Wednesday, November 30

Bondage Teddy Bears?

The fashion brand Balenciago recently came under fire for sexualizing children in one of their ad campaigns. The ad shows little girls holding a purse in the image of a teddy bear in BDSM attire.

Since then, a number of other creepy child porn type images and references have come to light in other ads. Balenciago is blaming their advertising agency and suing them. Hmmmm.

Not quite as creepy as some of the art Tony Podesta, a lobbyist for Ukraine and China and the brother of former White House chief of staff and Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta.

What do I think of all this stuff?

First, let me start with my view on anybody proven to have directly hurt young children in a sexual way.

Was that sufficiently concise?

I worded it the way I did deliberately. Statutory rape of older teenagers is, I think, in a different category from a grown man sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl. Not the wood chipper for them, but prison is fine. We need to draw the lines somewhere, and while we may each disagree on where exactly the lines should be drawn, there are valid compromises.

For example, in Canada, the age of consent is 16. However, if there is a position of trust or authority, it raises to 18. There are also some close-in-age exemptions. It's a compromise, and I'm willing to support that. I don't find it "immoral" if other jurisdictions have reached different, reasonable, compromises.

If young children are pressed into making explicit child porn for whatever purposes: wood chipper. If you consume that, knowing real children were involved in creating it: prison. Again, loosening that up if it's in the older teen category. E.g.,  if you need to be 18 to act in a porn video, but it's later found out you're almost 18, I can't get too excited if it was the girl pulling off a fast one, and I won't criticize the guy for being taken in.

The lines get way, way murkier for art.

Let's start with the Balenciago ad. I don't see as how the children themselves were harmed in the making of the ad. I doubt they had any awareness whatsoever that the teddy bear they were holding was a BDSM-related image. I don't know if there was or ought to have been anything illegal about it. I think it was in remarkably poor taste, and is quite justifiably hurting the brand. I'm also very concerned that the people involved are doing worse things in their private lives. I also wonder about the parents who allowed that.

How about the Podesta art? Again, not to my taste. It sort of creeps me out. But perhaps the artist himself was abused as a child and is trying to deal with it in this manner? Or he's making some kind of artistic metaphorical point, like our innocence is being taken from us? I would not buy it and hang it on my wall, and I won't go out of my way to see an exhibition from the guy. I'm also very concerned about the people who would hang that stuff in their houses and what else they may have going on.

How about spanking illustrations that depict bare-bottomed children being spanked by adults?

Damn. Now we're hitting close to home, aren't we? Are you squirming yet? I am.

If it's a photo and a real kid was involved, and it was made for the purpose of spanking porn: wood chipper for the producers. And consumers should avoid it like the plague because of potentially contributing to the exploitation of real children, and face prison if they deliberately re-distribute it. If it was a real historical spanking captured involving nudity, and the photo was somehow distributed? I don't know how you tell the difference, and would err on the side of making it illegal to distribute.

But what about illustrations? And what about hyper-realistic illustrations, or computer renderings almost indistinguishable from the "real thing"? Or even very young-looking adults being photographed to appear as children? Ouch again.

However, these I would allow. No actual children were harmed. I would apply the same reasoning to works of fiction involving childhood spankings. If no actual children were harmed, I would not make it illegal to produce or distribute.

One of the kinks of spankers is that we get turned on imagining an authority figure taking us in hand and correcting us. The archetype of that is the Daddy-daughter and Mommy-son. I have intense fantasies imagining I am back in childhood and being spanked by my Daddy. It's very Freudian I imagine. I confess that I also imagine getting fuckings from Daddy as punishment, not as a little girl, but as a more grown-up teenager, maybe being punished for some misbehaviour involving boys. I know, I know, I'm messed up.

How does an illustration of spanking a teenager differ from fucking her? Both are intensely sexual acts in my mind. I have way less problems with the spanking illustrations, however. There's a certain innocence in a well-meaning Daddy spanking his girl "for her own good" with only the best of intentions (as misguided as that may or may not be given the more recent attitudes on that). I can't really imagine an innocent fucking "for her own good".

If it's an illustration of a young girl being spanked "for her own good", I would allow that. If it's an illustration of a young girl being fucked by a grown man, or even diddled, then no. No. I'm sorry. I can't. I know I'm being inconsistent here (no actual children are being hurt), but I just can't. Make it illegal. I don't care. Once she's more grown-up, then ok fine, back to my standard of "if no actual children were harmed". I know I would be both drawn to and repulsed by such an image, knowing my own sexuality.

Hard to write this. And I know many people will have very different standards than me, and I may come under a lot of criticism, but trying to keep it honest... sorry.

In my own art, such as the book I am working on now, I have kept the boy character 18-years-old. I do this for several reasons. It's still young enough in my mind that he can be an immature, naughty child in need of discipline. But he is also old enough to consent, in real life, according to Canadian law (and I have explicit consent and a means to de-consent at any time built into my book that way). It still hits all the high spots, and everybody can feel good about themselves and not deal with those ugly psychological issues I refer to above. I feel better doing it that way.

What are your views, dare I ask?

47 comments:

  1. I am Debra and I am a pornaholic. Once Satan has his foot in the door,he àint gonna stop until he is all in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Myeh... i don't think so. There are, of course, real physical addictions, as in, if you don't get the substance, the body becomes ill. E.g. opiates and benzos.

      Other, more psychological, addictions, like video games or porn, I think those are escapes from other stuff that is going on, and maybe are the only things keeping you sane and functional?

      I could say I was "addicted" as well. But I choose not to conceptualize it like that. For me, it's a fun and exciting hobby. That's called a "reframe". You can frame it any way you want. Wouldn't it be healthier for you to reframe it as a fun and engaging hobby?

      If you're not harming others, or really even yourself, by an activity, Devil has nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    2. The great humanist rationalization of evil.Evil as "reframing". Where's Mistah Kurtz when you need him? "The horror,the horror!" I know that's a cheap shot,but it kinda fits. And everybody like the sound of it. They didn't read the book,but they saw the movie.

      Delete
    3. Evil is harming others (or yourself). Outside of that, it's just societal programming. Don't give in to it.

      Delete
  2. Drawing lines on art is a problem I've wrestled with for a long time. Years ago I was a board member of an arts organization that provided funds and help for artists. We spent endless hours debating this issue. We ended up with a couple of very mushy conclusions: Art is anything that an artist claims it is. That got us out of making esthetic judgements. The second was that the subject of the art should not affect our decisions.

    No one ever submitted sexualized subjects with children. Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs were explicit and sexual but only between adults. The acts they depicted were illegal in some places the art was displayed.

    This is a difficult problem involving freedom of expression. Here, in the US, we have very strict child porn laws. Technically, I could be prosecuted if I sent a picture of my 1-year-old daughter in the bathtub. The problem for me is that any arbitrary standard becomes a blunt instrument for people pushing their private morality.

    I share your disgust at people who use children in sexual activities. They deserve the wood chipper. The problem is drawing the line between legal and illegal. Can a painter create a realistic child spanking scene without fear of prosecution? I don't want to see that painting. I'm offended by depicting children in sexual contexts.

    You are certainly entitled to have daddy/daughter sexual fantasies. You have an absolute right to create stories for others to enjoy. We all agree on that. How different is your story from a painter depicting daddy/daughter sexual activity? Your writing paints a much clearer and sexual image than the painter's. That's my problem.

    I don't read child-involved fantasies. I also don't look at sexual images including children. It's my choice. I absolutely support your right to read and write on that subject. If the painter didn't use live models, I think he has the same freedom. If he uses computer-generated images with hyper-realistic animation with no live models, I have to agree that it is no different than a fantasy or a painting.

    The test has to be about the children. If a young child under the age of consent is involved, that's got to be illegal. If even the grossest abuse is simply a fantasy or image coming from the mind of a creator, we can't prosecute him. I won't look at or read material I consider offensive. I have to support the right to create this material if no children were involved. This concept is central to the basic freedoms we citizens value.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holy crap! This is a first! :)

      Delete
    2. Well, on reflection, a bit of difference. I don't mind illustrations and stories, of underage older teens being given spankings. I STRONGLY identify with a spanked 15 year old girl!

      Delete
  3. Have you heard of thespankinglibrary? It's a website with over 30k spanking stories. Many of those stories feature children. At the start of the year, they changed their policy and are not accepting stories involving children below the age of 11 anymore (though fortunately they didn't remove all the existing stories which would have been a tragedy). I believe that change of policy is due to some new European laws on child porn as other websites have been affected (the websites that are hosted outside of the EU seem fine though, such as malespanknet for example).

    Anyway, I don't know about you, but I think it's madness that purely fictional stories involving children are getting outright banned like that (and I fear that it might impact other jurisdiction eventually). Someone on a spanking forum actually called me a pedophile apologist for saying that there is nothing wrong with getting off to fictional spanking stories featuring children. For them (and they had some support) any content involving children and spanking together (even if again it's purely fictional and not involving a real child in any way) is clearly pedophile territory. Curious about your thoughts. And I do agree with most of your post by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there is a line. A fictional story of a 7-year-old girl being raped by an adult, written to amuse pedophiles, is getting pretty close to wood-chipper territory for me. I think there should be laws/rules against that. But if the story is kept in the realm of lovingly applied discipline to a childish bottom, and it's written to "age regress" the reader, which most of those are, I really have no problem at all with that. But those are very hard distinctions to make, so I won't condemn that decision at all, and 11 seems a reasonable compromise. It would certainly be fair to paint the former as a potential pedophile, and not the latter, but a simple rule is needed.

      Personally, I enjoy the age regression stuff, imagining myself now back in my body and situation of my naughty 12-year-old self, for example, and justly spanked for my misbehaviour. I, personally, would get no further enjoyment imagining myself any younger than that, but YMMV.

      Delete
  4. I have long advocated a wood chipper to dispose of people that sexually assault minors. Lately, I have realized that it would create an environmental mess. I now advocate a Death Star with an Enthermo ray that would roam around and incinerate these types. Bogey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have thought good composting material?

      Delete
  5. Evidently child pornography means nothing to the democratic state of california as they are getting ready to release 7000 pedophiles from prison. And you thought you could keep it non-political. fire fighter steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. I don't know much about that. I wonder what the "other side" to that is.

      Delete
  6. The lowest form of life is those who abuse children, even in prison they are consider the lowest form of life. How to deal with them, cut off their play toy, insure the whole world knows what they have done. There are so low, not really able to say what punishment should be handed out, if there is such a punishment that fits the crime. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Wood chipper. Subject to the nuances above.

      Delete
    2. My wife said to cut off the balls and do it so all can witness. Jack

      Delete
  7. Didnt u support a president who would sleep with his own daughter ivanka and was on the same island and friends with pedofile epstein ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have your facts wrong, buddy. You confused Trump with Bill Clinton who stuck a cigar up an intern's cooch and got a blowjob from her in the oval, and then got impeached for lying about it, and travelled many times on Epstein's Lolita Express. Or maybe confused with Biden who showered naked with his daughter at an inappropriate age according to her diary and regularly sniffs and gropes little kids on camera?

      Trump, by contrast, has a great relationship with Ivanka and banned Epstein from his properties the first time he got wind of any impropriety from him at all.

      You very miseducated!

      Delete
    2. you mean this trump --> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-introduced-trump-14-ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-says-rcna7253

      Delete
    3. or maybe this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html

      Delete
    4. "Jane didn’t allege any improper behavior by Trump and didn’t go into further detail about why she was at the resort. [...] Jane also acknowledged that in 1998, she took part in a Miss Teen USA beauty pageant that was associated with Trump."

      Re. Ivanka, he's a proud father and is complimentary of her. I don't see the problem. Zero allegations of improper behaviour and she's a very well brought up and well put together and successful woman, so he sure did something right.

      Now go do Clinton and Biden.

      You are very gullible and easily manipulated.

      Delete
    5. Glad to see you telling off this goof! I'm always surprised at just how much you know esp as a Canadian involving the various exploits of the Clintons and Bidens esp as our own press often plays cover up for them.

      Clarence

      Delete
    6. I read and watch the MSM, but there's mostly only propaganda there. I get my news from independent journalism, and now Twitter 2.0 is becoming an AMAZING gateway for that.

      Delete
  8. Was the art of Tony P on a purse a little girl was holding ? Well then….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, TonyP just hangs it in his house for everybody to see.

      Delete
  9. There are real evil people who do evil things. There’s also a lot of gray areas, and arbitrary age barriers.

    There are also a lot of examples where society’s reaction causes more harm that the perpetrator. Take, for example, the very famous example of Monica Lewinsky. The nation’s reaction did more harm to her than Clinton. Oodles of everyday examples exist in our lives.

    I was fondled in a locker room by an older gay man when I was 12. My wife had unfortunate experiences as well. I understand these things can be traumatic, but not every incident is the end of the world.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm of the minority's opinion that any fiction or drawing from imagination (no real people were involved in making it) shouldn't be criminalized, regardless of the topic.

    Even if a direct link can be established between those who like or consume such fictitious works and those who actually act the depicted atrocities out; I'd still say: increase the vigilance and put the people involved in those circles in some sort of a watchlist, but no criminal charges should be pushed until something realistic is attempted, planned or otherwise tangibly sought.

    And I say this about any fictitious work- those depicting illegal sexual acts (rape, pedophilia, etc.) as well as any other evil act (murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.).

    This take, I hope, is consistent, maximizes free speech, keeps the vulnerable or targeted group protected, and distinguishes between ideas and actions.

    In other words, if someone has this abnormal sexual attraction to children, yet he takes steps to ensure no real children are harmed by his impulses, by limiting his sexual outlet to adult's age-play and fiction; I wouldn't say he deserves the wood chipper any more than someone with rape fantasies who limits his sexual outlet to roleplay and fiction should be jailed.
    Both can and should seek counseling and try to overcome that potentially very dangerous attraction, but unless real people are hurt, there's no ground, in my humble opinion, for criminal charges for their ideas and impulses --ugly and repulsive as they may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like this view. Very consistent and logical.

      Delete
    2. This is really hard. I am a libertarian but...but... using children is out of bounds. We had a really disgusting scenario in Ontario Canada about 10 years ago when a pedophile was hired to write a sex ed curriculum for 6-7 year olds. Saying that children could consent.
      Sorry, that is my limit. Maybe I am a hypocrite. I can live with that but anyone violating children !!! No !! break you into little pieces.
      Sorry Julie, knowing violent speech is not allowed on your platform.
      Kind regards
      Chris

      Delete
    3. I think we're all on the same page. Nobody here advocates for harming or even involving actual children.

      The question is more about works of fiction, with some of us spankos imagining ourselves in age regression scenarios. My particular turn-on is imagining myself as a 15-year-old girl spanked bare bum by Daddy for being a teenage brat.

      Delete
  11. Just a bit more on this thought provoking topic.

    Like many of not most people, the roots of my sexuality were formed long ago. I can trace the roots of my desires/fetishes/submissiveness to age 5 or before and I masturbates often well before puberty (no real orgasm of course, but I would achieve a sort of climax that would require running to the bathroom to pee). I'd like to write about some my early experiences (e.g. "Thirteen, three spankings and third base") but think they may be deemed inappropriate. I've altered some of my experiences and fantasies so they occur at an older age - but that is hard to do for everything without losing something.

    As far as today's desires, I've told Irene young girls are like green bananas - their bodies may be firm and unblemished but they are also not ripe.

    - Best,

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would enjoy hearing about your early experiences. They are what makes us up.

      Delete
  12. Ok but tread lightly Please brother. Fantasy is great but I am a Dad and a Grandad.... Please lower it down !! Lots of weak people out there, not a lot of them on the sight. Respect your view, there are lots of weak (just y opinion) people Trudues, Trumps even if I disagree with it. Speak out !! Disagree !!!
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are all united in wishing to protect children. If somebody is crazy and uses something we post to justify violence of any kind, that is on them.

      Delete
  13. Well, what do you know? Julie posts about a controversial topic and , for the most part, does NOT get alot of haters or otherwise rational people abandoning reason for emotion. I'm happy , and impressed.
    Anyway , something longer about this from me tomorrow.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I was concerned about that, but only reasonable comments so far.

      Delete
  14. I remember when this blog was worth reading

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Getting older. Getting busier. If you liked my stuff in the past, be kind.

      Delete
  15. https://www.newsweek.com/john-podesta-art-balenciaga-scandal-1763960

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The paintings depicted are the work of Serbian artist Biljana Đurđević, and some are owned by Podesta's brother, Tony Podesta."

      Yup. That's what I said.

      Delete
  16. As mentioned I'm total against those who harm children in anyway. What I find ironic is that as an male adult, I at times as my wife points out a naughty little boy, and needs a Mommy to address that. The spankings hurt like hell, always on the bare bottom. Facing the wall afterwards I feel like a naughty little boy. I also feel better, even tho sitting is out of the question. I'm lucky to have a wife who understands and a wife who knows that being a Mommy to her naughty little husband/boy is fine with her. Just a thought how as an adult, being a naughty child, getting a spanking, is just who you are. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know you have a lot of fantasies about being treated as a child by your Mommy/Wife, jack. I would not want to see the type of porn that would turn you on most (illustrations and stories) banned.

      Delete
    2. What turns me on the most, is spankings by older women. I don't call it porn, it is just that a spanking by an older woman will not hold back. I mentioned my first adult spanking was an older woman, she knew I wanted a spanking, the spanking I got was truly a spanking. I can't explain it, but I need to be spanked when I'm been naughty. My wife knows this all too well and she could care less if others are present, she could less if I plead and beg. Deep down it is the deepest secret I held back, it took so long to find such a woman, and yes I will seek off and look at spanking sights, yours my wife knows about, accept, others, well let say the bathbrush speaks loud and clear. So a picture of a male being spanked, his underpants around his ankles, kicking, squirming, and the woman could care less, the hand, hairbrush or bathbrush landing on his barebottom is all that matters. Yes I have masturbated while looking at these pictures, only when my wife is not home. We all have quirks, and for me, I need and have a wife/mommy who spankings are truly such. Jack

      Delete
    3. We know Jack, you very much obsess over this one thing.

      Delete