Originally posted by Nutter
Should we jail everyone who has watched "Twilight" too?

Think about it. An 80 year-old man (the vampire) having a sexual affair with a teenager.

How much more pedophilia is that? I say lock them all up. /sarcasm.

funny isnt it? ATS has been fighting for our freedom against NWO which wants to ban all forms of art and self expressionism i thought ATS members support sex arts? whats the fuss about? i believe i seen this once

theres no nothing wrong about those cartoons there funny in a way


also this newstory is old i seen one last two years ago i think.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Originally posted by Nutter

But, the whole point of the books and movie is that an 80 year old gets to have an affair with a teenager. But, it's A-OK because:

1. It's fiction.

So, what is the difference with Anime?

The difference is that an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old in real life and he/she will not be arrested. So it cannot be compared to the anime which depicts sex between children. The manga harms no one and so is protected under free speech, but comparing it to Twilight is wrong.

Originally posted by Nutter

It does not matter if the actors and actresses are over 18 in the movie. There is a book.

its rather stupidly transparent, isn't it. I am actually shocked that anyone would be defending thought police under any circumstances..its easy to be outraged at peoples thoughts, but government trying to stop thoughts...even those you find distasteful, should trumph your own moral indignation.

Actually, on the topic of Twilight, it is a form of Bestiality (inter-species love making). But the last time I started a thread on that can of worms it got a bit heated and wound up being deleted because ATS didn't want to see a topic about 'bestiality' on their front page, lol. Free speech indeed.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The difference is that an 80 year old can have sex with an 18 year old in real life and he/she will not be arrested.

But, in the movie and in the books, the teenager IS NOT supposed to be 18 yet. That is the point. Thoughts....remember?

BTW, if you haven't realized yet, I'm being sarcastic as I have been agreeing with you.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It seems to be not so much the thought but the actual images they are against.

Yes. I can agree with this. But, then we get into other movies that depict rape, murder, and even pedophilia ("Priscilla (sp?) Queen of the Desert" comes to mind......which ironically is academy aclaimed and has one a lot of awards).

Where does it end?

Well u can all thank GW Bush for this type of law which was against us Constitutional Rights.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I agree people like him should be banned from any job where children are involved.

Now here is where it gets really difficult. YOu see i agree that he shouldn't work with children, however how would this be enforced? If the images are not illegal and he cannot be jailed for them (as you suggested) then how would the law to ban him working with children be shaped without infringing on his civil liberties and right to privacy?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
For saying pedophilia is learned. BS.

I have read a great deal about this and it appears that paedophilia is not a learned thing. The best theories suggest it is a form of sexual retardation. Something happens when they are a child that halts their sexual development and they are forever attracted to children. Some of them also like adult women/men as well but the attraction to children is always there.

For many years they have been trying to treat paedophiles and no one has come up with a working solution. That is why if a paedophile ever actually hurts a child they need to be locked away, in prison or an institution for the rest of their life. That's my view anyway.

Originally posted by Nutter
Yes. I can agree with this. But, then we get into other movies that depict rape, murder, and even pedophilia ("Priscilla (sp?) Queen of the Desert" comes to mind......which ironically is academy aclaimed and has one a lot of awards).

Where does it end?

I am fully with yo uon this one and have made the comparison already. The people against the existence of these images however will simply say that it is different because it involves children. Although i have seen many fictional works that involve the murder of children, i wonder if they want those banned?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

As i mentioned earlier, for me it is simply a matter of free speech. As long as no one is hurt then it should be acceptable. No child is hurt in the manufacture, distribution or viewing of these images and therefore they are protected (or should be) under the guise of freedom of expression. Anyone who does not agree with that because this involves depictions of children should take a long hard look at what they really think free speech is. It is not something to be supported only when you agree with what it is protectiong.

Hello everyone,

I think people are mixing artistic display and sadistic display. If a depiction of sex between children serves the story, it needs to be done, I have no problem with that. What bugs me is that now, an "artist" has to show you everything in its gruesome details... It's the easiest artistic form of display.
I remember an old issue of Captain America, penciled by John Byrne. In that issue, Cap had to decapitate an old foe who was a vampire. Byrne was uneasy portraying Cap as a killer. So instead of showing us the decapitation per se, he ARTISTICALLY rendered it via the shadows of the characters, projected on the wall beside them. It was dramatic, intense and shocking at best. We suffered with Cap having to go to that length. It would have been banal otherwise. And the danger lies here, in the apparent banality of the action being displayed. In anyway, when kids are depicted as having sex, it should not be about the act, but for the implications for the characters, so the story can advance... Otherwise, porn flicks are chef d'oeuvre because we can see people do it! Who really thinks that Basic Instinct is a great movie? Change all the explicit sex scenes to suggestive ones and no one would have noticed it.

If it is shown, it NEEDS to serve the story, otherwise it is nothing more than vulgar exposure.

That is why a nudist in a nudist zone is left at peace by the authorities and that a flasher gets arrested...

Or better yet, it's like comparing Playboy with Hustler, both are about naked women, but one is artistic in its presentation where the other is simply explicit... Anyway, isn't a covered boob more exciting than a naked one? I think so...

Have a nice day all,

Aresh