…It’s never anything about the individuals, themselves…It’s all about those laws written by governments, what makes us all hot and horny about a situation…right?
If old statesmen [and stateswomen] telling us what we can, and cannot, get sexually excited over holds so much power over us…then why aren’t we all out humping law books right now?…Seems to me, visiting a law library should be as good as going to a porn store…right?
…Aren’t these the ultimate source of what drives us, sexually?…laws and permission from overlords?…
If we can be honest, about the hyperbolic nature of my last five or six insincere sentences…then why cant we be honest, about what all else is going on here?
I defy you to prove to me, that Huffington Post is not distributing “child pornography” on it’s website…and to explain to me, why this entire set of circumstances [including the legal minefield] is okay…or not.
You see…it is all subjective…There is no right or wrong answer, as relates to the example given.
…The answer could just as easily be “yes”, as it could be “no”…Because we are not talking about an equally enforced, clearly defined set of laws.
…We are talking about a house of cards, a stacked deck…an uneven battleground…where “the undesirables” can be subjectively railroaded into prison…and it is all made to seem perfectly clear and correct…
…When it is anything but.