The CNN crawl announced that Gary Glitter has been detained in Vietnam on charges of having sex with children, including a 12-year-old girl.
hmph. I did a find on page 1, thinking the CNN crawl was showing current news!
Well it’s still juicy gossip, and juicy gossip is always timely!
Supposedly he’s facing a firing squad.
I’m anti-death penalty, but the first thing that popped into my mind?
Da da daaaaa da-BANG!
I’m going to hell.
Last I heard, the girl was 15. Apparently the Vietnamese age backwards.
Frankly, I’m sick to death of all this Glitter-bashing. Who gives a flying fuck if this washed-up no-talent rock star got popped for kiddy porn several years ago? As far as I know, he never laid a hand on an actual child, at least not until he got run out of the country. Maybe this is evidence that kiddy porn actually prevents some pedophiles from molesting real children?? Think about it.
I will try not to get this thread thrown to the Pit.
First of all, even if the girl was 15, she is hardly legal or what I would consider an appropriate age for a sexual partner for someone you freely admit is “washed up.”
The fact that Mr. Glitter was hounded out of Cambodia sounds like he hasn’t exactly been visiting there to study architecture.
And while I might agree that some people may look at porn (kinky, S/M, Gay/Straight, etc.) and not be inclined to act upon it, the reason kiddy porn is illegal is because it takes kids to make kiddy porn.
And while I don’t believe porn causes people to have sex, I think statistics will show that people who enjoy kiddy porn are more likely to want to experience it first hand.
I am Gay, and I have met two people in my lifetime who were members of NAMBLA and we have had this conversation many times.
It is wrong. Got it? Wrong.
I would agree about the appropriate remark, however having sex with a 15 year old is legal in many countries - checking wikipedia, this includes first world countries like Canada, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Italy, and Portugal.
Although this involves an entertainer, I don’t think the subject matter involves art or entertainment, so I’m moving it to a more appropriate forum: to The Pit, from Cafe Society.
Yep - the age of consent in Canada (or at least Alberta) is 14.
ew.
There’s so much stupid here, I don’t know where to begin.
First, ONE of the girls was fifteen. Another was twelve. TWELVE.
Second, kiddy porn somehow PREVENTS children from being molested. Well, sure, I guess I could buy that. Except for the kids that are featured in most of. What about them, oh wise one?
:rolleyes:
Disclaimer: I am not remotely advocating Mr. Glitter’s behavior, musical or otherwise.
Given that the subject is Gary Glitter, I find this to be an eminently humorous and entirely appropriate decision. Dex, you are a card. 
Well, whether she is legal is a matter of local jurisdiction (you need to get out more). Further, what YOU would ‘consider an appropriate age for a sexual partner for someone you freely admit is “washed up.”’ is largely irrelevant. you are not in charge here. Plus, I don’t find that this criticism makes any sense, objectively. If he were still “NoN-washed up,” would that change your age limits for appropriateness? Is your definition of appropriateness even relevant here? I fail to see why.
Sure, “ew” to you, maybe (but obviously not to everyone…Mr. Glitter included). As many Dopers know, “ew” is one of Fred Phelps’ arguments against gays. Unfortunately, “ew” does not a valid argument make. When I think of eating natto, I think “ew”. That doesn’t make people who enjoy it sick or wrong.
“Ew” is not an argument. Even here. There may be valid arguments, but “EW” isn’t one of them.
Guin, I lubs ya dearly, but I have to ask: “So?” Sure, there are age-based laws against this sort of thing, but if the law isn’t obligated to take the minor’s wishes into account (like, say for the sake of argument, she wants to do him, but The Law says she can’t), why are the transgressors of that law obligated to do so (like, say, for the sake of argument, she doesn’t want to do him, but he says she has to)?
Note: I am dead-set against violating anyone’s (including a minor’s/child’s) right to say “NO” to sex, but by the same token, I must in good conscience be equally dead-set against violating anyone’s right to say “YES”. To do otherwise is (IMHO) imposing my personal prejudice on the situation with utter disregard for the individual in question. If I can do that with a clear conscience, then I have no right to prevent someone else from doing it, even if I disagree with their decision. Personally, I can’t impose without a clear conscience, which is why I don’t.
I’m guessing you’re not seriously claiming to believe the “kiddy porn prevents child molestation” relationship (so I won’t ask you for a cite), but that you are willing to grant the theoretical possiblity. I am, as well, but I also have no proof one way or the other. Thus, no argument here (although, if it does, we should seriously consider leaglizing it to some extent for that reason, IMO).
However, the “Except for the kids that are featured in most [I’m guessing “it” goes here].” This gets into a very complex environment: what IS kiddy porn, who gets to decide what qualifies, what does it take to produce material that can be so classified, etc. It isn’t as cut and dried as you might think.
For example, there are (they’ve been mentioned and discussed on this board, amongst others) websites that specialize in photos of preteens (mostly girls, evidently) in bikinis, underwear, etc. Not nude, mind you; but “suggestively posed” or “possibly of interest to pedophiles.”
Is that kiddie porn? Are they being “exploited”? Have you ever watched Sesame Street or looked at a major department store catelogue? Very similar stuff from time to time. One might argue a difference on the basis of who they claim to cater to (oh, sure…they say they’re just selling Underoos/teaching the alphabet, but c’mon! ;)), but that isn’t so cut and dried either.
Bottom line, unless you’re looking at vastly different material than I’ve seen (and quite frankly, I’m not convinced that I’ve ever seen kiddie porn…for my legal sake, I hope not), your argument that “Except for the kids that are featured in most” being de facto an incentive to (or evidence of) child molestation needs more support. I realize it’s commonly accepted, but I haven’t found sufficient evidence to consider it a hard-and-fast rule, as most wish to view it.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that while it’s potentially possible that kiddie porn doesn’t directly lead to child molestation (or, in fact, might potentially prevent it to some extent), the children who have been involved in what’s classified as kiddie porn (by definintion…depending on who gets to decide) HAVE been molested. I haven’t found that to be a universally supportable argument so far.
But, hey, I’ve been wrong before. Again: my apologies if I’ve misunderstood you. Please correct me if I’ve gotten off-base here. Since the well-being of children are at stake, here; I find this a compelling subject. Of course, it doesn’t take long for others to invent ulterior motives for me to participate in these threads, thus demonstrating that there is more than one way to be a pervert.
DAMN. Correction follows:
Sorry.
Actually, not only am I not claiming to believe it, I was being sarcastic when I said I could buy it. Unless we’re talking drawings and stories, (and even those tend to be iffy) most child porn tends to involve actual children, so it’s kinda hard to claim it’s going to prevent molestation, if children are molested to create child porn, doesn’t it?
Wait a second. Are you saying that you feel that a 12-year old has the “right” to make an informed decision regarding sex with a 50-something adult?
That’s what I figured (even the sarcasm, I mean; and I hope you don’t feel I was attempting to misrepresent you, because I wasn’t). Again, I have not (at least to my knowledge) ever seen what I would would consider child porn, so I can’t address what is necessary to produce it.
However, with respect to your second statement/question:
Yes, it certainly does, if children are molested to create it. Perhaps I am not clear enough on the definition of what contstitutes child porn (although I have the legal definition somewhere), but I’m not finding anything that requires molestation for its creation. Thus, the contention that CP=CM remains unproven in my opinion (not necessarily untrue, mind you; but unproven), so the equation remains undemonstrated.
No, according to the laws of the land (the land I live in, anyway), of course they don’t. I also do not remotely advocate breaking the law. However, if we can discuss the concept independent of the current legal status of such a question…
Well, fatrats. Suffice it to say that I have tried half a dozen responses to your question, and they are all by necessity very long…long enough to be a hijack of the thread. Short answer to your question:
I don’t personally believe that age should be the overriding parameter for determining appropriatness of sex. Do I “feel that a 12-year old has the ‘right’ to make an informed decision regarding sex with a 50-something adult?” Of course not. The law is very clear on that. Do I think that they should legally be prevented from knocking boots? Not necessarily. There are socially justifiable reasons to prevent the relationship that you describe, but the relative ages are not one of them, IMO.
However, from the earlier link, it’s mentioned that the age of consent in Vietnam is 16. As noted in another pit thread (about Singapore), one is subject to the laws of the country one is visiting. In the case of GG currently under discussion, that country is Vietnam and it’s not legal there to be diddling little girls, by definition: those under the age of 16.