blaughn said:There is a movement afoot to "normalize" pedophilia. This has its roots in the work Kinsey did in the 50's and 60's. One of the more recent works came from a feminist writer named Judith Levine. Her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, I am ashamed to say, was published by the University of Minnesota Press. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton Administration Surgeon General. She actually went on television to defend the book. After a few minutes of embarrassing to watch dialog the interviewer asked her if she had actually read the book. She admitted she had not......
Lawmakers don't seem to understand that a free society depends upon citizens exercising their free will in ways that contribute to the strengthening of society and regard for each other.
"The problem with normal is it always gets worse."
- Bruce Coburn, songwriter
"If laws prevented crime, we'd be the best behaved society in the history of civilization." - UNK
blaughn said:There is a movement afoot to "normalize" pedophilia. This has its roots in the work Kinsey did in the 50's and 60's. One of the more recent works came from a feminist writer named Judith Levine. Her book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, I am ashamed to say, was published by the University of Minnesota Press. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Clinton Administration Surgeon General. She actually went on television to defend the book. After a few minutes of embarrassing to watch dialog the interviewer asked her if she had actually read the book. She admitted she had not.
I would be the first to agree that there is hysteria about paedophilia at the moment, but that does not mean there is no basis in fact. I am 56 years old - I and many others of my generation grew up witnessing what by today's standards would be unbelievable levels of violence directed by adults at children but which were considered normal at the time. Not a day goes by but institutions such as the Catholic Church, managers of children's homes, etc. are dragged before the courts and forced to pay thousands of $ compensation for revolting acts of sexual and other physical abuse committed 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Given a straight choice, I would much rather have the present climate of over-caution than the situation of the past, with children as a kind of free-fire zone for perverts and sadists.bjorke said:In the UK one hears "paedophile" while in the US one hears "terrorist" but the results are the same. In both cases, the threat is REAL, but about as real as your chances of picking up this year's Super Lotto jackpot (in fact, often less than even that). Said phantoms are used to frame public policy debate in Big Brother terms, where the populace needs to stay quiet and submissive becasue we need to be protected. "Stop whimpering, this oppression is GOOD for you"
Andy K said:The British are a great people, but sometimes they are dumb as rocks. All it takes is one headline from a hysterical Murdoch paper and the witch hunts will start.
Reactions may on occasion be excessive, but it is also a fact that there has been an explosion in child pornography in recent years, primarily on the Internet, and that relatively innocent pictures of children are routinely used as window-dressing for outlets (such as websites) offering the most revolting filth. When I returned to professional photography around 10 years ago, aiming to concentrate on art images, I surveyed the photography scene and rapidly decided I would photograph people at all only if they were friends or paid models and that I would not photograph children at all (unless for a commission or children of friends). At the time, this decision was based on considerations of model releases rather than child porn hysteria, but I have not regretted this decision for a second. It would be nice if we lived in a society where everyone trusted everyone else and never exploited them, but we don't, and I am more than willing to give up any putative "right" to photograph children in public (images which I could in any case never sell) if it helps protect these or other children from abuse. It may be hard for some people to understand this, but things have moved on and this is the world we live in today.Ian Leake said:I seem to remember that in the last round of Murdoch-inspired hysteria about paedophiles, a paediatrician was targeted by vigilantes who couldn't tell the difference. Draw your own conclusions on how hysteria about paedophiles taking photos of children will effect photographers.
David H. Bebbington said:I am more than willing to give up any putative "right" to photograph children in public (images which I could in any case never sell) if it helps protect these or other children from abuse.
jovo said:According to a psychologist where I work, the crime of incest is so common in the United States, that it is STATISTICALLY NORMAL!! Please do not misinterpret what I just wrote...incest is not being suggested as anything less than an abuse and a crime, but rather that it is so commonly practiced that it becomes "normal" in its' frequency.
Gross exaggeration and shaky logic. People are afraid (whether they have good reason or not), I have no need to photograph their children, I have no use for any pictures that might result, I have no wish to cause any kind of offense, so I don't photograph children in public. Where is the element of "control" here, except the self-control which I exercise on the basis of my cultural sensitivity? People are in no way hostile to photographers per se - like many others, I find that people spontaneously strike up conversations and show interest when I am working with an LF camera in public.Quinten said::
The power of FEAR. Once people are afraid you can control them.
One pedofile in the national news taking pictures of children and all photographers are the enemy. Now you can do all to stop them and all is tolarated since they are all the enemy.
One plane in a building and the rest of the world are terrorists.
David H. Bebbington said:I am entirely unable to understand anyone who gets worked up about CCTV cameras in public places!
Aggie said:Considering the cameras they are targeting, I have no problem. As a mother, in today's chaotic world, and the ever viglient stance we have to take to protect our children form the current rash of insanity, I can understand the need for something to help protect. Gone are the days when children could wander around without their parents in attendance. I can now hear the rush to villify me because I in essence am going against those that think that the right to take pictures should be all emcompassing, anywhere, anytime, of any subject, So be it.
Andy K said:I would rather see a copper on every street corner, than a CCTV camera. A copper is a deterrent, a camera only serves to (maybe) catch the culprit, after the crime was committed. In the first instance you are safe(r), in the second, regardless of whether the culprit is caught, you are bloodied, bruised and minus wallet, phone etc."
I agree with this sentiment. Neighborhood policing is by far the best deterrent to crime. Unfortunately, most local governments see the cctv as a far less costly option compared to a real law enforcement officer.
I suppose castration of convicted pedophiles and rapists would not prove a deterrent.
jovo said:According to a psychologist where I work, the crime of incest is so common in the United States, that it is STATISTICALLY NORMAL!!
gareth harper said:Exactly Andy. In most cases of child abuse, whether it's sexual or otherwise, the child knows the abuser, and that person is usually a family member.
And the incident Bentley Boyd refers to really did happen. Nor was it that long ago that that dirty rag the News of the World was publishing numerous photographs of pedophiles, many innocent people got beat up as a result.
We've also had here in Scotland the completely ridiculous situation where people have been banned from filming or photographing children at Christmas nativety plays, including the parents of the children. In order to film or photograph at some of these school events you need written permission of every parent of every child in the play.
Meanwhile can somebody please tell me what harm I am doing to a fully clothed child by taking their picture in public. Nor do I imagine there is much, if any at all, demand from pedophiles for such pictures.
This is absolute madness, and dangerous madness at that.
Hopefully AP will have more detail on this next week and with luck it will be get it nipped in the bud.
David H. Bebbington said:People are in no way hostile to photographers per se - like many others, I find that people spontaneously strike up conversations and show interest when I am working with an LF camera in public.
David H. Bebbington said:As regards terrorists, it is inevitable that as the result of 9/11 security levels at the world's airports will remain high for the foreseeable future, maybe forever. Is this wrong?
David H. Bebbington said:Finally, on the matter of intrusion. Because of my work, I have been subject to security-services clearances for large parts of my professional life. I am entirely unable to understand anyone who gets worked up about CCTV cameras in public places!
For that David would have had to have been under emotional and physical distress with the threat of harm hanging over him. None of which applies in this case so I suggest you re-read your introduction to psychology bookTach said:Stockholm syndrome?
Good job your not a shrink or we would all be in troubleTach said:Losing his job if he does not comply? Works for me...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?