(Once again the author of this lengthy essay goes by the name of Dissident and gave me permission to re-post it here. I’m grateful to him for allowing me to re-post it and for taking the time to write it in the first place. When it comes to child porn, most mass media outlets resemble puppets controlled by masters in politics, law enforcement, and NCMEC. Honest debate, access to accurate information, and policies based on facts instead of fantasy are surely needed.)

Whenever any government, or any church, or anyone else for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects: “This book you may not read, this film you may not watch, this image you may not see, this knowledge you may not have,” then the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.

– Robert A. Heinlein, “If This Goes On…”

Previously, I composed an essay discussing the question of legality about the very emotionally-charged subject of CP [what our culture and penal system commonly calls ‘child pornography’] and its relevance to the youth liberation movement. But there are many broader implications regarding why CP should be legal outside of the various points I made in that previous essay. Before I get into them, however, I would like to say a few things about CP to make my stance, as well as that of the broader pro-choice segment of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community, crystal clear to all who read this.

Most of us (including myself) do not support an “absolutely anything goes” attitude regarding the production of CP, especially when it comes to prepubescent children rather than adolescents. I fully believe that prepubescents should never appear in what we call “hardcore” pornography that would include large amounts of sexual activity–either with peers or adults–that would likely prove physically injurious to them–such as full penetrative intercourse–and which they would not likely seek out in real life. Accordingly, there is a big difference between “child pornography” and what may best be labeled child erotica. I would see no problem with prepubescents who possess an exhibitionist streak in them (and our society is well aware that such children do exist, despite our strong attempts to deny it) to appear in mildly erotic films where they engage in what we often call ‘sex play’ with people of various ages–depending upon what the child in question would agree to as per their individual tastes–which prepubescents of a slightly older age (say, six years old and up) at least semi-regularly do with peers and sometimes with adults whom they trust and have bonded with in a certain way.

I also have no problem with prepubescents appearing nude in films, including mainstream films, as long as they have no objections, since–as I explained in my aforementioned previous essay–I do not think it’s logical or healthy for our culture to promulgate the idea that there is something inherently ugly or “obscene” about the nude youthful form, or even about normal youth sexual activity. Prepubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently “wrong” with this–though this positive attitude about youth sexuality has been diminishing in these foreign Western nations due to constant aggressive American and British influence over the past two decades. In fact, it’s largely American and British culture who has this irrational fear and loathing of anything remotely to do with youthful nudity and sexual activity despite their reality throughout human history, and it’s the governments of these two nations who put so much pressure on artists of all stripes in nations both within and outside of the West to stifle all such attempts. As such, foreign films depicting a “coming of age” theme have become noticeably less “bold” (read: realistic) in their portrayal of these normal aspects of the lives of youths over the past decade, the first of the 21st century. I’m sure if the current American mindset had its way, all “coming of age” films would be produced for suitability to air on the Disney Channel.

Read the rest of this entry »

(The author of this lengthy essay goes by the name of Dissident and gave me permission to re-post it here.)

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

– C.S. Lewis

I extend many thanks to the crew of GirlChat [GC] for their invaluable editorial assist on the earliest draft of this essay, and I have incorporated several suggestions and anecdotes from them. Particular thanks goes to my fellow GC posters Baldur, qtns2di4, Summerdays, CatcherintheRye, Sancho Panza, and Little Girl Lover.

Recently I composed an essay designed to answer a question I often hear from individuals as to why the age of consent [AoC] laws are of any importance to the youth liberation movement, and if perhaps the pro-choice faction of the MAA [Minor Attracted Adult] community is simply being “selfish” for arguing that it is. Today, I move on to what may be considered the second part of that essay, which brings the same question to the fore regarding the many types of imagery and writing that may be classified as CP [child pornography] by the government of any given country. In other words, in this essay I will give a response to the many variations of the following question and accompanying comment that I often hear: “What does CP have to do with youth liberation? I don’t think any youth under the age of 18 would ever have the slightest interest in appearing in erotic photography or videos, so I think it’s foolish, selfish, and counter-productive for the pro-choice faction of the MAA community to support its legalization even in a future youth liberated society.” That is quite a bold question and follow-up statement, but does it actually hold up to close scrutiny and logical analysis?

To begin with, one who has the above contention would have to answer the question as to why so many young people over the age of 18 so obviously have a desire to appear in films and photoshoots of an erotic nature, yet be simultaneously certain that absolutely no young person under the age of 18–even just a few years younger–would have a similar desire to do so. Does it make logical sense for youth liberationists to argue that those we today designate ‘underagers’–particularly those in adolescence–have many of the same capabilities or desires as older people with the sole exception of the desire to publicly express their sexuality?

First of all, what does the heavy proliferation of the sexting phenomenon amongst underagers who own cell phones say about this? Please note the online news reports here, here, and here, as just a few examples that one can find with a simple Google search. Although one can and will argue that those pics are designed entirely for the eyes of significant others and not for public consumption, one has to consider a few things: 1) it’s illegal for underagers to post nude or overly provocative pics of themselves on public venues, and 2) many do so anyway on their socnet pages on MySpace and Facebook, and not all who do this keep those pages–and therefore access to their photo sections–private.

Then one has to consider the proliferation over the past two decades of the online youth modeling sites, many of which remain legal despite strong attempts by the American government to criminalize the entire industry. These modeling sites often feature girls (and sometimes boys) in highly revealing clothing and sometimes even arguably provocative poses. When one of the biggest and most well known companies producing material for youth models, Webe Web, was eradicated from existence after its three owners were brought up on CP charges (some say spuriously), the hope of the government that the entire industry based in the U.S. would be destroyed along with Webe Web was ultimately quashed. This is because several of the young models previously hosted by Webe Web subsequently went off on their own following Webe’s demise and continued working in the industry, many of them under new websites run by their parents. When the legal European youth modeling company known as the Gegg Agency fell for similar reasons, several of the girl models who were hosted by that site have likewise reappeared on other sites, also often under the auspices of their parents, who have interestingly refused to cooperate with LEAs [law enforcement agencies] in many cases; very few of these parents actually made a fuzz in the media about alleged “abuse” going on at the Gegg Agency, thus suggesting that the closing of the agency was more the result of pressure coming from the U.S. and Britain than anything more substantial. Pressure from the U.S. with likely help from Britain was known to have a large effect on the closure and indictment of youth modeling agencies situated in the Ukraine, who produced images sometimes including nudity that were not legal in the U.S. and certain other jurisdictions, but as my fellow activist qtns2di4 said, “it’s not clear that they broke local laws.” As he also noted, “As with Webe and C&G, girls and parents reappeared [on other youth modeling sites] and did not collaborate with police.” Clearly, the government and parents are often at odds when it comes to the subject of youth modeling and what does or does not constitute “appropriate” images, including the matter of simple nudity.

Read the rest of this entry »

I haven’t posted much lately but I’ve been very active. I haven’t forgotten about CPE. On contrary, I’ve had so much on my mind that I just don’t know where to start. Today I mention a website recently added to my blog roll.

First, Framed for Child Porn, setup by friends and family of Nathaniel Ethan Solon. What makes this site interesting is that it exposes just how very little evidence is needed to convict and sentence a man to 6 years in federal prison. If what put “Ned” behind bars constitutes evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” then virtually every man in the U.S. is just one (false) accusation away from spending years in a federal penitentiary. It seems like the the crimen exceptum was in full force for Ned. The State didn’t need to prove his guilt, he was expected to prove his innocence. And when he couldn’t, away he went. And hardly anyone batted an eyelid.

Much more to follow.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -Juvenal (Literally: “Who will guard the guards themselves?” modern usage: “Who watches the watchmen?”)

Stephen Mason, blogging for Psychology Today, posted a piece he called Kiddie Porn. It’s a great read. It’s theme is very much the theme of the fox in the hen house. But the best and most relevant part of his post I’ll save for almost last. In all the clips below the emphasis was made by me.

Years ago, practically the entire staff of a day school in Southern California was locked up after kids related lurid tales of Satanic rituals conducted in a series of underground bunkers. In the end, the school building was razed and the grounds torn up in a futile search for the lustful lairs .

This reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials. Neurotic adults spurred on a couple of fantasy prone kids and, before you know it, there were bonfires of little old ladies. I think it’s telling that, in every case, the accused were said to have had unnatural sex with the devil. Of course, this opens the door to “natural” sex with the Devil but that’s beside the point.

Nobody spoke out and yet and you just know that at least of few of the locals must have recognized nutty behavior when they saw it. The reason for their silence is clear enough. They were afraid of being condemned. When hysteria breaks out, even if you never fooled around – naturally or unnaturally – with the Devil, it doesn’t matter. You’re going to be accused for the sins that exist mostly in the heads of the accusers.


A simple truth – if you want the truth – is that run away emotion speaks to an unresolved conflict in the individual. The guy who wants to kill all Queers is not the guy you want standing behind you in the Men’s Room. The same applies to those who would kill all pedophiles {or CP viewers, who may or may not be pedophiles} but love coaching the junior softball team.

Now for the best part:

Years ago, I did some work for a police department in a major US city. Walking past Vice, I noticed a detective watching a kiddy porn video. When I asked about it, he told me he watched for a few hours every day. It stimulated him to go out and catch the “%#@%$# Chicken Hawks.” I abhor crudity to animals so maybe I should spend time watching cock, dog and bull fights? It might stimulate me…you think?

Sounds like a sweet job for a child porn fan. Finally some very sage advice from Dr. Mason:

When a finger points, don’t look at where it’s pointed before you first look at whose doing the pointing.

That’s got ‘Ernie Allen’ written ALL OVER IT.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -Juvenal (Literally: “Who will guard the guards themselves?” modern usage: “Who watches the watchmen?”)

Neil M. Cohen‘s connection with child pornography first broke in July 2008. Cohen was a Deputy Assembly Speaker in the New Jersey statehouse. NJ.com reported on his case and said that

Among the more than 100 laws Cohen has sponsored is one that created a 24-hour hotline for members of the public to report computer crimes, including child pornography.

Cohen’s case has made its way through the legal system and the Associated Press reports on this. Two things stand out.

Neil Cohen, 59, acknowledged viewing and printing images meant for sexual gratification from a computer in his former legislative office.

The text “meant for sexual gratification” is interesting. It should be irrelevant whether Cohen was aroused or repulsed by the images. If we take into consideration how a defendant felt about an image in determining whether that image is or is not child pornography, then we are really trying him for his feelings and not for his actions. Also it’s interesting how neither this article or any others I’ve see about Cohen allude to how the images he had were the worst imaginable kind or had infants being raped. Is it Cohen’s high profile position that caused the police to withhold such statements, or were such statements not representative of the images Cohen viewed? Could it be that Cohen’s images and interests were in little more than teenage girls shaking their boobs?

The Associated Press article also includes this

“Mr. Cohen, through his actions in viewing and distributing child pornography, linked himself to an abhorrent industry that preys on children,” Attorney General Paula Dow said in a statement. “Every single person who willingly enters the criminal network of suppliers and users of child pornography becomes part of the tragic exploitation and abuse of the innocent victims.”

I wish Dow would clarify how “an abhorrent industry that preys on children” and “criminal network of suppliers and users of child pornography” and “innocent victims” all relate to the teenage girls who are threatened with child pornography prosecution for “sexting” racy pictures of themselves to their boyfriends?

Dow’s statement is suspicious, especially her use of the terms “industry” and “criminal network”. I’ve just finished Philip Jenkin’s Beyond Tolerance, and already a relevant passage comes to mind.

The non-commercial nature of the {child porn} trade deserves emphasis, because so many writers on the topic still make highly inaccurate remarks about the supposedly profitable nature of the trade and its organized-crime ties: this image is reinforced by the misleading word industry for the child porn world. 1

Jenkins knew this back in 2001, and in the last three years I’ve found nothing to contradict his earlier findings. Dow should know this too, so her use of this inflammatory language smacks of a deliberate lie and an intentional distortion of the reality of the child porn world.

1 Philip Jenkins, Beyond Tolerance, (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 91

This is the first post of a new project I’m starting that I call ‘Their Side of the Story’. The news is filled with tales of investigation, arrest, conviction, and sentencing of those suspected of accessing child porn. The stories often quote a police investigator, sometimes a coworker, sometimes a family member. When these stories are posted on the website of a media outlet that allows reader comments, the comments are almost uniformly hostile even when the case is at the stage of the initial arrest or accusation, with few daring to even suggest that the accused could possibly be innocent. The crimen exceptum reigns.

Almost never does the accused get to say anything. But now a few of them are going to get a chance to tell their side of the story. In a free society (and it’s an open question if the United States can any longer be considered a free society) all should be free to express their views and to answer their accusers. I’m proud to be helping these people do this.

The names or initials they use are probably pseudonyms. I don’t ask them for their real identity. My only contact with them is through anonymous e-mail.

So, without further ado:

A child porn offender, this is my story

Hi, I’m a convicted child porn offender, this is my story. For about 5 years I indulged in CP. I surfed the web many countless hours looking for the free stuff. At the turn of the century there was a lot of it available for free. I also purchased memberships to the pay sites because this is where the good pictures were. I probably joined at least 50 of these sites in that period.

The sites I was purchasing memberships were called Lolita or Loli sites. The free stuff I downloaded was classified as erotica. These sites generally had girls posing with cloths on or nude. Not a single site I joined had sex play or simulated sex. They were similar to Playboy or Penthouse. Each girl would do a series of photos generally showing 20 to 50 pictures in varies stages of dress and undress. The quality of the sites varied greatly. From blurry barely distinguishable to HD quality. The girls appears to be happy, healthy, and they looked like they were enjoying themselves. None of the content was the worst ever you hear the LEO’s and D.A’s talk about. Other then a few nasty true CP I saw while downloading the free pictures I seldom ever saw the horrible pictures that are talked about. The billion dollar CP industry is nothing but lies. I spent 5 years looking through many CP sites and there’s no possible way it would add up to a billion dollars. Sites cost anywhere from $29.95 to $59.95 to join. A few cost $99.99. Do the math and see how many memberships it would take to add to a billion..

The content was from simple nudity you would find in nudist magazines to very erotic. What ultimately lead to my arrest and conviction was the lascivious exhibition of the genitals. In plan English. Spread eagle shots. An interesting footnote on this during the sentencing faze of my ordeal my lawyer showed me the pictures that the D.A. was using against me and it was from a magazine from the 70’s which was legally produced at the time. The picture was a girl about 8 years old doing a spread eagle pose. At the time this was produced she was a model who was payed very well to pose for pictures like this.

The way I was caught was my credit card was traced. I bought a few memberships which were apart of Operation Falcon. These sites were nothing more the nude pictures of girls between 8 yrs old to about 15.
The pictures were very similar to the L.S. model agency which were popular at the time. The LS studios were a part of the Ukrainian CP raids in 2004.

On the day I had the “visit” I was sleeping, early in the morning I heard a very loud banging on my door. The cop who was knocking banged so hard he cracked my door. To this day loud knocking freaks me out. Even people shutting their car doors outside makes me edgy.

The whole ordeal felt like a home invasion, the only difference is I had no legal recourse. The cops looked through all my stuff with very little respect. They took my computer, and any pictures I had of girls. They took about 10 Kirsten Dunst autograph pictures which to this day I never got back.

There were 3 cops, Two of them played the bad cop good cop game. The other just did her job. She didn’t say hardly a thing. After they left I had to quickly get a Lawyer, I lucked out and got one of the best ones in town, but he came with a fairly high cost. It cost about $15,000 total for him to do his job. Plus another $1000 for a psychologist to evaluate me. Without the shrinks opinion the Lawyer would have had very little to defend me with to recommend a minimum sentence..

After dealing with the Lawyer the next 6 months or so were some of the hardest moments of my life. The waiting to see what happens was very stressful. At first I slept about 13 hours a say. I had no ambition to do anything, sleeping was my only comfort.

Then the big day finally came, my Lawyer did a fairly good job and I got sentenced to 20 days of work release and 3 years probation. By today’s standards I basically got nothing.

After the sentencing a new Hell began. The first slap in the face was the massive amount of restrictions my Probation officer gave me. I had about 60 rules to follow. Other then the usual can’t drink alcohol rules I could not have a Playstation or a cellphone. There were a number of them relating to Jonbenet Ramsey. I could not have cable television. I could not have a VCR or DVD player. The P.O. basically took any form of entertainment from me. Which I had to endure for 3 years. I did follow the rules imposed on me and I was one of the few who wasn’t put on a P.O. hold. (thrown in jail while the DOJ investigates you) My P.O. told me this.

My stay in jail while short was miserable. Nobody messed with me and very few people even asked what I did, the ones who asked I told them I was there for drunk driving. My fellow inmates were ok in general and the staff was professional. The guards could be assholes at times but in most cases was because most of the inmates were too lazy to keep the place clean. The food was mostly bad. There were a few meals which were ok but most were just edible. Sleeping wasn’t very easy. We all were in a big dorm room with bunk beds. We slept on a solid steel frame with a hard mattress. We could not have pillows. It was uncomfortable and loud. People snoring made it tough to sleep. When you are used to being alone being in a dorm room with a lot of guys is not a good environment for rest.

The SOT (sex offender therapy) group I had to go to were at times bearable and other times very difficult to deal with. The shrink was the type of guy who loved to intimidate people. The bad thing is the offender was put in a situation were all you could do is take it like a beaten dog and go in the corner. If you argued or tried common sense logic you were kicked out of the group and you could go to prison to serve your whole sentence. With that hanging over our heads we all went along with the program. There was no choice.

My family was supportive, they do not believe the type of pictures I looked at should be illegal and have such grave consequences. But they are very hard to talk with about the subject. My dad always tried to change the subject matter. My parents are very ashamed of anything dealing with sex. While they don’t believe I should have been punished for what I did they are not advocates of child/adult sexual relations. They do not believe in them and told me so. My brother who lives in another state from me never talks about it. He gave some advice to my parents early on about the situation but that was it.

As for my friends, one of them thinks it’s bogus I got in trouble. He thinks people are too sex phobic. He does not believe people should get in trouble for looking at pictures. He said I should have taken my case to trial. But when you are looking at up to 18 years in prison a plea bargain of a short jail sentence with work release and probation didn’t seem to bad. The people who I worked with were friends of mine at one time, but because of this they are no longer. One of the guys who works there told me one guy said he would kill me if I went anywhere near his daughter. While I would physically destroy him he’s loony enough to use a gun on me. The other people who are apart of this so called group don’t say much to me. I’m basically an outsider at work. The only solace I get is I’ve been promoted so I tell them what to do.

Right now I’m still paranoid of loud knocks and people closing their car doors. I really have only 1 friend left. But I don’t worry about it to much. I work out and keep myself busy.

A Tale of Two Images

March 24, 2010

It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven,
we were all going direct the other way
–Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

What would you feel if I told you I was going to show you an image of a naked, crying, terrified, 9-year-old girl, who’d just had something horrible done to her?

What would you feel if I told you I was going to show you an image of a naked, healthy, 9-year-old boy, who appears to be masturbating?

The first image I can show you. It’s at Wikipedia, it won a Pulitzer Prize, it was the World Press Photo of the Year in 1972.

The second image I can’t show you. I don’t have the image, haven’t seen the image, and merely possessing or distributing such an image could land you in a Federal penitentiary for five years since it meets the Federal definition of child pornography. But there’s ample evidence that such images do exist.

The President of NCMEC (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children), Ernie Allen, says that images of child pornography are “are crime scene photos, images of the sexual abuse of a child. They are contraband, direct evidence of the sexual victimization of a child.”

I’d say the first image, Nick Ut’s famous photo showing the horrors of the Vietnam War is a crime scene photo. It’s evidence of what I would call a war crime or even a crime against humanity–the dropping of napalm on civilians.

I’d like to hear Ernie Allen’s explanation of what crime is being shown in the second image. Is the boy sexually abusing himself? Is it a crime for a nine year old boy to masturbate? I remember fondling myself at age nine and the wonderful tingling sensations it caused. Was I sexually victimizing myself? If so, I didn’t notice it then, and I don’t regret it now.

So why the great disparity in the treatment of these two images? I can think of a lot of reasons, but I don’t think the real reason has anything to do with sexual victimization, or with one or the other or image being a crime scene photo. Maybe, just maybe, the real reason is that a small minority of people actually enjoy looking at photos like the the second photo.

A writer for The Atlantic, Megan McArdle, did a piece on non-offending pedophiles. She dragged child porn into the piece, and demonstrates a limited and simplistic understanding of the subject, stating “because the man who purchases child pornography is encouraging its manufacture”. The unstated premise of that statement is that child porn is typically purchased, which is completely unsubstantiated.

In a brief follow up, she publishes an e-mail she received from an anonymous prosecutor. Part of the prosecutor’s e-mail says:

I have seen a good number of men go to prison for child pornography that is found on their computers, and I must say that I’m not exactly sure how I feel about it. During my first few years as a prosecutor I wanted them locked up for as long as possible for two obvious reasons: first, they may very likely act out on their desires and victimize a child (who will of course be likely to victimize another child when they reach adult age). Second, as a way to deter the manufacturing of child pornography by removing the possible market. I’ve come to realize that the second reason is about as hopeless as thinking that by locking up drug users I can stop drug dealers. The market will always be there.

The prosecutor’s first reason is really outside the scope of CP Explosion, so I’ll only say that I’m unaware of any study purporting to show a link between child porn viewing and sexual crimes against children that isn’t crippled by sample bias. The second reason though is eerily reminiscent of the position held by LEAP regarding drugs.

There are no scientific studies I’m aware of, but all the anecdotal evidence suggests that no “penalty” will discourage people from seeking out child porn. A combination of factors including long prison sentences, extreme ostracism, and a feeling that there’s little hope of even getting a fair trail if accused have completely failed to deter people from seeking out child porn. I don’t think that even implementing capital punishment for child porn possession would make more than a minor impact on the child porn trade. The use of the term “trade” rather than “market” is intentional and almost certainly more accurate.

Stasi Officer: “Sit Down. Hands under your thighs, palms down. What do you have to tell us?”
East Germany citizen: “I’ve done nothing. I know nothing.”
Stasi Officer: “You’ve done nothing, know nothing… You think we imprison people on a whim?”
East German citizen: “No…”
Stasi Officer: “If you think our humanistic system capable of such a thing, that alone would justify your arrest.”
-The opening scene of The Lives of Others

One of my passions is film. I especially enjoy Indie and Arthouse films, and also old European classics. In the past year I’ve seen many films that would be a little interest to the average American moviegoer. But two of the films I’ve seen are surprisingly relevant to the media discussion of child porn. The first being Pier Giuseppe Murgia’s 1977 film Spielen wir Liebe (aka Maladolescenza, aka Adolescent Malice) and the other Dusan Makavejev’s 1974 film Sweet Movie.

Spielen wir Liebe has a cast of just three, Laura Wendel, Eva Ionesco, and Martin Loeb. The cast members would have been about 13, 13, and 18 years old respectively when the film was released. One review of Spielen wir Liebe begins

Children aren’t always as innocent as they seem if Maladolescenza is anything to go by, in many ways a discomforting drama from 1977 that undoubtedly has to be among the most controversial and scandalous movies ever to come out of Italy. With a cast consisting of no more than three it takes the form of a tense chamber play whose plot is played out in a pictorial forest where the two adolescents Fabrizio (Martin Loeb) and Laura (Lara Wendel) are meeting every day in their summer holidays – just like they’ve been doing for the past few years. Laura is deeply in love with the somewhat older Fabrizio, even though he constantly makes fun of and teases her with it. He wouldn’t, however, mind sleeping with her but she’s not ready to go all the way like he wants her to. Enter the chilly, pretty Sylvia (Eva Ionesco) – a little, manipulative blonde and quite a bit of a seductress. She doesn’t hesitate to seduce the lustful Fabrizio with her willingness and easily manages to twist him around her little finger, which ignites a cruel ménage à trois with a dramatic and fatal outcome.

Sweet Movie comes second only to Salo as the most visually shocking film I’ve ever seen. A reviewer at the IMDB says

First reaction to this challenging and astonishing film might be to pronounce it depraved or that the director is but then there is no suggestion that one will come away from this unique film a less moral person and so the accusation fails. Certainly I would like to think that for everybody there will be at least some part of this they find hard to take, indeed I don’t think I would like to sit too closely to anyone who lapped up every frame. Excess of all kind on display here plus a really difficult striptease among young children. And yet, I think despite some of the more flip and seeming silliness, Makavejev is screaming out for the individual to rediscover his private and public freedom. The Soviet Union comes in for most of the kicking, but then why wouldn’t it in 1974 when they were still presiding over the director’s birthplace and still denying the massacre of Poles so distressingly shown in original b/w footage.

These are serious films, enjoyed by aficionados who see film as art, who see film as a vehicle for social change, who see film as a means to strike out at those responsible for repression and injustice. These are not chick-flicks. These are not films you screen for your significant other on Valentine’s Day.

These films, Spielen wir Liebe and Sweet Movie are ART. These films are also considered by some to be child pornography.

In Spielen wir Liebe there’s a scene where Laura lies on her back, naked on the ground. Fabrizio, also naked, is shown briefly caressing her breasts. He’s then shown with his head at her pubic region, and Laura says “I feels warm, but it is not bad.” Soon he mounts her in the missionary position, and his naked body is briefly shown atop hers. This scene is not explicit sex like you would find in an adult pornographic film. It’s comparable to a sex scene in one of today’s R-rated movies. Further into the film, Fabrizio and Sylvia are naked, with Fabrizio appearing to perform oral sex on Sylvia. Shortly after he’s shown atop Sylvia and moving as if they are having intercourse, though their genitals are not visible. Fabrizio and Sylvia are shown naked several more times and in additional sexual encounters. As I was writing this I checked and found Spielen wir Liebe for sale on eBay.

The striptease in Sweet Movie involves a woman, barely dressed to begin with, who performs for four (?) boys in a bizarre candy shop. The boys seem to be eating candy and appear to be about 9 years old. The woman’s breast is shown about a foot from one boy’s face. She slowly unzips another boys pants. She kisses two of the boys and wraps some of her discarded clothing around their heads and necks. One boy lightly touches her bare stomach and slightly touches her bare ass. Near the end, the woman’s crotch, almost completely exposed, is within 6 inches of another boy’s face. You can rent Sweet Movie from Netflix and see it for yourself.

Now remember the case of the Pennsylvania Grandmother, Donna Dull, arrested on child pornography charges (dropped 15 months later) for a picture of “A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder.”

Now consider this statement (source) by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

Child pornography is misnamed and misunderstood. It is not pornography. It is not protected speech. It is not victimless crime. These are crime scene photos, images of the sexual abuse of a child. They are contraband, direct evidence of the sexual victimization of a child.

A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder. Crime scene photo. Direct evidence of the sexual victimization of a child. I don’t see the connection. Former York County District Attorney H. Stanley Rebert apparently did.

Something doesn’t add up. I notice this in most everything I read and hear about child pornography.

I don’t think the war on child porn is something those waging it ever plan on winning. Too much is at stake. The war on child porn is a proxy for other things. Like establishing government monitoring of the Internet. Like finding something to replace the war on drugs in case the war on drugs should continue to lose favor with the public. Like controlling the sexual thoughts of the public. Like restricting the work of artists, who have a nasty habit of challenging authority.

For now, the government doesn’t dare go after films like Spielen wir Liebe and Sweet Movie. But the way things are going, it’s only a matter of time. Better see them while you still can.

P.S. Eva Ionesco was a very attractive thirteen year old girl. If you’re a man and watch Spielen wir Liebe when you’re alone you–on second thought, I probably shouldn’t say that. Eva Ionesco is supposedly the youngest person to pose nude for Playboy (in the Italian edition, October 1976) when she was eleven. I haven’t seen this issue, so I can’t say what the images show. But I’d like to see it. Even better, I’d like to hear what Ernie Allen has to say about Eva Ionesco’s Playboy pictorial. Is it child porn, Ernie, or is it art? What about Spielen wir Liebe, Ernie, is it child porn or is it art? Looking at Eva Ionesco’s filmography at the IMDB, it doesn’t appear that the Playboy pictorial or Spielen wir Liebe has hurt her career.

Recently another case appeared highlighting the vast chasm between what government, law, and their media puppets would like us to believe:

Child pornography is now seen as ‘the visual record of the sexual abuse of a child, either by adults, other children or which involves bestiality’. (Source)

and the reality:

Rebert said in Dull’s case, “What made them offensive was their graphic nature. A little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder.

“It’s a difficult distinction to make. What’s a cute butt and what’s pornographic? (Source)

Rebert is the York County, PA, district attorney. I’m not a district attorney, but I know the difference between a cute butt and pornography. Someone who can’t make that distinction has no business overseeing child pornography charges against a 56 year old grandmother.

The best piece I’ve found on this case is at Reason.

What makes this case extra interesting is the treatment given the grandmother when she was arrested for a picture of “a little girl with her bare butt showing, kind of looking over her shoulder”.

Dull maintains she was handcuffed “tightly in a rough, vigorous and aggressive manner” and slammed into a parked car with enough force that her head bounced off the vehicle, resulting in injuries to her back. (Source)

Why is it that the police felt it was OK to treat a 56 year old grandmother this way? Most likely it was the idea of crimen exceptum.

The clear relationship between the elements that make up the police state, including the inevitable ‘legislative creep’ that makes it possible can be seen from the above. A key sub-element in the doctrines and dogmas is the crimen exceptum, the designated crime for which normal law and the processes of justice are suspended – heresy, witchcraft, being a Jew in Nazi Germany, child sex abuse, child porn, and so on. Note how child porn has been used to transform the Internet into a tool of repression and fear and a powerful device for the police and prosecution state. (Source)