.
.
.
.
.
.
_______________________________________________________________________
An Exploration Of The Writing of Kiddie Porn
By Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk <quirk@syntac.net>
With Excerpts From
The Sweetharts (sic) pt.II - 3 of 3
By The Free Citizen <an499038@anon.penet.fi>
Excerpts and essay purposefully blended and not obviously
marked -- read the whole thing or read nothing.
Freely repost this article anywhere, in it's entirety.
_______________________________________________________________________
In Canada we have laws against the WRITING of child pornography.
Laws against words.
""OOHHhhhh," Marissa screamed as he entered her. She had never felt
anything so big in her sixteen-year old pussy."
Like some ancient mystical incantation -- the words hold special power, the
power to transform a group of letters into illegal property.
To transform a piece of paper or an electric file into a contraband.
"Umm. God," grunted Mike. "Love this sixteen year old pussy. You
little sluts."
The word "sixteen" is really the one with the alchemic properties, as the
rest of the phrase would not identify the age of the fictional
participants.
Marissa's tounge (sic) licked over Ashley's wet clit, but the older girl
soon leaned back, forcing Marissa's tounge (sic) inside her pussy hole.
If you do not actually state the age, then it's not illegal, but the
fictional characters could still be underage could they not? They could be
SECRETLY under aged fictional characters.
He stuffed Staci's pussy forcefully as the teen began to cum again.
But the word teen establishes the age, and this is illegal.
So if you imagine the characters to be underage, even if the work does not
explicitly say the age -- shouldn't this be illegal too?
The words may make them SEEM underage.
Maybe a law should be passed that REQUIRES the ACTUAL age of these
FICTIONAL characters to be explicitly stated within the material.
Just to be safe.
Marissa was moaning and slurping, being fucked hard as she tounged (sic)
the pussy on her face. Marissa felt Ashley's juices running down her
cheeks and neck.
But even if the age of majority was clearly stated -- the FICTIONAL
characters could by LYING about their age.
If we could not PROVE that the FICTIONAL character was ACTUALLY of the age
of majority then this would still be illegal.
Because the writing of child pornography is illegal.
Illegal because of what?
No ACTUAL children are involved, this is fiction, I know it's hard to
believe -- but the characters are not real, they have no real feelings, no
emotions, they can not be exploited.
"Ohhhh. Ohhhh god. Your dick is so big. OHHH - you're fucking me,"
she squirmed. "Yes OHHHH. Fuck me with that big dick. UMMMHHH."
Because it's offensive? Many things are offensive, I find censorship
offensive. You can't always guess what will offend and sometimes you MUST
to offend to make a point -- to get a person's attention.
In order to justify illegality -- harm must be demonstrated.
What exactly is the harm?
Is the universal child of the subconscious harmed?
Does this sound like a sacred cow? Like laws against blasphemy?
It felt so good - the teen loved feeling Chad's big cock fill her
pussy up while she stuffed Mike into her mouth. She began to moan and
buck her hips wildly- cumming again as Mike squeezed her nipples hard
- forcing her to mouth fuck him. He pumped his cock in and out of her
mouth quickly and mercilessly, not even letting up as she came.
Some go so far as to say that this sort of writing will encourage child
molestation.
But who knows what may cause child molestation. A child molester is a
criminal, and a mentally unstable one at that. Are we to construct our
society around the needs of the mentally unstable?
My God, what a slut I am, she thought. How can I be sucking off these
two guys at once? She was so horny though, her guilt didn't stop her
- she eagerly switched between the two boys' swollen cocks as they
gropped at her tits and wet pussy. She really did love to suck cock -
her pussy felt like it was on fire as she moved her mouth over one -
then the other.
An essay that condemns kiddie porn could not be written WITHOUT making
reference to minors engaging in sexual activity.
The law itself MUST make reference to the sexual activity of minors in
order to make it illegal.
Could a mentally unstable pedophile not derive inspiration from these
things too?
Maybe reading the section of the law that outlaws kiddie porn could inspire
him?
Ashley whispered to Chad,"Look how Marissa loves your cock. I'm
jealous." Chad motioned his head at Ashley, who's eyes lit up. She
immediately climbed on the bed and sat on Marissa's unsuspecting
face. Marissa practically choked, her mouth having been opened wide
moaning. She was so turned on though - nothing mattered. She stuck
out her red tounge (sic) and Ashley began to rock her tight ass over
Marissa's mouth.
In fact maybe the demented pedophile would begin to attend court hearings
to hear descriptions of child pornography and child molestation before
beginning his campaign of terror.
He could start collecting newspaper clippings.
Or maybe it could simply be the bare butt of a baby in a diaper commercial
that gets the whole thing going.
Ted Bundy collected pictures of cheerleaders, truckloads of them.
Girls. Bright Outfits. Pom-Poms. No Nudity.
Then Mike leaned back and stood still - Marissa began to do all the
work. She moved her hips and ass back and fourth quickly on the hard
cock, feeling it slide deep into her pussy and then out again.
You never know what will inspire the insane -- that's why we call them
insane.
There is no rational case against the writing of kiddie porn. There is no
rational reason why there should be laws against words.
Laws against words are immoral and a violation of freedom of speech.
The violation of freedom of speech is an invitation to tyranny.
"All fear of 'offensive' speech is bourgeois and reactionary.
Historically, profane or bawdy language was common in both the
upper and the lower classes, who lived together in rural areas
amid the untidy facts of nature. Notions of propriety and decorum
come to the fore in urbanized periods ruled by an expanding middle
class, which is obsessed with cleanliness, respectability, and
conformism."
-- Camile Paglia, From "Language and the Left,"
in The Advocate (March 7, 1995)
|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
