PDA

View Full Version : The Vampire Armand, Kiddie Porn


Scylla
12-26-2000, 10:06 PM
About 10 years ago I started reading Ann Rice's Vampire series. I thought Interview with the Vampire and The Vampire Lestat were pretty enjoyable. Things went rapidly downhill with The Queen of the Damned, got even worse with The Tale of the Body Thief, and then started to get interesting again with [Memnoch the Devil and Pandora though never reaching their earlier quality.

While travelling this holiday I got fogged in at LAX, and saw that her new book [The Vampire Armand was in paperback. Remembering upswing in the quality of her vampire books I purchased it. It was just the thing for a three hour fog in followed by a transcontinental flight.

I got fifty pages into it, and literally got sick and through it in a trash can. I can't beleive they actually published this.

Within the first fifty pages or so, a young prepubescent boy gets brutally sodomized. Fortunately, he is rescued by the pedophilic vampire Marius who takes him to his artsy home where he performs loving fellatio on him to the boy's delight!

I was in shock, but hoped the book would move on, and kept reading. Five pages later it happened again! That's when I tossed the book.

Isn't this kiddie porn? Is this even legal? How can they publish this? I know I've been taken to account on this board for not having the most open mind, but please tell me this nobody believes this horrible and sick porn should be published.

I started posting this in the pit, but thought that maybe somebody could explain to me what the hell is going on with this vile shit. If a moderator thinks it's better suited there, please move it.

If somebody wants to debate that this is actually ok, please do so, or at least explain it to me.

MEBuckner
12-26-2000, 10:36 PM
Speaking only to the question of legality, I don't think any written work would be considered illegal under child pornography laws. Child pornography laws involve using actual children to make sexual materials. There was something called the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N48/congress.48w.html) which sought to broaden the definition to include computer simulations or "morphed" images which appear to be minor children engaging in sexual acts. This engendered quite a bit of controversy, and at least one federal judge (http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/clu040798.html#Court) seems to have found that part of the law unconstitutional.

I don't imagine any law which banned the written description of a crime--however repulsive--would pass constitutional muster in this country. You can write books about robbery, murder, you name it. You can even make movies simulating those things--countless "murders" have been filmed for TV and movies. With child pornography, the thing is that even simulated sex acts with minor children may still cross the line into child molestation (http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?number=16-6-4&Code_Number_Submit=Begin+Search) (the State of Georgia's definition; other states may vary). Making a movie of that book could run into some problems. Using of-age actors who look like children might get the filmmakers around that, legally speaking. (Hmmm--you said he was "prepubescent" which would make it pretty tough to use an 18-year-old; I suppose the screenwriter could adapt the script to make the character older, so that he could plausibly be portrayed by an 18-year-old.)

(JFTR, IANAL)

Una Persson
12-26-2000, 11:33 PM
Scylla, I agree. I love Anne Rice to death (see my .sig), but Armand made me almost too ill to finish it. I have no idea what the hell she was thinking when she wrote it.

FTR - Vittorio the Vampire by her is pretty good, and with a minimum of child sodomy. ;) (j/k)

jb_farley
12-26-2000, 11:43 PM
To clear a few things up-

that kind of thing would be illegal in Canada, at least. The English Patient (the book) was either banned or edited just for that reason.

As to having adults portray minors, I believe that is now illegal here in the states. Don't ask me why. But if one were to make an explicit "Lolita" with an of age actress, one would be prosecuted.


jb

The Asbestos Mango
12-27-2000, 12:21 AM
I stopped at Tale of the Body Theif.

I hate Anne Rice.

I periodically resurrect my feeble attempt at writing a vampire novel in which, aside from the vampire's tradtional vulnerabilities, the vampire can be repelled by the simple recitation of the sentence, "I am the Vampire Lestat." Continued reading of any randomly selected page of any book from the Vampire Chronicles would cause the vampire to writhe in agony until he finally became enraged and snatched the novel out of the reader's hand and tore it to tiny shreds.

The books are all well written, to be sure, but I take serious issue with the portrayal of undeadness as beautiful, romantic, and something generally to be sought after.

Also, the portrayal of how Lestat came to be a vampire, and simultaneously fabulously wealthy, and subsequently a rock star filled me with the urge to pound a stake through her heart while an English Literature professor stood by reading Coleridges's essay on the suspension of disbelief.

Did I mention that I hate Anne Rice?

Doug Bowe
12-27-2000, 12:39 AM
Scylla, you ask what is going on?
Simple question: What if Larry Flint had written the book instead of Rice?
----------------
My favorite outrage is "Under the Roofs of Paris" by Henry Miller. To keep food on the table Miller wrote the book as pure paid-by-the-word porn long before he became a known author. Now the book appears from time to time in supermarket selections. It's still porn.

Freudian Slit
12-27-2000, 01:14 AM
i don't see the big deal. No one was getting hurt. It was just something written...if anything, the character was getting pleasure out of it. It was pure fiction. Anyway if we outlaw the right to write about child molestation, what next? Murder? Why is this more disgusting to you than reading Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal, or anything equally that graphic...What's wrong with writing about things that are considered wrong or disgusting?

Odesio
12-27-2000, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Zoggie
i don't see the big deal. No one was getting hurt. It was just something written...if anything, the character was getting pleasure out of it. It was pure fiction. Anyway if we outlaw the right to write about child molestation, what next? Murder? Why is this more disgusting to you than reading Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal, or anything equally that graphic...What's wrong with writing about things that are considered wrong or disgusting?

Typically when those things are written about the characters performing the acts are bad guys. Considering that this is the main character of her book I could see someone making a case that she's glorifying it. I'm not interested in banning Rice books or making certain material illegal just because I, or someone else, might object to it. But I share Scylla's sentiments when he threw the book into the trash.

But I haven't read the book so I can't really comment on it. Personally I don't like Rice because I find her vampires to be rather boring characters. And I always wondered what was up with all that homoerotic stuff? Maybe I'm the only one who saw it in the first two books....uh oh, what does that say about me?!

Marc


Marc

Alessan
12-27-2000, 01:28 AM
Personally I don't like Rice because I find her vampires to be rather boring characters. And I always wondered what was up with all that homoerotic stuff? Maybe I'm the only one who saw it in the first two books....uh oh, what does that say about me?!

Oh, it's not just you. I Anne Rice's world, all men are gay, are women are just symbols, and everybody's dreamily pretentious.

Badtz Maru
12-27-2000, 02:35 AM
Anne Rice and her husband write a lot of gay porn, usually under pseudonyms. Maybe they are trying to get their more mainstream fans to crossover.

Danielinthewolvesden
12-27-2000, 04:49 AM
Anne also wrote 3 frankly porno books, mostly gay porno, and a lot with underage kids- a take of on one of the classic fairy tales. Rose?

Note that there is at least one opinion/ruling, that the written word CANNOT be illegal. Note that the Justices let anti-Kiddy porn laws go on ONLT becuase of the "fire in a crowded theatre exception"- ie in order to have kiddy-porno pictures- at least one child had to be exploited. No child is harming in the writing of anything.

However, why the holy F*CK is her publisher publishing that crapola, is another question. Greed is my answer. Same thing with emimem- his studio says the 1st Adm protects mathers right to say & write that crud- YES, it does- but that same 1st Adm does not force them to put it onto a CD and sell it!

elucidator
12-27-2000, 08:18 AM
Agreed, largely. One critic I recall said of Interview that is was populated by very good-looking young men striking poses. That nailed it. Still, a pretty good read, kind of like a bloodsucking Steppenwolf. The rest of the series is unreadable, and only exists because of the persuasive power of the zero's on the advance check.

As to kiddy porn, I share the revulsion common amongst us who are not utterly sick and twisted. None the less, I remain a First Amdmt. absolutist: you can say anything, you just can't do anything.

Reminds me of Lilly Tomlin's line "Yes, there is sex after death, you just can't feel it".

For a truly unique take on the whole vampire thing, and a darn chucklesome read, try "Blood Sucking Fiends, A Romance" by Michael Morrison. A bracing antidote to the whole narcissistic morass of Ms. Rice.

Polycarp
12-27-2000, 09:04 AM
It's amazing this thread has gotten this far without anybody bringing up Christopher -- her author son -- whose work is perhaps equally described by some of the comments given above regarding hers -- and for the obvious reason. Perhaps there is too great a density of souls in this thread? ;)

Bricker
12-27-2000, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by MEBuckner
Speaking only to the question of legality, I don't think any written work would be considered illegal under child pornography laws. Child pornography laws involve using actual children to make sexual materials. There was something called the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N48/congress.48w.html) which sought to broaden the definition to include computer simulations or "morphed" images which appear to be minor children engaging in sexual acts. This engendered quite a bit of controversy, and at least one federal judge (http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/clu040798.html#Court) seems to have found that part of the law unconstitutional.

There is a split in the federal circuits on this issue right now. The First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld the CPPA against constitutional challenge, but the Ninth Circuit struck it down as an unlawful abridgement of the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. See U.S. v. Hilton, 167 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 1999); U.S. v. Acheson, 195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999); and Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 198 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1999).

By the reasoning adopted by the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits, a law criminalizing words alone would pass constitutional muster. In considering whether computer-generated images of children in sexual situations were fair targets for government regulation, they pointed out that Congress' goals in passing the CPPA included preventing the effects of child pornography on child molestors, who often use pornography to "groom" their victims, desensitizing them to the idea of sexual contact by showing other children already so engaged. Congress, by dint of hearings and expert testimony, found that pornography involving actors who "appear to be" minors has all of the same effects on child molesters as actual child pornography. While they acknowledge that no actual children are harmed in the creation of this sort of pornography, it's still a fair target for banning because "... like sexually explicit material produced with actual children, there is little, if any, social value in this type of expression." (From the <i>Hilton</i> decision).

Child pornography, unlike adult pornography, is a "category of speech" that may, consistent with the Constitution, be utterly silenced. That one or more such depictions might have serious literary or artistic value, or be designed to express an "idea" of its creator, does not affect the constitutional calculus. Child pornography may be, legally, completely banned.

- Rick

aenea
12-27-2000, 10:50 AM
I got fifty pages into it, and literally got sick and through it in a trash can. I can't beleive they actually published this.

Scylla, I did the same thing with the same book. I'm not sure I made it 50 pages though.

I am a voracious reader, I'll read the back of cereal boxes if that is all that is available, but I wouldn't wast another moment on that hunk of junk she (Ann Rice) calls a book. :(

Yuck!

Ptahlis
12-27-2000, 11:03 AM
When I left for Desert Shield/Storm I had packed about a dozen books, including the first three Vampire books. Only enforced solitude and great levels of boredom were enough to get me through the festering dungheap of the (then) trilogy. Rice's books were little more than homoerotic romance novels with a slim coat of vampire paint slapped on. How on earth she sells books is beyond me.

Guinastasia
12-27-2000, 11:34 AM
Well, that is why they sell-they are thinly disguised gay porn or whatever.
Personally, I liked the Mayfair Witches trilogy MUCH better, especially the Witching Hour. Lasher was annoying though-the whole deal with Michael and Mona. First off, he cheats on his wife who is missing, with a girl young enough to be his daughter, (she's 14), and she dresses like a little kid-with BOWS IN HER HAIR for crying out loud-and this guy is in his fifties. Icky!

I saw Interview with the Vampire on my first date-:eek: I wanted to crawl under my seat when they stripped that girl on stage. But for what it's worth-both me and my date (who only evolved into a good friend-:( both laughed our asses off at the Lestat choking blood scene.
Then I got the book and read it. It was pretty good, but I could NOT get into the Vampire Lestat. I mean, c'mon!

As for vampire books, they may be young adult, but Christopher Pike's first three the Last Vampire books weren't too bad.

Gaudere
12-27-2000, 12:15 PM
Anne also wrote 3 frankly porno books, mostly gay porno, and a lot with underage kids- a take of on one of the classic fairy tales. Rose?No, Sleeping Beauty. I do not believe there was any underage sex in there, although I don't recall any ages being mentioned. However, I got the impression that Beauty was 18; there was certainly no genuine kiddie porn (as in a mention of someone's extreme youth or prepubescent children) in that series. Nor was it "mostly" gay; I'd say about a 50/50 split of gay/straight light bondage stuff with massive amounts of props. The books are not great erotic writing, in my opinion; she is clearly turned on by some things that don't do a thing for me and she doesn't do much in the way of character development or plot. The series is pure fluff compared to The Story of O (I'm not fond of that book either, but that's because it is powerfully enough written that I actually found it disturbing).

Gaudere
12-27-2000, 12:24 PM
Now that I think of it, I think Sleeping Beauty's name in the fairy tale *is* Briar Rose. However, in Rice'
s series, her name is "Beauty".

Guinastasia
12-27-2000, 12:35 PM
Then who was it that started calling her Aurora? Tchaikovsky?

Stuffy
12-27-2000, 12:46 PM
The last Rice I read was Memnoch the Devil (the only one I reccommended to someone else, mainly due to the religous nature of the book) and haven't read her latest. That being said I've noticed her books do jave a high homoerotic content, but I've noticed that with other Vampire books too. Try Lumley for a different/scifi-esque perspective.

I can't read Christopher Pike, the writing to me is horrible and seems little more than violence packaged for juveniles. But that's just my opinion.


(BTW, try Saints and Sinners if you liked Memnoch)

Gaudere
12-27-2000, 12:54 PM
Then who was it that started calling her Aurora? Tchaikovsky?Could have been him; that was in 1890. The Volsunga Saga (? date) has a sleeping beauty named Brynhild, Perceforest (1528) has a sleeping beauty names Zellandine, Basile collected fairy tales with a Beauty named Talia (1634), she didn't have a name in the Perrault story (1690 or so) though her children are sometimes called Aurora and Jour (and sometimes Morning and Day) and she was Briar Rose in the Grimm (early 1800s). She's also Aurora in the Disney movie.

[Edited by Gaudere on 12-27-2000 at 11:57 AM]

Stoid
12-27-2000, 02:20 PM
A little gay kiddie porn and you start getting your knickers in a twist!

Anne Rice has been writing true porn for years. Unfortunately, she overwrites her porn as much as she overwrites her regular stuff. It's a shame, because she does have an interesting take on some things.

My two favorite Rice books, after Interview , are Cry to Heaven the story of a boy turned into a castrato against his will by his family, and another one about a mulatto woman in New Orleans in the 19th Century. Can't remember the name.

Anyway, they were written around the same time as Interview and are therefore far less in love with themselves than her later works.

As for the OP...Scylla, we disagree again! I fear we are doomed. I think it is perfectly OK to write about and have published any damn thing in the world. In fact, I'm upset at the way the courts are leaning on this subject, because I think that while their aims are excellent (protection of children from molestation/rape) I think the means are, as usual, misguided.

Every reputable study that has ever been done has shown repeatedly that porn does one of two things:
1) Gives an outlet to those who want one.
2) Has no effect at all.

Despite desperate attempts to prove otherwise, it has never been demonstrated that pornography is in any way harmful, and in fact can be helpful. Since we know there are pedophiles in the world, better they should get their jollies reading fictional nasty stories than looking at nasty pictures that required the exploitation and harm of actual children, eh?

stoid

PS: Hey Scylla...what ever happened to freedom? It doesn't include the freedom to have a dirty mind? I will give you this: if the book is as vivid as you say, they might have given some kind of warning to people with delicate sensibilities.

andros
12-27-2000, 02:45 PM
My folklore books are at home, unfortunately, but there have been stories of the enchanted/magically sleeping heroine (or hero, even before Mr. van Winkle) for millennia. It's not surprising that there are many different names for the Sleeping Beauty beyond the story collected by the Grimms. Some Norse legends speak of Loki being bound in a dreamless sleep instead of merely chained. Early Greek legends tell of Persephone being kept asleep by Hades, before the legend involved wedding bells.

And of course, in the original script for Army of Darkness, Ash originally returned to his own time by drinking a magical potion and sleeping for six hundred years. ;)

jonas
12-27-2000, 03:26 PM
I haven't read a lot of Ann Rice, just the 1st vampire book. I thought that the relationship between the Vampire and the little girl was slightly erotic (I don't remember any of the names). I figured this was just her doing the "gothic novel" thing or maybe a touch of Edgar Allan Poe. I didn't really like her writing, but I liked the story line enough to read it and buy the second one. About the OP, if this was part of her artistic vision then I don't think that it should be censored. Maybe she is just going for the shock value, which in my opinion is probably what she wanted. To state the obvious, Lolita is one of the greatest books ever written, I've heard people call it porn. Should we ban it? If it were up to me it would be required reading in high school. (the movies should be banned though, they are horrible interpretations of the movie, but as mentioned before, if they were true to the book it would be illegal). If no one gets hurt I don't think there is anything wrong. If you are offended by it then you did the right thing by throwing it away. A book is not going to turn people into pedophiles. The world is not all sunshine and roses and if someone chooses to write about the darker things in life then so be it. And remember since we are talking about Vampires here, they don't necessarily have the same morals that we do.

Guinastasia
12-27-2000, 03:31 PM
I don't think he's saying it should be banned, just that it shouldn't be glorified.
Like Eminem.

MEBuckner
12-27-2000, 05:16 PM
I've never actually read anything by Anne Rice, so I can't really make any esthetic judgements of her work. I could make some ethical judgements of it based on the second-hand reports I'm seeing here, but I'd have to take y'all's word for it about the content of the books.

I am disturbed, however, by Bricker's description of the current legal status and definition of child pornography. I've got no problem with banning classic kiddie porn, on the grounds that it's the same as a "snuff film"; i.e., a crime has to be committed in order to make it. But what Bricker's describing with regard to the opinions of the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits seems to go way over the line. Sure, we all want to Protect the Children. But it seems to me that line of reasoning could also be applied to "rape pornography"; i.e., artistic or literary (or hack and schlock) depictions of adult women being raped or assaulted. (There are feminists of a certain type who would like to do just that, and their definitions of "rape" can be pretty broad.) And what about books that advocate or could encourage racist genocide? Or what about all those Clancyesque thrillers about generic Presidents of the United States who are assassinated by evil terrorists? After all, you never know what might set off the next Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski.

Oh well, I suppose this has now become a complete hijack from the topic of the Anne Rice oeuvre.

Lissa
12-27-2000, 05:29 PM
My two favorite Rice books, after Interview , are Cry to Heaven the story of a boy turned into a castrato against his will by his family, and another one about a mulatto woman in New Orleans in the 19th Century. Can't remember the name.

I think you're thinking of The Feast of All Saints I've tried to read that book several times, but can never get past the first few pages.

And I always wondered what was up with all that homoerotic stuff?

Anne Rice has stated in interviews that she's "a gay man trapped inside a woman's body." Also, the lead character of The Witching Hour (Rowen? Rawena? I can't remember the name,) shares her favorite sexual fantasy of being a man, and being made love to by another man. Rice stated in one interview that gay men love her vampire books, because some see vampirism as a metaphor for the AIDS virus. Go figure.

But what can you expect from a woman whose real first name is Howard?

Stoid
12-27-2000, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by MEBuckner
But what Bricker's describing with regard to the opinions of the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits seems to go way over the line. Sure, we all want to Protect the Children. But it seems to me that line of reasoning could also be applied to "rape pornography"; i.e., artistic or literary (or hack and schlock) depictions of adult women being raped or assaulted.


Actually, rape porn is illegal, kinda. Or at least, bondage and discipline combined with sexual activity is illegal, I'm not entirely sure about rape porn. But I assume it probably is. The reasoning on the B&D, I think, is that we can't "be sure" that the participants are willing. Which strikes me as perfectly absurd, but what can ya do?

It's a damn shame, too. B&D is much more fun with some sex thrown in.

stoid

MEBuckner
12-27-2000, 07:13 PM
Well, maybe I'm misreading what Bricker said, but he seemed to be saying that a novel with "child pornography" in it could be criminalized. Are novelistic or purely verbal depictions of rape or bondage illegal? Surely no (but IANAL).

Scupper
12-27-2000, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Stoidela
Actually, rape porn is illegal, kinda. Or at least, bondage and discipline combined with sexual activity is illegal, I'm not entirely sure about rape porn. But I assume it probably is.[/B]

I don't think this applies to written pornography, but rather only to photography and film/video. And even then, unless I'm grossly misinformed, the restriction on showing penetration in conjunction with bondage and/or violent rape is basically a voluntary self-censorship on the part of the pornography industry.

Basically, they don't show it because they want to avoid a massive backlash which might lead to anti-pornography legislation.

The biggest exception I can think of to the "anything goes" textual pornography is when it names a specific, real person. I remember somebody got sued over that a while back, after writing some kind of violent rape fantasy story about an acquaintance and posting it on the net.

jb_farley
12-27-2000, 07:21 PM
I think ME was talking about written forms.

But really, those bondage photos on like consumptionjunction are illegal? shits.

jb

Bricker
12-27-2000, 08:31 PM
As things stand now, only visual depictions are illegal; text is not criminalized at all.

What I was saying, though, is that my read of the approving circuits' opinions suggests that a law criminalizing written content of the type mentioned above would also pass constitutional scrutiny.

- Rick

Scylla
12-27-2000, 08:39 PM
I found the book disturbing because it was glorifying pedophilia IMHO. I don't shock all that easy, but this got me. I thoroughly enjoyed Farmer's A Feast Unknown which was pretty far out there in terms of sex and violence. In that case, the action furthered the story. In Armand it's just gratuitous, and I personally draw the line at anything involving sex with minors.

Stoidela said:


Every reputable study that has ever been done has shown repeatedly that porn does one of two things:
1) Gives an outlet to those who want one.
2) Has no effect at all.

Despite desperate attempts to prove otherwise, it has never been demonstrated that pornography is in any way harmful, and in fact can be helpful.
Since we know there are pedophiles in the world, better they should get their jollies reading fictional nasty stories than looking at nasty pictures
that required the exploitation and harm of actual children, eh?

This is of course, completely false.

The Bradley, Frasier, and Rogers studies showed a direct link between usage and posession of child pornography, and the likelihood of a Pedophilic offense.

Here's a short item from a link I found quite easily.

4) Finally, there are the people who use this material. Now that the mere possession of this material is a crime, it will make it much easier for the police to lay
charges against them. Eighty-seven percent of molesters of female children and 77% of molesters of male children admit to regular use of hard-core
pornography. Clifford Olson was found to be in possession of nude photographs of young girls 2 years before he murdered 11 children in B.C. While he was
on his murderous rampage, he carried with him a briefcase full of pornography.

The main use of child pornography is to satisfy the sexual desires of pedophiles. This is often a prelude to future abuse. It can also lower the inhibitions of
children; it relaxes the child in the pedophiles attempts to molest the child. It can be used as blackmail to force the child into continuing the relationship. And it
can be used as an exchange medium for pedophiles, or for profit.

Full text here:
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/childpron.htm


Here's another:

Their operations are underground and restricted. They mostly deal with known pedophile customers. To
become a member in a child pornography online club, the new member is usually required to send one or
more original pornographic photos online. Once the child pornography is acquired, the pedophile carefully
organizes and adds to his collection by storing the image on back-up tapes and computer disks, often using
advanced computer technology to hide the illegal file.

Pedophiles don't just use the pornography for themselves; they use the child pornography they have
collected to seduce other children into participating with them in sexual activities by lowering the inhibitions
of potential victims. When shown images of other children performing sexual acts, these children are led to
believe that participation in sexually explicit behavior is acceptable, making it easier for the pedophile to
molest the child.

Picked that up here:

http://www.usembassy-vienna.at/9_21_99.html


Here's something else:

Although illegal, child pornography constitutes about 7% of the pornography market. Studies indicate that there are at least 264 different magazines being sold
each month that deal with sexual acts between adults and children. Some such as "Coming with Daddy", "Lust for Children", "How to Deflower Your Daughter",
and "School Girls" are primers in child sexual abuse.{4} Child pornography may also be used to lure children into sexual activity and instruct them, since young
children who view such material may be led to believe that this is acceptable behavior. In addition to decreasing inhibitions, this material may cause sexual arousal
in some children.

Got this here:

http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/sp97/law&int.htm


The last seems pretty damn reputable.

So, in conclusion, Stoid, you are 100% wrong on this.


{Fixed coding --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 12-27-2000 at 08:38 PM]

Ptahlis
12-27-2000, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Scylla
The Bradley, Frasier, and Rogers studies showed a direct link between usage and posession of child pornography, and the likelihood of a Pedophilic offense.



Which, of course, says nothing about causation. While it is very likely someone who likes to diddle kids would also enjoy pictures of same, I doubt that if someone showed you a picture it would cause you to run out and cruise the elementary school.

Myself, I think that saying porn causes rape, video games cause school shootings, Dungeons and Dragons causes suicides and Satanism, or kiddie porn causes molestation are all examples of people really overreaching. Obviously laws were broken in the production of the kiddie porn if it's the type that includes pictures of sex acts, but that doesn't say anything about the folks consuming it or about drawings or written text. The thing that is needed to get a better picture of what's what is to find out how many people enjoy the pictures but never molest a kid. For obvious reasons though, I doubt that information will ever be readily available.

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:16 PM
Ptahlis:

None of which says anything about the use of kiddie porn to acclimate children, and legitimize these actions.

Unlike the other things you mention, kiddie porn is part of the molestation process both for the molester and the child.

I can't fucking believe there's actually people defending hardcore child pornography.

None of this of course has much to do with Ann Rice's work.

jb_farley
12-27-2000, 09:26 PM
Scylla-

a) no one is defending hard-core child pornography.

b) in order to justify textual or other non-photographic pornography to be banned, you claim it is part of the molestation process. For many, so is alcohol or other drugs, for the same reasons (lowering inhibitions, etc). So should we also ban alcohol?

c) following from b. Of course we shouldn't ban alcohol for that reason. Why? Because many more people use alcohol outside of the context of molesting children. You haven't demonstrated any facts which show the same isn't true for these forms.

jb

p.s.- and no, I am not implying that as many people utilize textual or other non-photographic child pornography as drink

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:30 PM
MEBuckner and Bricker:

Thanks for the legal viewpoint. I appreciate it. I understand that written child pornography is illegal in Canada. Is this the case?

Getting back to Rice's book, and some miscellaneous points that were brought up, quite frankly I don't care about the homoerotic overtones one way or another.

According to rice, vampire's have no sexual urges in the human manner, but get their satisfaction Bom! Bom! Ba Da Dom! from feeding, and don't particularly favor one gender over another. They can also feed off of one another, regardless of sex. There's no homosexual vampires, but there's no heterosexual vampires either. They're basically genderless.

Rice makes a big point of this in her earlier books, which is why I was so confused with a pedophiliac vampire giving kiddies blowjobs.

Should it be banned? I dunno, having that kind of action in a pretty mainstream novel does legitimize the act. At the very least it shows poor editorial and authorial judgement, as it in no way seemed to further the story, but was just plain gratuitous.

I'm not sure it's my place to tell people they can't read it if they want to, but it seems pretty close to the border. I'll just make the protest that I can. I won't purchase any other of Rice's works, and maybe I'll fire an email off to the publisher expressing my dismay.

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:32 PM
jb-farley:

My intent here was not to get into a general discussion of child porn, but since we're there...

Alcohol has other uses besides inducing pedophilia. What other use does child porn have?

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Stoidela
[QUOTE]

Or at least, bondage and discipline combined with sexual activity is illegal, I'm not entirely sure about rape porn. But I assume it probably is. The reasoning on the B&D, I think, is that we can't "be sure" that the participants are willing. Which strikes me as perfectly absurd, but what can ya do?

It's a damn shame, too. B&D is much more fun with some sex thrown in.

stoid

Well, we agree on something. This law seems kind of silly to me as well.

jb_farley
12-27-2000, 09:36 PM
as a masturbatory device for pedophiles or pedophilic tendencies. duh.

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:42 PM
Duh?

So we should legitmize these tendencies? Cater to them?

I can only speak for myself, but as an adolescent, the first time I got my hands on some porn, I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. It did make me long quite badly for the real thing though, as I knew I only beheld a pale substitute.

Later I'd say that my experience with porn made me a little more adept when I had the opportunity as a quaking 17 year old to get my hands on the real thing (so to speak.)

I don't think training pedophiles is a good idea in any form.

Scylla
12-27-2000, 09:44 PM
We are talking about having sex with prepubescent kids. I can't imagine that any step in this direction is a good thing.

jb_farley
12-27-2000, 09:52 PM
Your problem with this, Scylla, is that you are insisting all pedophiles molest children. That is patently untrue.

So we should legitmize these tendencies? Cater to them?

"We" are doing neither. If someone wants to read or write these things, we shouldn't stop them. I will believe this until you (or someone) gives a valid reason why we should.

MEBuckner
12-27-2000, 10:24 PM
We are talking about having sex with prepubescent kids. I can't imagine that any step in this direction is a good thing.
We are talking about murder--the callous and brutal taking of human life. I can't imagine that any step in this direction is a good thing.

We are talking about the degradation and objectification of women. I can't imagine that any step in this direction is a good thing.

We are talking about the subversion of our way of life; the replacemennt of a free, democratic republic with a cruel tyranny. I can't imagine that any step in this direction is a good thing.

No one (well no one here, anyway) is saying "artists" should have the right to violate laws, like the laws against molesting children. No one is saying that the way someone uses their freedom of speech can't be morally reprehensible and worthy of being condemned by other people using their freedom of speehc. No one is saying that you can't personally refrain from buying the books of authors whose work you find objectionable; you can even make a point of refraining from buying their work, write letters to their publishers and editors telling them they're all scum, post uncomplimentary things about them on message boards, etc. But I do have major problems with outlawing speech where the production or transmission of said speech does not otherwise involve any crimes.

Mekhazzio
12-27-2000, 10:35 PM
Oooh, "kiddie porn", evilawfulevilawful. Filth, filth, vile filth, save the children!

Stop. Time-out. Time for a different perspective. Cut ten years ahead:
(McCarthy voice)
Are you now, or have you ever been, a reader of Ann Rice novels?

Think about this, people. There's a powerful knee-jerk reaction going on here, and of all places, this is from a user base that supposedly prides itself on being above this very kind of unthinking response. Why is this?

In my opinion, the root cause of the matter, general pornography issues aside, seems to be the common perception anyone below the "Age Of Consent" (a nebulous and oft-changing thing, that) is some sort of androgynous sexless mutant, and thus any form of sexual activity involving such is inherently WRONG. Well, from my persective, this is critically flawed thinking. When I was 10, "I did not have sexual relations" with someone similarly-aged. When I was 14, the same with two someones 15 and 16 (at the same time, no less :D ) and on the other end of that spectrum, when I was 18, the same with someone who was 16. I did not then, nor do I now, regret any of them...they were, in fact, perhaps the most maturing factors on my life. Of course, all were patently illegal and "morally wrong" and blah blah blah etc etc. And for those of you mentioning the anti-kiddy-porn laws, just telling you this would be illegal had that rag of legislation been allowed to stand, and this message board (and my ISP) would be obligated to assist in prosecuting me for these "crimes". I challenge anyone here to justify that. Oooh, kiddy porn! Let's go on a witch-hunt!

Are there 50+ year old sexual predators out there hunting 5 year olds? Sure. There's also ~16 year old sexual predators out there hunting 80 year olds. I don't claim to understand either. However, what should be the key phrase there are not the numbers involved, but the "predator" part. Painting anything and everything with the broad brush of "pedophilia"/"kiddy porn" and all the reactionary assumptions contained therein is often not deserved, warranted or desired.

So, the counter-question from me is, in reference to the scenario in the OP:

Contrast it with, say, a beautiful country girl being ravished by a cruel, callous ruffian and then rescued by a dashing, handsome noble whom she immediately takes to romantically loving (in all senses of the word). How is the story in the book really any different from a more conventional form of the same tried-and-true formula?

SpinneZiege
12-27-2000, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Lissa

Anne Rice has stated in interviews that she's "a gay man trapped inside a woman's body."

Wasn't the recently wed Madonna quoted as saying that a lot of times in 80's?

Badtz Maru
12-27-2000, 11:49 PM
For an interesting column advocating child pornography, go here (http://bitch.shutdown.com/fuckthechildren.html).

capacitor
12-28-2000, 01:08 AM
The most pornographic book ever written is unquestionably The Meese Commission Report on Pornography, Volume 2. Even Hustler was selling the graphic-filled version of it for a time.

We put the onus on the adult because the child does seduce everyone, unintentionally. Society have determined it is up to the adult to exhibit self-control in the situation. The child (any many an adult for that matter) is generally not prepared for the complications and tribulations that come about when a relationship becomes sexual. And for the most part the child don't care for that sex stuff anyway. In this day and age, when sexuality is heightened to what many deemed to be unhealthy levels, it is even more important for the relatives, parents, and adult influences in the child's life to show that self-control and modestly are virtues, and let the child be a child in the process. Leave adult sexuality to the adults.

A child may look sophisticated, even precocious, but that is no excuse to have that child explore into territories that she is not prepared for. The child generally does not 'enjoy' the experience the way the adult does, and there is huge doubt that the child would enjoy such a turn in the relationship at all. So we are left with the sexual relationship being solely for the adult's gratification. That is why it is deemed exploitation and statutory rape.
If what is said about Anne Rice's latest book is true, then I find that disappointing that that volume reached mainstream audiences.

About child porn: if the act itself is illegal, then so does explicitly depicing it should be illegal as well. This is not about two consenting adults doing a scene. In this case, one of participants is for the most part completely unwilling. I had the retching experience of seeing a few seconds of child porn. I have concluded that the act itself and the media used to depict such acts absolutely does not benefit to the child involved, nor, gulp, does it benefit the child who may be unfortunate to watch it. This is the essence of exploitaion.

That being said, there are circumstances where these laws do get dicey, particularly where the age gap (or lack of one) between two participants is concerned. But that us another subject altogether.

Mockingbird
12-28-2000, 01:40 PM
What is missing here in this discussion of Anne Rice is context.

She wasn't setting Armand in a current time period. In the past there was a far different perspective on sex between men and boys. I don't believe in sex with minors in any way , especially with the current climate of the maturity or lack thereof where minors are considered. Just because someone is physically mature or able does not mean they are ready for consummation.

But, to tar and feather Anne for this is a bit unreasonable.
To call it kiddy porn is even more so. To quote Tom Lehrer: "filth is in the mind of the beholder."

Kyla
12-28-2000, 02:54 PM
For a truly unique take on the whole vampire thing, and a darn chucklesome read, try "Blood Sucking Fiends, A Romance" by Michael Morrison. A bracing antidote to the whole narcissistic morass of Ms. Rice.

I second the nomination. Laugh-out-loud funny. But the author's name is Christopher Moore.

Personally, I couldn't even make it through Interview With the Vampire. It was so darned "gothic" and melodramatic. Retch.

Kimstu
12-28-2000, 03:31 PM
I haven't read Anne Rice's novels, but Hastur makes an extremely good point. Adolescent boys were not excluded as objects of adult love in many earlier civilizations. The standard homoerotic relationship in classical Greece, for example, prescribed a pairing of the erastes or adult male lover with the eromenos or pre-adult male beloved. The adolescence of the eromenos was such an accepted feature of these amours that it was assumed that by the time he'd grown a beard, i.e. attained physical adulthood, the sexual relationship would be over (and the erstwhile beloved, now an adult erastes, would seek a younger eromenos of his own).

While we may well not want this to be the standard love story of our own society, should we be trying to get various works of ancient Greek literature or vase paintings (some of which are quite explicit) banned as "kiddie porn"? Nonsense. Of course, any attempts to sexually exploit actual children, either for one's own pleasure or to create pornography for sale, should not be tolerated. But depictions of imaginary sex acts are not molestation and should not be criminalized. Don't like 'em? Don't read 'em.

SpinneZiege
12-28-2000, 08:04 PM
Now, I've read Interview, and I have to say, it was rather light reading. I finished it in three days (being that I was on a canoe trip in the boundary waters of Minnesota, I had a lot of spare time on my hands). I never thought it was anything groundbreaking and wondered what all of the fanfare was about. There was a lack of any major plot, and it basically opened up this world so that Rice could publish ten more books in.

Now, if you want to read something trashy, overrated, and extremely homoerotic, I'd suggest Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs. When I first wanted to get it, my mother told me it was the only book she ever threw out. When I tried reading it, I couldn't get past half of it. Maybe you have to be twigged out on opiates to understand it (which I've been told is a "much better experience" to read it while high, not that I suggest trying it).

kesagiri
12-28-2000, 08:23 PM
Myself, I think that saying porn causes rape, video games cause school shootings, Dungeons and Dragons causes suicides and Satanism, or kiddie porn causes molestation are all examples of people really overreaching.

Actually if you are just noting the events and no other data is present I believe the correct term is post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after the fact reasoning.

Scylla
12-28-2000, 09:15 PM
Hastur and MEBuckner both raise good points.

As for Ann Rice's recreation of earlier times when Mores were different, all I can say is I don't think it was Rice's goal to create and accurate historical context. It's anything but, and it's pretty much just porn.

As much as I personally don't like it, I don't think that it should be censored. I do think that poor judgement was used.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.

I personally would like to know before I buy a mainstream book, if it's going to be like that. Not that their should be mandatory labels, but that the publisher would use their good judgement.

aenea
12-29-2000, 10:37 AM
As long as we are nominating decent vampire book as an antidote to the Rice junk, I'd like to mention Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett. Now there is a different and humorous take on vampirism!

Kimstu
12-29-2000, 04:58 PM
Scylla: I personally would like to know before I buy a mainstream book, if it's going to be like that.

Well, this is why we have book reviews, and why copies of books for sale in bookstores aren't (usually) sealed shut. "Mainstream book" is not a recognized literary genre that implies a guarantee of some given level of innocuousness. Caveat emptor.

FallenAngel
12-29-2000, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by elucidator

For a truly unique take on the whole vampire thing, and a darn chucklesome read, try "Blood Sucking Fiends, A Romance" by Michael Morrison. A bracing antidote to the whole narcissistic morass of Ms. Rice.

Bloodsucking Fiends was written by Christopher Moore, who does some of the best comedic supernatural writing around. A funny point in BSF: the female character, after being turned into a vampire, and her human boyfriend, read Anne Rice type novels to try and figure out what being a vampire is all about, with incredibly funny and occasionally disastrous results.

Tzel
01-01-2001, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Bricker
By the reasoning adopted by the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits, a law criminalizing words alone would pass constitutional muster.

Ack! Could you imagine such a situation. Judy Blume books being pulled off of library shelves and burned.

Mekhazzio
01-01-2001, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Tzel
Ack! Could you imagine such a situation. Judy Blume books being pulled off of library shelves and burned.

Already are in some of the more backwards areas.

Eliahna
01-02-2001, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Scylla


I got fifty pages into it, and literally got sick and through it in a trash can. I can't beleive they actually published this.

Within the first fifty pages or so, a young prepubescent boy gets brutally sodomized. Fortunately, he is rescued by the pedophilic vampire Marius who takes him to his artsy home where he performs loving fellatio on him to the boy's delight!

I was in shock, but hoped the book would move on, and kept reading. Five pages later it happened again! That's when I tossed the book.


NOTE: SPOILERS
I enjoyed all of the Anne Rice books I'd read, so I bought Armand when it came out. Normally, I'd expect to finish a book that size in a week - less if it's really good - but Armand was too damn sick to read, and it took me over a week just to get 50 pages in. After that, I threw it under the bed for 6 months, before attempting to read the rest. I eventually got through the whole thing, but I wish I'd never read certain parts of it, they were so disturbing because they were just plain wrong and evil. Somewhere, Anne Rice has dropped the thread, and Armand is just an attempt at sensationalism rather than a genuine story-that-had-to-be-told.
Spoilers
At the end of the book, we find out that Armand survived the fire in Memnoch... how many of these vampires are going to be "truely" immortal. We're told that the only thing that can kill a vampire is fire, or the rays of the sun, but apparently that's only true for a few hundred years. Lestat, Armand, Magnus, Akasha, Marharet, Makare... the list goes on. I hated the character of Armand, and wanted to see him dead anyway.

Eft
01-02-2001, 01:06 PM
I've read quite a bit of Anne Rice, although I gave up on the vampire chronicles after reading The Tale of the Body Thief and should have given up on the witch stories after The Witching Hour. (I read the second and third books and found them profoundly dull.) I like a lot of her older stuff pretty well, and think that her two best books are The Vampire Lestat and The Witching Hour. Although I haven't spent a lot of time on her more recent stuff, I'm generally pretty well disposed toward Rice as a source of fluff fiction.

The other resident of the EftHouse bought The Vampire Armand while on a business trip, came home, and put it on my bedside table with the comment, "You're not going to believe this." I picked it up and flipped through the book at random. Everywhere I turned, I came to another sex scene, generally one involving children. I finally gave up. I'm incapable of throwing a book away, but it's on the shelf, unread, and I don't see getting back to it. Rice is still a good, vivid writer, but I don't want good, vivid images of child orgies running through my head. Just flipping through the book gave me more than I wanted.

I don't think that the sexual depictions of children has anything to do with historical accuracy. I don't think that Rice gives a rat's patootie about historical accuracy except so far as it supports the story that she wants to tell; she is superficially accurate, but I would never turn to her as an authority. My guess is that she got popular enough to tell any story she wants, and she wants to tell a story about child sexuality, even if she's dressing it up as a vampire story. Rice is and has been openly interested in the issue of childhood sexuality; look in Camille Paglia's Vamps and Tramps for Paglia's interview with Rice. They spend quite a bit of time on the subject.

foxfyre
01-02-2001, 02:32 PM
I didnt remember The Vampire Armand having any gay kiddie porn...

For some incalcuable reason(perhaps because of my breakup with my GF), I was on an Anne Rice stint for a month or so. I started with Exit to Eden and read all the Vamp Chron books except Merrick (which ive heard is a crossover from her Witches books). After the first couple of books I started to ignore all homoerotic parts and this became so automatic that by the time I was done with Armand, I didnt remember any gay kiddie porn... Funny how the human mind works, eh...

Besides, everyone knows all the Vamp Chron books are true, although extreemly embelished. The characters of the book say so themselves! Also, Anne Rice IS a Vampire! Have you ever looked at her pictures in the dust jacket of the books? She doesn't age! In the newest book, she looks even younger than in the others! Also, almost ever convention shes gone to, shes arrived after dark! (ignore the fact that most Goth/Vamp conventions are held after dark...)

Anyway, back to the topic, I agree with the statement: "if you dont like it, dont read it"


-Fox

"Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open."

"I canít explain myself," said Alice, "because Iím not myself, you see." -Alice's Adventure Under Ground