Misc. Ramblings 2014
Story codes: Child sexuality found in the news and rants from the author
Go to end of page to see the latest update
01/03/14
To start out the new year here are a couple of unusual things I noticed in the TV movies recently. In the first minutes of the 1963 movie "The Thrill of It All" you can see Doris Day giving five-year-old Kym Karath a bath. I don't believe in the present day climate of seeing a pedophile under every rock would they allow that much nudity of Kym as they do. Not there is that much nudity to see, but we know how the censor nazis are these day. In the 2002 film "Dragonfly" at the very end there is a girl of approximately 12 years old naked from the waist up showing small, widely spaced breasts. I guess that since she is a native it is okay, just as long as she is not a white girl. At the end of the movie is a full frontal of a naked white baby. Wow how did that get past the censor? Maybe censorship wasn't as tight in 2002 as it is today.
*************
06/28/14Japan was one of the holdout when it came to the possession of child pornography. When the UN pushed all nations to outlaw the manufacture and possession of child pornography Japan passed a law only stating it was illegal to manufacture said pornography, there was no law against possession. That changed as of earlier this month when it also outlawed possession, but it did not include manga and anime cartoons of child like characters engaged in sexual situations. There has been quite a bit of criticism by people the world over. One of the reason it was ignored is the fact that manga and anime are big businesses in Japan and contribute to the gross national economy. Another reason is that photographic child nudity was never considered the great sin like in the US.
For further information see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Japan
************
7/11/14
Several items in the news lately.
Earlier I mentioned the Coppertone ad showing a drawing of a girl with the lower part of her swim suit pulled down by her dog showing most of her butt which showed off the difference between her tanned skin and where the sun couldn't reach. A mother in North Carolina had a picture of her daughter with a friend pulling the lower part of her swim suit down, showing the same contrast in skin color. She posted it on both her Facebook account and the Coppertone page. Coppertone had no problem with the picture. Facebook, you know those people who have no problem secretly running psychological experiments on their subscribers for the US government, took offence. Obviously showing part of a naked butt crack of a two-year-old was way too much for Facebook. They took down the picture and banned the mother from her account because, by golly, they know porn when they see it. Back when I was young (I know way long ago) it was not at all unusual to see pre pubercent girls on the beach only wearing swimsuit bottoms. Except for their longer hair they weren't much different than the boys. Read the story at: http://www.news4jax.com/news/facebook-labels-childs-photo-as-porn/26823022
And talking about little nude girls in advertising...Back during WWI the Treasury Dept. issued a poster pleading for people to buy war savings stamps. The girl depicted on the poster is about the same age as the girl mentioned above, but she is only wearing shoes and socks. We either didn't have pedophiles back then or we had a more relaxed view toward child nudity. You can see the poster at: http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/6/1/135861_v1.jpg
The next article is too bizarre to believe. A seventeen-year-old sent his girlfriend a picture of his engorged penis. The girls mother took offence and called the cops. I guess the prosecutor wanted a picture for comparison because they issued a warrant for him to be taken to the local hospital, stripped, be injected with a substance that would give him a hard-on and a picture taken of said woody. Luckily the boy lawyer squashed the warrant. How stupid are things getting in this country?
***********
7/15/14
A convicted rapist and sex offender serving time in Massachusetts was caught with photocopies of naked children while in prison. He was charged with seven counts of possessing child pornography. The court threw out the charges. The copies were made from National Geographic Magazine. That made it a can of worms. How can a judge say that a prestigious magazine was publishing child pornography. His ruling was that they were not lewd. "Nudity alone is not enough to render a photo lewd," he said. So, if naked pictures of children alone isn't pornography then what is lewd? Is Brooke Shields nudist scenes in Pretty Baby or Blue Lagoon lewd, or the pictures of her taken by Garry Gross? What about well known child photographers whose works includes coffee table books of child nudity like David Hamilton or Irena Ionesco? Who then becomes the judge of what is lewd? The pictures of Shields by Gross was considered pornography in London when they were banned from being shown at the Tate Gallery. This ruling certainly raises more questions than it answers. See the complete story at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/11/massachusetts-high-court-rapists-stash-of-national-geographic-not-child-pr0n/
In merry ole England 660 arrests were made for their citizens viewing on line child pornography and worse, and promises were made of more arrests to come. There are estimates that there are as many as 50,000 English viewers of on line pornography and as many as "tens of millions" of child pornographic images on what was termed "the dark web." (According to my calculations if 50,000 is a fair representation of their citizens viewing child nudity in a population of 53.1 million then the United States has approximately 290,000 citizens interested in child nudity.) The biggest problem is, what is child porn? One judge said a child does not necessarily have to be naked to be considered porn, while, as stated above, another judge says not all pictures of naked children are porn. So who is right? I read that at one time some children in Japan went to photo studios to have naked pictures taken of themselves, and it was considered perfectly normal behavior. Look at today's popularity of sexting between teenagers. Are these children actually abusing themselves as the law wants us to think? Is a naked child posing for pictures, but not involved in sexual activity abusive if they do it willingly? Even the psychiatrists cannot agree as to who is a pedophile. Eighteen-years-old is an arbitrary age decided by politicians for girls to magically become women. Some psychiatrists consider the onset of girls into puberty a trigger for the male brain to consider the girl sexually exciting, and do not consider it a mental disease. Throughout the ages laws for acceptable sexual relations for a girl started anywhere between ten and thirteen-years-old. It has been since the twentieth century that the number has steadily climbed. Maybe, just maybe, a sexual interest in a teenager is perfectly normal.
I just saw the movie 1984 on TV and realized the thought police are with us here, today, in our societies making sure we have pure, untainted thoughts. It is scary. Read the article I read here:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/uk-police-arrest-660-in-massive-child-pornography-crackdown-636518.html
********
8/11/14
While watching the movie musical Hair on TV the other night I noticed that in the beach scene two children, possibly two and three-years-old were bare ass naked being lead by an adult walking away from the camera. I am sure that when I saw the movie back in the seventies I thought nothing of the child nudity. Back in the seventies it wasn't common place, but it wasn't shocking either. I did think it unusual that they showed it on today's TV with the present hysteria of seeing a pedophile around every corner.
***********
8/30/14
Finally, someone said,"bullshit," or to that effect anyway. A photographer went on vacation with his two-year-old daughter and took the usual sightseeing pictures, along with pictures of his daughter. She loved her princess outfit, and also didn't mind going nude (many two-year-old children don't mind. Nobody taught them yet the evils of child nudity) As he was going along he posted his pictures on his website and immediately got the reaction of "pornography," "perverse," and "sick." The faceless critics got his accounts closed on Facebook and Instagram. He fought back and made an exhibition on the internet under the title "I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR CHILDREN - The sexualization of innocence of America." The cap part of the title is taken from a comment by one of his critics.
The story on Huffington is much longer and includes the photographs close minded people find so offensive. it is worth the read at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
***********
9/5/14
One of my readers alerted me to another film with child nudity, "Up the Sandbox" staring Barbra Streisand. The plot is about a woman, Margaret Reynolds, played by Streisand, who has two children and finds out she has a third on the way. The movie revolves around her identity crisis and fantasy of another, more exciting life. In the opening minutes of the film Margaret is bathing her two children, a baby boy of around six months and the older girl, Elizabeth, played by Ariane Heller. When Margaret's husband, played by David Selby, come home from work Elizabeth jumps out of the tub, and runs completely naked to the front door to unlock it. She is shown completely naked front and back with no blurring censorship. A search of the internet provided no info on Ariane Heller except a small blurb about what films she was in. Up the Sand Box was filmed in '72. I could not find out Ariane's birth date, but I am guessing she was about two or three at the time the movie was shot. The baby boy also had a brief full frontal naked appearance as his mother, Margaret, dried him after his bath.
**********
I appreciate all comments about this site or its stories. Please take a minute to tell me what you think.
You can use the ASSTR email system by clicking here:
Contact ASSTR email system
Or:
Send me email directly at:
If you email me direct and do not want me to reply please add "Do Not Reply" to your email
**********