Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sex abuse
|
|
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
Sex abuse is the latest expression of absolutism
Parents, your children are now truly at risk
(The latest guidelines obliging professionals to pry into the sex lives of teenagers and children put our children greatly at risk of being criminalized and placed in care.)
This is based mainly on the UK situation but the US position is equally bad or even more extreme. The first part is about teenagers, the second about younger children.
The latest guidelines obliging professionals to pry into the sex lives of teenagers is being called ‘Working With Sexually Active Young People Under the Age of 18 - A Pan-London Protocol’ and it further legitimizes and expands state surveillance into the sexual aspects of teenagers’ lives. This idea, well advanced in Sweden, and first developed in Nazi Germany, is a powerful weapon for the influencing and control of young people, who upon learning that the state makes the rules for the all-important area of their sexuality, are more likely to accept that the state is both right about such things and in control of them.
The new guidelines require all professionals in contact with young people to do risk assessments on ‘any person under 18 they know who is, or is likely to be, sexually active’. This, for anyone who has read the Sexual Offences Act 2003, means all ‘normal’ teenagers, whether heterosexually or homosexually inclined, with the latter most at risk.
Once the ‘young person who is, or is likely to be, sexually active’ is identified (that is, nearly all of them), the risk assessment becomes very detailed, involving ‘physical and emotional health and education’, and ‘safeguards’. Chillingly, it requires, as standard, a police check on the partner (typically the boy friend or man friend), and the storing of the details of that partner, child or adult, on a police computer. If someone is ‘considered to need protection’, he or she will be referred to social services or the police, who will devise ‘a protection plan’. That could mean disaster for the under 18 year old or older partner. In deciding if the ‘child’ can be considered to need protection, the intentions of the partner should be scrutinized to establish whether they may be ‘grooming for sexual exploitation’.
The typical ‘child’ being protected will be a 17 year old or younger girl who is in a relationship. The typical individual now at great risk is the boy or older man having a relationship with that girl. Parents need to be aware that their sons are now in very great danger.
Some details of the protocol
Be aware in the first instance that despite any special pleas or assurances that care will be taken by the assessors, that recent history demonstrates that all state intervention in matters of human sexuality have produced witch hunts. Ask yourself if you trust any social worker or police person to assess the intimacies of your son’s sexual relationships with his girl friend or friends. Up to now, the single great danger was that a girl could turn against a boy if the relationship went sour and claim that he did illegal things with her while she was underage, but now the danger is that, even if she remains loyal, a social worker or teacher or police person can ruin a boy’s life on the basis of an assessment carried out under this protocol.
The protocol looks in the first instance at ‘power imbalances’, saying that power imbalances are very important and can occur through differences in size, age and development and where gender, sexuality, race and levels of sexual knowledge are used to exert such power. This idea, which probably originated in Sweden, has created a whole new category of criminalization that could be titled ‘inappropriate behaviour’. Expanding also from such ideas as ‘sexual harassment’, it puts anyone who appears to have ‘power’ at risk. So Cinderella and the prince stories are out.
The greatest risk, however, is that the assessor may establish that a couple are engaged in sexual touching, or even intercourse, and if they consider the power imbalance inappropriate, or if the girl is under 16, the boy could be in serious trouble.
Once the alarm bells ring for the assessor, confidentiality is out of the question. Quote: “In working with young people, it must always be made clear to them at the earliest appropriate point, that absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed - - - .
“Anyone concerned about the sexual activity of a young person should initially discuss this with the person, or unit, in his or her agency responsible for child protection. There may then be a need for further consultation with a member of the Child Protection Unit. All discussions should be recorded, giving reasons for action taken and who was spoken to, as support for the professional decisions made. It is important that all decision-making is undertaken with full professional consultation, never by one person alone.”
Those who assume that the age of sexual consent at 16 in the UK will protect their sons where the girl is 16 but still under 18 need to be aware that the protocol and the child protection procedures under the Children Act 1989 still allow surveillance and action where the assessor decides that there is sexual exploitation through the abuse of power in the circumstances outlined in the protocol or by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The children who are ‘sex abusers’
The idea began in the US as sex abuse cases involving adults decreased and social workers could no longer ignore the evidence of sexual activity between children, especially those placed in residential care. First it became known as ‘inappropriate touching’ and then a criminal matter requiring psychological intervention.
The new UK protocol expands the sexual criminalization of teenagers to children in general by copying the American idea that there can be child sexual abusers. “Children and young people who abuse others should be held responsible for their abusive behaviour, whilst being identified and responded to in a way which meets their needs as well as protecting others. Such children are likely to have considerable needs.” Thus, what used to be normal exploratory and playful sex games can now criminalize children. In the US today, being caught urinating behind a tree, mooning (the one that gets most teenage boys onto the sex register), skinny dipping, passionate lovemaking with a girl, masturbating, and many other non-violent victimless offences can make individuals of all ages criminals and put them on the sex register. A doctor and nurse game could now criminalize both UK and US children.
About the child abusers, the UK protocol says, “In assessing the nature of any particular behaviour, it is essential to look at the social relationship between those involved - - - . Whether the activity is age-appropriate or demonstrates an inappropriate level of sexual knowledge.”
This helps to identify which child is the abuser, although it is likely to be the boy in a boy-girl situation or the older boy in a group of either mixed gender or all boys. Once both the ‘offending’ and the ‘offender’ are identified, the results of what may have been a childish game, or normal sexual explorations, may be disastrous for the accused child.
“When police or social services are first notified of a possible incident of sexual abuse by a child or young person, any immediate action necessary to protect the victim and other children at risk should be taken in accordance with Part 6 of these procedures
“A referral should be made to the Sheffield Panel for Young People Who Sexually Harm Others. This panel will ensure that an appropriate multi-agency response is made, in accordance with these procedures. In every case, a strategy meeting should be held to discuss whether there is a need to continue child protection enquiries in respect of the victim, and also to allocate a social worker who can undertake an initial assessment in relation to the abuser. Thereafter, the needs of the victim should be considered separately from those of the alleged abuser. It may be that there is cause to suspect that the alleged abuser him/herself is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; if so, child protection enquiries should be started in respect of him/her.”
And where your child might be removed from you. “Where a young abuser is considered to be at continuing risk of significant harm following child protection enquiries in respect of him/her, a child protection conference should be convened in accordance with Part 7 of these procedures. However, where an initial assessment confirms that the child is a child in need, a multi-agency child in need planning meeting should be convened, chaired by a child protection co-ordinator. Issues regarding suitable educational and accommodation arrangements may require skilled and careful consideration.”
And: “Expert opinion may be needed, for example from those providing specialist treatment services for young people who sexually harm others.”
Finally: “If the child is above the age of criminal responsibility, a decision will need to be made about the appropriate course of action within the criminal justice system. The police should be involved in all multi-agency planning discussions about a young abuser, and should take account of the input of other agencies in making the decision.”
Commentary
Not just teenaged and older boys but children, especially boys, are now at risk. That parents can now be worried about unsupervised play between children, especially boys and girls, and even between boys and younger boys, is intolerable. If there are caring parents who doubt this, they should read both the protocol and the legislation.
Boys are in great danger
We originally examined this under the title You are seventeen, going on eighteen – so watch it!
As millions of boys in the West draw near the age of eighteen, the dangers for them in existing relationships with girls under 18 are acute. Our UK correspondent, Arthur Blair, continues to examine the legislation designed to protect ‘children’ and his findings are quite grim.
From Arthur Blair
1. You raise concerns about the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalising young people under 16 who engage in sexual experimentation.
It does this and it does it very well.
2. I think the first point to make is that the age of consent to sexual activity is not changing; it remains at 16.
However, the Sexual Offences Act’s new provisions on child pornography and prostitution mean that
a) anyone asking a person under 18 to provide a “sexual service” for “payment” commits a crime and the child (under 18) is classed as a “prostitute”
b) anyone asking a person under 18 for a nude-photograph is committing a criminal offence of “inciting child pornography”. While this could have been made out in the past as an offence of “inciting the taking of a indecent photograph”, the fact that a child is now anyone under 18 means that two people engaged in a relationship that is perfectly legal when expressed physically becomes criminal when it involves the use of webcams etc.
Those of 16 and 17 are no longer able to consent to certain things that older people are able to consent to.
Creating these new offences is a statement of intent; while the rareness of “incitement to take photographs” charges might suggest that the offence is not one that is intended to be pursued all that rigorously, the creation of these new offences is a message to the police and others that they are to be taken seriously.
The “pornography” offences had the proposed “consent” defence removed. This in itself implies that the “child’s” consent is IRRELEVENT. A court might well decide that a “child’s” consent to being photographed is irrelevant without referring to Hansard, but if it does refer to Hansard it will be forced to infer that such consent is indeed not a defence for the accused.
Hence, the government reveals its disdain for the “child’s” consent.
3. The Government's priority is to ensure that the law provides protection for children and enables the prosecution of anyone, whether an adult or another child, who coerces or exploits them into sexual activity.
Then why does the law not say this explicitly? It actually criminalizes ALL sexual behaviour where one party is under 16 and leaves the discretion to prosecute with the authorities – from the police becoming involved to a decision not to prosecute might take 12 months.
4. The Government does recognise that much sexual activity involving children under the age of consent is consensual and experimental and that, in such cases, the intervention of the criminal law may not be appropriate.
Again, then, why not criminalise coerced sexual activity rather than ALL sexual activity?
5. Of course, adults do not have a monopoly on child abuse and children can be bullied or coerced into sexual activity by one of their peers. One can envisage the scenario where a l6-year-old boy bullies a l4-year-old girl into engaging in sexual activity and it is essential that the law provides the same levels of protection for children regardless of the age of their sexual partner.
What if a 14-year-old girl coerces a 16-year-old boy into engaging in sexual activity?
Does the government believe that a 14-year-old boy can engage in sexual activity with, say, a 16-year-old woman without coercion?
Would the police et al believe that a 14-year-old boy would engage in sexual activity with, say, a 40-year-old woman without coercion?
Coercion does not need to be proved. In many cases it will simply be assumed.
6. With regard to the position of young people themselves, the Act includes a number of offences that criminalise sexual activity with children under 16. Where the defendant was under the age of 18 at the time of the sexual activity and the child was aged 13 to 15, there is a reduced maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment. The laws are drafted in such a way that they maximise protection for children by making it possible for children under 18 to be prosecuted for abusive or exploitative sexual activity involving other children. However, this does not mean that young people will face prosecution for mutually agreed sexual activity where there is no evidence of exploitation but the activity is simply part of normal child development.
What if a 15-year-old has a relationship with an 18-year-old? Will the existence of this reduced maximum penalty for under 18s cause the authorities to infer that a relationship with a person older than 18 is undesirable and therefore to be automatically punished?
Arthur Blair
Warning to parents
Regrettable though it is to have to say it, all parents of teenage boys in Western countries must now become aware that their boys and they themselves are at risk from the repressive new child sex and child pornography legislation. Here are the dangerous situations:
Where his girlfriend is under 17 or 18, and she lives in a US state where the age of sexual consent is 17 or 18. By simply having a sexual relationship with her he commits a felony. Should the authorities find out, or should she turn against him and decide to look for vengeance later, he will be forever at risk.
Where he engages in a sexual relationship with a girl under 16 in most Western countries including the UK.
Where he may be seen to be inciting or coercing an underage girl as in the examples from Arthur Blair above.
Where, either deliberately or accidentally, he surfs the Internet and accesses so-called ‘child porn’ sites which may merely depict nudity or erotic posing of girls under 18. This is a particularly vicious piece of legislation as police and prosecutors use it to convict or blackmail (through plea bargaining or in actual extortion) fathers into taking the blame as the price for protecting their sons.
This should be a wake up call for ordinary, decent people all over the West who have remained silent in the face of this vicious legislative creep. One does not even have to make a case for the dangers to us or our children. When some of these dreadful consequences were pointed out to prominent legislators and those policing the legislation, the standard response was “Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.”
But what began as a device for protecting children now criminalizes us and our children. We have every reason to fear. On this issue alone it is time for Civil disobedience.
Live sex acts for children
The order of the stories below reflects how each one generated the next
Inspired by the news about the six year olds caught in the act below, Sheri Scott sends us the following story.
Live sex acts for children
Sheri Scott
Years ago I was with chatting with a friend of mine's husband, who happened to turn on a pornographic movie as we were talking. His two boys, one five and the other nine, were in the room playing right next to the TV set. Noticing the kids present, and given the nature of the X-rated movie on the TV, I spoke out to the father, "Uh, do you think it's ok for the kids to be in the same room while you're playing that porno?"
The father looked at the TV, in which a couple were engaging in explicit sex, then looked at his two sons, then turned to me and yelled out loud, "How do you think they got here in the first place?"
Obviously, his children got here through sex. In fact, all kids come into this world through sex. Sex is life; without it, the human race would come to an abrupt end. So then why are some people making sex out to be this evil monster that we must protect our children from, as if it's something that destroys life, when in fact it's what causes it to be?
Those who argue against children viewing pornography, either on TV or on a computer screen, are in ignorance of the fact that nearly a third of the population of children in this world, in one form or another, take a front row seat at live sex acts, thousands of times, throughout their entire childhood years.
Take for example a typical Vietnamese family who lives in Ho Chi Minh City. Imagine a small house, with one bedroom and one living room, that's it. Dad and Mom sleep in the bedroom, with three kids on the floor (only mom and dad get the bed). The rest of the family and relatives share the small living room floor. The older sister sleeps in the living room with her husband and two-year-old girl, as does the older brother with his wife and two kids, along with the aunt with her husband and two kids. Oh, and then there's the cousin and his wife, who only recently got married. You can imagine what they're up to every night, as the children pretend to be asleep.
Yes, as the lights go out, it's inevitable a kid's going to be awoken by the movement and sounds of two naked bodies, wrestling in heat and passion. Oh, my goodness! It's the cousin and his wife, only recently married. And there they are, right there in the same room as the children, who are only a few feet away! Live sex acts! In the presence of children! And nobody is doing anything to stop it.
As the rain pours down outside, little Nok is awoken again, only not from the sound of the rain. This time it's the aunt and uncle, and they're doing you-know-what, in the same room as the children. Yep, a curious little boy cannot help but open his eye to peek and see what the moans are all about. The little sister also decides to take a glance as what appears to be shadows taking on a strange dance in the heat of the night. Live sex acts, in the same room, as children lie or stand nearby and watch, and listen. The moans. The stirring. The sounds. Oh, dear! Somebody call the police! Inform the authorities, before it's too late! These children are at risk!
At risk for what?
Most children in the poorer Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and so on, will have seen, heard, smelled, and remembered as their parents, their aunts and uncles, their brothers and sisters, their cousins, along with a host of relatives have engaged in sex over and over and over, throughout their entire childhood years. Live sex acts right there in their house with children, going on as though it were, in fact it is, a natural part of life.
To Westerners, so many of whom have had the luxury of growing up in a large enough house where one can lock the bedroom doors in privacy, the thought of children present as parents and relatives engage in sex may seem not only embarrassing, but even dangerous. But what may be considered dangerous to some, is nothing but a normal part of life for most. In fact, it is life. Without sex, there is no life.
This is not to say poorer Asian couples flaunt themselves naked or sexually in front of their kids - hardly. Asians are quite modest about how they appear, both in public and in the household. But to be so naive as to think a little boy or girl, in hearing the sounds of lust only a few feet away, isn't going to open their eyes and perk their ears out of curiosity of what is going on, is to cross over on the side of ignorance of what children are all about. They are curious. They like to see what other people do. And there's nothing you can do to stop them.
So, the next time you have a fit over the thought of a child somewhere in the Western world, accidentally pulling up on his computer screen an image of a couple engaging in sex, remember what my friend's husband said, "How do you think they got here in the first place?" Then remember the millions of kids who sleep in the very same rooms where parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and relatives of every kind, engage in sex while the children can both view and listen in. While in the West, a child viewing a porno may be considered the gravest of sins, in most poorer households throughout Asia, sex is a part of the life the kids live.
After all, it's how they got here in the first place.
Six year olds caught in the act
Indianapolis has been trying to deal with its latest sex offenders – a pair of six year olds caught in the act at a Marion County school. The boy and girl left the school cafeteria at about 9 AM, following breakfast, as part off a larger group and under the supervision of a teacher, to return to their first-floor classroom, but somehow, they managed to slip off unnoticed and ducked underneath a stairwell, where they had found a cubby hole.
Readers in various countries in the Western world now need to be warned that both the reading of what follows and how it is written could be construed as criminal acts under various child pornography laws. To protect readers we shall use asterisks in places where the reading of this report might cause such illegality.
Once under the stairs and out of sight they began to *****. Sometime later, older students were passing and heard ***** (sounds that we will not describe). The older students investigated and found that they had ***** (but were not completely naked). The reports suggest that they had removed each other’s **** and were ****. According to the older students they were not actually *****. As the Indianapolis Public Schools police and Marion County child protection workers have already said it in public, it is probably safe for readers to be told what these authorities said: “They were trying to have sex!"
The child protection workers are still investigating the incident, but have said that they are worried that the incident may signal that ‘at least one of the 6-year-olds had been abused before’. A child psychologist has come out to acknowledge that possibility, but has added that the behaviour simply could have been an attempt to copy something seen on a video or cable TV. Like one of the many US late night porn channels.
Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Duncan Pat Pritchett said, "One of them may be a victim. We're waiting for the conclusion of the two investigations. At that age, that's learned behaviour."
We were keen to know whether the assumed victim status had to do with which of the pair was most led by the other, as normally in these situations the ‘victim’ is the younger or the female, but could not get a clear answer. What was suggested was that such ‘inappropriate touching’, as it is called in the industry, is assumed to have come from abuse from an adult. Not from two kids exploring each other.
The children were suspended, with the seriousness of the situation reflected by School 69 Principal Gary W. Davis saying, “It's extremely troubling because of their young ages. I have never in my life experienced anything like this." (We assume he means two kids doing this and not 'never having had such an experience himself'.)
Their real punishment will now begin, as, in addition to their suspensions, they will receive ‘social services support for them and their families’, according to child protector Mary Louise Bewley. More ominously perhaps, John Crahen, a school psychologist, said that even if they were just imitating what they have seen or heard such imitation is no proof that they comprehend the full meaning of what they've done.
They will now begin to learn some of what American society believes they have done.
Like having dared to use their imaginations in this way.
A childhood sexual adventure
As a result of the above Indianapolis incident, and Sheri Scott’s ‘Live sex acts for children’, one of our writers now recounts his single childhood sex adventure.
Brian Dyer
I was born and grew up in Ireland, in a South County Dublin suburb called Stillorgan. I can only estimate that I was around nine and possibly ten years of age at the time of the adventure, as it was more than half a century ago.
I had a friend who was the same age as I called Peter and we played in each other’s houses. One day at his house, when his parents were out, his two older sisters, Beth about eleven and Jane about twelve, called us both into a bedroom for a game. It was probably a ‘dares’ game but the two girls needed little encouragement or daring to begin the game.
As if by prior agreement, or perhaps they had done it before, they lay side by side on their backs on a double bed and pulled down their knickers. I cannot remember if they pulled them to their ankles or off altogether. Then, together, and laughing as they did it, bending their knees, they performed backward somersaults, revealing all. Whenever I have thought about it since, I have realized that I was very interested in what they were doing, not for any sexual reasons but because it was astonishingly unusual and different to any behaviour I had ever seen in girls. I can be quite certain about my lack of sexual interest, because my first profoundly-felt physical sexual thrill did not come until some years later, probably about twelve, when I was pretending to swim along the slippery surface of our family bath.
Beth and Jane performed several backward somersaults, probably better described as half somersaults, enough to get their bottoms facing the ceiling and the eyes of anyone looking down at them.
The next game was that we each had to strip off everything under a sheet, but we were allowed to keep the sheet wrapped around us. It was boys first, but when Peter was in his sheet, Beth pushed him onto the floor, grabbed the sheet with both hands and literally rolled him out of it, naked and screaming. I remember that for sure, because he was crying out, “Beth. That’s a mortal sin!” It was Ireland.
It was my turn but Beth had different plans for me. She joined our two sheets together, so that we were both in a tent through which the soft light filtered, then, without speaking, she knelt and with her two fingers lifted my penis for some quiet inspection. Years later, I realized that she was probably interested in the fact that I was circumcised and looked a little different to Peter.
That was the end of the adventure, but by no means the end of the affair. I was so intrigued by the event that I naively told my older brother about it, and he was so overcome by the gravity of the sin that he told our mother. Nothing was said to me, but there were meetings between the two sets of parents and I was forbidden ever to visit the house again. God only knows what happened to poor Beth and Jane, or how it affected their lives.
But the story cannot end even here after fifty years, because current legislation in several western countries demands that extreme care be taken in both the writing and reading of this story, as the legislation strives to suppress any acknowledging of child sexuality. Were the story a fantasy, it would certainly be criminal to write or publish it. It happens to be the truth, but it is the truth above all that our society now fears.
Do it, but don't view it
Sheri Scott
(A critique on current day pornography laws and their application to married children.)
Years ago, my sister called me to come over to baby-sit while she and her husband went out to see a movie. My sister was 16 years old at the time, and had been legally married in the state of Florida. She had a 4 month old baby. When she called me to baby-sit, I drove over and she said they'd return in about 2 hours. They were on their way to see an X-rated movie.
In less then 15 minutes, my sister and her husband were back. They both stormed in the room, and, noticing how upset my sister was, I asked what was wrong and
why they returned so early.
The answer because clear. My sister, although legally married with a baby, was refused entrance into the X-rated theatre, on the grounds she was just a child (16) and therefore such sexual content was unsuitable for people of her age.
In an outrage, she started yelling at me, "Who in the hell came up with these laws? I'm married! I have a kid! And I'm not allowed to watch other people have sex? Who are these idiots that came up with such crazy laws in the first place?"
Her point was well taken. And it's an issue I'd like to bring up today. According to present day pornography laws, it is against the law for all persons under 18, without exception, to view sexually explicit material.
What's so utterly absurd about these laws is the fact that they don't take into consideration married couples who are under 18; such couples are habitually engaging in the very acts these laws are trying to protect them from viewing. If this is not evidence of the insanity of present day pornographic laws, then perhaps the following will clear your mind of all doubt. I'll apply this to my sister who was married in the state of Florida, at the age of 16, yet forbidden to view sexually explicit material in a theatre in California.
1. If 16 is too young to view sexually explicit content on a projection screen, what happens when my 16 year old sister happens to look in the full length mirror in her bedroom, right at the point in which her legal husband is inserting his penis into her 16 year old vagina? Exactly what will she miss on the reflective 'screen' of her bedroom, throughout the days of her life, that she so desperately needs protection from viewing in an X-rated movie theatre?
2. How is it that one law says she's too immature and innocent, at 16, to view sexually explicit material in a theatre. Yet another law says she's mature and well enough developed to take on the full responsibility of marriage and raising a family? Such laws are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
3. How can a married person at 16 be given the blessing of sexual relationships by both church and state, and yet condemned for viewing the very acts on a movie screen that vividly illustrate the consummation of marriage itself (i.e., sexual intercourse)? In essence, laws on marriage are saying it's ok for married children to have sex, while the laws on pornography are saying it's also ok, just make sure you do it with your eyes closed and with the lights out. If you're a married child out there, whatever you do, don't look down at what's happening! You might see something the pornographic laws have forbidden you to see.
4. What happens should my sister's husband had rent or purchase an X-rated video and allow his 16 year old wife to view it in the privacy of their own home? If caught, he would be arrested and charged with contributing to the sexual abuse of a minor.
Present day pornographic laws in fact are telling us, the same husband that would go to jail for displaying an X-rated video for 16 year old wife to view, would not go to jail had he performed the same sexual acts on his wife as possibly seen on the X-rated video. So the laws are "protecting" her from watching it staged on a screen, but not protecting her from experiencing it in real life.
And this leads us to the hub of what the pornographic laws, in the name of protecting children, are really all about. They have nothing to do with protecting children from actual sex, but only from the viewing of it. And even then, not from the viewing of it themselves, but only of others. Now, imagine what would happen if we applied the same laws to other crimes, making it legal to do things, but illegal to view them in a movie theatre? Here's a few examples to get you thinking.
Imagine if the same laws on pornography were applied to rape and children. A husband can legally rape and beat his 16 year old wife, but he can't take her to see the Chuck Norris movie where the Vietnamese woman gets brutally raped on screen. Or murder. Her husband can murder her legally, but she just can't view the Steven Segal movie where his wife has been brutally murdered and now he's out for blood. Or drug addiction. Her husband can shoot her up with heroin, but Heaven forbid she view any of the Jet Li movies where drug addicts are swept into a world of prostitution that Jet Li finds himself having to combat.
Such examples illustrate well the absurdity of present day pornography laws as applied to married children. Such kids as my 16 year old sister, are in effect being told by governments who create and enforce such laws,
1. You can do it, but you can't view it.
2. You're mature enough to raise a family, but not mature enough to view sexual acts on a screen.
3. What you do in the bedroom is extremely harmful if you watch it in the movie theatre.
4. It's illegal to watch in a movie theatre what you do every night at home.
5. Don't look in the mirror while doing it! You may see what the government is trying to protect you from seeing until you turn 18.
6. Expect your husband to go to prison if he takes photos or video of what the two of you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. Of course, he won't go to prison for having sex with you, only for taking pictures of having sex with you. So learn to hate the camera, but not sex itself. Sex is good, cameras are bad!
7. Think of how horrible it'd be if you found out by viewing a pornographic movie, other people also do the same things you and your husband do in bed.
8. Even though you're only 16 and still a child, we'll only protect you from viewing sex; we won't protect you from having sex. We're the government and your wellbeing is our responsibility.
9. Your husband can watch others having sex on the big screen, but you can't. Imagine what ghastly things he saw on the screen and the horrors that await you when,
legally, he's allowed to do them to you when he returns from the X-rated movie theatre.
10. When you turn 18, the government will let you see on the screen what they've allowed you to do in the bedroom for the last two years.
And here is a 17 year old just caught
In Australia the NSW Child Exploitation Internet Unit and the federal police have just caught a seventeen year old in possession of child pornography images. He was arrested as a result of ‘an international undercover investigation’, and is the first such arrest under amended legislation which gives police greater powers in making judgements about what constitutes child porn. They say that he had ‘thousands of images’ on his PC.
In case the reader is wondering if this is reading correctly, we repeat that the seventeen year old has been caught and will shortly be charged, his life already ruined, as a result of efforts by the Child Exploitation Internet Unit.
The seriousness of the situation has not been lost on the Australian authorities and the media who are aware that most teenagers are in touch by Internet and mobile phone with dozens of other under-18s and they could be exchanging images. But the authorities are determined to stamp out the possession or dissemination of inappropriate images of children under 18.
See also the Age of Consent articles HERE.
Sex abuse
Age of consent - Gerald's story.
A 21st century tragedy
'Speed assaults’ on children
Parents, your children are now truly at risk
The Australian inquiry
Death penalty for sex acts in Georgia
The atrocities of consensual sex
Jessie and Tyler - did the dog do it?
His art became his life
Reflections on Thomas O’Carroll
Salivating over paedophilia
Another front is opening up
God help human sexuality!
 |
|
|
