NOTE: This is an archived post that has been appropriately dated. I also have an archived blog at http://www.4kingimbaseal.blog.com/ that I no longer use, but this is in my new blog. On this day in class on 6th April we watched the film Damned in the USA (1991, d/Paul Yule) and had a couple of interesting discussions, which resulted in the following:
1) I was arguing that distribution of child pornography is not amoral in and of itself - rather, it is the circumstances of creation that are (probably) amoral (assuming that the creators are adults). Think about this: what if the pornographers themselves are children? And the audience, either themselves or other kids? Are you going to label them paedophiles as well? If I am a 15 year old male that takes a photograph of another 15-year-old girl's breasts (with her willing consent), am I a child pornographer or paedophile? *Note, this is actually illegal in many US states - the age of consent is lower than the age people are allowed to see you naked. Oh, the irony.
2) Feminists that complain about women's objectification and submissiveness in the media really need to shut the fuck up, and create their own art in which they objectify males and their male characters are submissive and passive. (I of course do not support any form of oppression in actual life, but I really cannot find any problem with it being depicted in art. Therefore, if Oscar Wilde's postulation that life imitates art is correct - instead of complaining about it, reverse the trend. I argue that this radical feminist view supports conservative suppression of sex, perhaps unwillingly, whereas my opposition supports a sex-positive society. (Look it up).