posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by groingrinder
Absolutely we need to protect children from exploitation.
We also need to protect artists from intimidation.
One poster may have described thirteen-year olds as young adults, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the piece you quoted. Some societies do class
thirteen as adulthood. But those tend to be the same societies where 25 is already passed middle-aged.
When I was thirteen I was already deluding myself with the thought that I was approaching maturity. Teenagers usually do classify themselves as being
more mature than adults give them credit for.
As for NAMBLA, yeah, I agree. They are a bunch of sick deleted-expletives who will use any and all possible arguments to justify what they do. But
their use of an argument to justify something shouldn't lead to the knee-jerk response of banning everything that could possibly be tarred with the
Mr Snuffleuppicus was "outed" because some "well-meaning" and "responsible" "community leaders" thought an imaginary character on Sesame
Street promoted behaviour that paedophiles could use to influence their victims to actively hide the crime on their behalf.
The fact is that people's reactions to art (or films, books etc) is always, for better or worse, a reflection on themselves and their attitudes.
As it happens, this particular episode is not exactly a new phenomenon in Australia.
Adrian Lynne's adaptation of Lolita was banned by various state Ministers for Culture without them ever having viewed the filmv in question. Which
isn't just ignorant, it's active stupidity of a rather spectacular and self-evident kind.
But then, ignorance and government position go hand in hand.