Barbara Amiel responds to Steubenville.

[Canarr]

There is also a difference between "She is a very pretty girl" when referencing a teenager and "I'd love to pork her" while salivating over the fantasy. I'm glad my fiancee knows the difference. She's even asked me, "[her 16-year-old cousin] is cute, isn't she?" and I comfortably answered, "Yes, she is" without any judgement. It's because she knows when I agree to that, I'm speaking on a more general level.

Isn't that the same for women of all ages? I mean, if the cousin in your example were 30 instead of 16, would your fiancée have been less pissed of by a statement of, "Damn, I'd love to hit that!" ?

And, yeah: people who fling around the accusation "PEDOPHILE!" without actually understanding the meaning - and the restrictions - of it, irk me to no end.

[KabeRinnaul]

While I agree that viewing child porn if it is completely drawn (AKA no children harmed) shouldn't be illegal, I fully agree with child porn that has real children in it being illegal.

Yeah, you basically have to operate under the assumption that child pornography is inherently harmful to the children involved in it's creation. I still hold that erotic artwork depicting children, while it may be creepy as all hell, should be legal on two grounds:

1. No children are harmed by it's production or viewing.
2. Banning it would be wholly unenforceable because of the liberties the creator can take with it.

Same example I used last time this topic came up:
Yoko Littner of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann
Konata Izumi of Lucky Star

The red-haired bombshell with the cannon is 14. The blue-haired walking baby doll is a high school senior. Character age and appearance are both entirely arbitrary in artwork, so it's hard to say what is inappropriate or not.

[The Shadow]

Who the hell is Barbara Amiel?

That has been my question. I've never heard of her till now.

She's a very well known columnist here in Canada. She writes for the National Post (a Canadian newspaper) and Maclean's magazine. Her columns are nationally syndicated here.

I'm going to guess that you and Greenday are both American. That would explain why you're both surprised by the fact that you've never heard of her. After all, everyone knows that the USA is the only important place in the world and if someone's not American, then they're irrelevant and don't matter.

[Hyena Dandy]

She's a very well known columnist here in Canada. She writes for the National Post (a Canadian newspaper) and Maclean's magazine. Her columns are nationally syndicated here.

I'm going to guess that you and Greenday are both American. That would explain why you're both surprised by the fact that you've never heard of her. After all, everyone knows that the USA is the only important place in the world and if someone's not American, then they're irrelevant and don't matter.

I'll point out that I'm American, and I'm the one who started this thread. I'm actually quite interested in Canadian politics, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't generalize.

[TheHuckster]

Isn't that the same for women of all ages? I mean, if the cousin in your example were 30 instead of 16, would your fiancée have been less pissed of by a statement of, "Damn, I'd love to hit that!" ?

She would have, yes... simply because her cousin at 30 would at least be my age and there isn't as much of a creepiness level if you express sexual attraction to someone your age versus someone half of your age and who isn't even in college yet.

If I were to express desire to bang her 30-year-old cousin, she'd first of all laugh about it and say tongue in cheek "Go ahead, if you think you can." because that's the kind of person she is. If I were to express desire to bang her 16-year-old cousin, then she'd probably be a bit... concerned, to say the least. Her 30-year-old cousin is at least an adult who would be equally guilty of being a jerk if I actually went through with it.

If I were to do the same with the 16-year-old cousin, there's a connotation of manipulation from somebody who's much older than she is, plus doing it in defiance of her mother who is still her legal guardian, simply makes doing such an act that much worse.

[The Shadow]

I'll point out that I'm American, and I'm the one who started this thread. I'm actually quite interested in Canadian politics, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't generalize.

My comments were directed towards Greenday and Aethian. To me their comments represent a brand of American chauvinism / a U.S-centric mindset that's common in the U.S and that irritates a lot of Canadians (and other nationalities for that mater) I'm sorry for offending. I'm well aware that there a lot of Americans who are very knowledgeable about Canada. My remarks were not directed at them and certainly not you personally.

And btw, anyone who wonders who Barbara Amiel is - a click on the link you provided to the original article would have answered their question.

[draco664]

Yeah, you basically have to operate under the assumption that child pornography is inherently harmful to the children involved in it's creation. I still hold that erotic artwork depicting children, while it may be creepy as all hell, should be legal on two grounds:

1. No children are harmed by it's production or viewing.
2. Banning it would be wholly unenforceable because of the liberties the creator can take with it.

Character age and appearance are both entirely arbitrary in artwork, so it's hard to say what is inappropriate or not.

If you think the laws in the US are cumbersome, try Australia.

A Tasmanian was convicted of possessing Child Porn(TM) for having downloaded a copy of "The Pearl", a Victorian-era novella that depicts sex with children as young as 12 (the age of consent at the time of publishing). This is a book available for purchase at any number of bookstores in Australia and online... So yeah, something you can legally buy is somehow illegal to own...

Another fellow was convicted of possessing Child Porn(TM) for having Bart and Lisa Simpson cartoon porn. The judge ruled that just because the depictions weren't accurate representations of humans, that did not mean they could not be considered Real People. Yup, cartoons have human rights - at least in Australia.

And while it doesn't ban a-cup women outright, the current laws on the books say that you cannot publish pics of those under-18 - or even those who appear to be underage... So that 20-year-old who can go without wearing a bra? Illegal to publish pics of her...

[HYHYBT]

There's 3 types of people here ( For ANY crime ):
1) People that want to do something but won't because they know its wrong.
2) People who want to do something, but won't because they know its wrong but may do it anyway in a moment of weakness/passion/desperation
3) People who don't give a fuck and do it anywhere because they're sociopaths, etc.

I would add a fourth category, or perhaps a 0th one: People who like to fantasize about something but have no desire for it to occur in the real world.

[Aethian]

My comments were directed towards Greenday and Aethian.

My remarks were not directed at them and certainly not you personally.

Sorry but I'm offended.

[smileyeagle1021]

I would add a fourth category, or perhaps a 0th one: People who like to fantasize about something but have no desire for it to occur in the real world.

I like the idea of that being a zeroeth category.
There is a lot of erotic fiction that is based on things that the readers would find horrifying if it were to actually happen.
I like erotic fiction about men being forced against their will, but I can't even enjoy porn of it, knowing that the person is just acting, I would never want that to actually happen to someone.
And I apologize about that little bit of TMI.

[Kheldarson]

My comments were directed towards Greenday and Aethian. To me their comments represent a brand of American chauvinism / a U.S-centric mindset that's common in the U.S and that irritates a lot of Canadians (and other nationalities for that mater)...

So just because I have no interest in politics as a whole and have very little tolerance for most political pundits, that would make me questioning who she is and what her track record of opinion as being "US-centric"?

How about making me just curious and possibly a little lazy about doing research?


As for the article itself, I can get her broad point (that maybe we're a bit too open and free with sex at this point, but that's a different discussion entirely), but her examples are far too inappropriate and off the deep end to actually help her case.

[Aethian]

Said it better then I obviously could Kheldersin. I only get international news websites from areas posted on here or on CS. And when I get into so many times following a certain author to find out the "news" link is mostly tabloid...well...I have more important things to do then read tabloids.

[bara]

After reading her article I stopped caring who she was.

[Ree]

Well, quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that, if I am going to comment on something, then I want to know a bit more about it.

If I didn't know who Barbara Amiel is, and I feel I need to comment on the story, I am going to at the very least, Google her to see why I should care that she has written this article, and who is even going to listen to her.

I don't care about politics either, especially US politics, but a large portion of our Canadian media is devoted to US related politics.
I have at least a small bit of knowledge of "who's who".
Unfortunately, the same can't really be said in reverse.
I am sure that Canadian politics and news makes up only a very small percentage of media coverage in the US, so of course many aren't going to know who these people are, and will wonder why they are worth bothering about, without realizing they may be well-respected or famous journalists or politicians within Canada.

If I don't have a clue who somebody is when I see a fratching topic spring up, either I don't bother to comment, or I will do a bit of research to familiarize myself with the person so I can make an informed comment, rather than just posting to ask, "Who the hell is this person and why do I care?"

[Aethian]

I read the article, I saw a few other things she posted. I did not dwell into her backstory of being a writer. She came off like a opinionated tabloid writer who has nothing better to do then start arguments. So I wanted to know who she was cause I hadn't heard about her.

Farther up in the thread it was pointed out that she's a British socialite who has lost access to her money and, IMO, everyone is supposed to listen to her. And then later it's being said she's a huge voice in Canada...well which is it? Yes some can be both but both of those positions, to me, are on either ends of the spectrum.

To take those statements and call Greenday and myself out as Shadow has is beyond rude. Something that you have also come close to Ree since your backing Shadow's position, as a fellow Canadian I believe. Just because another country person doesn't know a who's who doesn't mean we're banging our chests and declaring ourselves correct in the matter.

As I said in a few deleted responses now she sounds like a tabloid writer and if she is then she shouldn't be given the attention that she is being given. I KNOW we've had things come up before where part of the board didn't know someone being that they were from another country and I don't recall them being put down for not knowing that person.