Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronyOwl]

Or putting it simply: It encourages society to view children as fair game for (pseudo-)sexual real life activities.

You're still not explaining why that's bad. Unless you're trying to say that harmless things lead to an environment where harmful things are more acceptable, but that's a nearly universally applicable slippery slope, and you haven't explained why this case is valid.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Well, you may call me a fanatic, but I think that real life children should never be subject to (pseudo-) sexual activities induced or encourage by adults.

For a longer explanation, while there are individual differences in development, you can reasonably assume that a good portion of children do not understand all the implications and consequences of sexual activities. And sexual activities, unlike other hobbies like stamp collecting, do tend to have a major impact on the persons involved - in a positive or negative way, depending on the situation. Therefore, sexuality requires a responsible decision which you can not expect from children (individual children might be far enough to make such decisions, but you can't assume that all are able to).

Thus, you are exposing someone to a potentially harmful influence that they are likely not understand completely and thus can not make a responsible decision to avoid or to engage in. And I do have a problem with putting people into danger (danger meaning that something can have negative consequences for them) just for your entertainment.

And believe me, there are organizations of would-be child molesters who are lobbying to removing the age of consent and otherwise allow them to engage in sexual activity (in Germany, you can look for the "Krumme 13" (tl. "Crooked 13")). They claim to be defending the right of children of self-determination, they point to natural tendencies and all those things. So, there are those who will readily use such arguments in order to obtain their (in my opinion intolerable) goals.

Deathworks

P.S.: And given that such an event is already not completely harmless (I don't think people would be surprised if people masturbated to the pictures from regular beauty pageants and the like), I think it does differ from other things as it is already with one foot in shady territory.

[ein]

Y'know, I gave it some thought and have decided that the video is worse than anything I've found on 4chan.
Of course, I don't go to /b/ and I'm pretty sure half of my vomiting repulsion is the song itself.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Since Ein brought up the aspect of personal experience, allow me to shortly digress and point out that I am not really among those who stay away from adult content.

For example, I have purchased and given a high user rating (labelling it as "recommended") to 触手な女神, which is an adult title that may be informative for those wondering about my standing.

Deathworks

[Jackrabbit]

Hey, disclaimer or not, you're going to get either banned or muted for posting links to an adult game. Seriously, I thought you knew better than that.

EDIT: Good man.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Okay, I removed the link.

I checked in the rules you agreed to during registering, and I only found things about illegal stuff and posting things on the forums. Therefore, I thought it would be alright with the right disclaimer.

My bad.

Deathworks

[Oglokoog]

And your point about the children not understanding the situation just goes along what I already said - a small child may not understand why that man wants it to rub that part of his body - but that does not make it any less abusive. And this is where a similarity can be seen - children are encouraged into a conduct that - unknowingly to them, probably - has a (pseudo-)sexual meaning for the adults encouraging that behavior. Or putting it very harshly, by the same token you defend such displays, a child molester specializing on children younger than 6 might argue that the children do not understand that these acts are sexual and enjoy them as playing.

But these acts aren't sexual unless intended as such by both sides involved (the girls and the audience). That's where the difference is. A grown woman could dance naked in front of a huge crowd of men, but if for her it wasn't sexual, but just a display of her skill and artistry, it wouldn't be sexual, regardless of the "pseudo-sexual" pleasure the audience would derive from it. The difference is exactly the same as between a documentary about sex and a pornographic movie - while both could show explicit intercourse and both could be used as masturbation material, only the pornographic movie is truly pornographic.

Also, anyone who claims the video is the worst thing he or she ever saw is either lying or hasn't spent nearly enough time on the internet.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

But these acts aren't sexual unless intended as such by both sides involved (the girls and the audience). That's where the difference is. A grown woman could dance naked in front of a huge crowd of men, but if for her it wasn't sexual, but just a display of her skill and artistry, it wouldn't be sexual, regardless of the "pseudo-sexual" pleasure the audience would derive from it. The difference is exactly the same as between a documentary about sex and a pornographic movie - while both could show explicit intercourse and both could be used as masturbation material, only the pornographic movie is truly pornographic.

Wait a second. If you require both parties involved to see something as sexual, then stroking little girls (6 years or younger for the argument) and all those things are not sexual?! So, all those child molesters get arrested on false charges? I don't think that is your intention, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

EDIT: Even though I have not seen the clip (I believe the comments of people have given me enough of an explanation of what it is), I tend to agree with you, Oglokoog that it is probably not the worst you can see on the internet. After all, if I recall correctly, people mentioned seeing that on tv.
But that does not mean it is not bad :) :) :)

Deathworks

[Jackrabbit]

Deathworks has a point. It doesn't need to be considered sexual on both sides for it to be sexual. It'd need to be considered sexual by both sides for it to be considered sexual by both sides, but that's about it.

[Oglokoog]

Hi!

But these acts aren't sexual unless intended as such by both sides involved (the girls and the audience). That's where the difference is. A grown woman could dance naked in front of a huge crowd of men, but if for her it wasn't sexual, but just a display of her skill and artistry, it wouldn't be sexual, regardless of the "pseudo-sexual" pleasure the audience would derive from it. The difference is exactly the same as between a documentary about sex and a pornographic movie - while both could show explicit intercourse and both could be used as masturbation material, only the pornographic movie is truly pornographic.

Wait a second. If you require both parties involved to see something as sexual, then stroking little girls (6 years or younger for the argument) and all those things are not sexual?! So, all those child molesters get arrested on false charges? I don't think that is your intention, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Deathworks

No, that is not what I am suggesting. You just somehow fail to see the difference between a performance, which is a form of art and where there is no direct contact between the two sides involved, and physical (pseudo)sexual contact. To follow with my pornography comparison: while one of the films depicting a sexual act is pornographic and the other is a documentary, the intercourse is still just intercourse regardless and only the form of the presentation of its recording turns it into pornography or a documentary.

There is, however, no direct physical contact or anything of the sort in the dance routine itself - if it was performed by grown women with the intent of provoking sexual thoughts in the audience, then it would be sexual, but if that intent isn't present, it is not.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

So let me get that straight:

If a man picks up a camera, walks to a 6 year old girl and tells her to undress giving her step by step advice (without touching her)  so I can make a sequence of her stripping in a fashion he considers sensual, that is not sexual? Even though he does this just for masturbating to the images later?

Deathworks

[Jreengus]

It's sexual because he is both making it and viewing it with sexual intentions. Also with the young girl stroking a man thing if the girl does it of her own free will then no real wrong has been done. It's not uncommon for young children to engage in sexual or pseudo sexual activities, when/if these are discovered the child can then be told so much by various people that what they did was wrong/dirty that they start to believe it and then suffer the negative effects that these encounters are supposed to give. If Someone does something willingly then I don't see any problem in it, those children weren't forced up there and they probably perfectly enjoyed it so I see nothing wrong with the video.

[ein]

People here seem to be ignoring the fact that the song is absolutely horrid.

[Jackrabbit]

It's sexual because he is both making it and viewing it with sexual intentions. Also with the young girl stroking a man thing if the girl does it of her own free will then no real wrong has been done. It's not uncommon for young children to engage in sexual or pseudo sexual activities, when/if these are discovered the child can then be told so much by various people that what they did was wrong/dirty that they start to believe it and then suffer the negative effects that these encounters are supposed to give. If Someone does something willingly then I don't see any problem in it, those children weren't forced up there and they probably perfectly enjoyed it so I see nothing wrong with the video.

But how, exactly, could she do it of her own free will if she's that young? Stroking a man? Why? Because he told her too? How is she supposed to make an informed decision about that?

A large part of being a child is learning. Usually, a parent is going to take up a big part of the learning process: "Don't put your fingers in the plug socket", "don't eat that, it's poisonous" and so on but until a child learns, they'll do it, and this falls under the umbrella of "needs to be taught that this is a bad thing pretty fucking quickly". And if a child is actually masturbating a man (might as well just say it) how exactly is that a good thing, if they're so young that they can easily be coerced into doing it?

Actually, the whole idea's kinda disturbing and I don't feel like discussing it further, because you're sure as hell not going to convince me that that sort of situation is right. My two cents, done and dusted.

Besides, underage erotica being discussed = bad = thread lock imminent.

[Jreengus]

People here seem to be ignoring the fact that the song is absolutely horrid.

Nonsense it's not like it ever inspired anything evil.

I wont discuss it further as I don't want this thread to get locked, I'll just say it's natural for children to experiment and some that is bound to go into territory adults define as sexual. I know I certainly have done stuff that in hindsight would be considered sexual and I wouldn't be surprised if others here have done so too. And no I didn't fully understand it at the time and no I don't regret it.