Yet another "underage" question

[Pure]

For QM:

http://www.cnac.org/glennletter04.htm



CNAC had one of the earliest hijackings. Don Hassig** has written up his experience elsewhere, so we'll only touch on it. We had evacuated our radio station and radio beacon 11/18/48 at Tsinan so it occurred shortly after that. On a passenger flight to Peking via Tsingtao in a C-47 some commies came up to the cockpit and ordered Don and his copilot back to the cabin, they were taking over. They went to Tsinan, one of our stations we evacuated shortly before, and the communist pilot tried several times to land. After just about creaming himself and the load of passengers on several passes at the runway the leader of the group let the CNAC copilot up to the pilot's seat to land the plane. Fortunately, he was one of the copilots with some flying experience. Probably not more than a third of our copilots could have done it. Hassig and his passengers were held a month or six weeks and released.

No doubt the commies had come across on of the earliest Chinese translations of Rod Serling.

**
http://www.cnac.org/hassig01.htm
===

There is a short history of hijacking at the site below--perhaps you can say which were, in your view, due to Serling's book:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~surette/hijacking.html

[Pre 1950s hijackings said to be of a different character and motivation.]

First of a number of hijackings of planes from Cuba by anti Castro persons, 1958

First 'transportation' hijacking {take me to ...}-by a US Marine-- 1968

First 'extortion' hijacking by Palistinian militants, Israeli airliner, 1968

 

[Quasimodem]

THE DOOMSDAY FLIGHT by Rod Serling

On December 13, 1966, NBC aired The Doomsday Flight, a TV movie written by Rod which concerned a mentally-disturbed former-airline mechanic who plants a pressure bomb set to explode below 4,000 feet aboard a commercial airliner.

The movie was an instant ratings success, gathering the second-highest rating of the l967 season (surpassed only by the network showing of The Bridge on the River Kwai). Rod's delight quickly turned to horror however, when the first bomb threat came at 10:45 P.M., while the movie was still being broadcast.

During the days that followed, TWA, Eastern, American, Pan Am and Northwest Airlines all received similar threats. Within a mere six days, the total had risen to eight. Each, quite naturally, had to be taken seriously. Rod was aghast.

"I wish to Christ I had written a stagecoach drama starring John Wayne instead," he told the papers. "I wish I'd never been born."

Fortunately, the events following The Doomsday Flight were the low point for Serling. Other projects would almost certainly disappoint him, but none would equal that particular experience for sheer nightmarishness.

http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/serling2.htm


A controversial thriller about a madman who puts the lives of a group of travelers in jeopardy by planting an altitude-activated bomb aboard a plane in an extortion plot against the airline.

Serling's screenplay was so detailed - creating a device that would explode below 5,000 feet - that a subsequent real-life incident using an almost identical premise caused this film to be withdrawn from distribution for a number of years (This is noted as the 5th TV Movie made.)

http://www.jacklord.net/credits/films/doom.html


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


No, Pure,


I have no worries about anyone recreating the murder in "A Speckled Band." Not because there are infinitely more numerous ways to kill a daughter than with a small poisonous snake, but because Doyle wrote it, not I.

What you seem incapable of ramming past your own opinion is that we are discussing personal morality and self-regulation, not pushing the envelope of the law, and the devil take the hindmost.

Laurel has taken a personal stand against several of the more pernicious areas of erotica, and banned them from her site. Not her sight, but her site! That part of the internet community for which she must hold herself responsible.

As a contributor, all she asks is that you respect these few regulations. It seems you cannot.

I would advise taking your story, in whatever form you wish to be held responsible for it, to ASSTR.org, where your work will be at home with other works of paedophilia, scat, snuff, and non consensual torture.

As for me, this discussion is closed, as it appears, so is your mind.

 

[Pure]

Hi QM,

Aside from the details of your hijacking claim, I want to clarify the issue, and what I'm saying.


Originally posted by Pure
To Peridita,

. . . no one has ever established a connection between reading stories and criminal behavior. . .
J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QM:]

Wrong!

Rod Serling ...

What I mean to say in that no systematic connection has ever been established between reading a story and commiting a crime.
IOW there is no evidence of a PATTERN according to which a person reads such and such story and is moved to commit a crime, by his/her reading.

It's similar to the argument that there's no evidence eating bacon for breakfast is systematically linked to having a heart attack thereafter.

This is NOT to claim that no one ever had a heart attack after eating bacon for breakfast, just that no causal pattern has ever been shown.

There are many isolated cases, and I cited one myself regarding American Psycho, and a local murderer in my neck of the woods.
There may be a hijacker who read a Serling story, though you've shown no evidence of it.

Since there's no pattern, there's no evidence of a causal link, even in the isolated cases (notwithstanding that accused persons say "'the devil' or 'that novel' made me do it.")

What is the point? Well, *there's no established [well-evidenced] systematic pattern of reading about a sex crime and doing it*. So a censorship law based on that premise is poorly based. It's easy to see evidence of the truth of my claim, since many stories at literotica involve crimes, and a helluva lot at 'extreme' do, but no systematic linkage to actual crimes is known (if there is such evidence, post it.)

J.

 

[Chicklet]

A friend of mine has given her story to me to be edited, and one of the potential problems I saw is that she wrote in flashbacks to the start of her female character's sexuality--specifically, she tells of when she started masturbating and the various ways she did it. There's also some pre-18 petting, but the majority of it is masturbation-oriented. How strict is the underage restriction on self-loving? I want to be able to tell her now and give her time to rewrite it before Laurel returns it. Thanks, all!

here is my advise to your friend:

stay away from it. It is best to keep it out; if you don't mention the age, that usually works nicely. Apart from iffy acceptance, readers might send nasty feedback upon coming to the "underaged" part. - enough complaints and the story might be taken down later. That would suck.

 

[MathGirl]

You don't often see such mind expanding debate.
"It does."
"It doesn't."
"Does too!"
"Does not!"
"'s too!"
"'S not!"

Dear Quaz, Let me finish that thought for you:

Tooo!
Noootttt!
Fuck you
No, fuck YOU
You asshole
No, YOU'RE the asshole
Fuck you
Awww, go fuck yourself
No, You go fuck Yourself
etc.

 

[Quasimodem]

*there's no established [well-evidenced] systematic pattern of reading about a sex crime and doing it*J.

W E A S E L W O R D S !

By the facts of Rod Serling’s example thee IS a causal effect, not because it makes one commit the crime, but because it gives antisocial types the information HOW to commit the crime -- which makes you morally guilty of being some form of contributor. . . .

Oh, nuts!

As I said before, “AURRUGHHH! FAWH!”

Where’s the Iggy Switch?!

 

[gauchecritic]

Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques whether remembered, in the past, brought forward in a time machine or reverse ageing all pander to what the 'law' (Lit. or otherwise) class as paedophilia.

Not true.



Paedophilia; The condition of being sexually attracted to children.

Pandering: To do something that someone wants.

Which part of it isn't true?

Gauche

 

[MathGirl]

“AURRUGHHH! FAWH!”

Dear Quaz,
May I use that phrase of yours? I think I need something like that. I sure hope I get the pronunciation correct.
MG

 

[Pure]

QM said,


As a contributor, all she asks is that you respect these few regulations. It seems you cannot.

And you know this, how? I have several stories here, twice as many as you.


I would advise taking your story, in whatever form you wish to be held responsible for it, to ASSTR.org, where your work will be at home with other works of paedophilia, scat, snuff, and non consensual torture.

Lots of nasty names for a "story" that doesn't exist. Intellectual vacuity.


As for me, this discussion is closed, as it appears, so is your mind.


Nada. Zero. Air whistling through your ears.

Up your meds, and try staying focussed on the thread topic.

J.

 

[Pure]

QM, in a single lucid moment:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pure
*there's no established [well-evidenced] systematic pattern of reading about a sex crime and doing it*J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



W E A S E L W O R D S !

By the facts of Rod Serling’s example thee IS a causal effect, not because it makes one commit the crime, but because it gives antisocial types the information HOW to commit the crime -- which makes you morally guilty of being some form of contributor. . . .

Oh, nuts!

As I said before, “AURRUGHHH! FAWH!”
====
I reply:

The caps make you SO convincing, especially the repeated letters. The story about Serling that you posted contradicts what you say, above; the story says threats were made. Therefore,

1) You've presented no evidence that a hijacking with an altitude sensitive bomb occurred as a result of Serlings story.

2) In fact there is no evidence that 'antisocial types', hijackers already going to commit the deed were given "the information HOW to commit a crime " (through making an altitude sensitive bomb). And of course you've given not a shred of evidence that any hijacker has ever made an altitude sensitive device in the period just after the release of the story-- or maybe ever.

 

[Pure]

Hi Gauche,

Let's see if we can get past the AURRUGG FAWW level, and see what the issue is.


Gauche said,
Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques whether remembered, in the past, brought forward in a time machine or reverse ageing all pander to what the 'law' (Lit. or otherwise) class as paedophilia.

Pure said
//Not true.//


Gauche said.


Paedophilia; The condition of being sexually attracted to children.

Pandering: To do something that someone wants.

Which part of it isn't true?
===

I reply:

That's a sloppy definition of 'pandering'. Probably you haven't consulted a law text or even a dictionary.

Pander: to minister to a baser passion of someone else. to help to satisfy another's corrupt desires, (metaphorically the equivalent of procuring a prostitute for someone).

So, 'budding breasts' do not 'pander' to anything. They just are. There's millions of them.

So maybe you're trying to say that the *depiction* of a budding breast 'panders.'

Again, not true. Further you don't seem cognizant of the differences between: a photo; a drawing; a passage of prose.

Porn laws generally focus on the first, since that means an actual child was used.

However, again, a photo of a budding breast does not necessarily pander, being found in anatomy books, developmental texts, books on hormonal problems, etc. And on the net. Further the written depictions are also available.

What both obscenity and porn laws try to do is establish a particular context and inferred motive, and inferred intent ACCOMPANYING such a photo (or depiction). If the 'intent' seems to be, on one test, 'appeal to prurient interest'--- something like your 'pandering' issue-- THEN it would be pornographic. So the 'prurient interest' is a topic not to assumed from the depiction alone, but to be established, on the evidence.

In the case of stories, which is, after all the original topic, the mention of a 'budding breast' may or may not have that appeal to prurient interest, depending on the story.

I hope this clarifies my position. Perhaps you can say, in relation to the story originally referred to, why you think it 'panders' to pedophilia, esp. since no children were involved (13 not being a child).

Regards,
J.

 

[MathGirl]

It shouldn't be difficult........

Good grief! There is so much freedom and so little restriction, I can't see why it's so difficult to live with it.

As I see it, the basic fact is that it's Laurel's site and she can do whatever she damn well pleases. It certainly isn't as if she wields a heavy hand.
MG
Ps. I believe that the law is quite definite on the fact that a thirteen year old is a child.

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Yet another "underage" question

here is my advise to your friend:

stay away from it. It is best to keep it out; if you don't mention the age, that usually works nicely. Apart from iffy acceptance, readers might send nasty feedback upon coming to the "underaged" part. - enough complaints and the story might be taken down later. That would suck.

"O'ya, I started wacking off a long time ago, but I got much better at it now....wanna see?"

"Man I fucked this old babe once. She was hot...ass wider than the bay bridge. She worked at Hooters, and had the biggest tits I've ever seen in my life."

However it is written, when you write about the age of your characters make them at least 18. That way you have no problems in that area.

I agree with you Chicklet

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: It shouldn't be difficult........

.... I believe that the law is quite definite on the fact that a thirteen year old is a child.

In this country at least

 

[hiddenself]

Haven't we done this before?

1. Lit's enforcement of the age limit has very little to do with law. It's simply that Laurel finds sex stories with underage characters distasteful or offensive (I forget her exact words).

2. Does violence on TV cause violence in the streets? Do violent lyrics cause kids to go shoot a bunch of other kids at school?

One can always point to isolated linked incidents for anything. But, QM, if you ask any scientist, an N of 1 does not a causal effect prove. In fact, there has been no scientifically established causal link between any of the above (including a link between reading underage sex stories and actual paedophilia).

That's what Pure was trying to say (I believe). If you kept an open mind yourself QM, you should have been able to see it before ranting. Chill man.

The bottom line: it's a morality issue and as such a more-or-less personal (subjective) decision.

 

[Pure]

Hi Gauche,

In further reference to your claim,

//Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques whether remembered, in the past, brought forward in a time machine or reverse ageing all pander to what the 'law' (Lit. or otherwise) class as paedophilia. //

Check out the following 'paedophiliac' pictures easily available on the 'net. You'll probably find the first one especially hot since a boy and girl are involved.

Isn't it hard to believe "the law" (Lit. or otherwise) allows such things?? allows this posting?? that you can actually _buy_ these on the 'net?



=======
First Kiss, by Bouguereau
http://www.artsender.com/gallery/details.asp?PaintingID=560

=====
Hylas and the Nymphs, by Waterhouse
http://www.artmagick.com/images/paintingsJune/waterhouse/waterhouse50.jpg

http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/waterhouse/WAJ011.html

http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/waterhouse/WAJ021.html

======
Nymphaeum, by Bouguereau

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/nymphaem.htm

http://artwork.barewalls.com/product/artwork.exe?ArtworkID=75232&ProductID=52452

http://www.barewalls.com/product/closeup.asp?ArtworkID=75232&img=d37631

======
Nymphs and Satyr, Bouguereau
http://artwork.barewalls.com/product/artwork.exe?ArtworkID=75236&ProductID=52456

 

[Pure]

To Quasimodem,

This is in reference to your claims about Serling's movie causing crimes.

http://mtr.inet7.com/PressRoom/pressRelease/01092002.htm

======
[showings of Serling's movies]

April 9 to 14 in New York / April 10 to 14 in Los Angeles

The Doomsday Flight (1966; 90 minutes)

The Twilight Zone: “The Jeopardy Room” (1964; 25 minutes)

Based on an incident related to Serling by his brother Bob, an aviation journalist, The Doomsday Flight, with Edmond O’Brien, Jack Lord, and Van Johnson, imagines a bomb hidden aboard a passenger plane, set to detonate when the aircraft dips below an altitude of 4,000 feet. The technically detailed scenario inspired a slew of unfortunate copycat crimes and crank calls—the first of which was phoned in to an airline before the
program had finished airing—as well as the 1994 action-adventure film Speed. “I wish to hell I’d never written the damn thing,” Serling told reporters, later adding, “A writer can’t be responsible for the pathology of idiots.”

====

I rather like the last sentence of Serlings. So I'm willing to concede a link of reading/viewing and crime for isolated cases of pathological idiots. Would you agree, however, that this mini-fact is irrelevant to public policy or lawmaking?

Note, of course, in view of your concern for crime, that the movie makers--allegedly freaked out over 'Doomsday'-- went ahead, in 1994, with a similar idea of a special bomb, this time in a bus. The movie _Speed_ was fantastically successful. Maybe you saw it. Worried?

 

[gauchecritic]

Originally posted by Pure
Hi Gauche,

Let's see if we can get past the AURRUGG FAWW level, and see what the issue is.


Gauche said.


Paedophilia; The condition of being sexually attracted to children.

Pandering: To do something that someone wants.

Which part of it isn't true?
===

I reply:

That's a sloppy definition of 'pandering'. Probably you haven't consulted a law text or even a dictionary.

G: Implying that I won't be arsed to look in a dictionary does not vallidate anything merely inflames. (I did, it did)

Pander: to minister to a baser passion of someone else. to help to satisfy another's corrupt desires, (metaphorically the equivalent of procuring a prostitute for someone).

So, 'budding breasts' do not 'pander' to anything. They just are. There's millions of them.

So maybe you're trying to say that the *depiction* of a budding breast 'panders.'

G: Maybe you're trying to be argumentative for it's own sake and ignoring implied actions ie that of writing about youth in a sexual manner. Being a Lit. 'discussion' I thought you might take that as a given.

Again, not true. Further you don't seem cognizant of the differences between: a photo; a drawing; a passage of prose.

G: If you need to argue please argue about things that I actually write and not any misguided inferences that you draw about my capacity of knowledge.

Porn laws generally focus on the first, since that means an actual child was used.

THEN it would be pornographic. So the 'prurient interest' is a topic not to assumed from the depiction alone, but to be established, on the evidence.

G: We are talking about this site. Lots of authors here would be shocked to find you referring to their work as pornographic. Prurient interest "just is". Knowing that certain groups of people are interested in something always colours their publication. The question of it being 'art' or 'science' holds no interest to those whose motives are prurient.

In the case of stories, which is, after all the original topic, the mention of a 'budding breast' may or may not have that appeal to prurient interest, depending on the story.

J.

G: Once again, it matters not the reason for writing the story, my original (dictionary) definition of pandering still holds true. The prurient interest is there, the written work is there, therefore someone is being, however inadvertantly, pandered to.

If your next post in answer to this includes anything about the differences between implied/inferred or the use and misuse of prepositions then I will consider this 'discussion' ended.

Gauche

One other thing; Why do you assume that I will be interested in perusing 'pruriently' interesting (I'm assuming art works) and that a depiction of two members of the opposite sex kissing would hold any interest for me at all?

 

[Pure]

Gauche said, earlier:

Pandering: To do something that someone wants.


Pure said:
//That's a sloppy definition of 'pandering'. Probably you haven't consulted a law text or even a dictionary. //

Gauche responded,
G: Implying that I won't be arsed to look in a dictionary does not vallidate [sic] anything merely inflames. (I did, it did)

G: Once again, it matters not the reason for writing the story, my original (dictionary) definition of pandering still holds true. The prurient interest is there, the written work is there, therefore someone is being, however inadvertantly[sic], pandered to.

[I respond:]
OK, prove me wrong: cite the full definition and give the title, date and page of the dictionary.

The concept of 'inadvertent pandering' is basically nonsense, as it would apply to anatomy texts. It would, in particular, be irrelevant in any court proceeding about obscenity/pornography. You do not seem familiar with the relevant laws which specify exemptions for scientific and genuine artistic works, and these terms specifically allude to (creator's) intent.

Someone's 'prurient interest' in the handle of a screwdriver does not make it any less a screwdriver, and does not make the manufacturer an 'inadvertent panderer.'


Gauche said,

Lots of authors here would be shocked to find you referring to their work as pornographic.

That's really deep, man. (Of course, some have a preference for the more genteel term, 'erotica', as in: "My graphic depictions are erotic; yours, merely pornographic.")

According to your approach, the author's view is not determinative; s/he could still be 'inadvertently pandering.' If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

 

[gauchecritic]

If you can't take my word for the definition reference then I will definitely not pander to your whims.

Hmm pointing out typos and mis-spellings in a quote. That came very close.

Inadvertent (sp) pandering still holds true in the matter of sexual tittilation. Whether the law decides on the author's views being deterministic or not does nothing to detract from sexual descriptions of young people being fodder for paedophilia in whatever context.

Next time you're in the library look up words like 'fuck' and cunt' and see how many of them are underlined in ink. They didn't include them for pubescent schoolchildren to giggle over but still they do.

The screw driver being used in a manner for which it is not fitted or having an effect on someones sexual motivation is pure flummery, as well you know.

Authors being shocked was merely an observation based on threads regarding the same matter and is wholely subjective. (And therefore of little consequence with regard to your interpretation)

If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

I really don't understand your logic here.
You are attempting to imply that any piece of literature of a sexual nature will be the root cause of any sexual deviance perpetrated and then give as your tautological evidence a very specific piece of 'art' being tittilating to one who's proclivities extend towards children.

Either you're making this up as you go along or you've run out of arguement.

Gauche

 

[Alex756]

(original quote by Pure)
If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

I really don't understand your logic here.
You are attempting to imply that any piece of literature of a sexual nature will be the root cause of any sexual deviance perpetrated and then give as your tautological evidence a very specific piece of 'art' being tittilating to one who's proclivities extend towards children.

Gauche

I have to agree wtg GC here. What if someone buys a book on how to embalm a person and goes out and kills somoene and does that to them? is the writer of the text for Mortuary science at fault?

If someone writes an autobiography of being attacked and nearly killed and someone goes out and copycats that attacker's actions is the writer at fault?

The thing we don't like to see in the society is people do bad things and no one MAKES them do this. Romeo and Juliet invovled monors, should we burn that? writing is not a crime in the portions of this world that are free.

What is alowed on a -private- site (which this is) is wholey up to the owner. completely seperate matter. But writing no matter how tittilating, is not a crime.

Alex

 

[Guest]

excuse me, Dr. M.

Not to be merely fatuous, but I simply need to underscore and thank Gauche. He makes the most sense here, therefore impenetrable to the nonsensical.

Thanks GC. - Purr

 

[Pure]

Gauche said,


Inadvertent (sp) pandering still holds true in the matter of sexual tittilation. Whether the law decides on the author's views being deterministic or not does nothing to detract from sexual descriptions of young people being fodder for paedophilia in whatever context.

Then all sexual descriptions are 'fodder' ( inadvertent pandering to) any number of deviations; your erotica is possible fodder for depraved sexual criminals.

Repeating a silly statement does nothing to make it believable. I posted url for a sexual depiction of two young people. Do you have a problem with anatomy books? Of what use is your "fodder" characterization if it can't distinguish anatomy illustration from porn?


Next time you're in the library look up words like 'fuck' and cunt' and see how many of them are underlined in ink. They didn't include them for pubescent schoolchildren to giggle over but still they do.

Of course that wouldn't be pedophilia, our present topic, but sexual curiousity. Let me ask you this, if you write porn/erotica and employ four letter words, do you mind providing 'fodder' to, and 'inadvertently pandering' to some sickos?

I'm with Serling on this--as is the law, btw-- isolated reactions of pathological idiots are not the author's concern (and do NOT go towards an accurate characterization of his/her work).

 

[Pure]

Alex 756,

I'm afraid you were misled by Gauche's quote of me, out of context.

I said,

According to your [Gauche's] approach, the author's view is not determinative; s/he could still be 'inadvertently pandering.' If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

The paragraph, as its opening sentence states is an unravelling of the consequences of Gauche's position. It's not my own position. Gauche's concern with 'inadvertent pandering'--an original, if silly concept-- leads to the consequences I described.

To wit, all sexual depictions become of concern because of the potential for 'inadvertant pandering.' This contrasts with my position that it's the author's intent and the context of a sexual depiction-- not its sometime use-- that goes toward the decision,
'is it child porn or obscenity involving children?'

Remember that the original issue is Gauche's ill advised statements about budding breasts and pedophilia and pandering --as he creatively defined it--and somehow that that's relevant Laurel's rules about stories with those under 18.

Best,
J.

 

[Guest]

After Quasimodem, AURRUGHHH! FAWH!

This whole 'argument' sounds so much like the U.S. Catholic bishops over the past year; all about definition of terms and law.

Perdita