The Japanese make everything entertaining

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The point is nothing to do with the children wearing G-strings. It is the provocative, overtly sexual poses in which the magazines present these 'idols'. That is what I find wrong about them as it acts to sexualise pre-pubescents. I have no issue with nakedness at any age. I can assure you that a paedophile would stand out (literally!) in any nudist club.

[ScholasticSpastic]

The point is nothing to do with the children wearing G-strings. It is the provocative, overtly sexual poses in which the magazines present these 'idols'. That is what I find wrong about them as it acts to sexualise pre-pubescents. I have no issue with nakedness at any age. I can assure you that a paedophile would stand out (literally!) in any nudist club.

Some children will be harmed by participating in these poses while others will not. I have already expressed concern that continual stimulation while exposed to this material might be detrimental for the consumers of the magazines and DVDs. What bothers me is that so many people are jumping to the defense of children who are probably just fine striking odd poses and wearing little outfits.

This thread needs LP. She can cover the precocious little girl side of this issue without sounding as creepy as I'm worried I may come off.

There may be more harm to the consumers of this material than there is to the children. Paraphilias can often begin by simultanaity of stimulus and reward which later leads to aberrant behavior patterns. At issue here, for me, is the question of to what extent availability of this material is enabling the development of nascent paraphilias and what can ethically be done about it. Again, pedophilia is only considered a psychological disorder if it impairs function (i.e. if it results in the actual molestation of a child or causes the pedophile distress).

Do we have any right to force behavior modification upon throught-criminals? Which thoughts will we criminalize next?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The point is nothing to do with the children wearing G-strings. It is the provocative, overtly sexual poses in which the magazines present these 'idols'. That is what I find wrong about them as it acts to sexualise pre-pubescents. I have no issue with nakedness at any age. I can assure you that a paedophile would stand out (literally!) in any nudist club.

Some children will be harmed by participating in these poses while others will not. I have already expressed concern that continual stimulation while exposed to this material might be detrimental for the consumers of the magazines and DVDs. What bothers me is that so many people are jumping to the defense of children who are probably just fine striking odd poses and wearing little outfits.

This thread needs LP. She can cover the precocious little girl side of this issue without sounding as creepy as I'm worried I may come off.

There may be more harm to the consumers of this material than there is to the children. Paraphilias can often begin by simultanaity of stimulus and reward which later leads to aberrant behavior patterns. At issue here, for me, is the question of to what extent availability of this material is enabling the development of nascent paraphilias and what can ethically be done about it. Again, pedophilia is only considered a psychological disorder if it impairs function (i.e. if it results in the actual molestation of a child or causes the pedophile distress).

Do we have any right to force behavior modification upon throught-criminals? Which thoughts will we criminalize next?

I mentioned something along those lines in my first post in this thread. The danger is not to the 'idols' but rather in the legitimising of childhood sexuality in the eyes of adults. A borderline paedophile, seeing these magazines, might conceivably start to view pre-pubescents as sexually active and 'fair game' and might go on to commit actual acts of abuse on children as a result of this.

[Trolldor]

A g-string is a piece of clothing deliberately designed to be sexually arousing, and when you put it on a ten year old you're deliberately trying to make a ten year old sexually appealing.

Really? I thought the purpose of a g-string was to make more skin available for exposure to the yummy elements while still allowing a nod to societies' idiotic modesty rules. A child in a g-string is more natural than a child in a one-piece swimsuit because children tend to want to be naked. Seriously. Two out of three of my sibling cohort were nudists at heart as children (I was the exception). The other sibling (me) only learned to appreciate nekkidness as an adult.

What you're really saying is wrong is that there are adults who would want to see children in g-strings. That's a different thing. It's a moral judgement and one I think the law should keep away from while there is no demonstrable link to endangering children.

Most people watch violent movies and never kill anyone. Very few people watch violent movies and kill people and there is no demonstrable causal link between watching violent movies and killing people. I would say the same about scantily-clad children and pedophiles. If we put all our children in burqas would pedophilia go away? Doesn't appear to have worked in Islamic nations.

No, the purpose of a g-string is to be sexually arousing. It's the same problem with the shirts that say "wait *** years" or "ok" and then a down arrow with the words "no way".
It's not only superficial, it's presenting children in a light they just shouldn't be in - as sexual objects.

[cowiz]

I just watched that and I now feel like a pedo

That is wrong on so many levels!

[ScholasticSpastic]

I mentioned something along those lines in my first post in this thread. The danger is not to the 'idols' but rather in the legitimising of childhood sexuality in the eyes of adults. A borderline paedophile, seeing these magazines, might conceivably start to view pre-pubescents as sexually active and 'fair game' and might go on to commit actual acts of abuse on children as a result of this.

Nah. Still too much of a causal stretch. How many shoe fetishists steal shoes? The presence of a paraphilia does not equate to commission of a crime. While the availability of any material with children in it might serve as a tool for habitualization of sexual thoughts about children, we can't jump right from that to molestation of children. What bothers me is that in order to really have the outcome desired by censors, we'd have to completely obliterate any children from the media because a person who is attracted to little girls/boys will tend to use what's available regardless of poses or states of undress. Media do not cause pedophilia but I'll agree it might aggravate existing cases. The greatest hazard to a pedophile is that they'll have thoughts of personal worthlessness or be unable to enjoy a functional relationship with another adult. Most pedophiles are not child molesters. The paraphilia is generally more harmful to the pedophile than to anyone else.

It's like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder: The media have presented us with an unrealistic stereotype of people suffering from these disorders and so people with them tend to be shunned rather than getting the help they need. Same goes for paraphiles. Rather than shunning them, we should offer them help- and probably keep them away from our kids to stay on the safe side. But there's nothing we can do to keep them from becoming pedophiles.

In most cases pedophilia results from early sexualization, either in the form of molestation or abnormal emotional impact from natural experimentation resulting in a nascent fixation upon children of that age group as objects of desire which is then retained into adulthood. We're kidding ourselves if we think restriction of media images will have any effect on the rate of new pedophiles.

I see a lot of shoes on sexy feet in commercials every day. I do not want to cum on your shoes (or your feet).

[Bella Fortuna]

A g-string is a piece of clothing deliberately designed to be sexually arousing, and when you put it on a ten year old you're deliberately trying to make a ten year old sexually appealing.

Really? I thought the purpose of a g-string was to make more skin available for exposure to the yummy elements while still allowing a nod to societies' idiotic modesty rules. A child in a g-string is more natural than a child in a one-piece swimsuit because children tend to want to be naked. Seriously. Two out of three of my sibling cohort were nudists at heart as children (I was the exception). The other sibling (me) only learned to appreciate nekkidness as an adult.

What you're really saying is wrong is that there are adults who would want to see children in g-strings. That's a different thing. It's a moral judgement and one I think the law should keep away from while there is no demonstrable link to endangering children.

Most people watch violent movies and never kill anyone. Very few people watch violent movies and kill people and there is no demonstrable causal link between watching violent movies and killing people. I would say the same about scantily-clad children and pedophiles. If we put all our children in burqas would pedophilia go away? Doesn't appear to have worked in Islamic nations.

No, the purpose of a g-string is to be sexually arousing. It's the same problem with the shirts that say "wait *** years" or "ok" and then a down arrow with the words "no way".
It's not only superficial, it's presenting children in a light they just shouldn't be in - as sexual objects.

There's a reason g-strings are worn by strippers and not as school uniforms...

[ScholasticSpastic]

No, the purpose of a g-string is to be sexually arousing. It's the same problem with the shirts that say "wait *** years" or "ok" and then a down arrow with the words "no way".
It's not only superficial, it's presenting children in a light they just shouldn't be in - as sexual objects.

People who are not already sexually attracted to children will experience no change in behavior as a result of any of the clothing you've listed. Granted, I would rather we just let the poor things run naked instead of forcing them to floss their asses.

(Is that really supposed to be sexy? I'd have to say that g-strings rate right up there for me with bell-bottoms in terms of failed attempts to be attractive. I really honestly thought the purpose of a g-string was to be as naked as possible within the strictures of our barbaric modesty laws and that the purpose of being naked was because it feels good.)

[ScholasticSpastic]

There's a reason g-strings are worn by strippers and not as school uniforms...

Because our barbaric modesty laws won't let strippers get naked?

(Utah strippers can't get naked. The other possible reason is that strippers don't have very good taste in lingerie.)

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I mentioned something along those lines in my first post in this thread. The danger is not to the 'idols' but rather in the legitimising of childhood sexuality in the eyes of adults. A borderline paedophile, seeing these magazines, might conceivably start to view pre-pubescents as sexually active and 'fair game' and might go on to commit actual acts of abuse on children as a result of this.

Nah. Still too much of a causal stretch. How many shoe fetishists steal shoes? The presence of a paraphilia does not equate to commission of a crime. While the availability of any material with children in it might serve as a tool for habitualization of sexual thoughts about children, we can't jump right from that to molestation of children. What bothers me is that in order to really have the outcome desired by censors, we'd have to completely obliterate any children from the media because a person who is attracted to little girls/boys will tend to use what's available regardless of poses or states of undress. Media do not cause pedophilia but I'll agree it might aggravate existing cases. The greatest hazard to a pedophile is that they'll have thoughts of personal worthlessness or be unable to enjoy a functional relationship with another adult. Most pedophiles are not child molesters. The paraphilia is generally more harmful to the pedophile than to anyone else.

It's like schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder: The media have presented us with an unrealistic stereotype of people suffering from these disorders and so people with them tend to be shunned rather than getting the help they need. Same goes for paraphiles. Rather than shunning them, we should offer them help- and probably keep them away from our kids to stay on the safe side. But there's nothing we can do to keep them from becoming pedophiles.

In most cases pedophilia results from early sexualization, either in the form of molestation or abnormal emotional impact from natural experimentation resulting in a nascent fixation upon children of that age group as objects of desire which is then retained into adulthood. We're kidding ourselves if we think restriction of media images will have any effect on the rate of new pedophiles.

I see a lot of shoes on sexy feet in commercials every day. I do not want to cum on your shoes (or your feet).

I will agree that the public's image of the predatory paedophile, stalking random children, is wrong. Most active paedophiles molest their own children, or those of close friends / relatives. And many never act out their fantasies at all through fear of discovery, rationalisation, repulsion at their own urges or some combination of these.

However, as in most psychological conditions, there is a continuum between the repressed paedo that never acts on his urges, via the guy that restricts himself to touching and groping when he feels its safe, to the full-blown, predatory child-rapist. The overt, society-sanctioned portrayal of children as sexual objects can be predicted to move men towards the more extreme end of that continuum.

There are parallels with changes in societal attitudes towards homosexuality. 50 years ago, there were far more repressed 'closet queens' that never, or rarely, acted on their sexuality. As attitudes changed, far more gay men and women openly came out. Pretty much the only gays still in the closet in the civilised world these days are those with religious convictions keeping them locked in.

The difference of course, is that homosexuality is a consensual act between two adults, paedophilia is the rape of an immature child.

[ScholasticSpastic]

The overt sexualization of children has nothing to do with pedophiles and everything to do with our society's conflicting drives to idolize youth while becoming overprotective and overindulgent of our children. Who buys this shit for kids to wear? Parents. If there were no market for kiddy g-strings then nobody would make them. I distinctly recall having little/no say in what clothing I wore until I was older than thirteen. The question becomes why are so many parents buying ostensibly provocative clothing for their children?

The follow-up question, of course, is: Do we want any sort of laws dictating how we can dress our children?

My final question is: Do we really want there to be any laws governing portrayal of children which are so broad as to be misapplied by those more moralistic than ourselves?

I stand my my previous assertions that there is nothing immoral about children posing for pictures in magazines and that sexually suggestive poses are relative. Putting on lipstic, for example, could be code for fellatio.

If the answers to my follow-up and final questions are "no" then what do we expect Japan to do about its Lolita Complex issue?

[ScholasticSpastic]

Will I get kudos for arguing the other side of this issue? Prolly not.

[Thinking Aloud]

Will I get kudos for arguing the other side of this issue? Prolly not.

Makes the argument far more interesting when you do.

[Trolldor]

The overt sexualization of children has nothing to do with pedophiles and everything to do with our society's conflicting drives to idolize youth while becoming overprotective and overindulgent of our children. Who buys this shit for kids to wear? Parents. If there were no market for kiddy g-strings then nobody would make them. I distinctly recall having little/no say in what clothing I wore until I was older than thirteen. The question becomes why are so many parents buying ostensibly provocative clothing for their children?

The follow-up question, of course, is: Do we want any sort of laws dictating how we can dress our children?

My final question is: Do we really want there to be any laws governing portrayal of children which are so broad as to be misapplied by those more moralistic than ourselves?

I stand my my previous assertions that there is nothing immoral about children posing for pictures in magazines and that sexually suggestive poses are relative. Putting on lipstic, for example, could be code for fellatio.

If the answers to my follow-up and final questions are "no" then what do we expect Japan to do about its Lolita Complex issue?

Relative? No. There's a forumla - if they were wearing a bunny outfit surrounded by sunflowers with manga faces then you might say relative, but sprawled out in the same position as a centre fold dressed in a two-piece is not relative, there's deliberate intent here.
It's the deliberate intent which is the problem, and you're going to start with parents? I'm sorry, but the market isn't free to exploit any market that happens to be available, it needs to be regulated. People are stupid, and there are plenty of people who shouldn't be parents but are - it will always be the case. The market, however, is not. The market is exploitive and this is just another instince where people are going to cry "oh but it wouldn't be there if there wasn't a market" - wrong. It wouldn't be there if they didn't desperately seek another way to make another dollar.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Will I get kudos for arguing the other side of this issue? Prolly not.

Actually yes. You are doing a good job of it. Have an IKU.

The question of how to legislate this is of course the tricky one. Censorship will only serve to drive those wishing to buy this kind of magazine to use underground sources, where they are likely to come across far more explicit material.

My stance on censorship is that it is normally unnecessary. Anyone caught in possession of pornography containing images of child abuse in the UK could be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact to the abuse, in much the same way as a receiver of stolen goods, or the getaway driver for armed robbers is seen as complicit in the crime under law. I understand that this is also the case in most other countries.

Where this breaks down is on the fringes. What if a pornstar was physically a woman but below the legal age of consent when she made a film? (Traci Lords anyone?) What about animated Hentai porn involving children? What about adult porn that has been digitally retouched to make it realistically appear as if children are involved? What about hidden-camera shots of naked children? And what about these 'idol' magazines? How far can they stretch the boundaries of acceptability before they become kiddie soft-porn? If pictures of a scantily clad 10 year old girl draped across a bed and faking an expression of lascivious ecstasy is acceptable, what else is?

At the moment, the availability of those magazines and their potential effect on adults with paedophiliac tendencies disturbs me, but there was nothing in that clip that could be called abuse of the children involved - no more than that suffered by other child models / actors in any case. By my definition then, there is no case to answer in the selling or buying of them and no need of legislation. It is however a situation that should be monitored closely for the reasons that I outlined in earlier posts.

On the subject of the potential legislation that could be introduced (if we ignore the question of whether it is desirable or necessary,) there is already a point at which parental consent ends; a parent cannot consent to their child being sexually abused, working longer hours than those prescribed by law, bare-knuckle boxing, etc. Any legislation would need to clearly clarify what poses / attire / etc. was deemed suitable for a child model and hold both the producers of magazines that exceed these limits and the parents of the child jointly responsible. Setting such limits would be a legal minefield however.