"You're going to have to go to some length to prove that the material at that link actually had a plot to it. From the looks of it, it falls under what I was referring to as having a narrow focus promoting an obsession. ...not to mention badly written. I mean, what's supposed to be the larger overall theme or philosophy here other than a pornographic one?"
Alfador asked if you'd be willing to say those things to my face. Since you haven't, I thought I'd bring my face to you.
I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland. That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?
Badly written. If that's your opinion, fine. Narrow focus, though? Were you drunk when you wrote that? I bust my ass trying to include as wide as possible a spectrum of ideas, and you think it's focussing on only one thing? Gee, is it possible that YOU are the one with the narrow focus? You remind me of a friend of mine who utterly hates pornography. He freaks out and covers his eyes whenever he sees boobs in a movie. Really! So naturally, he sees boobs and genitals everywhere. If we see a movie together, and there is any nudity at ALL in it, he will spot it. Guaranteed. Even if I've seen the film multiple times and never noticed it myself! And he sees plenty that isn't there at all. He absolutely reminds me of people like you who focus so intently on your pet hatred that it becomes all you can see.
I've got some questions for you.
First off; Stephen King's book IT has a scene near the end where six young children all have sex in a sewer. Does that mean the book is pornography? Should it be removed from library shelves? Do you think there is any difference between King and me? If so, what difference? That he has more money? That he writes about things other than that? (Child sexual abuse has popped up in a LOT of his books, and I've written novels and stories with no pornographic content.) Maybe it's that my story has a higher porn-to-story ratio than his. So what then is the acceptable ratio?
Secondly: You say that child porn only feeds an obsession. You're assuming that there IS an obsession in the first place. If someone has a deep-rooted fetish to molest children, pornography isn't going to make a difference one way or another. But if someone has no desire to molest real children, then do you think pornography can create that obsession in them?
Thirdly, If people who look at cub porn want to rape real children so much, then why do they bother with cub porn? Why wouldn't they look at loli art? Or photos of real children? Or actually go rape real children? Which makes more sense; that they're choosing to indulge in a completely diluted form of their fetish, or that cub porn IS the fetish? To use your steak idea, does it make any sense that I'd eat spam if I wanted steak and could easily get steak? Can you conceive of the idea that a person could be attracted to furries but not humans? Can you conceive that someone could be attracted to cubs BECAUSE they don't exist, and are therefore 'safe' to fantasize about?
Hiya, Chucky.
"You're going to have to go to some length to prove that the material at that link actually had a plot to it. From the looks of it, it falls under what I was referring to as having a narrow focus promoting an obsession. ...not to mention badly written. I mean, what's supposed to be the larger overall theme or philosophy here other than a pornographic one?"
Alfador asked if you'd be willing to say those things to my face. Since you haven't, I thought I'd bring my face to you.
I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland. That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?
Badly written. If that's your opinion, fine. Narrow focus, though? Were you drunk when you wrote that? I bust my ass trying to include as wide as possible a spectrum of ideas, and you think it's focussing on only one thing? Gee, is it possible that YOU are the one with the narrow focus? You remind me of a friend of mine who utterly hates pornography. He freaks out and covers his eyes whenever he sees boobs in a movie. Really! So naturally, he sees boobs and genitals everywhere. If we see a movie together, and there is any nudity at ALL in it, he will spot it. Guaranteed. Even if I've seen the film multiple times and never noticed it myself! And he sees plenty that isn't there at all. He absolutely reminds me of people like you who focus so intently on your pet hatred that it becomes all you can see.
I've got some questions for you.
First off; Stephen King's book IT has a scene near the end where six young children all have sex in a sewer. Does that mean the book is pornography? Should it be removed from library shelves? Do you think there is any difference between King and me? If so, what difference? That he has more money? That he writes about things other than that? (Child sexual abuse has popped up in a LOT of his books, and I've written novels and stories with no pornographic content.) Maybe it's that my story has a higher porn-to-story ratio than his. So what then is the acceptable ratio?
Secondly: You say that child porn only feeds an obsession. You're assuming that there IS an obsession in the first place. If someone has a deep-rooted fetish to molest children, pornography isn't going to make a difference one way or another. But if someone has no desire to molest real children, then do you think pornography can create that obsession in them?
Thirdly, If people who look at cub porn want to rape real children so much, then why do they bother with cub porn? Why wouldn't they look at loli art? Or photos of real children? Or actually go rape real children? Which makes more sense; that they're choosing to indulge in a completely diluted form of their fetish, or that cub porn IS the fetish? To use your steak idea, does it make any sense that I'd eat spam if I wanted steak and could easily get steak? Can you conceive of the idea that a person could be attracted to furries but not humans? Can you conceive that someone could be attracted to cubs BECAUSE they don't exist, and are therefore 'safe' to fantasize about?