Porn and suicide

I've been noticing lately quite a bit of news reports about suicides that are apparently linked to pornography -- especially kiddie porn.

"And what's the problem with that?" you ask. "If the slimeballs involved in kiddie porn want to off themselves, they're doing us all a favor!"

Yeah, well, if only life were always so simple as we want it to be! In scratching beneath the surface, I see numerous problems here.

For one thing, in at least one of the reports I spotted -- the one about the cop in St. Louis -- the guy never harmed any kids. He just had a collection of porn on his computer that he had (probably) downloaded . To jack off with, in other words.

It's illegal to own pictures of kiddie porn, and the social stigma associated with it is pretty severe also, so the guy blows his brains out.

Probably a smart move, actually, because -- as he surely knew, being a cop -- if he had gotten convicted and sentenced, he would have not only spent a goodly amount of time in the slammer, when he got out he'd have to go live under a bridge because of the new laws that prohibit, for the rest of their lives, "sex offenders" from living in most habitable places.

It's much worse to get caught jacking off to pictures of kids fucking than to spray bullets into a grade school class, in other words. For the latter, the government might take care of your suicide for you, or, in some states, they might just keep you in the slammer the rest of your life with three squares and a bed. But for jacking off, you'll be left to roam the streets, marked with a scarlet letter for the rest of your life.

Well, OK, I know the argument about how the jack-offs who create a demand for kiddie porn are the ones who ultimately make the production of it happen. But I was reading somewhere recently where now it's also illegal -- at least in some places -- to possess depictions of children involved in sex even where no actual children are involved. Cartoons, I guess, or some such. Some of those feature film cartoons are pretty life-like, you have to admit!

So, as much sense as it makes to want to protect children from nasty people forcing them to fuck on camera, I don't think that's the whole dynamic of what's going on here. It looks like a lot of what's driving this is some people wanting to prevent other people from jacking off. The "children" angle is just a convenient way to get the job done. It will keep on being convenient until some other people start noticing and blow the whistle. Like me. And maybe you too, I hope.

This real vs. unreal distinction is likely to become more and more important as time goes on. It's just a matter of time before the convergence of robotics and materials science and artificial intelligence makes it possible to produce androids that are so lifelike that they can't be discerned from the real thing without an invasive medical examination.

So now what happens when some company starts turning out child-like androids that fuck? There's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the same people who now want to destroy the lives of people who jack off to kiddie porn will see to it that it's illegal to make and own these androids.

They'll say, "It encourages people to try it with real children." And of course they won't be able to produce a shred of evidence to back this up, but nobody will probably demand that they do so either. Unless between now and then us whistleblowers stop giving them a free ride and make them put up or shut up.

If the goal is to protect children from predators who whisk them away to tawdry rooms and force them to fuck on camera, let's start by explaining the process to children so they won't be such easy prey for the predators. Of course, to do that would require that we start being honest with children about sex, which is certainly light years from happening for some parents.

Then again, why is it that you hear so few of these children reporting the crime? Is it out of a sense of shame? Gee, and who instilled this sense of sex-shame in them, anyway? Kids don't usually refrain from reporting being assaulted in other ways. If an adult stranger started pummeling a child, it's hard to imagine the child not quickly reporting: "Mama, a man came up and hit me today in front of the grocery store!" No shame, no secrecy, the matter gets immediately investigated.

Or are there cases where the children don't report the crime because they actually enjoy doing it? We're talking about a really broad range of ages and circumstances here, and I don't want to impute anything to situations that don't apply -- such as that thing they had on the news the other day about the guy who had a friend who tortured babies so he could watch. No one argues about the horrific nature there. But I think honesty demands that we all think back to our own childhoods and try to remember what our attitudes were.

Myself, I can pretty clearly remember when I was maybe 7 or 8 years old. I was really, really interested in how good it felt to stroke my wee-wee, and I was also really, really interested in how this all worked with respect to girls, who apparently had a hole where you could stick your thing. This never happened, but honesty compels me to admit that if an adult woman had approached me in a friendly way and had offered to let me feel her tits and stroke her pussy and even stick my cock in her pussy, I would have been all, "Hell, yeah!"

Or, to make it completely relevant to this discussion, if she had brought her 7-year-old daughter along and had suggested that the two of us play sex games with each other while she filmed us, and if her daughter had also been up for the idea, there's no way I wouldn't have done this! Again and again, as often as possible!

Would I have reported this to anyone, knowing that if I did everyone would go to jail and I wouldn't get to keep on fucking this girl? Heh, heh, what do you think!

And would I have been harmed by this? Again, honesty compels me to admit that I don't think I would have. I think I was much, much more harmed by all the body shame and sexual repression I was exposed to.

But that's just me.

Enslavement

Suicide is an expression of a larger political issue: Ownership of one's own body.

Ownership of your own body is the most fundamental form of ownership. Everything else is just a form of social contract. For example, I "own" a car because I gave someone some money and he or she agreed to give me, in exchange, a piece of paper that says I own it and a set of keys that gives me access to enter and drive it. But I could sell it, and then it would be the same car but I woould no longer "own" it. My body, on the other hand, can only belong to me.

Or so it would seem that it should be. The thing is, if you truly own your own body, then you should be free to kill it!

But down through history there has been a persistent attempt to deny people ownership over their bodies. Slavery has been the most egregious one, and it continues to be so in some parts of the world. At one time, a slavemaster had the legal right to do anything to a slave. Torture, rape, even kill. The slave truly did not own his or her own body.

Denial of the right to suicide is the same thing, just in a milder form. It's milder because it's ultimately so absurdly unenforceable. But it does have the effect of limiting one's ability to act freely. You can't for example, calmly and rationally discuss your detailed suicide plans with a professional counselor without triggering some form of legal intervention -- forceful, if necessary.

Here's another example of people denying the right of others to their own bodies: Laws prohibiting public nudity.

If you truly own your own body, you have the right to display it or hide it as you see fit. Laws demanding that you not display certain parts of your body are attempts to limit your ownership of your body and thus are attempts to enslave you.

The Muslims carry this to great extremes with their requirements that women cover most or nearly all of their bodies whenever they step outside their homes. In countries where they are politically dominant, they have managed to enact this bizarre idea into laws that are enforced by armed thugs known as "police". People wearing uniforms and carrying badges in these countries are authorized by the majority to kidnap, torture and even kill women who don't dress as they demand. The Islamists' actions differ only in degree, not in kind, from the actions taken by Christians in the countries where they dominate.

Christians don't demand that women cover all their bodies, they just demand that they cover their nipples and pubic hair. It's a much smaller surface area, but it's still the same principle, it's still a demand limiting one's ownership of one's body, and it's still enforced by the same armed thugs who will, to be fair, probably not stone offenders to death but will kidnap them and hold them in small, uncomfortable cells until they pay a ransom known as "bail" and agree to begin covering those parts of their bodies demanded by the Christian majority.

Both Christians and Muslims demand that men not display their penises. Everywhere in the world that is politically dominated by Christians or Muslims, there are laws to enforce this form of slavery.

The recent brouhaha about the Wikipedia article that displays a picture of a naked pre-pubescent girl on a 1976 album cover from the German rock group "The Scorpions" (shown here) demonstrates this Christian enslavement enterprise in full force. Display of the naked body of a person not yet an adult is now deemed by certain of these groups to be "pornographic" and thus has caused all the ISPs in the UK to block Wikipedia for their subscribers."

Pornographic" and the root word "pornography" would seem to be another of those magic words like "terrorist" that, upon invocation allows the user to take any action at all. We are expected not to question the word or the concept, having been hypnotized by its incantation.

I question the whole thing.

I question the definition of "pornography". Is "pornography" just something that gives a male an erection or causes a female to get a wet cunt? I no longer get an erection as readily as I once did, and some men apparently can't do it at all without the help of pills. So apparently, older men should be able to view things that would be denied to younger men? But, even more fundamentally, what is the problem with men getting erections and women getting wet cunts? This is how the sexual process starts, and so is it that the enslavers want to deny sex altogether?"

Oh no, we're just concerned about the children," is the response I expect to hear. That's another one of those incantations like "terrorist" and "pornography" -- whenever I hear "it's for the children" I immediately start looking to see how I'm being conned. Supposedly, seeing naked people is bad for children, which seems like an odd idea given the complete lack of evidence that children living at nudist camps suffer any ill effects from being naked or seeing other naked people. So let's forget about that smokescreen.

What's really going on here is just one more attempt at enslavement by those who aren't satisfied with living their own lives and feel a need to control others. Religious people, in other words.

Islam is said to be the fastest growing religion, so it seems likely that before long some US communities will begin to be populated by majorities adhering to this new perversion. Thanks to the Christians who have imposed dress codes on everyone else for centuries, the Islamists will have plenty of legal precedent to impose their own stricter dress codes and require that Christian women to walk around in chadors or get thrown in jail. I can hardly wait.