BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Is paedophilia bad? (Opinionated thread)

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:47 / 12.07.03
(Note this is a totally different thread to the other one)

I think we have to define age groups here. Child, Adolescent, and Adult. There are no definite ages: it's what you consider yourself to be.

This is my opinion: if someone who considers themself to be an adult has consensual sex with someone who considers themselves to be adolescent, then this is bad, especcially if the sex is the only main point of the relationship.

If someone who considers themself to be an adult has sex with someone who considers themselves to be a child, this is very bad, because it will cause terrible pain and upset.

Any non-consensual sex is also very bad.

This is my opinion, what do the board think?
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
14:27 / 12.07.03
In my opinion- which most people disagree with and some have sent me death threats because of- as long as sexual relationships are consentual, I don't have a problem with it. Now, the instant it crosses that line, the instant one party or the other doesn't want it, I have a serious problem with it. In my opinion, rape is far worsethen murder to the victim. But as long as everyone wants it, go for it.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:32 / 12.07.03
Well the issue of consent is more difficult than that, isn't it. I mean for a start we have to decide at what point a person can be considered enough to be able to give their consent in reasonably full cognisance of the implications of their choice. Most people would think that people who are considered children aren't able to make that kind of choice, or perhaps that they shouldn't have to make that choice. I would agree with that position. The problem with Chris' position is that self-description isn't necessarily enough. Considering yourself an adult doesn't make you an adult - and many many teenagers think they have full cognizance when they don't. And they are unfortunately stuck in a situation where they won't actually be able to judge whether they were until many years afterwards. As a society we make certain assumptions about when people can be considered to know what they're letting themselves in for (or when - if they don't know, it's kind of their own fault).

So basically, yes - I'd say that paedophilia is very bad indeed - because when an adult has sex with a child, we have to assume that the child is not able to make that decision even in the rare cases where someone might say that they are in order to protect the significant proportion of children who are not! And unlike with other underage people, we have to assume - these rules being the case - that anyone who wants to have sex with children even when he or she cannot know whether child might be ready or not is basically quite a bad person and - at least a potential rapist.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
19:59 / 12.07.03
yes. That's the ol' barbelith trick of someone else summing up the actual idea and lancing my pointless waffling.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:31 / 13.07.03
Immediately, paedophilia is not sexual relations with children. Paedophilia is a sexual desire for children, which is in turn, Tom, not quite the same as wanting to have sex with children (a small but important distinction). This is a very different thing. The first is something that people *do*. The second is something that people *think*, and it is probably wise to think about which of those you want to legislate against or condemn before continuing. This is occasionally known as the Brooke Shields question, or the Wednesday Addams question for younger readers.

Tom's arguments against the consent argument are, I think, largely cogent - children might be said to be unable to give informed consent, and the potential gap in experience and control between adults and "adolescents" is likely to lead to inescapable power differentials. But is that a point of legalisation? If an 18-year old girl still feels that she is an adolescent, then should legislation prevent her from being in a relationship with a 45-year old man who sees himself as an adult? How about a 21-year old who sees himself as an adult? In that case, it is in the best interest of somebody trying to have sex with somebody younger than they are to make their subject see themselves as an adolescent or adult long before they might be seen as others as such. This strikes me as a bit of a problem.

A connected question with this "fox, chicken, bag of grain" setup is whether it is OK for children to interact sexually with children, adolescents with adolescents...
 
 
_Boboss
08:51 / 13.07.03
rape's worse than murder? so the rape victim who goes throught it, maybe has the guts to prosecute their attacker, then following this horrible trauma they manage to pull themselves together and get their lives back on track and carry on...you think it'd have been better if they'd been killed?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:23 / 13.07.03
Offtopic. If we want to talk about whether rape is better than murder (and by god, that's going to descend into farce), I suggest we start a new thread on it.
 
 
Tom Coates
11:03 / 13.07.03
Haus - you are of course completely correct. We can't - and shouldn't - legislate against desire, only expressions of it that damage others. If people have trouble controlling their desires (whether straight, gay, generation-divergent, species-divergent etc) then that's a separate issue which society has to find mechanisms to compensate for, but it's not the desire itself that is necessarily the problem.
 
 
johndoe
18:33 / 13.07.03
speaking of pedophilia, what does everyone here think of hakim bey/peter lamborn wilson? i like some of his ideas, but the romanticizing and advocation of pedophilia in his works has always disgusted me. well recently someone told me he's written numerous articles for NAMBLA that appear to be actual sexual exploits of his with young boys. does anyone else know anything about this?
 
 
elene
18:48 / 13.07.03
Ah but Tom, the desire itself does become the problem the moment one's control of the desire fails. I was unfortunate enough to be the object of a paedophile's desire when I was ten. The old man was no longer in control of himself. He may well have suffered bravely all his life, as he became senile he became dangerous.

That someone must consciously prevent themselves from raping is in itself a problem, no matter how honourable and strong they are. It's not something to punish, it is something to change.

Nevertheless it is true: "it's not the desire itself that is necessarily the problem", it's that fallible people are possessed of the desire.

My it must be nice to be you Spyder. You really can't imagine ever being the victim of a rape can you? And you can't imagine your desire being wrong either. Nevertheless, please just admit that
your comparison of rape with death is uninformed and exaggerated.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:37 / 13.07.03
Mint, Spyder's last post has been moved for deletion. This thread is already dealing with one highly emotive topic, and aggressive threadrot is not going to help. If you want to challenge his belief, start a new thread. Otherwise leave it.
 
 
Ganesh
21:32 / 13.07.03
In the situation you describe, Mint, it's the individual's ability to resist acting on their desire that is the problem - just as the rape of women by men is not the 'fault' of heterosexuality per se.

Given that the paedophilic orientation appears highly resistant, in itself, to "change", there seems little societal option but to focus on (legally/medically?) encouraging/helping paedophilic individuals to avoid ever acting on their desires.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:00 / 13.07.03
Which could mean treatment, could mean observation, could mean locking people with paedophilic desires away where they will never be able to get within arms reach of a child. The problem here being that we are then talking about treating people differently because of what they feel or what they might do, which among othwer things strikes me as the thin end of a very big wedge. Also, on a purely pragmatic level, how public-spirited would somebody have to be to walk into a hospital and say "I have occasional sexual feelings towards children", if they knew that the immediate response would be incarceration?

So, we've got a problem. Again...
 
 
Ganesh
22:27 / 13.07.03
It is indeed a problem; I agree entirely. Is a(nother) 'what should society do about paedophilia?' discussion within the remit of this thread?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:43 / 13.07.03
That's a good point. Should we only be talking about whether paedophilia itself is bad, rather than whether the effect resultant from it, personal and social, are bad?
 
 
elene
06:10 / 14.07.03
Ok (Haus that is).

Ganesh, the comparison of paedophilia and hetero- or homosexuality
is not accurate. The desire is not reciprocal. The child may be
amazed in the desire of the adult, but this is not the same as
saying the child sought an adult for a sexual partner, zie most
certainly did not.

This is not to imply that I want the subject broadened, I'd prefer
not to talk about this at all.
 
 
Ganesh
06:31 / 14.07.03
I used the example of men raping women. This is not consensual, and the victim may not be heterosexual and therefore not even notionally consenting/attracted to the rapist (who, presumably, is heterosexual). It's a valid analogy in that it distinguishes between the basic sexual orientation (paedophilic, heterosexual) and the subsequent act (sexual abuse, rape). The problem is not the desire itself; it's the fact that the desire is acted upon in a non-consenting way.

Again, the difficulty is not that individuals with a paedophilic (or heterosexual) attraction exist, but that a small percentage of those individuals act on their attraction in a way which is wholly unacceptable.
 
 
illmatic
07:52 / 14.07.03
(Historical threadrot)

This is one of those things that seems to crop up on the fringes of the counter-culture every so often – I used to read a lot of American anarchist press about 12 years or so ago and there was a lot of pro child-adult sex articles in around at the time. The argument normally outlined was that that it’s not necessarily harmful, and could even be positive in certain circumstances. Before I get flamed to a crisp, I might add this is not my point of view. You can find the same argument framed in very libertarian terms a decade of so earlier in the writings of the Paedophile Information Exchange – there was a very interesting article The Independent on Sunday sometime last year about the history of this organisation – it concluded it acted as an intellectually justified front for abuse, IIRC.

(/historical threadrot)
 
 
elene
08:02 / 14.07.03
Rape is not the product of an excessive or uncontrolled desire. Rape is
the product of the specific desire to rape. I think paedophile desire is
of a similar nature. It's all controlling and man-handling, Ganesh.
 
 
Ganesh
09:59 / 14.07.03
I'd disagree, Mint. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction (in an adult) toward children. What little research there is suggests that a considerable proportion of the adult population have at least some element of paedophilic attraction in the make-up of their sexual desire. The majority do not act upon it. Acting upon it (by sexually abusing children or by consuming exploitative child pornography) is what causes harm; by way of contrast, a sexual attraction which is never enacted hurts no-one.

It is important to distinguish between the attraction and the "controlling and man-handling" act, and emphasise that the one does not, in the majority, appear to lead inexorably toward the other.

So, again:

Paedophilia = a sexual attraction (in an adult) towards children

Child-sex = the act of (an adult) having sex with children

You can certainly choose to interpret 'paedophilia' as 'a specific desire to rape children' but that would be your own idiosyncratic definition which would a) inadequately reflect the evidence, and b) lead to difficulties of communication within this particular thread. I'd suggest that if you want to talk about those 'individuals with a specific desire to rape children', you refer to them as 'paedophilic child-rapists' or 'paedophilic child-abusers', thus marking them out as that subgroup of 'paedophiles' who put their fantasies into action.
 
 
Irony of Ironies
10:23 / 14.07.03
Tom O'Carroll, one of the founders of the 1970's era Paedophile Information Exchange, was on "After Dark" earlier this year. He has a Web site at http://home.wanadoo.nl/host/radicase/index.htm, which basically includes the full text of a book he wrote on the case for paedophile behaviour being non-harmfull.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:25 / 14.07.03
There is obviously a difference between heterosexuality and paedophilia in that all paedophilic sexual activity involving children can be said to constitute abuse or rape, but not all heterosexual sexual activity constitutes abuse or rape. Apart from that distinction (which has very little bearing on this actual discussion, I think) I'm with Ganesh.
 
 
Irony of Ironies
10:28 / 14.07.03
And there was an interesting case a while ago of a university researcher who had his research ended after getting into contact with O'Carroll - http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~liddellj/guardian/headlines_a.html
 
 
elene
11:05 / 14.07.03
Ok. Sorry for dragging this discussion off course.
 
 
Ganesh
11:53 / 14.07.03
IanBetteridge: If, as you say, he's talking about paedophilic behaviour, then I'd say he's wrong.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:48 / 27.03.04
Sorry for bringing up such an old thread, but I'm interested in this line of Ganesh's that I've stumbled upon again long after the fact: "What little research there is suggests that a considerable proportion of the adult population have at least some element of paedophilic attraction in the make-up of their sexual desire."

Now I'm very much not one to doubt Ganesh around these matters, but it's a fairly staggering thing to say. Are there any reputable articles online that go into this in any detail? Perhaps it was just my prejudices coming into play but I honestly had assumed that it was both a small proportion of people who had these desires and that it would have a largely dominant role in their sexuality. From the rest of the thread I get the impression that other people had the same concept - with people talking about what might be the appropriate way to treat / help / deal-with paedophiles, but not really spending an awful lot of time on whether or not we were comfortable on the whole with letting them deal with it through abstinence in their own lives. Certainly the idea that a "diagnosed" paedophile should be trusted not to indulge seems highly disconcerting to me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:54 / 27.03.04
Way-ull - first up, what do you mean by a "diagnosed" paedophile, and how do you distinguish, once you have worked that out, the distinction between a diagnosed paedophile who is a risk to children and one who is not? As far as I can tell, the only immediately apparent criterion is whether they were diagnosed as a result of having abused a child, or possibly they reveal through volition or during analysis that they believe/are judged likely to abuse a child. Problem there being that you are starting to legislate about what somebody might, in the opinion of another, do. To an extent this is already being done all the time, in bail hearings and tariff setting, but this takes it a step further - I suppose the closer model might be committing somebody to an institution because one believes that they might be a danger to others.

On the other hand, one can abstain from sex with children and still be a net contributor to child sexual abuse. For example, in this rather eccentric article, the wife of a consumer of child porn acknowledges that paying for images of children being sexually abused is child abuse by proxy, although she then goes on to blame the Internet rather than her child-porn-downloadin' husband.

However, on the aforementioned porn-downloader, he might give us a bit of an insight into Tom's other question:

Sorry for bringing up such an old thread, but I'm interested in this line of Ganesh's that I've stumbled upon again long after the fact: "What little research there is suggests that a considerable proportion of the adult population have at least some element of paedophilic attraction in the make-up of their sexual desire."

Now I'm very much not one to doubt Ganesh around these matters, but it's a fairly staggering thing to say.

Certainly, it seems that the fellow in question did not think of himself as a paedophile, at the very least when he *started* downloading child porn. Part of this is the Brooke Shields question I mentoned above. To fill in for the younger readers - Brooke Shields starred in "Pretty Baby", a Louis Malle film which, while clearly intended for the arthouse, featured the 13(?)-year old Shields behaving in what might be described as an inappropriately sexual fashion. This was then topped up with some decidedly sexualised modelling work, culmninating in 1981 or thereabouts, with Shields (then 15, I think) telling us that she lets nothing come between her and her Calvin Klein jeans. If you get my meaning. And, of course, the Blue Lagoon, which according to her imdb profile was released on the borderline between 15 and 16.

So, question - at what point is it OK to fancy Brooke Shields? Or, for younger viewers, Christina Ricci? What if you don't fit that profile, although you remain a perfectly "normal" non-child-abusing (or for that matter child-desiring) fellow? If an underage Brooke Shields was in no way sexy, why was she being employed as (IIRC) a lingerie model in her early teens? All very disturbing.

Then we have the tradition of child beauty pageants in the US, where children are dressed up in swinwear, painted with makeup and sent cavorting along catwalks, and the new service provided by chidlren and teens, also primarily in the US, where perfectly legal photosets of these children "modelling" are apparently available for purchase from their website. Now, there is every possibility that the people paying for these photosets do not see themselves as sexually attracted to children, just as those who fantasised about the 14-year-old Brooke Shields, but it creates an awkward blurring of our terminologies.

So, that's problem one. Problem two is that the definitions of child tend to alter in different cultures and different periods. Our evolutionary psychologist chums might argue that youth is considered attractive in women because it suggests the capacity to bear many young...

So, is it possible to separate out human sexual response into streams and identify whta is right and what is wrong? And, if not wrong, what is fucked up and needs to be monitored? There seems to be no evidence that the husband above was going to become an abuser, but I think we can fairly confidently say that he was certainly exhibiting paedophilic behaviours, and further (at least IMHO) that these paedophilic behaviours were unhealthy, nasty and should have been stopped by the force of the law...
 
 
Ganesh
00:20 / 28.03.04
Tom, I referenced some of the research in this car-crash of a thread. Here's the relevant stuff:

My previous assertion that around one fifth of adult males experience sexual arousal toward children may have been a conservative recollection. In Briere & Runtz's 1989 study of around 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (the researchers concluded that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesise that the actual rates were even higher"). In a later sample of 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

In plethysmographic studies (those measuring penile responsivity), the rate of penile arousal to pictures of prepubescent girls "equalling or exceeding arousal to an adult" averages between 17-50%. The subjects of these studies vary from being 'normal' undergraduates and hospital workers to Czech soldiers.
 
 
Char Aina
01:54 / 28.03.04
Interesting.

What little research there is suggests that a considerable proportion of the adult population have at least some element of paedophilic attraction in the make-up of their sexual desire. The majority do not act upon it.

... was exactly the bit that caught my eye.
I had heard similar noises from a social worker friend who specialises in victims of abuse and it made me think.

What it makes me think of is the model of the 'repressed homophobe' that most people are probably familiar with; that person who is vociferous about their hatred/problem with homosexuality, but is in fact making louder noises to hide their own fear that they may in fact be gay.

Do you(se) think this slight swing toward what one might term illegitimate desire is what fuels the absolute frenzy we see over big name cases?

Although one could argue that children are to be protected and that is the only thing driving such rage, I would point to the similar media fuss over killer dogs that, although it grabbed public attention, never seemed to get under our skin quite as much.

I do concede that a dog attack would often be less physically and mentally damaging than an act of child abuse, but couldn't it also be more so?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:12 / 28.03.04
Ganesh - you should always be suspicious of this type of survey, cos it's impossible to know who they've actually asked. Famously, the Kinsey report in the States in the Fifties, which concluded at the time the States was full of sexual libertines ( not in a good way, )was based on the opinions of people in jail, or with issues, or a history. Ie not necessarially all that representative.

Think about everyone you've ever met ( well it's as reliable a sample as anything else ) - d'you honestly think 18% of them, or whatever it is, harboured troubling fantasies about underage sex ? You know, to the point where they'd admit to it in this or that survey ?

Anyway, paedophilia. The age of consent at 16 is a relatively new thing, even in England, as late on in time as the 19th century, it used to be 12. And in a lot of the world it still is. I don't honestly know what to think about that, and it's not as if it's something that keep me up nights worrying, but arguably, I guess, once you've hit adoloescence all bets are off. Which is to say, being a horrible cunt in a dirty old raincoat attacking a twenty five year old isn't all that different from doing the same type of thing to someone 13. Whereas if they were 9... in all kinds of ways that seems fundamentally worse.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:42 / 28.03.04
All bets are off?! I think that's a pretty extraordinary thing to say. My younger brother is 18 now but when he was thirteen I think I'd have felt extremely unhappy about anyone proposing sex to have sex with him. I would be particularly horrified if that person were over eighteen. That's not to say that young people don't experiment of course, because they do, but I think the concept of an adult having sex with a thirteen year old is something I'd really like to keep in the 'grotesquely immoral' bin.
 
 
Ganesh
11:10 / 28.03.04
Alex/Frankie: I'm well aware of the limitations of research into sexuality, thanks; the studies cited are unusual (and perhaps valuable) precisely because they comprise a tiny pool of research not carried out on "people in jail, or with issues, or a history". I'll reiterate also the results of the plethysmographic studies, which rely on fairly obvious physical indicators of sexual arousal (one's hardon), and are therefore slightly more difficult to fake.

Your alternative, it would appear, is for me to "imagine" whether, out of a sample of everyone I've ever met, 18% have had fantasies about sex with underage individuals - and suggest that this is 'imaginary experiment' would provide "as reliable a sample as anything else". Bollocks. I, personally, have little or no idea what my friends, relatives and colleagues fantasise about sexually; nor, I suspect, do you. Try to apply some intellectual rigour here, hmm?

When looking at elements of sexuality generally, there's an increasing tendency to think in terms of continuums (continua?): one could be, for want of a better descriptor, 70% heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex), 30% homosexual (attracted to the same sex) or whatever. It makes a certain intuitive sense that, for every paedophilic individual in prison (presumably, what, 90% paedophilic orientation, and above?) there are lesser gradations - so, for example, there will be those who're attracted to young-looking boys or girls, but not to such an extent that they'd act upon it; there'll be those attracted to teenagers, etc., etc.

It's a somewhat coarse way of expressing something that's probably very complex, but I'm hoping you'll appreciate what I'm trying to say. There's certainly 'circumstantial evidence' that a large element of our culture is sexually attracted to youth - the teenage models, pop stars, child beauty pageants and so on - so it should not be especially surprising that a proportion are attracted to even younger children. This does not mean it's "moral" or that they'll necessarily act upon it, or even that they're consciously aware of it - but pretending this sizeable subgroup doesn't exist gets us nowhere.
 
 
40%
11:50 / 28.03.04
there's an increasing tendency to think in terms of continuums (continua?): one could be, for want of a better descriptor, 70% heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex), 30% homosexual (attracted to the same sex) or whatever.

I don't really see how that would work in practice. If someone is 30% homosexual and 70% heterosexual, does that mean that they fancy 3 people of the same sex for every 7 of the opposite sex? Does it mean that when they fancy someone of the opposite sex, they fancy them 2.33recurring times as much as they would someone of the same sex? Does it mean that a person of the same sex has to be 2.33recurring times as attractive as a person of the opposite sex in order to get their attention?

In the case of people being 10% paedophilic, the first interpretation would mean they are every bit as dangerous as someone who is 90% i.e. they will act on their tendencies, even if relatively infrequently. In the second interpretation, it means their desires are going to be a lot less strong, and probably easier to restrain. In the third, only really attractive children are in danger. We can let the ugly ones roam the street without fear.

My own interpretation would be that basically, you're either attracted to a specific person or you're not. And if any adult is attracted to any specific child, there's a problem, no matter how you slice their sexuality cake. If they aren't, any other disussion becomes academic. But then, isn't any sexual orientation which doesn't result in feeling attracted to a specific individual meaningless anyway?
 
 
admiraladz
11:54 / 28.03.04
It's just plain wrong. wrong, wrong, wrong. sexual desire towards children is unacceptable in any society that claims to be ethical or morally just. IMHO - feel free to ignore this post if it doesn't fit into your world view or chosen perversion, but, well let's face it a desire to have relations with a child is clearly a psychological malfunction in the adult.

Even suggesting you allow the child to be given the choice to have relations or not places an unfair burden on a child who has no clear yardstick by which to measure the importance and ethical complexity of the question they have been asked.

Will you indulge me for a quick story?

This either happened a few years back in the USA or is an urban legend with just as clear a message.

A man found by Police standing over a dead body with a bloody knife was challenged. When he tried to run they shot him. The bullet entered the back of his head and the exitwound performed a clean frontal lobotomy. At his trial his defense argued that he was no longer capable of understanding what he had done. In fact he now had the mental age of an 8yr old, and as such was not capable standing trial for his own actions. He was charged regardless and sentenced to death. When he was given his last supper the padre noticed that he had not eaten his dessert, and said "Are you ready to make peace with the Lord?", the man replied "yes", the padre then asked "why did you not eat your dessert?", and the man replied "I'm saving it for when I get back."

As Tom says considering yourself an adult does not make you an adult neither does another person have any right to suggest to a child that they even have the option to consider relations of this kind with an adult.

sick, wrong, and rightly illegal. (IMHO)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:08 / 28.03.04
What it makes me think of is the model of the 'repressed homophobe' that most people are probably familiar with; that person who is vociferous about their hatred/problem with homosexuality, but is in fact making louder noises to hide their own fear that they may in fact be gay.

*Socially*, this is a very interesting question indeed, isn't it? And killer dogs might be a very good comparison - there were not all that many incidents of children being attacked by rottweilers, but the media certainly majored on it. Likewise, the idea of paedophilia has become located very specifically in the idea of the predatory stranger, which neglects the number of incidences of child abuse taking place between a) children and adults they know and b) children and their relatives. The reportage tends to locate child abuse, and by extension, firmly *away* from the social unit.

Funnily enough, Oh God Frankie seems to be arguing that a sexual assault on a 25-year old is much the same as a sexual assault on a 13-year old, and qualitatively different from a sexual assault on a 9-year old. Thus, he is locating 13-year olds, who in our culture are considered sexually undeveloped, or if you'd rather uncompleted in their sexual development, as essentially to be bracketed in the same sexual category as 25-year olds. Which is to say in turn that he is, by the standards our society applies, perceiving of 13-year old sexuality in an inappropriate fashion. Is anyone else getting the irony here?

But anyway, back to Toksik. Where the US has child beauty pageants, we have Page 3 girls in school uniforms licking lollipops. The *signifiers* of youth, and of youth well below the understood age of consent, are used in a variety of mainstream erotic publishers (see comment above on evolutionary psycholoists). These share newsagent shelves and often double-page spreads with news stories reporting the evil of paedophilia, and in extreme cases distributing little badges with the picture of victims of child sex abuse to be worn by those who claim the most violent antimony to the wrongdoers. It's sending some pretty confused signals - my personal favourite, of course, being the classic juxtaposition in the Daily Star of an article slamming Chris Morris' Brass Eye special next to an article about the budding breasts of 15-year old Charlotte Church. Which is mash'up.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply