Pedophiles welcome!!
Shon Howell
that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage. After
fursuiters, I guess we should get around to licencing this...
Dragon Magic
You do realize, Ashcroft-junkie, that, although the Bush presidency wants
us to believe this legalizes pedophilia, it in fact won't. Contrary to what
the
news spins, or what you thought, the law struck down was in fact very
unConstitutional.
The law wanted to outlaw any media, imagery, depictions, motion pictures
or otherwise which alluded or included references to any person which may
be underaged. It went so far as to state that rendered or drawn "underage
people" were the same as actual underaged people, as well as those who
were over the age of 18 found to be too similar to those underaged.
This would mean that courts would have the power to decide whether the
intent of an image, motion picture, etc., was pedophilia, not what the
intention
of the artist was, or whether any children were actually used in the
production.
That should speak for itself, but I'll repeat it...
The law made the courts decide whether or not the image or motion picture
was simply in the taste of pedophilia, NOT whether it was actually depicting
sexual or exploitive acts or positions of actual underaged children.
Sorry to say, but if you can't see the unConstitutionalism in such a law as
that,
then perhaps China or Cuba would better fit your ideals of pushing such
morals onto others?
Flubu
Now why'd you go and throw such a nice big can of worms at that hornet
nest? Weren't things rambunctious enough hereabouts withouth this?
Blackberry
Is someone a little bitter?
--
"Every time I hear a fire engine, it seems like the trucks are running away from
the fire. Not towards it. Not right into it. They seem like monsters in a
panic. Running away from the fire. Stampeding away from the fire. Not towards
it. Not right into it." - Laurie Anderson, "New Jersey Turnpike"
Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> pedophiles back into the fandom.
What are you talking about?
--
- Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
presZeroOn...@umn.edu
(to e-mail me, convert spelled numbers to digits)
Doodles
news:gf4v8.14482$L1.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> pedophiles back into the fandom.
That's funny, we don't _look_ like priests... =};-3
Blackberry
People don't read Lolita or see drawings of the Animaniacs going at it and
suddenly decide to go abuse children.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Short and sweet: representational art hurts no one.
Or rather, the courts found that the law aimed at hunting down
pedophiles also smacked up a group that wasn't indulging in it. They
said on the news that they're going to go back and re-write the law so
that it covers a certain age group. Then it will probably pass. That
will leave art and movies about teenagers alone, but once you dwindle
below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
TT
Bob Guthrie
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> TT
An concise, and intelligent, summation.
BMG
Blackberry
How do you verify the age of a toon?
Steve Carter
news:3CBCE871...@sprintmail.com...
> ...but once you dwindle
> below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
Sorry to be the one to lower the boom on this topic, but that's already on
its way to being an obsolete comment.
You see, the way around that is already being used by child predators under
the premise that changing a title changes the nature of a thing. It's not
called pedophilia, but "child loving", "intergenerational romance" and
"young homosexuals who should be able to express their budding sexuality"
(when in fact it's adult homosexuals wanting to "guide" boys*) In the end,
it's still about predation.
For further information, may I respectfully recommend a study by Ken
Lanning, "Child Sex Rings: A behavioral analysis." This may be located
at: http://www.missingkids.com/download/nc70.pdf
*this is not a slam on gays in general, but something the data shows about
pedophiles who happen to BE gay.
ilr
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a9ipc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:07:55 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
>
> How do you verify the age of a toon?
>
As long as it isn't human, it won't matter.
-Ilr
Steve Carter
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:a9ipc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> How do you verify the age of a toon?
You don't. Illustration of any kind is legal, no matter how distasteful or
inappropriate the subject matter. It becomes an issue when it involves real
kids.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:07:55 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Blackberry wrote:
> >>
> >> Short and sweet: representational art hurts no one.
> >
> > Or rather, the courts found that the law aimed at hunting down
> >pedophiles also smacked up a group that wasn't indulging in it. They
> >said on the news that they're going to go back and re-write the law so
> >that it covers a certain age group. Then it will probably pass. That
> >will leave art and movies about teenagers alone, but once you dwindle
> >below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
>
> How do you verify the age of a toon?
Somehow I don't think they're going to care when some artist says "Well
he looks 6 but he's actually 30."
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
Currently. The law they tried to pass, and the re-written one that will
appear soon are about art. Including non-existing beings.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> "Tlalocelotl Tlatoani" <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3CBCE871...@sprintmail.com...
> > ...but once you dwindle
> > below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
>
> Sorry to be the one to lower the boom on this topic, but that's already on
> its way to being an obsolete comment.
They're "on it" so to speak, so they'll find a way to rein that stuff
in. And changing the name won't really matter. That works for legal porn
in some states, but don't think that pedophiles will get away so easy.
TT
mhirtes
Blackberry wrote:
>
>
> Is someone a little bitter?
>
Nope. He's just stating the truth.
mhirtes
Blackberry wrote:
>
> Short and sweet: representational art hurts no one.
>
> People don't read Lolita or see drawings of the Animaniacs going at it and
> suddenly decide to go abuse children.
Why am I not surprised that Dingleberry here would have that opinion?
He'd probably support snuff films too if they existed.
mhirtes
Blackberry wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:07:55 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Blackberry wrote:
> >>
> >> Short and sweet: representational art hurts no one.
> >
> > Or rather, the courts found that the law aimed at hunting down
> >pedophiles also smacked up a group that wasn't indulging in it. They
> >said on the news that they're going to go back and re-write the law so
> >that it covers a certain age group. Then it will probably pass. That
> >will leave art and movies about teenagers alone, but once you dwindle
> >below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
>
> How do you verify the age of a toon?
Ask the guys at Excalibur Films (the ones who put out those badly-dubbed
"Brothers Grime" hentai cartoons). Their adverts say "All models are
over the age of 18. Proof is on file at request." (or words to that effect).
Always tempted to actually take them up on that and see what happens.
mhirtes
In other words, better hoard up all those Tiny Toons spooge pix while
you can, kids. Because Herr AssKKKroft's a sore loser, and he'll be back.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> >
> > Currently. The law they tried to pass, and the re-written one that will
> > appear soon are about art. Including non-existing beings.
>
> In other words, better hoard up all those Tiny Toons spooge pix while
> you can, kids. Because Herr AssKKKroft's a sore loser, and he'll be back.
Ashcroft will spend more time hunting down weed smokers and people who
support euthanasia. If you think he's going to come hurtling after
pedophiles... then how loud is he on this Catholic church scandal again?
Exactly. I won't jump hard on politics today, but the Catholic church
isn't the only organization out there saying one thing and doing another
in the back room. Last month they busted about 80 people off a yahoo!
group including priests and cops.
TT
Michael Campbell
(smirk) good one Shon....
mhirtes
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> mhirtes wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Currently. The law they tried to pass, and the re-written one that will
> > > appear soon are about art. Including non-existing beings.
> >
> > In other words, better hoard up all those Tiny Toons spooge pix while
> > you can, kids. Because Herr AssKKKroft's a sore loser, and he'll be back.
>
> Ashcroft will spend more time hunting down weed smokers and people who
> support euthanasia.
That's what YOU think. If the guy goes through enough trouble to find
expensive curtains to hide a 70 year old aluminum tit, he's gonna mow
everything over with equal zeal.
Before 9/11, he was about to launch an all-out war against porn. ALL
porn. He merely put off his jeezoid jihad until a later date.
And repugs are sore losers. They ALWAYS try to go back and correct their
past failures, which is why Dubya is so busy gearing things up to attack
Iraq in time before the pre-election polls start to slump for him (wag
wag wag wag!).
> If you think he's going to come hurtling after
> pedophiles... then how loud is he on this Catholic church scandal again?
He's a baptist (and WHAT a Baptist).
> Exactly. I won't jump hard on politics today, but the Catholic church
> isn't the only organization out there saying one thing and doing another
> in the back room. Last month they busted about 80 people off a yahoo!
> group including priests and cops.
>
> TT
The only reason the VatiKKKlan is so worried isn't because of the
thousands of children that were hurt, but because of all the millions of
dollars they're having to shell out from all the lawsuits.
Jesus may live in their hearts, but their REAL god lives in their bank accounts.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > Ashcroft will spend more time hunting down weed smokers and people who
> > support euthanasia.
>
> That's what YOU think. If the guy goes through enough trouble to find
> expensive curtains to hide a 70 year old aluminum tit, he's gonna mow
> everything over with equal zeal.
What I'm saying, is Ashcroft is not a heterosexual. Nor is he a
Christian. He's hiding in a very special type of closet with a number of
his friends. It doesn't behoove him to chase certain elements... the
Catholic church being one of them. For the followers it was a place to
find god, but for the priests? It was a pedophile boys club. And it's
not just here. Some Catholic big whig in Mexico just ordered the priests
down there to keep their mouths shut and not report anything.
> The only reason the VatiKKKlan is so worried isn't because of the
> thousands of children that were hurt, but because of all the millions of
> dollars they're having to shell out from all the lawsuits.
No it's embarassment they're worried the most about. They don't want to
be exposed for what they are. Handing over the cash and losing the
lawsuits would have brought attention to what's coming to light now.
Dozens upon dozens of pedophile priests. So far we've only found living
victims. It's just a matter of time before one of those priests gets
tied to one of those poor kids on the milk cartons.
> Jesus may live in their hearts, but their REAL god lives in their bank accounts.
Their real god isn't Mammon... but he isn't God either. Stay tuned, it
keeps getting worse every day.
TT
Akai
legitimacy? That people might actually pay attention to that group of
toothless lions again?
"mhirtes" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3CBD0842...@radiks.net...
Matthew Harpold
>
>
> Blackberry wrote:
> >
> > Short and sweet: representational art hurts no one.
> >
> > People don't read Lolita or see drawings of the Animaniacs going at it
and
> > suddenly decide to go abuse children.
>
> Why am I not surprised that Dingleberry here would have that opinion?
So you're saying that those pieces of art DO inspire a sizable section of
the populace to go abuse kids?
> He'd probably support snuff films too if they existed.
*facepalms* This is hardly worth responding to.
-Matt
Juan F. Lara
mhirtes <mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.BE.DESTROYED.radiks.net> wrote:
> Nope. He's just stating the truth.
Why are you taking Herr Ashcroft's side?
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Juan F. Lara
mhirtes <mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.BE.DESTROYED.radiks.net> wrote:
> Why am I not surprised that Dingleberry here would have that opinion?
> He'd probably support snuff films too if they existed.
You mean like "Friday the 13th" movies...?
The "virtual child porn" that the court case was about involved either
movies and pics featuring only consenting adults, or art which ( duh ) doesn't
involve any real person at all, child or otherwise. That stuff is art that
involves no real children and no real molestations. Slasher flicks and the
like are snuff films that involve no real murders, and they get big box
offices. Same concept when you get down to it.
Juan F. Lara
Shon Howell <cathe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
> that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
> course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage. After
> fursuiters, I guess we should get around to licencing this...
The Supreme Court made a good decision. The charge of pedophilia should
be levied only if a real life child is injured in the act. Films where adults
play kids involve no real children, only consenting adults. Art doesn't
involve anyone real. There's no grounds to lob pedophilia charges against this
art.
Also, this art being legal does NOT mean that you have to like it. Much
of it is repulsive. You have every right to be revolted by it and to keep it
out of your own life. But that's not a justification to make it illegal.
ilr
"He's a Scoudrel!" "No, he's Dirty Crook!"
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <gf4v8.14482$L1.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Shon Howell <cathe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> > that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> > pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
> > that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
> > course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage. After
> > fursuiters, I guess we should get around to licencing this...
>
> The Supreme Court made a good decision. The charge of pedophilia should
> be levied only if a real life child is injured in the act. Films where adults
> play kids involve no real children, only consenting adults. Art doesn't
> involve anyone real. There's no grounds to lob pedophilia charges against this
Although "we" already had this conversation on this group before...
...I don't object to actual art, or actual movies with merit, but
pedopheliac porn of fake children should be just as illegal. The laws
restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the real kids as
they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the real thing. If you
want to defend work with actual merit I won't complain, but art for the
sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me. Since they just got their law
kicked out this time, they'll hurry up and write a new one that isn't
quite as broad. The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to
be to not be illegal? Or put in plainer words, will they go after
cartoony kid porn or just photorealistic stuff?
TT
Juan F. Lara
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> The laws restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the real kids
> as they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the real thing.
It's debatable if "virtual child porn" art will actually encourage someone
to go out and hurt a child for reason. A person who'd react that way is
already messed up enough that he/she is going to try to commit the crime no
matter what. It's analogous to asserting that violent movies or video games
encourage people to go out and kill other people. Such killers are messed up
already.
Relevant to furry: Spooge of the Tiny Toons, the Chippettes, and other
"underage" cartoon characters are very popular, but I really don't think their
popularity depends one bit on those characters being "underage". Pedo interest
never enters that stuff.
> but art for the sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me.
That only means that art like that should never enter your life. And I
definitely hope that it never does. But again that's not a basis on making it
illegal.
> The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to be to not be illegal?
If they can't answer that the Supreme Court will strike it down again.
ilr
"Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:a9j9jc$2hvu$1...@velox.critter.net...
> That the Burned Furs are hoping this will lend them a new sense of
> legitimacy? That people might actually pay attention to that group of
> toothless lions again?
>
doggy-girls of an undetermined age taking on rather large very-human members.
I should be careful though, it appears my favorite one, SK-18.jpg <Booioioioing!>
got the bottom half of it Truncated and I may be up shitcreek if I ever wish to
replace it so I must watch what I say about him ;)
-Ilr
ilr
We've dealt with a similar principle almost non-stop in the PC Gaming Genre.
Some Players say they'd go crazy if they couldn't kill something in a game, and
would just assume take to the street if they percieved having to bottle it up.
Others think that the more Graphic and Realistic the Graphics/Sounds, the
more desensitized to loss-of-life they become and are much more likely to
preform the act in real life, similar to the way the Military uses many different
computer simulations. Both sides have merit, too much in fact. This is likely
an issue that's never going to be resolved until technology becomes so flawless
that there will be no detectable borders between RL anf VR. ...Sorta like the
Matrix ...Huh huh, that wuz a kewl movie, huh huh, huh huh
-Ilr
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> This is like watching a debate over Snidely Wiplash.
>
> "He's a Scoudrel!" "No, he's Dirty Crook!"
Damn straight!
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <3CBD3BD9...@sprintmail.com>,
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > The laws restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the real kids
> > as they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the real thing.
>
> It's debatable if "virtual child porn" art will actually encourage someone
> to go out and hurt a child for reason. A person who'd react that way is
> already messed up enough that he/she is going to try to commit the crime no
> matter what. It's analogous to asserting that violent movies or video games
> encourage people to go out and kill other people. Such killers are messed up
> already.
True to a degree, however free speech has it's limits. Like shouting
"fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it. There's no need for child porn,
period. The only people that need it are people who have a disturbing
psychological bent towards children, they need professional help not
pornography to feed their addiction.
> Relevant to furry: Spooge of the Tiny Toons, the Chippettes, and other
> "underage" cartoon characters are very popular, but I really don't think their
> popularity depends one bit on those characters being "underage". Pedo interest
> never enters that stuff.
I'm certain if we searched the fandom we'd find plenty of people who
find those characters attractive because they are kids.
> > but art for the sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me.
>
> That only means that art like that should never enter your life. And I
> definitely hope that it never does. But again that's not a basis on making it
> illegal.
I'm sorry it does. The same with death-porn, rape-porn and other types
that involve very illegal and immoral acts. We do need to draw the line
somewhere.
> > The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to be to not be illegal?
>
> If they can't answer that the Supreme Court will strike it down again.
True.
Blackberry
No, the law was about artistic representations of kids. It specifically dealt
with *non*-real representations.
According to the law that was struck down, anything that gives the impression of
minors engaged in sexual activity would be a federal felony. Thus, teens and
children could *have* all the sex they wanted, but if one of them wrote about it
in their diary, they'd be committing a felony.
This is all academic for the moment, of course.
--
"Every time I hear a fire engine, it seems like the trucks are running away from
the fire. Not towards it. Not right into it. They seem like monsters in a
panic. Running away from the fire. Stampeding away from the fire. Not towards
it. Not right into it." - Laurie Anderson, "New Jersey Turnpike"
Blackberry
>
>> How do you verify the age of a toon?
>
> Somehow I don't think they're going to care when some artist says "Well
>he looks 6 but he's actually 30."
Some mother somewhere would have sued some artist over it, and the law would
have been revealed as silly.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>And repugs are sore losers. They ALWAYS try to go back and correct their
>past failures, which is why Dubya is so busy gearing things up to attack
>Iraq in time before the pre-election polls start to slump for him (wag
>wag wag wag!).
>
>The only reason the VatiKKKlan is so worried isn't because of the
>thousands of children that were hurt, but because of all the millions of
>dollars they're having to shell out from all the lawsuits.
>
>Jesus may live in their hearts, but their REAL god lives in their bank accounts.
I disagree with you on about everything else conceivable (no, that's not a
straight porn pun), but I agree with everything you wrote in this message
totally. The current administration won't stand for anyone thumbing their nose
at them. They're the consummate schoolyard bully. Not to mention that
Republicans give new meaning to the word "hypocrisy".
When Ashcroft said to round up anyone that even seemed like they might have an
Arab or Muslim friend, the state of Oregon told him where he could stick it. I
was sure he'd send in the military (we don't actually have bases of any of the
four main US Armed Forces in Oregon, just National Guard and Coast Guard).
Blackberry
>
>As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
>that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
>pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
>that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
>course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage. After
>fursuiters, I guess we should get around to licencing this...
I get the feeling that you're only trolling, and not actually going to read any
of these messages nor respond, but here goes:
If the movie Lolita (or, let's say the entire TV series "Twin Peaks") is illegal
because adults play minors who engage in sexual activity, and therefore commit a
felony, then shouldn't all fanciful depictions of murder in film and art also be
illegal? Who would have thought that using special effects would lead to jail
time.
Issarlk
> "Juan F. Lara" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3CBD3BD9...@sprintmail.com>, Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>> <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > The laws restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the
>> > real kids as they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the
>> > real thing.
>>
>> It's debatable if "virtual child porn" art will actually encourage
>> someone
>> to go out and hurt a child for reason. A person who'd react that way
>> is already messed up enough that he/she is going to try to commit the
>> crime no matter what. It's analogous to asserting that violent movies
>> or video games encourage people to go out and kill other people. Such
>> killers are messed up already.
>
> True to a degree, however free speech has it's limits. Like shouting
> "fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it. There's no need for child porn,
> period. The only people that need it are people who have a disturbing
> psychological bent towards children, they need professional help not
> pornography to feed their addiction.
>
Let's make an experiment and substitute "furry" for "child" in your reply:
"
True to a degree, however free speech has it's limits. Like shouting
"fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it. There's no need for furry porn,
period. The only people that need it are people who have a disturbing
psychological bent towards animals, they need professional help not
pornography to feed their addiction.
"
Personally, I like furotica but I'm not a zoophile, is there a flaw in
the preceding paragraph ?
(By the way, I could read that kind of comment in Penny Arcade forum when
the "smouldering cheetha temptress" stuff happened)
A few other words you can try: hentai, S&M, plushie, balloon, tentacle,
rape, anything_looking_weird_or_sick_to_somebody_somewhere_on_earth, etc.
>
>> > but art for the sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me.
>>
>> That only means that art like that should never enter your life.
>> And I
>> definitely hope that it never does. But again that's not a basis on
>> making it illegal.
>
> I'm sorry it does. The same with death-porn, rape-porn and other types
> that involve very illegal and immoral acts. We do need to draw the line
> somewhere.
Illegal ? What about horror movies ? It's legal to kill people with a chainsaw
? (And for the morality part: remember that the bad guy doesn't alway lose at
the end of the movie.)
No, it's not the legality of it that disturb people; I think it's the morality
of it. But if we makes things illegal based on moral, we should make porn
illegal, violent movies and games illegal, books featuring thieves (Arsene
Lupin) illegal... anything that's immoral as per your religion illegal.
But then you could have that, you just needed to go live in Afganistan back
to the time of the Taliban.
>
>> > The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to be to not be
>> > illegal?
>>
>> If they can't answer that the Supreme Court will strike it down
>> again.
>
> True.
Just my 0.02 euro.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>"fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it.
Because it creates a real and present danger. Congress's real failing with
this law was their failure to assemble any proof that virtual child porn, lead
directly to any real harms, and that banning it would fix the problem.
Remember the pedophillic behavior that they want to "discourage" is ALLREADY
ILLEGAL.
>There's no need for child porn,
period.
I think the point is that there's a diffrence between there being "no need" and
a need to make it illegal... Espically when you take out a lot of other work
as well, Child porn cases even before this law were passed showed a fair
degree of overbreath, snaring people who had taken pictures that were NOT
sexual in intent, but the procecuter felt might turn on a pedophile anyway.
(Such as the oscar winning "The Tin Drum" in an Ohio case) Expand that
definition past photos of real kids, and you've got the classical definition of
constitutional "Vague and Overbroad"
I wouldn't hold my breath on a new law either, this one was pased in 96 and was
held up for 6 years in the courts. Not to mention that i doubt that the new law
will be as "age based" as you've implied.. I expect something very narrowly
tailored to photorealistic work, tied to particular acts, and a broader set of
exemptions if people can prove that adults were involved. (The law that was
struck down had an odd quirk where only the -producer- of a work, could use a
"I can prove that they were adults" defense, this was not available to an owner
or distributer)
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Dragon Magic
are pretty much moral-pushers. They don't like porn
and they don't like people who enjoy porn. So they'll
just continue to push for laws from their friends in
Congress to outlaw porn and if they're denied, they'll
go on a slant that their job's harder to crack down
on all the criminals.
I bet you if Ashcroft got laid sixteen times to the
North Pole, he'd have a different view on sex.
Alas, sexually repressed people think that no one
ELSE should enjoy it either.
Steve Carter
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:53:52 +0300, "Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
> >news:a9ipc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> How do you verify the age of a toon?
> >
> >You don't. Illustration of any kind is legal, no matter how distasteful
or
> >inappropriate the subject matter. It becomes an issue when it involves
real
> >kids.
>
> No, the law was about artistic representations of kids. It specifically
dealt
> with *non*-real representations
And the question I am answering above specifically says toons.
Blackberry
>
>> >> How do you verify the age of a toon?
>> >
>> >You don't. Illustration of any kind is legal, no matter how distasteful
>or
>> >inappropriate the subject matter. It becomes an issue when it involves
>real
>> >kids.
>>
>> No, the law was about artistic representations of kids. It specifically
>dealt
>> with *non*-real representations
>
>And the question I am answering above specifically says toons.
You're right, I'm wrong. Still, the law also said that any visual
representation that "conveyed the impression" of a minor involved in sexual
activity was illegal.
Obviously, Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning movies like "Lolita", "The
Birdcage", "American Beauty", and "Traffic" would be illegal right off, but I
bet someone somewhere could make a case that they look at a drawing of the
Animaniacs going at it and it "conveys the impression" of real minors going at
it. It wouldn't take long.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>And the question I am answering above specifically says toons.
And the law that was struck down, or the hypothetical one to be put foreward,
doesn't care... it made it an issue weather the kid was real -or not-, so yes,
under the law as it was written you could have to establish the age of a
toon...
In short, under the law just struck down your response was incorrect.. There
could easilly be illegal illustrations under it's rules...
Kam
news:gf4v8.14482$L1.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Now, let me add,
> that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
> course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage.
So...
People that want to have sex with kids are ok, but people that want to have
sex with animals are outcasts. What the hell kind of logic is that?
Kam
Mike & Carole Curtis
Mike
Shon Howell <cathe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gf4v8.14482$L1.11...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
> that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
> course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage.
Ken Pick
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:30:52 GMT, "Shon wrote:
> >
> >As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
> >that I should say that in light of todays Supreme Court ruling, we welcome
> >pedophiles back into the fandom. No hard feelings guys. Now, let me add,
> >that's JUST pedophiles; you zoophiles are still on the outs, unless of
> >course you can produce proof that your "animal Companion" is underage. After
> >fursuiters, I guess we should get around to licencing this...
>
> I get the feeling that you're only trolling, and not actually going to read any
> of these messages nor respond, but here goes:
It's a troll.
I was in Burned Fur for years, and I never heard of Shon being a
member, much less THE LEADER.
Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
> ...I don't object to actual art, or actual movies with merit, but
> pedopheliac porn of fake children should be just as illegal. The laws
> restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the real kids as
> they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the real thing. If you
> want to defend work with actual merit I won't complain, but art for the
> sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me. Since they just got their law
> kicked out this time, they'll hurry up and write a new one that isn't
> quite as broad. The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to
> be to not be illegal? Or put in plainer words, will they go after
> cartoony kid porn or just photorealistic stuff?
So who decides what's real art, and what's just porn? That's dangerous, and
we've been there before, earlier this century.
--
- Adrian Wolf von müden Augen
presZeroOn...@umn.edu
(to e-mail me, convert spelled numbers to digits)
Michael Campbell
$Hu6.64...@typhoon.neo.rr.com:
Thank you for stopping at McLiberal's, please drive through.
Brian Graeme
news:a9jdmr$qfd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> This is like watching a debate over Snidely Wiplash.
>
> "He's a Scoudrel!" "No, he's Dirty Crook!"
"He's a Floorwax AND a Dessert Topping!"
Blackberry
>
>Oh....I thought you said PEDALPHILES, people who have sex with bicycles.
You keep out of this, you... PEDANTPHILE!
Blackberry
>
>It's a troll.
>
>I was in Burned Fur for years, and I never heard of Shon being a
>member, much less THE LEADER.
Well, and plus, what's with all that porn that he himself cranks out? One of
the first pictures that clued me in to furry erotica was Shon Howell's picture
of a cat (or mink) guy sitting, with nothing but sunglasses on, and a big
erection. I bet that would look good as the Burned Furs' logo.
Allen Kitchen
Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:
>
> Oh....I thought you said PEDALPHILES, people who have sex with bicycles.
I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
and shocking tastes.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Kyle L. Webb
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> Or rather, the courts found that the law aimed at hunting down
> pedophiles also smacked up a group that wasn't indulging in it. They
> said on the news that they're going to go back and re-write the law so
> that it covers a certain age group. Then it will probably pass. That
> will leave art and movies about teenagers alone, but once you dwindle
> below the teens you're looking at a day in court.
That's one possible remedy that's been discussed. I'm not sure it really
addresses the court's objections, though.
If you read the opinion, there were several problems with the law other
than just the virtuality. For example: It reversed the presumption and put
the onus of proving that an image was not infringing on the defendant,
rather than the prosecution having to prove it was. Another was that
something packaged as child porn was infringing regardless of whether the
contents really were or not. For example. Someone sells a box of sand that
is labeled as child porn. Selling or possessing that box of sand is
subject to the same penalties as the real thing. (An oversimplification,
but gets the point across)
The court left in place restrictions where virtual child porn has a
recognizable child in it. For example: If someone grafts the heads of,
say, twins Mary Kate and Ashley onto the bodies of young looking 18 year
olds, this is still infringing. Quite reasonable, IMHO, as though no
physical abuse is done, it still is a psychological abuse. (Imagine being
an early teen boy or girl, and suddenly extremely realistic doctored
pictures of you are being passed around at your middle school, or are
presented to your parents. Ouch.)
Many of the objections are technical matters that can easily be fixed with
a rewritten law. Some of them are more basic and stem from the legal
theory behind the law.
Note that Thomas, one of the more conservative on the court voted with the
6 to 3 majority. That indicates this law had constitutional problems that
went beyond minor.
Justice Thomas' concurring opinion raises what is to me the most troubling
question. Though he concurrs, he notes that the decision may invite claims
that an image is virtual as a defence when in fact it is not and was the
result of child abuse. When the cops and courts have difficulty telling
what is real and what's not, it can be a major problem. At some point the
technology will be good enough that it will be nearly impossible to tell
the difference and it will make putting real child abusers in jail harder.
I don't have a good answer for that, and frankly, don't know what course
should be taken to prevent it.
This just removed one tool from the prosecutor's toolbox. There are many
others. Anyone who reads this as a legalization of child porn is deluding
themselves.
The law will be rewritten, hopefully this time with a better eye to
constitutional issues.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Arty McToon
Koala", and "Mapletown"...and there will be hell to pay.
Not a threat, but a statement of fact.
"ilr" <i...@CHILLIESriflenet.net> wrote in message news:<a9irj0$pvh$1...@raccoon.fur.com>...
> "Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message news:a9ipc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:07:55 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > How do you verify the age of a toon?
> >
> Why the concern? You plannning on drawing any kiddie porn any time soon?
> As long as it isn't human, it won't matter.
> -Ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
>and shocking tastes.
Especially since aural sex is still illegal in some states.
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Kyle L. Webb
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Oh....I thought you said PEDALPHILES, people who have sex with bicycles.
>
> I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
> and shocking tastes.
Into them electrified things, eh Shockwave?
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
(And rapidly alternating pressure on two erogenous zones on either side of his
head. What a perv! ;)
AJL
>
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR, I just thought
Thank you shon... I just sprayed my monitor with coffee! <grin>
--Darrel.
AJL
>
> Blackberry wrote:
> > Is someone a little bitter?
>
> Nope. He's just stating the truth.
Oh... you are SO gullible!
Woolly Mittens
> pedophiles back into the fandom.
(\_/)
You promised your mom you wouldn't take those pills anymore Shon (>.<)
Blackberry
>
>Anyone messes with the "Tiny Toons", "Get Along Gang", "The Little
>Koala", and "Mapletown"...and there will be hell to pay.
>
>Not a threat, but a statement of fact.
"Messes with" as far as what? If you mean "messes with" as in "making erotica
of", then you're several years too late for at least 3 of those.
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Oh....I thought you said PEDALPHILES, people who have sex with bicycles.
>
> I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
> and shocking tastes.
You...you're a PHONOGRAPHER? For shame! :D
-MMM-
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University Dept. of Mat. Eng. \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
http://fmrc.coe.drexel.edu \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR
We don't have a leader! We're more of a syndicalist commune...
Dragon Magic
Oh, wow, someone's against censorship and against
government imposed censorship, and that makes them a liberal?
Get real, I'm not a liberal, not with the repubs, the demos, the
libertarians or the reforms. (:
C'mon, take another guess...
Michael Campbell
$Hu6.64...@typhoon.neo.rr.com:
>> Thank you for stopping at McLiberal's, please drive through.
>
> Oh, wow, someone's against censorship and against
> government imposed censorship, and that makes them a liberal?
> Get real, I'm not a liberal, not with the repubs, the demos, the
> libertarians or the reforms. (:
No offense to you pal, but the post looked like you bought the "Best of
Liberal Rhetoric" CD and lip synced to it.
Michael Campbell
news:3CBDBD2E...@drexel.edu:
> Shon Howell wrote:
>>
>> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR
>
> We don't have a leader! We're more of a syndicalist commune...
We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive piece of flamebait for
the week...
((Picks up his old decoder ring and puts it back on his finger. Be
afraid...))
Blackberry
So you're all tits in rotation? (Shon said it.)
R. A. Clemson
Campbell <mecamp...@tds.net> wrote:
Now, now...don't be so harsh...he only seeks to protect the freedom of
sexy fox ladies and smouldering cheetah temptresses in America!
Kitryn de Pluie
had the audacity to state the following:
> "M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote in
> news:3CBDBD2E...@drexel.edu:
>
>> Shon Howell wrote:
>>>
>>> As a member (Hell, I'm the titular leader) of BURNED FUR
>>
>> We don't have a leader! We're more of a syndicalist commune...
>
> We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive piece of flamebait
> for the week...
But all the troll posts /of/ that flamebait must be ratified in a biweekly
meeting with a simple majority in the case of simple responses, or a two-
thirds majority in the case of actual posts...
--
Kitryn de Pluie the Anthro Fox
DC: DC2.H^Mcf Gm L6f W T Pw Sku Cbk,bag,ebl,cag,wrb A- Fr++"mango" Nu
M(r+v+++1|2*) Ov+3 F+o R+ Ac+++ J+ S- U--- I V Q Tc++[anything but
programming] E
Matt
is legal, so why should porn done to look like its kiddy porn be any
diffrent? No one is getting hurt.
> I'm sorry it does. The same with death-porn, rape-porn and other types
> that involve very illegal and immoral acts. We do need to draw the line
> somewhere.
Matt
> So...
> People that want to have sex with kids are ok, but people that want to
have
> sex with animals are outcasts. What the hell kind of logic is that?
>
> Kam
>
>
Greylocks
were about 5 names signed to it... I was one. I dont remember Shon, not
that it really matters.
Burned Furs have no leaders, just a generic agreement about how to deal
with bullshit.
Greylocks
>
>
> But all the troll posts /of/ that flamebait must be ratified in a biweekly
> meeting with a simple majority in the case of simple responses, or a two-
> thirds majority in the case of actual posts...
That also varies according to the amount of beer consumed.
Gabriel Gentile
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 05:08:59 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >> How do you verify the age of a toon?
> >
> >he looks 6 but he's actually 30."
>
> Some mother somewhere would have sued some artist over it, and the law would
> have been revealed as silly.
I don't think so. When it's apparent there is no artistic merit disgust
would make the judges uphold the hypothetical law that doesn't exist...
yet.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > True to a degree, however free speech has it's limits. Like shouting
> > "fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it. There's no need for child porn,
> > period. The only people that need it are people who have a disturbing
> > psychological bent towards children, they need professional help not
> > pornography to feed their addiction.
> >
>
> Let's make an experiment and substitute "furry" for "child" in your reply:
> "
> True to a degree, however free speech has it's limits. Like shouting
> "fire" in a theatre doesn't cut it. There's no need for furry porn,
> period. The only people that need it are people who have a disturbing
> psychological bent towards animals, they need professional help not
> pornography to feed their addiction.
> "
> Personally, I like furotica but I'm not a zoophile, is there a flaw in
> the preceding paragraph ?
Yes, because you used the wrong words. Furries are not synonymous with
animals.
> > I'm sorry it does. The same with death-porn, rape-porn and other types
> > that involve very illegal and immoral acts. We do need to draw the line
> > somewhere.
>
> Illegal ? What about horror movies ? It's legal to kill people with a chainsaw
> ? (And for the morality part: remember that the bad guy doesn't alway lose at
> the end of the movie.)
Horror movies, actions movies and murder movies are not porn. They are
not made to masturbate to.
TT
Blackberry
>
>The courts have ruled several times that rape porn done by consenting adults
>is legal, so why should porn done to look like its kiddy porn be any
>diffrent? No one is getting hurt.
It's because it upsets some people who happen to think that they should impose
their will on everyone else.
--
I will shine with blinding light / Through those hearts as black as night
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But at least the seeds of love will be sown
- Tears For Fears, "Badman's Song"
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> It's a troll.
>
> I was in Burned Fur for years, and I never heard of Shon being a
> member, much less THE LEADER.
Isn't Shon an artist that's popped up in one of the anthologies? I
swear I've looked at his work.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> > ...I don't object to actual art, or actual movies with merit, but
> > pedopheliac porn of fake children should be just as illegal. The laws
> > restricting the real thing are there as much to protect the real kids as
> > they are to not encourage anyone to go out and do the real thing. If you
> > want to defend work with actual merit I won't complain, but art for the
> > sake of masturbation doesn't fly with me. Since they just got their law
> > kicked out this time, they'll hurry up and write a new one that isn't
> > quite as broad. The only thing I question is how fake does fake have to
> > be to not be illegal? Or put in plainer words, will they go after
> > cartoony kid porn or just photorealistic stuff?
>
> So who decides what's real art, and what's just porn? That's dangerous, and
> we've been there before, earlier this century.
The courts decide first, and if the courts are wrong the people of this
country are supposed to rally up to correct it. Someone has to decide,
we can't always turn chicken and run away from something serious as this
over the freedom of some sicko to indulge in his pscyhological sickness.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
Exactly. I hate that kind of retarded black and white thinking. There
are more hues of politics under the sun than just the Republicrats.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> The courts have ruled several times that rape porn done by consenting adults
> is legal, so why should porn done to look like its kiddy porn be any
> diffrent? No one is getting hurt.
People watching that kind of material need help, not food for their
addiction. I think it may be best to agree to disagree here, I doubt
you'll have anything that will change my mind and vice versa.
TT
Gabriel Gentile
> but I bet someone somewhere could make a case that they look at a drawing of
> the Animaniacs going at it and it "conveys the impression" of real minors
> going at it. It wouldn't take long.
Okay, that's it, I just GOTTA ask....
WHY would anyone WANT to look at a picture of the Animaniacs "doing it"?!!
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
I'm a heavy politico and I didn't see any liberal rherotic in DM's
words at all. I read plenty of anti-Bush stuff, but anti-Bush and
liberal are not one and the same.
TT
Gabriel Gentile
art...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/17/02 11:09 AM:
> Anyone messes with the "Tiny Toons", "Get Along Gang", "The Little
> Koala", and "Mapletown"...and there will be hell to pay.
Oh, you're WAY too late to save "Tiny Toons", pal!
Gabriel Gentile
> Oh, wow, someone's against censorship and against
> government imposed censorship, and that makes them a liberal?
> Get real, I'm not a liberal, not with the repubs, the demos, the
> libertarians or the reforms. (:
>
> C'mon, take another guess...
National Socialist?
Dragon Magic
> are more hues of politics under the sun than just the Republicrats.
And speaking of hues, the closest I come in "organized" politics
would be the Greens, but even some of their rhetoric I don't believe
in.
So, go figure. (:
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Allen Kitchen wrote:
> >
> > Mike & Carole Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh....I thought you said PEDALPHILES, people who have sex with bicycles.
> >
> > I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
> > and shocking tastes.
>
> You...you're a PHONOGRAPHER? For shame! :D
That we are! I spend hours each day downloading audio porn from
audiogalaxy.com! The best place to find illegal piracy on the web!
[Banner ad here]
[Banner ad here]
Did I mention audiogalaxy.com is the schiznit?
TT
Arty McToon
> On 17 Apr 2002 10:09:40 -0700, art...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >Anyone messes with the "Tiny Toons", "Get Along Gang", "The Little
> >Koala", and "Mapletown"...and there will be hell to pay.
> >
>
> "Messes with" as far as what? If you mean "messes with" as in "making erotica
> of", then you're several years too late for at least 3 of those.
They are all kid characters. Created for G-rated intentions only.
No muss, no fuss.
Fal Leac
Pediphilia is becoming a larger problem for society in general...
Take a gander at this article...
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20020401.htm
It's not just Catholics... and it's not just Religous organizations... this is
a problem that crosses all boundries, nations, occupations and age groups...
The truth of the matter is... where ever you find children... pedophiles are
sure to follow...
Catholics are just as ticked about this as anybody else... maybe even more
so... since Catholics consider themselves "the church" and not the
organizational institution itself...
And if you think the flame wars in furry are bad... you should see what is
going on amongst the bishops and priests...
Not all priests are bad... just like not all furries are bad... remmember how
some people felt about the MTV special...
Priests are no different... and innocent Priests are having to bear all of this
along with the guilty priests...
And there is at least one priest I know of who is a furry fan...
In fact, the only people who are happy about this whole situation... are the
people who dislike the Catholic church... or Catholics in general...
No one should be happy about children getting hurt... or that adults
contributed to it happening...
I'm glad someone opened the doors and let the light in...
Things can only get better because of it...
Robin Fal Leac, Pray for peace in Northern Ireland... God bless.
(Fal Leac is pronounced F-lack in Gaelic)
Juan F. Lara
Need? Since when does the expression of an idea always have to have a
need? There's no need for a lot of art.
> I'm certain if we searched the fandom we'd find plenty of people who find
> those characters attractive because they are kids.
I'm sure you can find some, but I don't believe that the majority of fans
of TTA/Chippettes/etc porn like that stuff because the characters are "kids".
Characters like these tend to be written such that they act more line
mini-adults than actual kids. I think that when we do have "kid" characters
that act more like adults than children that's when these fandoms arise,
whereas if the kid characters really act like kids most spooge fans won't have
any interest in them.
> I'm sorry it does. The same with death-porn, rape-porn and other types that
> involve very illegal and immoral acts.
But if they're simulated stuff they DON'T involve illegal acts. Fantasy
death- and rape-porn feature no actual deaths or rapes, just like how there
are no real rapes or murders in "Straw Dogs".
And making "illegal" and "immoral" the same thing is a very bad idea...
> We do need to draw the line somewhere.
The line is drawn such that any porn involving people that are NOT
consenting adults is illegal, and should be. That includes real kiddie porn
( children of course can't consent to something like this, and are horrificly
hurt ), actual acts of bestiality ( animals are not capable of consent ) and
actual acts of necrophilia ( A dead body can't consent. Well, if the person
gave someone permission to do that with his body in his will then maybe, but
I'd rather not speculate. ).
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Juan F. Lara
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Horror movies, actions movies and murder movies are not porn. They are not
> made to masturbate to.
Some people masturbate to them anyway, though.
Juan F. Lara
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> the freedom of some sicko to indulge in his pscyhological sickness.
Actually the sickness is not in having snuff/zoo/kiddie fantasies. The
sickness is in not being able to cope with those fantasies in a way other than
committing illegal acts.
I read in a book a really good principle regarding sexual fantasies:
Sexual fantasies can be about ANYTHING; It's how you deal with them in relation
to real life that determines if you're sane or a sicko. The sane person
realizes that those fantasies are FANTASY, and therefore different from
reality. He/she may express it in reality through, say, safe and sane roleplay
between consenting adults, or writing fiction and drawing art, or not at all of
no safe, sane and consential method is feasible. The sicko becomes obsessed
with his fantasies, and ignores the difference between fantasy and reality.
The sicko believes that the only way to satisfy himself is to kill or molest
people, and that he can't do otherwise.
You could have the exact same sexual fantasies that Jeffrey Dahmer had,
and you won't be a sicko unless, like him, you won't settle for anything than
actually killing people. ( Heck, the principle that Jeffrey Dahmer could be
found guilty of murder is based on the premise that you could have his
cannibalism fantasies and still be sane. If those fantasies automatically made
you insane that JD would've been found innocent by reason of insanity. )
Blackberry
Why does anyone have any sexual kink? There is no good explanation.
Blackberry
Cool! I'm a socialist-libertarian-green-peace-communist-anarchist-independent
myself.
Dreamstalker
*applause* My voter-reg card lists me as "unknown/other" and I'm happy with that.
Dreamstalker
> Allen Kitchen wrote:
> >I'm still hiding my Audiophilia, hoping nobody learns about my expensive
> >and shocking tastes.
>
> Especially since aural sex is still illegal in some states.
So, this means that "Audiophile" magazine should be shrinkwrapped behind the
counter and you need to show ID?
Brian Sutton
>It's a troll.
>I was in Burned Fur for years, and I never heard of Shon being a
>member, much less THE LEADER.
A quick google search will show that Shon was an early joiner of BF. As for
his leadership title that remains to be proven.
Brian Sutton
"They tried to corner the market on stupidity the way the Hunt brothers
tried with silver "
-Shon Howell
Visit my website @ http://hjg.kcomplex.com
for deals on Furry art & comics
Juan F. Lara
Gabriel Gentile <spook...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> WHY would anyone WANT to look at a picture of the Animaniacs "doing it"?!!
Um, for the same reason some people want to look at a picture of Minerva
Mink "doing it"?