Be careful about photographing your kids!

Ron Hunter writes:

Thank heaven for digital cameras.

Think twice about that. Digital cameras tremendously simplify the
distribution of images electronically. It's possible to produce
pornography without anyone else knowing about it, and very cheaply and
simply. If that pornography happens to involve exploitation of
children, then digital cameras tremendously facilitate that
exploitation.

Of course, the flip side is that digital cameras make it much harder for
the thought police to operate, so if you are producing pornography that
doesn't exploit anyone, they come in handy for keeping the nutcases out
of the loop.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Sloopy writes:

We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn.

That, of course, makes *you* sick.

Actually, _all_ pornography leaves me queasy. What does that make me?
Doens't all pornography make you queasy, too?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy writes:

I believe that it does great psychological and emotional harm to children to
have them pose in suggestive positions--regardless of whether the photos
show genitalia or sexual activity. Remember, these are children!

I don't think it does anything to them at all ... precisely because they
are children. Unlike yourself, they are not obsessed by sex, and they
don't interpret everything they do as "dirty" or "sexual," because they
don't care about sex. If someone wants them to pose for a picture in
pyjamas, they don't see that as evil and foul and disgusting. Only
adults with serious sexual problems see it that way. So children are
not necessarily harmed by picture-taking, unless they see
stress-producing reactions in the adults around them.

This doesn't hold for children being physically harmed or frightened, of
course, but many pictures that would probably be considered as child
pornography don't require any such abuse of the models.

I couldn't care less what consenting adults do, but we have a responsibility
to protect children from the grave damage that would be done to them by smut
peddlars and ordinary "horny old men."

What damage it that? Children don't buy smut.

Incidentally, there are plenty of horny young women, too. Pedophilia is
usually a lifelong deviation and affects both sexes.

Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a good
example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they are
always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes.

I've seen a couple of those, and I've wondered what the attraction is
supposed to be. But I don't buy underwear on the basis of
advertisements, anyway.

Trying to attack our child protection laws, by suggesting that they go
against your view of what a "free" society should be, is simply without
merit, and irresponsible.

That depends on whether or not anyone is actually being protected.

Part of being a "free society" is keeping our CHILDREN
FREE of being EXPLOITED.

Yes, but exploitation isn't always present.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy writes:

There is no right under any U.S. law to exploit children for sexual
purposes.

Not all pictures of children are exploitations. Even pictures that seem
"provocative" to people who think a lot about sex with children are not
necessarily the result of any exploitation. Some people are perverse
enough to be aroused by _any_ picture of a child; that hardly means that
every photo of a child is exploitation.

There wouldn't be a NEED for kiddie porn laws if there weren't all those
perverts out there, taking photos and doing lots of other despicable acts
against children.

There are very few pedophiles in the world. There are a lot of people
who are extremely warped in their attitudes towards sex, though--warped
enough that they think of sex with children whenever they see someone
photographing a child.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy writes:

Take all the nude photos you want--just don't exploit innocent children in
the process. Confine your photography to adult subjects, and you will not
hear a peep out of me, nor from virtually anyone else.

Well, which is it? The former, or the latter?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 10/14/03 3:00 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

No. The ideal job for a pedophile is gymanstics coach. Not only do
they get to see children in skimpy, or tight clothes, and watch them
move, and pose, and show off, they get PAID to touch. A fox hired to
guard a hen house doesn't have it so good.

I've often had my doubts about school coaches. Some of the ones I
recall in boys' P.E. were pretty strange. The ones in girls' P.E. were
far stranger.

Yep!

I knew that only you would take both boys AND girls P.E.

No wonder you live in France!


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Jeremy writes:

You replaced the words "KIDDIE PORN" with the word "HOMOSEXUALITY," in a
deliberate attempt to troll these newsgroups.

In a deliberate attempt to show a significant parallel that you seem to
have missed, I think.

Adios, troll, and I urge others to block him as well.

Others can decide for themselves. And you'll still be reading his
messages, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

George Kerby writes:

I knew that only you would take both boys AND girls P.E.

Boys weren't allowed to take girls' P.E., but we did see their nominally
female coaches, and many of them looked just as masculine as the coaches
for the boys' P.E. classes.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 10/14/03 4:32 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

George Kerby writes:

I knew that only you would take both boys AND girls P.E.

Boys weren't allowed to take girls' P.E., but we did see their nominally
female coaches, and many of them looked just as masculine as the coaches
for the boys' P.E. classes.
There's that damn testosterone problem again!
"Nominally female"? Does that mean what I think it does?
;-


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those accidents where people
were not wearing them ?

First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them
in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance
companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the
onus on the individual.

Good for you, after all it does make sense.......and yes that would be ideal.


Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the
trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile).


If you don't vote you can't complain, all else I consider, bs,...
but I understand what you mean.

Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown
areas. And this too will spread.


Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of people running
yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change your attitude.


Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest
to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't,
it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get
that revenue for the city/county/state....

The police have an inordinate amount of work if traffic watching is included
I agree and would rather have the Police available to stop crime or assist when needed.
If you don't commit crime you don't have to worry about being caught doing wrong on camera
plain and simple concept.

--


website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank