During the block I amused myself by looking through the edits of some of the people who were denouncing me and came across this little gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

C'mon, PD. I knew about (and I think mentioned here) this many months ago, during the great Spanking Art Wikia debacle. Don't forget Gothic Lolita, either.

We have to all remember what the Wikimedia mission is all about!


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lolicon_example.jpg

Thank you Greg. The second one really is quite disturbing, isn't it.

I seem to remember Jimbo deleting (with prejudice) some similar material at Commons last year (pretty much the only admin action he's ever taken there, IIRC - I think they're discussing desysopping Jimbo for inactivity at the Commons Village Pump, unless it's just a joke conversation.)

Don't attack freedom and free culture, Peter D. You know when we look skeptically on what that popsicle represents (not to mention the melted drippings on the chest of a cartoon of what appears to be a 14-year-old girl carrying the toys of a 5-year-old), we are going to be accused of an assault on the open-source movement.

Because that's what this is all about. It's about freedom, maaaaannn.

Jimbo loves this stuff. And so did his Wikia company, until they got scared of an advertiser boycott.





Yes, it is true, Jimbo deleted three images. Note, however, that the real reason was because he was concerned how the Wikimedia icon (that's his gravy train, remember) might be diminished in reputation by such manipulation.

Ask why he hasn't gone after any of the other "pedophilic sexualization" images on Commons. Answer: HE DOESN'T GIVE A SH*T.

Oh you must be talking about that incident with Wikipe-tan, every male weaboos' wet-dream. No big deal, the original artist of Wikipe-tan just drew the perverts another original character of his:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...icon_Sample.png

As disgusting as it may be, the law of the land in the US is that Lolicon and other such drawn/rendered child pornography is considered Constitutionally protected speech, provided it isn't a rendition of an actual child. It is notable that this is the US Congress' third bite at the virtual child pornography apple, now having been struck down three times with significant majorities in the Supreme Court. It really is doubtful they will waste their time trying to pass yet another act. Tolerating the disgusting and the abhorrent is the price we pay for having the freedom of speech. This is not to say Commons can't have standards, but given the culture over there, especially with Gmaxwell, this isn't going to get you far. And since this stuff is not illegal, the media really isn't going to give a shit. Like was said above, as long as it isn't exploiting some WMF symbol or mascot, Jimbo just won't give a shit.

Eh? Could you elaborate on that? Commons should, can, and does have standards. Further, there is an effort to rewrite, clarify and tighten up the scope of Commons going on right now that, unless this particular lolipop girl illustration (earlier in the thread) was used substantively in some work elsewhere, would likely find it out of scope. The image you refer to seems to be used in the Lolicon article as an illustration. Not my cup of tea to be sure.

I'm also not sure why you mentioned Gmaxwell exactly, he's a good guy in this effort, not a bad guy...

If there are issues I should be aware of here, please do make me aware of them so they can be addressed.

(disclaimer, I'm an admin, 'crat, CU and Oversighter on Commons... I care very much about it and its mission)

I'm pretty sure that image could be considered illegal in the UK under new laws. And I just looked at it.

Fact is, I couldn't give a shit. To me, getting worked up about something like that is sad - very sad. It doesn't even figure in my mind as something that could even be considered remotely sexual. It's a Japanese-style anime drawing of what appear to be young girls with exaggerated facial features, and clothed, albeit not especially modestly. In simpler terms, why the fuck would any adult man be sexually turned on by that sort of thing? I just find that totally weird and alien to me.

Too bad I'm attracted to real-life adult women with big breasts, round hips, and curves, then, isn't it? (Yeah, that's the body shape I prefer.)



No, but seriously, if that is considered illegal under UK law, which I believe it could be found to be given some of the stuff I've read, then is Wikimedia jeopardising the legality of the online activities of all UK users who see that on the Lolicon article?

I'm afraid that there are men turned on by that sort of thing.

...or rather, what it represents. I think that is the problem, and it is difficult to legislate for, it is encoded pornography. Clearly, some people will look at that and mentally translate it. The problem is not so much in the image, as you have to have some clue in the code (after all, that is why even Terry Wogan can get away with the most appalling innuendo on his national radio morning breakfast show), but what it represents. It is also assumed to indicate leading to other things, perhaps akin to the argument that you ban weed, not for its own harmful properties, but because it may lead to harder drugs. Perhaps it is more chicken and egg than that - if you are into sexualising children, then being able to publicly advertise and discuss your interest using these pictures is useful, rather than being a starting point for the interest.

These pro-pedophile types love to resort often and early to Nabokov. Everyone knows that Nabokov was a great writer. He wrote Lolita. You must be against great literature if you are not tolerant of pedophilia.

Bullshit. Either they never read Lolita or didn't understand what they were reading. The art of Nabokov is in the way he explores the psychological distortions of the pedophile. The events described in the book, as related by the "protaganist" Humbert are not plausible. This can only be accounted for by his own self deception and manipulation. Things are not as they are reported. The girl does not want him, nor does she control him. This is distortion and self deception. Nabokov does not tell you this, he leaves it for you figure this out. But of course you miss this in a Wikipedia plot summary.

Nabokov was a great writer. Please stop invoking him for this nonsense.

I've seen a similar and even sillier argument. Nabokov translated Alice in Wonderland into Russian. He wrote Lolita. Therefore Lewis Carroll must also have been into that sort of thing.

Anyone watch those Chris Hansen shows? There was a marathon on July 4th on MSNBC.

Do you know if they discourage analysis in Wikipedia articles on novels? A simple search on a database would reveal a plethora of academic papers available for sourcing.

They're not broadcast on UK television, but I have seen a few of them on YouTube.

Personally, I don't think the To Catch a Predator thing is really the right way to deal with pedophiles - certainly making it into entertainment is wrong. It's better viewed as a mental illness rather than as something evil, but then I don't believe that there is such a concept as evil - not even for Josef Fritzl.

It's unfortunate that people do become pedophiles, but for some, presumably lusting over young girls is their only outlet for sexual gratification. And as with homosexuality, I don't believe it's possible to re-wire the brain into getting a normal heterosexual orientation to women of an adult age. Sexuality seems quite concrete to me, although some may claim that it is fluid. Since I've never been sexually attracted to males, prepubescent girls, animals or dead people, I have no reason to believe that I ever will be.

The existence of pedophilia is a problem without solutions short of the brutal, such as castration.

Well, they've tried that too, with chemicals like progestogens and cyproterone (T-H-L-K-D). These may curb sexual urges, maybe, but the fundamental problem remains and even on 'chemical castration' programs, offenders go on to re-offend.

Mind you, there is and even more drastic, more permanent and guaranteed-working solution ...

I'm not sure that pedophilia is hard-wired, however, as it may have come out of some childhood experiences. Many pedophiles have themselves been victims, and this is somehow 'normalized' and carried forwards. It's a paraphilia, and thus I don't think pedophilia belongs in the same psych bucket as, say, homosexuality, as you suggest. There's enough evidence which points to the possibility of that being congenital.

Anyways ...

Good point actually. Exposure to large amounts of oestrogen in the womb to a boy (or testosterone to a girl) can be an indicator of a future homosexual, and I don't think anything like that would apply to pedophilia. Whilst I believe there is probably still an environmental factor in, say, homosexuality, I'd say that with pedophilia it is probably largely environmental.

I have a tendency to believe in the idea of the tabula rasa, and psychological imprinting as the most significant factors in determining things such as sexual orientation.

Well, Carroll did seem to have an unusually intense fascination with young girls, including the real-life Alice about whom his Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass books were based.

Well, sexual confusion seems pretty endemic in the animal world - you just have to go dog walking with a bitch and you will find it will mount anything that it wants to dominate, but that is not necessarily sexual behaviour - most of the dogs in our local park are at least bisexual if you took that view.

I think people get overly optimistic on how far we have evolved over our animal instincts, so to me it does not seem overly surprising that some people might condition themselves or be conditioned into inappropriate responses, whether by hormonal or environmental issues. Though I like them as much as the next man, getting excited over the sight of bare breasts does strike me as odd at times, and I can see that if people get excited over that low level of stimulation, then it might not be surprising that such excitement can be transferred onto other sights, by whatever mechanism.

So if you pretend we are a highly evolved bunch, above animal stimulus, you will find these "aberrant behaviours" shocking. If you subscribe to the view of us just being cleverer animals, it becomes a lot easier to rationalise. That does not mean that they are acceptable, just unsurprising.

I like the "just being cleverer animals" school of thought myself.

No Milk Today

Artist : Herman's Hermits and the MuseNet Players
Title : No Milk Today
Midi : No Milk Today (Instrumental)
MP3 : No Milk Today, Original version, Sung by Herman's Hermits

No milk today, my fix has gone astray
The bottle stands forlorn, a symbol of the dawn
No milk today, it seems a common sight
But people passing by don't know the reason why

How could they know just what this message means
The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams
How could they know the palace there had been
Behind the blouse where Oxytocin reigned as queen

No milk today, it wasn't always so
The company was gay, we'd turn night into day

But all that's left is a place dark and lonely
An unsafe park on a mean street back of town
Becomes a shrine when I think of you only
Just two up two down

No milk today, it wasn't always so
The company was gay, we'd turn night into day
As music played the faster flashed the lance
We felt it both at once, the death of our romance

How could they know just what this message means
The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams
How could they know a palace there had been
Behind the screen where Durova reigned as queen

No milk today, my fix has gone astray
The bottle stands for love, a symbol of the dawn

But all that's left is a place dark and lonely
A terraced house in a mean street back of town
Becomes a shrine when I think of you only
Just two up two down

No milk today, my love has gone away
The bottle stands for love, a symbol of the dawn
No milk today, it seems a common sight
But people passing by don't know why I'm a fright

How could they know just what this message means
The end of my hopes, the end of all my dreams
How could they know a palace there had been
Behind the louse where Oxytocin reigned as queen

No milk today, it wasn't always so
The company was gay, we'd turn night into day

But all that's left is a place dark and lonely
An unsafe park on a mean street back of town
Oh all that's left is a place dark and lonely
An unsafe park on a mean street back of town
Oh all that's left is a place dark and lonely
An unsafe park on a mean street back of town

CopyClef 2008 Herman's Hermits and Barsoom Tork Associates.

Thanks for that mp3. You wouldn't happen to have an mp3 of "I'm Into Something Good" by the same band? I couldn't find it on SoulSeek last time I looked.

This is very similar to arguments the Marquis de Sade used. His heroes sexually abuse, torture, rape maim and kill their weaker victims. The argument he gives to justify this is that some people are weak, others strong. Some of the stronger ones have certain desires given to them by Nature, such as to sexually abuse, torture &c. Because Nature is the cause of it, it is morally OK to sexually abuse, torture &c.

This argument was called by later philosophers the 'naturalistic fallacy'. Our genes program us to do this, ergo we are morally obliged to do this.

Well, I don't agree with the extrapolation from understanding why things may occur into accepting they should occur - there is a big difference between that and a moral obligation. It is the same fallacy as claiming that understanding the motivation of terrorists means that you approve of them - (to pick a favourite of this board) we may understand the frustration of the Palestinians leading to their violent responses without agreeing it is an appropriate response. It would however lead us to recognise that if you can resolve those issues then it is likely that the response to the situation will cease - which is quite a different logic to "giving into terrorism".

My main point is that we should not be overly surprised that paedophilia occurs to some extent, but we should not assume that because we view it as extremely abhorrent that it has some extreme and rare cause. I guess my thoughts there are that there are plenty of people who chose not to manage those inappropriate urges and could, excusing themselves with the "only natural" explanation, perhaps leading them onto more and more inappropriate responses as they do not get the negative feedback, for example in environments such as Wikipedia.

That's a myth. Apparently, after his death his family wanted to cover up any suggestion that he had any improper relationships with adult women (including Alice's mother) so they destroyed the evidence and left everyone to think he only liked children.

I just now found it here: I'm Into Something Good