The question is why.. Why sell the farm to push these particular points when it comes to sexual violence?
Priorities.
I was thinking, last night, about a literal footnote in history, about the age of consent, and what makes the point about getting on little girls even more important is the matter of a man's priorities; in that particular case, the author really, really wanted a drink.
By the time we got to
Sherlock Holmes↑, all I can really think is to reiterate a certain point:
• Whether one lands there as if just because, or calculates their path and ingress to that territory, it is
still that particular territory. By the time we identify this or that person as the perfect test case, just how much effort will we have put into finding the perfect test case to justify what everyone else, including the predators who want it, would acknowledge is child pornography.
(#218↑)
• And the idea that we need to pick such nits in the first place is itself controversial. The answer, of course, is that we do because we must because we are asked to by people who think they need us to. And people perceive a dangerous question of proximity when they are expected to entertain such vagary so near to sensibility. And while I can remember an unsettled feeling in the time of
Miller and
Dost, what has become that much more evident in the time since is the consuming and escalating pathology of sex predators.
(#252↑)
We need to remember—
That's a good question. If it was a specific house, that would suggest intent. But what if it was a gingerbread house that was clearly fictional?
What about a drawing of you pointing a gun at me? Would that suggest intent? What about a drawing of you pointing a gun at Adolf Hitler or Sherlock Holmes?
—the point is just to make people talk about it; that's part of how these advocates get off. Kind of like
Bowser's↑ two-bit, not-quite contribution; the only point of his post is to hope women feel compelled to talk about men ejaculating.
Certain behaviors and iterations, more superficial than others, have demonstrated themselves relevant and significant. It's like the hundred forty-some year-old footnote. The author makes a very interesting point about having sex with ten year-olds, but as a comparative juxtaposition with assisted suicide, as a question of the difference 'twixt vice and crime, in service of getting a drink. Whatever else we might say, that's dedication to the cause; his priority is clear.
To the other, the inquiries before us cannot engender such basic discrimination as to comprehend the difference between a drawing of a fictional character whose international fame spans well over a century, to the one, and the labor of depicting child abuse according to virtually impossibly rarified hypothetical circumstances in order to perform the stations of halfassed advocacy in order to keep people talking about sex crimes against children.
At some point, the priority is clear.
